Messages

1

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:

« on: May 27, 2013, 10:22:13 AM »

Wow! Such great pics. The in camera HDR is terrible! I must get one of the HDR plugins. Suggestions please

I think the two most popular ones are Photomatix and Nik Software's HDR Efex Pro. Photomatix is cheaper (now that all Nik plugins are bundled together), probably more powerful and with a steeper learning curve. HDR Efex Pro costs more because all the Nik plugins are bundled together since Google bought Nik, and I think it's a little easier to learn but doesn't give you the level of control that Photomatix does. If others disagree, please correct me; it's been awhile since I used Photomatix.

The upside of buying the Nik bundle is that you get five other plugins, too; Silver Efex Pro, Viveza and Color Efex Pro were all particularly useful additions for me.

 Really, though, I don't think you can go wrong with either option for HDR processing.

2

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:

« on: May 27, 2013, 10:04:04 AM »

Gorgeous photos. The last 3 look so natural I wouldn't have guessed they were HDR. What software did you use?

Thanks! All but the third photo had initial processing done in HDR Efex Pro 2; the third one was just done manually in Photoshop, as I recall. With the last photo, I merged portions of the original photos back in over some of the less natural HDR sections.

3

HDR - High Dynamic Range / Re: Post your HDR images:

« on: May 26, 2013, 10:08:23 PM »

Hey guys, first time poster here, I think; I don't recall posting on the forum in the past...
Anyway, I've enjoyed a lot of the work posted in this thread, so here's a few of mine. I have fun with the HDR development process on some of my stuff, but on a lot of it I prefer an invisible HDR; that generally means either manually merging several brackets or just treading very lightly with the tone-mapping part of HDR. I've got some of both below....

4

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: November 08, 2012, 02:24:21 PM »

Really?!? So if I shoot a portrait on a medium format body with a 150mm lens and do another from the same distance with a 60D and 50mm lens, then crop both photos to identical framing the perspective will be exactly the same?

Yes exactly.
I don't have a MF camera available, but it's also fun to test with the same camera and your favorite zoom.

Wow... apparently I don't know much about some of the more technical aspects of photography; I think I'll do just what you suggested. Thanks for confirming, and thanks to neuroanatomist for the initial correction. Now to go test for myself...

5

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: November 08, 2012, 01:44:46 PM »

      Compression/Distortion: this doesn't change between bodies, so it's still 70mm, not 112mm.

These are referring to perspective, and the only thing that determines perspective is distance to subject, i.e. focal length is irrelevant.  Since you're further from your subject for the same framing on APS-C, there will be more perspective compression, which is usually viewed as a 'good thing' for portraits.

Really?!? So if I shoot a portrait on a medium format body with a 150mm lens and do another from the same distance with a 60D and 50mm lens, then crop both photos to identical framing the perspective will be exactly the same?

6

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II

« on: November 08, 2012, 11:53:56 AM »

   I've got one question unrelated to the lens, regarding the comment that, given the crop factor on a non-FF body, "the 70mm range effectively results in 112mm making it a ideal portrait lens".

  I've seen comments in this vein in many places online, and I don't understand them; how is it more of a portrait lens on a 60D than a 5D MkII? Is it just because it gives you a further working distance from your subject? Because that's the only benefit I see...

  I understand the definition of a good portrait lens to include such aspects as compression/distortion and background blur in addition to the field of view, but when using the same lens on a 60D as compared to a 5D MkII, we get:
      Compression/Distortion: this doesn't change between bodies, so it's still 70mm, not 112mm.
      Background blur: for the same composition, a 60D requires a further distance from subject, increasing DOF = decreasing background blur at the same aperture. This makes it less of a portrait lens, no?
      Field of view: for the same composition, a 60D requires a further distance from subject; in isolation (i.e. not considering effect on DOF) this may be good, as the subject is likely to be somewhat less self-conscious.

   I'm not wanting to be controversial; this is a question I've long harbored and for which I have yet to find a satisfactory answer, so confirmation or correction of my stated understanding is welcomed.