Messages

1

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Am I crazy to sell my Canon gear?

« on: Today at 09:01:27 AM »

Not per se, but announcing it on CR means you probably are........

 

2

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

« on: Today at 03:19:13 AM »

Here is one of mine. Nothing spectacular (except that I myself am amazed at the richness of it, given that the lightconditions were un-ideal and very high contrast). I stack them in Merge to HDR Pro.. in Photoshop CS 6. Taking the pictures and stacking them is fine, my problem is what to do in the window that pop's up. Do any of you have any good links to tutorials for this tool in CS 6?

Thanks,

G.

A good example of achieving an accurate rendition of the scene using HDR

3

Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes

« on: May 19, 2013, 06:38:55 AM »

I have posted the Haystacks picture in the lens gallery, but thought I'd pop it into the Landscape gallery along with another picture. They are both taken in the English Lakes District National Park, the first from a small mountain known as 'Haystacks", looking towards Crummock Water and Ennerdale Water, with High Stile in the middle, at 2,643 feet. I know many around the world will laugh at that height being a mountain ( not those in the Netherlands     ) but to us Brits it's a mountain.

Second picture is taken in Borrowdale by the River Derwent, looking towards Maiden Moor, a paltry 1,887 feet.

All on the 24-105 at f11, at which aperture this lens is as good as anything else really, especially after pp.

4

6D Sample Images / Re: Anything shot with a 6D

« on: May 19, 2013, 03:17:41 AM »

@Jack, IMO you're over doing the open aperture on many of your shots, DOF is just too shallow.


Note that Renegade's picture of the bat is at f5

5

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Nikon 14-24 or 16-35 for Nikon D600?

« on: May 18, 2013, 02:27:40 PM »

Well, that's certainly a new angle on sports photography.

6

Lens Gallery / Re: Canon EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM

« on: May 17, 2013, 05:42:59 AM »

Here's our latest picture, shot with the 5D mkii and 24-105 f4.

Taken from a small mountain in the English Lake District National Park called Haystacks, looking north west, late evening.

Did someone on CR once call this lens 'garbage" ? 

7

Reviews / Re: Review - Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II

« on: May 16, 2013, 02:05:41 AM »

I think maybe you should own one of these lenses Justin. The pictures produced were the best from one of your review to date ! 

8

1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx

« on: May 15, 2013, 06:13:08 AM »

1Dx 85f/1.2 L II, Shot @ f/4.5 & 1/160th ISO320

Love this Lens

I seem to recall that someone stated in another thread that no pictures posted on CR come close to those found in National Geographic       What a load of b*****ks.

Another wonderfully emotive picture aml58 !  If you don't shoot for NG, why not ? They're missing out.

9

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 6D Review - Real World

« on: May 15, 2013, 03:07:49 AM »

More and more users keep reporting how much they enjoy and are satisfied by the 6D.

It just goes to show how an excellent camera cannot be seen beyond its specs by the spec sheet nazis who wanted to leave Canon as soon as it was announced.

+1

I seem to remember that when the 70-300L was announced there were howls of derision, but have now turned into grunts of respect.

10

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 40D vs. 6D AF

« on: May 15, 2013, 02:06:54 AM »

I've had no issues with my 6D AF in real life.  On the internet, I've found that it can't even capture pyramids in focus, and forget about getting a clean shot of a bride walking down the aisle.

+1. 

11

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: M RAW or "full" RAW on a Canon 6d?

« on: May 14, 2013, 01:30:10 PM »

According to the manual, the M Raw uses 11M pixels, so what I should have probably asked is if this is equivalent to a full RAW file shot with an 11m camera?  I had a 5D, which was only 12M, and it still took beautiful photos, but it sounds like there is some degradation of the data to get the 20M pixel photo down to 11.  Which probably doesn't make it worth it.  Thanks for the help everyone.

To give a specific example. Until recently we used a 5D ( 12.7mp) and a 5D mkii (21mp).

The 'sRaw' on the mkii at 10mp gave significantly higher resolution than the 12.7mp camera.
Rather surprisingly it also appeared to require more processing time from the computers.

I've found an example, both at 200% 'cos at 100% on the web I'm not sure you'll see any difference. These are both originally raw shots, converted to tiff, then jpeg'd for the web. No modifications including no sharpening.

12

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: M RAW or "full" RAW on a Canon 6d?

« on: May 14, 2013, 11:06:07 AM »

Wrong !

What's 'wrong' is Canon's explanation of M RAW.  It doesn't have 'all the advantages' of RAW because the data aren't raw. A RAW file is just that - the actual pixel luminance values with the color assignment from the CFA. The M RAW file is de-mosaiced and color interpolated (and 1/4 of the pixels are double-interpolated - their color value is interpolated from their already-interpolated neighbors).

I did actually explain, or rather try to explain why the statement in red is wrong, but I kept getting 'access denied' ! All it would accept in the end was 'wrong' 

s or m RAW still allows conversion to a 16 bit TIFF, and thereby important post processing data, a very useful feature for working photographers who may shoot over 1000 frames at an event, any number of which may require pp.

13

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: M RAW or "full" RAW on a Canon 6d?

« on: May 14, 2013, 07:44:32 AM »

Good question because why using an inferior raw file?
The purpose of getting the most of a picture is lost!

Some good explanations from Canon:
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/image_compression/file_types_raw_sraw_and_jpeg.do

Hope it helps,

Wrong !

14

EOS Bodies / Re: No 7D Mark II in 2013? [CR2]

« on: May 13, 2013, 02:25:34 PM »

All is not in vain 

If nothing else this thread has made me want to come over and see a couple of Western Grebes perform their mating dance. 

Trouble is I don't intend to swim one handed whilst holding the camera up above the water, and I can't afford a 600mm lens 

What to do ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOD1imznwRY

That'll work!

 

And I never even got my feet wet ! Like it

15

Animal Kingdom / Re: Wrong Photography Ethics?

« on: May 13, 2013, 02:23:24 PM »

@ sanj - if I had taken a picture of such beautiful creatures as these, but had been frustrated by the flat sky, I would have probably done something like this with it in order to produce a picture. The shot of the three animals is lovely, and deserves more.

I don't think this is 'unethical' because at the end of the day you want a picture, and you already have nearly all the pieces in place.

It's nigh on impossible to cut out from such a low res, highly jpeg'd sample, but it could have been done properly on the original. This was one of the first skys I come to, and I did it in five minutes so the balance isn't quite right, but it gives an idea.

To me, photography should be 'art' so it doesn't matter how it is achieved if the result is pleasing.