New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Canon Thread - Page 147

post #2191 of 2659

There was a huge international shooting competition at my gun club last week.  Good chance to take out my camera:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and, though I think the forum software will mess up the resolution, here's a 100% crop of the above.  Gotta love the 100L Macro!

 

 

and, yes, since I do shoot more than camera, I took 4 days of vacation and shot Tues-Sun myself!

post #2192 of 2659

I didn't realize they could put such intricate designs on the guns. Very nice! Did you try to take any muzzle flare-type shots?

post #2193 of 2659
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadCow View Post

I didn't realize they could put such intricate designs on the guns. Very nice! Did you try to take any muzzle flare-type shots?

Oh, yeah!  Engraving is "half the battle" on high end guns.  The gun in the third pic is a Rizzini R1.  To buy that gun without any engraving (which you wouldn't do), would cost somewhere around $50-60K.  The gun pictured is priced at $175,000.  Yes, that $100,000+ is all in the engraving.

 

Here's a crop of a different image of the gun.  You can see how intricate the engraving really is (click on the image to enlarge):

 

 

 

This engraving was done by Firmo Fracassi who is considered the finest gun engraver who has ever lived.  At this point, you're past this being a "gun."  It's a work of art.

 

Inherently, this is bullino-style engraving which is done by making "dots" in the metal.  Changing the density and depth of the dots will make the different shades of gray.  Bullino work this detailed is very rare.  I wouldn't be surprised if Fracassi had many months of work in this gun.  And, to boot this is part of a 4-gun set all engraved in a similar style and all priced at $175K each!

 

The gun in the fourth pic is a Fabbri which start at about $80K + engraving.  That's also considered bullino-engraving but a slightly different style using more standard lines but on a very small scale instead of dots.

 

Bullino style engraving tends to be done by the Italians.  German guns tend to be much more heavily engraved with much deep relief work:

 

 

 

 

 

This is a Krieghoff K-80, also probably priced well over $100K.

 

Sorry that these pics are a little rouger, these guns are litterally all for sale sitting in a vendor's area with direct and non-direct light coming from all angles!  Given the conditions, I think they turned out OK!

 

As for muzzle-flash shots, shotguns use small amounts of very fast burning powder with long, voluminous barrels so there is fairly little muzzle flash from shotguns compared to rifles or pistols.  It has to get pretty dark before you can see it and, at that point, people have moved from shooting to socializing!

 

EDIT: If you're interested, I actually admin the club's Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/northbrooksc and I've posted a couple hundred pics there of the whole week.


Edited by leftnose - 8/23/12 at 9:19am
post #2194 of 2659

hmm. I've tried playing around with a couple raw files, but I can't say for sure if I have better control in post..   I'm trying to do it more for potentially pretty good pictures and not just my everyday ones..

 

These were still shot with JPEG.  I've at least made the jump a couple months ago from 3.7MP to 8MP. 

 

Been doing a lot more shooting and tons more research on photography-on-the.net forums...way too much.  I have a pretty good idea of what I want now.  I actually think I won't miss my Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, which used to live on my camera most of the time.  This live-on camera will probably be my newly acquired Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 which I've been super impressed with for all my wide up to 20mm stuff.  I've been blown away by pretty much all aspects of the lens after selling my Tamron 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 which I found inferior in every way.. So much so that I almost decided to just not get a UWA and stick with my newly calibrated/sharp Samyang/Rokinon 8mm fisheye and just use it in a way to minimize distortion or use Fisheye Hemi to defish. 

 

The other lens that'll live on my camera is the Sigma 30mm 1.4.  I'm working on getting a copy that has no issues whatsoever as these have been known to have focusing issues.  The lens I want the most right now is the Sigma 50mm 1.4.  Kinda crazy because I used to think even the 40mm 2.8 pancake was too long and returned it immediately.  Now I think even the 50mm will be a little too short at times.  Finally I'm either gonna get the 85mm 1.8 or 70-200mm F4L or possibly the like-new sigma 70-200mm hsm f2.8 II which I can get for a steal at $500 locally--online forums/amazon price is at least $700.  I'm guessing that for this range, I won't need as fast of a lens since it's a little long for my crop sensor anyway.

