September 16, 2014, 11:28:33 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Sporgon

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 125
541
I hadn't spotted this thread, but have just read through it now and have enjoyed what's been said on both sides of the 135L argument.

Personally speaking, I find the 135 mil focal length a bridge between two stools; it's too long to be as universally flexible as an 85, and not long enough to be as useful for medium tele reach as the 200. In my experience a fast 85 can create an equal 'look' courtesy of its fast aperture and a longer, slower lens the same thing courtesy of it's greater magnification.

I can get exactly the same 'look' with my 85 1.8 or 200 2.8. These lenses are much cheaper, smaller, lighter and less intrusive than the 70-200II and there's a reason for the 135L, but if that's the reason for purchase I'd go for a 200 2.8. ( Its about one third cheaper than the 135 too). In fact I did sell my 135 and kept the 200, but of course neither have IS. 

Also with modern cameras the extra stop allowing faster shutter speeds isn't as pertinent as it was due to high ISO performance.

542
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: March 24, 2014, 05:05:09 PM »
One of the many ghosts of railways past in England, this one is in the East Riding of Yorkshire and used to connect small towns and villages who's road communications are now choked with cars. Remarkable lack of foresight by the Dr. Beeching era.

5DII + 24-105L @ 105 mil f4 iso 640.

543
Animal Kingdom / Re: Portrait of your "Best friend"
« on: March 23, 2014, 12:12:47 PM »
Just to be clear about it: this is my wife's best friend. The animal is treated considerably better than me; it gets breakfast in bed every day, has it's hair brushed and a warm coat 'n scarf put on in cold weather. It's only got to cough or get a runny nose and the doctor is summoned immediately. While I just have to suffer.

5D + 135L @2.5 ISO 100

This picture has a slightly oblique composition, but I think it works.

544
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6d Banding/Posterization in Blue Sky
« on: March 22, 2014, 08:13:52 AM »
Sporgon your building and landscape photos are awesome - I can't imagine shooting those as JPEGs. :)

Yeah, if a beginner is shooting with a cheap point & shoot it's fine for them to use sRGB JPEGs.  But,  I thought we were talking about experienced photographers using dSLRs here. If someone is into photography and buys a nice dSLR I would never recommend shooting JPEG. There is too much loss of image detail on JPEGs.  It's like buying a nice HD1080 video camera then shooting everything at SD480. :D

Even if the user plans to only upload photos to websites it's still not necessary to limit captures to sRGB. The photo processing software like Lightroom or iPhoto is always going to automatically convert the color profile on export, no effort required from the user.

I would not recommend photographers downgrade their original captures in order to match the low grade equipment of the average web surfer or an outdated image standard. Don't aim for the lowest common denominator. Photographers should be capturing their originals in a higher quality format and only exporting a low-grade version as necessary for web use.

If we want to move beyond the old sRGB standard we need to stop adhering to that standard and start capturing and processing in a higher quality format.  :)

Thanks ! That's very kind of you . Yes I shoot all these in RAW then convert to a 16bit TIFF in Adobe RGB. ( Actually there is one that was accidentally shot on medium jpeg - The Cellarium at Fountains Abbey. I'd been taking scouting shots in unsuitable weather, just seeing where the best views were going to be, and of course I shoot these in jpeg, and forgot to change. I've overcome this now by having all B-P's stuff set up on a custom setting).

However all web based images have to be changed to sRGB. You're quite right about it being an digitally archaic colour space but there is massive inertia now because of it being a worldwide standard.



545
Animal Kingdom / Re: Portrait of your "Best friend"
« on: March 21, 2014, 05:32:37 PM »
Wellington, a cat that my wife saved as a kitten from a rat infested tip.

546
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: March 21, 2014, 03:58:58 PM »
i have never shot birds

Oh yea ?  ;)

Good shot !

547
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6d Banding/Posterization in Blue Sky
« on: March 21, 2014, 01:41:24 PM »

That's very misleading. Whilst it is true that colour space doesn't effect the raw capture, you always have to convert the raw file to some form where you can view it as an image, and in this viewable form colour space will apply.

However at the present time most people are just going to give themselves issues by shooting in adobe rgb due to the fact that virtually all display mediums are srgb.

sRGB was designed back in the 1990s when everyone had low quality monitors and low quality printers. Current computers and displays have much better color quality plus ICC color management and higher quality printers. So, most people are able to see images displayed in higher quality than the sRGB color gamut.

nope. unfortunately that is not the case.

most TFT displays sold today does not even reach full sRGB gamut.

the majority does not buy wide gamut displays.
they buy cheap 100-300 euro displays.

popular monitors for photographers from the last years, like the dell 2711 or 2410, have 100% sRGB and around 95-97% Adobe RGB coverage.

new TFT models, aimed at photographer, normaly offer 100% sRGB coverage these days.
but wide gamut or adobe RGB is far from being "standard".
even some more expensive models (like the samsung S27B970D) have only 96% sRGB coverage and around 69% Adobe RGB.

