July 24, 2016, 12:59:14 AM

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10
41
Black & White / Re: Black and White Landscapes!
« Last post by lion rock on July 23, 2016, 05:58:25 PM »
Eldar,
Ominous!
beautiful photo.
-r

We had more weather than normal today (which says a lot!!). Extremely black clouds came rolling in and we were in an on and off flooding from above. This is shot from the porch of my mountain cabin. Fantastic place :)

1DX-II, 24-70 f2.8L II
42
Photography Technique / Re: Kelvin Temp System: do you use it? Why?
« Last post by YuengLinger on July 23, 2016, 05:55:56 PM »
I definitely use Kelvin when shooting ballroom dancing under incandescent lighting.  No I don't shoot raw, as these pictures are often used on a web site or for scrap book archives of the dance organization.  I have no interest in the added complication in workflow of shooting raw. Ballrooms often have fancy chandeliers with dozens of tiny bulbs, and a setting of something around 3200 K works very well. The skin tones are warm and pleasant, but not annoyingly yellow or approaching orange if AWB is used. 

I may get flamed for shooting JPG, but my output with a 70-200mm f/2.8 II and a 6D fulfill the needs of the Colorado dance organization. Compared to everyone else's results with their compact cameras, the dances I shoot using Kelvin turn out excellent.

I might suggest that successfully shooting JPG for paying clients shows a degree of professionalism..   you can get it close enough in-camera, just like we all had to do with film.

Professionals I know tend to use the best tools available.  But real men don't eat quiche, right?

Please remember, when talking about film, y'all had that plastic strip...I think it was a negative?  Didn't it have quite a bit of leeway for working with prints?  Dodgin' and burnin' and all that?  JPGs limit what can be done with images, digital and print.  RAWs are the soft generation's negatives, I guess.

A hallmark of professionalism is use of appropriate tools, they need not be the best. If for example a client prioritizes quick-turnaround, adding steps post-capture is inappropriate.

Then we are kind of getting mixed up.  If comparing to film days, there was one hour photo, or polaroid...

You are right, JPG has an important place in a few situations these days, and, getting it right consistently for JPG shows great camera skill.  And that's where proper color temps are critical.

But lower quality images, even snapshots, have long been acceptable for "night on the town" work, direct flash and all.  And I understand that photojournalism standards lean towards JPG.  Like everything in photography, trade-offs, so, for less flexibility and lower standards generally when speed or hoped for integrity is the priority, JPG.



43
Photography Technique / Re: Lens flare?
« Last post by sunnyVan on July 23, 2016, 05:46:33 PM »
Could it be from the viewfinder? Any light source from behind the camera?
44
1DX Mark II Images / Re: Anything Shot with a 1Dx mark II
« Last post by Eldar on July 23, 2016, 05:41:20 PM »
Had a rather spectacular weather around my cabin today. Looks something in between Mordor and Genesis ...
45
Software & Accessories / Re: Filter advice?
« Last post by Eldar on July 23, 2016, 05:34:35 PM »
The screw-in ND filter is not convenient to work with. My opinion!
Think about the workflow:
Setup your tripod and make your composition with your camera and lens. Set autofocus,measure the exposure, swith off autofcous on the lens, screw-in the ND filter (don't touch the focus ring of the lens!), take photo, check photo and histogram. If not ok, screw-out ND filter, switch-on auto focus on the lens, make a re-composition, new measure of the exposure, et cetera.
Now, especially the screw-in, screw-out is a headache.

Or...meter, screw on ND filter, active Live View, compose and autofocus, then start exposure.  If it's bright enough that a 30 s or less exposure is needed, you can even skip metering before putting on the filter.  At least, that's what I do with my 10-stop ND filters.
+1

It is extremely rare that I need to go beyond 30s.
46
EOS-M / Re: Question RE EF Lenses on EOS M and other APSC Cameras
« Last post by sunnyVan on July 23, 2016, 05:11:13 PM »
It's a good move to get the 35 f2 IS especially when you know you want to go full frame eventually. There is no down side to it other than higher cost and awkward ergonomics on m3. Very high grade full frame lenses have great image quality from center to the outer edge of the image circle. Mediocre full frame lenses have decent IQ in the center but the outer edge sucks. If you use a high grade L lens on a cropped sensor you're wasting the outer edge and you're kind of carrying extra weight for nothing.