 

I decided to wait a while to upgrade my body...The wife started editing our kitten videos and I think the next body should have auto focus for video--although I don't want to settle for a T4i..  I did get a flash though!  Got a 420EX speedlight for $75 and haven't really played with it much yet, but I have been trying out different DIY diffusers. 

 

Here are a couple recent ones.  Please comment if you can tell that shooting in RAW could have made my final photo better.  I think before I was oversaturating my photos just a little bit--am trying not to do that now, even though I am shooting in JPEG mostly.

 

This video was mainly taken with a 50mm 1.8 nifty fifty, which I got rid of a year ago.  As you can see, it was difficult to keep in focus at least for me. 

 

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/hyogen82/7843338644/" title="IMG_8772 by h y o : f o t o -_-, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7110/7843338644_73f1560b62_z.jpg" width="640" height="427" alt="IMG_8772"></a>

post #2195 of 2659

hmm. I've tried playing around with a couple raw files, but I can't say for sure if I have better control in post..   I'm trying to do it more for potentially pretty good pictures and not just my everyday ones..

 

These were still shot with JPEG.  I've at least made the jump a couple months ago from 3.7MP to 8MP. 

 

Been doing a lot more shooting and tons more research on photography-on-the.net forums...way too much.  I have a pretty good idea of what I want now.  I actually think I won't miss my Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, which used to live on my camera most of the time.  This live-on camera will probably be my newly acquired Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 which I've been super impressed with for all my wide up to 20mm stuff.  I've been blown away by pretty much all aspects of the lens after selling my Tamron 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 which I found inferior in every way.. So much so that I almost decided to just not get a UWA and stick with my newly calibrated/sharp Samyang/Rokinon 8mm fisheye and just use it in a way to minimize distortion or use Fisheye Hemi to defish. 

 

The other lens that'll live on my camera is the Sigma 30mm 1.4.  I'm working on getting a copy that has no issues whatsoever as these have been known to have focusing issues.  The lens I want the most right now is the Sigma 50mm 1.4.  Kinda crazy because I used to think even the 40mm 2.8 pancake was too long and returned it immediately.  Now I think even the 50mm will be a little too short at times.  Finally I'm either gonna get the 85mm 1.8 or 70-200mm F4L or possibly the like-new sigma 70-200mm hsm f2.8 II which I can get for a steal at $500 locally--online forums/amazon price is at least $700.  I'm guessing that for this range, I won't need as fast of a lens since it's a little long for my crop sensor anyway. 

 

I decided to wait a while to upgrade my body...The wife started editing our kitten videos and I think the next body should have auto focus for video--although I don't want to settle for a T4i..  I did get a flash though!  Got a 420EX speedlight for $75 and haven't really played with it much yet, but I have been trying out different DIY diffusers. 

 

Here are a couple recent ones.  Please comment if you can tell that shooting in RAW could have made my final photo better.  I think before I was oversaturating my photos just a little bit--am trying not to do that now, even though I am shooting in JPEG mostly.

 

This video was mainly taken with a 50mm 1.8 nifty fifty, which I got rid of a year ago.  As you can see, it was difficult to keep in focus at least for me. 

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hyogen82/7843338644/

 

I've tried the BBC/HTML code on flickr...just will not work, even in full page editor D:

 

here's a photo I took over a year ago:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/hyogen82/7783632814/  Can't believe I lived a year without at least the nifty fifty...


Edited by hyogen - 8/23/12 at 1:10pm
post #2196 of 2659

What program are you using for your PP?

post #2197 of 2659

Your tip caused me to figure out manual focus. Thanks.

 

post #2198 of 2659
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyogen View Post

hmm. I've tried playing around with a couple raw files, but I can't say for sure if I have better control in post..   

 

I shoot RAW + JPG.

 

Here is the JPG as it looked straight out of the camera:

 

 

 

RAWs never look the same as the JPG but here is the RAW after 10 seconds and three corrections, one an eyedropper WB correction, a slight pull of the highlights, and a contrast boost.