cheap TFT´s often cover only 87-95% of the sRGB colorspace.
the samsung S24C450MW from 2013 for example barely covers 87% of the sRGB colorspace.


as for printing i agree.
todays printer often have wider gamut for some colors then sRGB offers.

so while these printers don´t have the full Adobe RGB colorspace, it makes sense to use Adobe RGB for print.

as for my own workflow.
i shoot RAW.
i do some basic image editing in LR.
then i send the files to photoshop when they need local adjustments or further editing.
the end result is a 16bit Adobe RGB TIFF file (with layers).

my monitor is a wide gamut 10bit eizo.

but for "normal" people who are no so much into computer and image editing i recommend a full sRGB workflow. less to worry about. and you won´t notice a difference on flickr or facebook anyway. ;)

Yes, this is a detailed explanation of what I was referring to.

For Building Panoramics work, where the raison d'etre of the pictures is printing onto large canvases, I have my settings on one of the camera custom functions, and this includes Adobe RGB. The program I use to convert to 16 bit TIFF is set to carry over the camera's settings to the file. When these images are posted on the web they have to be converted to sRGB.

Unless I'm looking at serious printing I shoot everything else on sRGB now; it's a case of if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, because despite the fact that this colour space comes from the days of the digital Ark it is still the universal standard, and that is going to take some shifting.

There are many reasons why someone needs a 'high end' camera, but the availability of Adobe RGB ain't near the top of the list.

Also regarding the OP's original question on posterizatiion, using Adobe RGB isn't going to have made a half cents worth of difference in this case - in fact it could have made it worse but that's opening a whole new can of worms  ;)   ;D

548
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6d Banding/Posterization in Blue Sky
« on: March 21, 2014, 07:43:07 AM »
1) In the 6D's menus, bottom of the third page from left is Color space. Select Adobe RGB. You'll get the most pleasing results if the gamut of your monitor and workflow software also display in Adobe RGB or wider.

Keep in mind the camera's Color Space setting only affects JPEGs. Photos shot in RAW mode do not include any color space adjustment. But, it's still a good idea to set the cam to AdobeRGB just in case you accidentally shoot some JPEGs.

That's very misleading. Whilst it is true that colour space doesn't effect the raw capture, you always have to convert the raw file to some form where you can view it as an image, and in this viewable form colour space will apply.

However at the present time most people are just going to give themselves issues by shooting in adobe rgb due to the fact that virtually all display mediums are srgb.

549
Animal Kingdom / Re: Portrait of your "Best friend"
« on: March 21, 2014, 03:34:51 AM »
Pauline was such a relaxed and laid back cat...

Summertime, and the living is easy by Ingo Kwiat, on Flickr

 ;D.    Great shot ! As are many of the others but this one made me smile.

550
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 6d Banding/Posterization in Blue Sky
« on: March 20, 2014, 06:01:26 PM »
1). This isn't banding, it's posterization caused by joey compression. Have you shot this on a small joey or converted it  to high compression ? The 6D is actually a tad better than the 5DII in tonal graduation, superb for skies.

2). Dust is a fact of photographic life; I wouldn't worry about it.

2a). Oil splattering on the other hand is not, but as we're not Nikonians there's little to worry about  ;)

551
Animal Kingdom / Re: Portrait of your "Best friend"
« on: March 20, 2014, 05:07:52 PM »
My little terrier cross - jack russell x patterdale - who comes with me on all my shoots

24-105L @ 90 mil ISO 160 f5

552
Canon General / Re: Tesco uses pictures of beef cattle in milk advert
« on: March 20, 2014, 01:15:31 PM »
Tesco uses pictures of beef cattle in milk advert

The details are important.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-26650621

I am sure many can understand how this came about, but still.  :o

There's a simple reason for this: Tesco have screwed over the dairy industry to such an extent there just ain't any dairy cows left to photograph.  ;)

I have a friend who works in a fresh produce industry where about 90% of the sales are through the big four and their prices are down to what they were receiving 30 years ago. Needless to say that guy is still using a 20D

553
OK, OK!  It's a crappy shot though.


Hmmmm, me thinks American air shows are more interesting than British ones..... ;)

554
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Two 6Ds: two different focus screens.
« on: March 19, 2014, 06:08:07 PM »
Makes sense to have one of your bodies fitted with the 's' screen if you have fast primes. Personally though, if I was only using lenses of 2.8 or faster I would fit the 's' screen to both, then I wouldn't be wondering which body had which screen. I found these screens to be a tad darker with 2.8, but not enough to overcome the advantage of seeing more accurate dof from 2.8 and under.


555
Canon EF Zoom Lenses / Re: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
« on: March 19, 2014, 05:15:25 PM »
Chance Meeting

Shot with 5DII and 24-105L @ about 70 mil. ISO 320

Pages: 1 ... 35 36 [37] 38 39 ... 125