Tony's youtube channel is not that terrible but you always have to take his advice with a grain of salt.
47
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« Last post by Click on July 23, 2016, 05:05:44 PM »
A Common Tern flying with 7D mk2 + Sigma 150-600 S:

Very nice shot, LSeries.  Well done.
48
Photography Technique / Re: Kelvin Temp System: do you use it? Why?
« Last post by 3kramd5 on July 23, 2016, 05:00:53 PM »
I definitely use Kelvin when shooting ballroom dancing under incandescent lighting.  No I don't shoot raw, as these pictures are often used on a web site or for scrap book archives of the dance organization.  I have no interest in the added complication in workflow of shooting raw. Ballrooms often have fancy chandeliers with dozens of tiny bulbs, and a setting of something around 3200 K works very well. The skin tones are warm and pleasant, but not annoyingly yellow or approaching orange if AWB is used. 

I may get flamed for shooting JPG, but my output with a 70-200mm f/2.8 II and a 6D fulfill the needs of the Colorado dance organization. Compared to everyone else's results with their compact cameras, the dances I shoot using Kelvin turn out excellent.

I might suggest that successfully shooting JPG for paying clients shows a degree of professionalism..   you can get it close enough in-camera, just like we all had to do with film.

Professionals I know tend to use the best tools available.  But real men don't eat quiche, right?

Please remember, when talking about film, y'all had that plastic strip...I think it was a negative?  Didn't it have quite a bit of leeway for working with prints?  Dodgin' and burnin' and all that?  JPGs limit what can be done with images, digital and print.  RAWs are the soft generation's negatives, I guess.

A hallmark of professionalism is use of appropriate tools, they need not be the best. If for example a client prioritizes quick-turnaround, adding steps post-capture is inappropriate.
49
Software & Accessories / Re: Filter advice?
« Last post by neuroanatomist on July 23, 2016, 04:50:51 PM »
The screw-in ND filter is not convenient to work with. My opinion!
Think about the workflow:
Setup your tripod and make your composition with your camera and lens. Set autofocus,measure the exposure, swith off autofcous on the lens, screw-in the ND filter (don't touch the focus ring of the lens!), take photo, check photo and histogram. If not ok, screw-out ND filter, switch-on auto focus on the lens, make a re-composition, new measure of the exposure, et cetera.
Now, especially the screw-in, screw-out is a headache.

Or...meter, screw on ND filter, active Live View, compose and autofocus, then start exposure.  If it's bright enough that a 30 s or less exposure is needed, you can even skip metering before putting on the filter.  At least, that's what I do with my 10-stop ND filters. 
50
Lenses / Re: New EF 24-105 f/4L IS Replacement Coming With 5D Mark IV [CR3]
« Last post by pulseimages on July 23, 2016, 04:44:35 PM »
My 24-105 L has to be the most disappointing L lens I have ever owned. It's only good from 24-70 from 70-105mm it's garbage. Even after sending it and the camera back to Canon to be calibrated it's still soft.

From the reviews of that lens it was well known to me that I would be disappointed by that lens: Spoiled by 2.8 24mm (old version), 2.8 40 and 2.8 100 Macro non-IS I need (1) at least similar overall IQ and (2) the 100mm which is a very useful focal length for me -- 24-70 doesn't fit my view of a universal zoom lens.

Maybe Canon has seen the not so good optical properties of the 24-105 in the tele range as problem, especially with high res bodies. And what I hear from the 4.0 16-35 and 100-400 mk ii shows me that there has been some substantial progress in zoom technology (or quality control or both).

That's what I am hoping for in the updated 24-105 L II lens. If it's a lot better at the long end than version 1 I will sell my present one for it.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10