 

 

 

Now, here is the import of the camera's JPG with exactly the same corrections applied to it (the contrast correction probably wasn't required but I wanted apples to apples):

 

 

 

The RAW with the slight corrections is by far the best image and you can see how much more subtly the image can be changed stating from a RAW.  You don't have to use Lightroom or any other application that costs any serious amount of money.  Canon's DPP that probably came with your camera works very well on its own.  And it's free!  If you're using something like Picasa, I can understand why you think you don't have extra control with a RAW compared to a JPG.  That's because you're missing the tools that give you the extra control!  The highlight pull is the perfect example.  The skin tones are slightly washed out because of the flash and using Lightroom's highlight slider on the RAW, you can regain some of that color.  Using the same slider with the JPG, darkens the whole image because the "RAW" data isn't there to make selective correction to specific types of colors/EV values.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philimon View Post

Your tip caused me to figure out manual focus. Thanks.

Glad to help but I am slightly confused by your comment.  Are you not able to focus/re-compose with your camera?


Edited by leftnose - 8/23/12 at 4:39pm
post #2199 of 2659

When you hold down the shutter release button, the camera would auto focus on the nose (as you pointed out) even though the image was centered on the eyes. I had been using "flash off" mode, and  have now switched to "program auto exposure" so I could choose the focus points via the camera controls. I thought focusing and recomposing was to be avoided, based on what I've read during my quick focus point how-to search.


Edited by Philimon - 8/23/12 at 7:07pm
post #2200 of 2659
I'm using light room also.. I don't think i have seen a highlight slider...

Thanks for the help
post #2201 of 2659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philimon View Post

When you hold down the shutter release button, the camera would auto focus on the nose (as you pointed out) even though the image was centered on the eyes. I had been using "flash off" mode, and  have now switched to "program auto exposure" so I could choose the focus points via the camera controls. I thought focusing and recomposing was to be avoided, based on what I've read during my quick focus point how-to search.

 

Inherently, there are two reasons why you don't want to focus recompose.  First, generally when you half press the shutter button, the camera focuses and takes its exposure reading and locks them both.  Then, if you do a huge recompose, you can change the scene enough that a different exposure setting would be more correct.  I say generally, BTW, because, with the higher-end bodies, you can bind AF and AE to different buttons to avoid this issue.  You can also compose, meter, AE Lock, recompose, focus, then recompose again but that's tedious to me.  The second reason why you don't want to focus recompose is because many lenses do not have a flat plane of focus.  Just because something is sharp and in focus right in the center of the frame, doesn't mean it will still be in focus if you shift your composition even without changing the distance.  That's just one of the complications of optics and is unavoidable.  There are certain lenses like the 50 f/1.2L which are notorious for extremely distorted focal planes so you can't focus recompose at all or your subject will fall out of focus.

 

I use a 5D Mark II which has an extremely outdated AF system.  I really only trust the center AF point so I have it selected on its own and I do a ton of focus recompose.  I do dial in exposure compensation on a shot-by-shot basis if I feel I've recomposed enough that it becomes necessary.  Yes, I do occasionally get bitten by a non-flat focal plane issue but I deal with it.  Try it and see how it works for you.  That's the beauty of digital cameras: no cost and instant results when experimenting!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyogen View Post

I'm using light room also.. I don't think i have seen a highlight slider...
Thanks for the help

 

The Highlights slider is new in LR4.  To me, just the Highlights slider and its counterpart Shadows make LR4 a worthwhile upgrade.  You can do the same things in LR3 but it is much more tedious.  I'll say it again, though, stop worrying about your equipment and your next "upgrade."  Use what you've got and take 10,000 pictures really working on your technique, thinking through every composition, then decide if you really need something else.

 

Here's my point.  This photo is a very nice snap shot.  Slightly washed out by the lighting but, still, very nice.  Good control of depth of field, nice and sharp, etc..  However, one single correction and it goes from:

 

 

 

to

 

 

 

Your white balance was off.  Way too warm/yellow.  It's a standard problem when photographing indoors under incandescent light and it takes two clicks to fix.  One to select the tool and one to select a neutral.  If you want to use the above as an example of how your photography is progressing (which it certainly seems to be), this was such a small but necessary change that it should not have "slipped under the radar."  Also, this image could benefit from pulling the highlights in LR4.  With a RAW file, you might still have enough info there to get some detail back on the front right paw and "cheeks."  But that would be gravy.  The WB adjustment is plenty on its own.

 

Really, I don't mean to be harsh but it's the same story we've been telling you: learn the equipment you have and what you can do with it and what your results should look like before you start worrying about what your next lens will be.


Edited by leftnose - 8/24/12 at 8:22am
post #2202 of 2659
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftnose View Post

EDIT: If you're interested, I actually admin the club's Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/northbrooksc and I've posted a couple hundred pics there of the whole week.

 

Very nice, l enjoyed looking at all the designs and it looks like you guys had a great time as well. (Also looks like your lens hood got in the way of a couple of shots on the first day).

 

The prices on these things are jawdropping, but I guess it's understandable considering the intricate hand-crafted work that is required. It's sort of a good thing that gun ownership is illegal here in my country or else I'll have yet another "thing" to suck my wallet dry. :-D

post #2203 of 2659
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadCow View Post

 

 (Also looks like your lens hood got in the way of a couple of shots on the first day).

Ha.  Yeah.  I was wondering when someone was going to notice that.  I don't know what happened there....

post #2204 of 2659
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftnose View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyogen View Post

I'm using light room also.. I don't think i have seen a highlight slider...
Thanks for the help

 

The Highlights slider is new in LR4.  To me, just the Highlights slider and its counterpart Shadows make LR4 a worthwhile upgrade.  You can do the same things in LR3 but it is much more tedious.  I'll say it again, though, stop worrying about your equipment and your next "upgrade."  Use what you've got and take 10,000 pictures really working on your technique, thinking through every composition, then decide if you really need something else.

 

Here's my point.  This photo is a very nice snap shot.  Slightly washed out by the lighting but, still, very nice.  Good control of depth of field, nice and sharp, etc..  However, one single correction and it goes from:

 

 

 

to

 

 

 

Your white balance was off.  Way too warm/yellow.  It's a standard problem when photographing indoors under incandescent light and it takes two clicks to fix.  One to select the tool and one to select a neutral.  If you want to use the above as an example of how your photography is progressing (which it certainly seems to be), this was such a small but necessary change that it should not have "slipped under the radar."  Also, this image could benefit from pulling the highlights in LR4.  With a RAW file, you might still have enough info there to get some detail back on the front right paw and "cheeks."  But that would be gravy.  The WB adjustment is plenty on its own.

 

Really, I don't mean to be harsh but it's the same story we've been telling you: learn the equipment you have and what you can do with it and what your results should look like before you start worrying about what your next lens will be.

 

thanks for that.  as for lenses, i already bought/sold as of early this morning--guess you can't talk reason into someone who is this impulsive/compulsive :(  I'm not about having the best and most expensive equipment by any means--for example on headfi my audio nirvana quest of hundreds of hours lead me to a DT880 250 for $215 and E17 amp for about $130 with absolutely no desire to upgrade unless maybe I get filthy rich in the future..  Especially after the $25 alienware/ultrasone hfi550 that I scored in the classifieds.  As far as lenses go, I think I've made some good compromises and gotten the best of the budget lenses--have money left over from selling/trading lenses.  I take all your criticism and advice as constructive so don't worry about hurting my feelings:) 

 

So this white balance you're talking about-- it's a slider in LR3?  I think the original was even more yellow, but I took the saturation down quite a bit just for the mood of the picture.  The white fur does look nicer...so are you saying I should have shot in Neutral picture mode or RAW? 

 

I just ordered a 32gb samsung class 10 shockproof/waterproof sd card for $23 on buydig following your advice.  Was just too good of a deal to pass up--and my biggest one right now is a 4GB.  I'll try shooting in raw more.

 

I have to focus on a test a couple weeks ago, but I'll soon devote more of my time to photography :D


Edited by hyogen - 8/24/12 at 4:42pm
post #2205 of 2659

Ah, I think I see what you did now for white balance.  use the little dropper tool and pick a spot on the photo. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home