New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Canon Thread - Page 152

post #2266 of 2631

I hear you, leftnose--and thanks.  If you ever want a raw file for any of these, just let me know.  I agree there is a emotional attachment to these--for me that might mean that I'm making the skin tones a little too warm/red?  Also, my friend keeps recommending that I get an IPS monitor for color correction.  I'm using a 1080p 18.4" glossy laptop LCD which I hear isn't the best for editing. 

 

Here are a few from yesterday-I think I did better with these. 

 

 

 

Something pretty weird happened with these 2 below: 

 

The top one looked better straight from the camera...the 2nd one was a little over-exposed.  In both of them, the guy on the left's face was perfectly sharp and the faces got less and less sharp as you went to the right.  I remember center-dot focusing on the guy on the left's face (probably my mistake there--should have focused on one of the girls in the middle) and then recomposed the shot.  As they are standing pretty much the same distance from me, I didn't expect it to be off this much.  For both of these I selectively adjusted the settings on the 3 right faces (all together, not individually) including sharpness, contrast, clarity, highlights, etc.....anything to make their faces look more sharp.  You can't really tell with the size of the pics here, but the faces were pretty soft aside from the left-most guy.

 

I don't recall, but for all of these shots I shot at either wide open at 1.4 or stopped down a little up to maybe 2.0.  It's interesting that you mentioned before that the picture looked backfocused.  This sigma 30mm 1.4 (and the sigma 50mm 1.4) are known to have high occurrences of front/back focusing/calibration issues.  I was pretty certain my 50mm isn't plagued with this issue, and I didn't think my 30mm had it either..   Maybe it just has difficulty focusing in low light (definitely searches quite a bit). 

Even though shot in RAW, I felt like there was an extremely fine line between making this pic look too cold or too warm, too magenta or too green..  Is it because of the light that's cast by the neon lights? 

 

this one was just for the heck of it - but I hope I found the best balance between sharpness and noise.  It wasn't very sharp to begin with :( 

 

post #2267 of 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyogen View Post

I agree there is a emotional attachment to these--for me that might mean that I'm making the skin tones a little too warm/red?

 

No, that means the same for you as it does anyone else; you're unable to objective judge the quality of the photo because of its subjects.  Ultimately, you want to be able to grade any photo on its technical and compositional properties, not the people that are in it.  It doesn't mean that you are PP'ing photos improperly, it means you are thinking photos are worth PP'ing when they should be passed over for others that are better.

 

I don't recall, but for all of these shots I shot at either wide open at 1.4 or stopped down a little up to maybe 2.0. 

 

 

You can always look at the EXIF data to figure out how a shot was taken.  It's right there with the histogram in Lightroom.

 

Even though shot in RAW, I felt like there was an extremely fine line between making this pic look too cold or too warm, too magenta or too green..  Is it because of the light that's cast by the neon lights? 

 

 

As I said in my previous post, when you have multi-colored light sources in an image you will never get "perfect" white balance.  It isn't possible.  Just choose one that you think is most suitable.  Obviously, slightly on the red/magenta side is better than something too green or blue.  But, at the same time, you do want your photos to be somewhat faithful of the environment in which they were taken.  If you're photo was taken under green neon, it's OK to leave a green cast to the photos.

EDIT: Take a look at Jon L's second photo in http://www.head-fi.org/t/243975/the-canon-thread/1995#post_8335701  You can see two different colors of light in the photo but he's done a good job balancing them, making everything look good, and portraying the environment of the photo.


Edited by leftnose - 10/15/12 at 6:56am
post #2268 of 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyogen View Post

I don't recall, but for all of these shots I shot at either wide open at 1.4 or stopped down a little up to maybe 2.0.  It's interesting that you mentioned before that the picture looked backfocused.  This sigma 30mm 1.4 (and the sigma 50mm 1.4) are known to have high occurrences of front/back focusing/calibration issues.  I was pretty certain my 50mm isn't plagued with this issue, and I didn't think my 30mm had it either..   Maybe it just has difficulty focusing in low light (definitely searches quite a bit). 

Even though shot in RAW, I felt like there was an extremely fine line between making this pic look too cold or too warm, too magenta or too green..  Is it because of the light that's cast by the neon lights? 

 

 

 

IMO that first pic which I quoted of the two people...  you cant tell if the lens front or back focused. What ISO was it at, and on what body?  Its just looks soft in general.

 

 

You need to double process pics like the above if you want them to come out right.  Process once for the background and again for the people, or vice versa.

post #2269 of 2631

Work's been tough and my right hand has been giving me RSI problems, so I haven't caught up with online stuff much.

 

@hyogen: Like what you did with the flowers and plants.

 

On mixed lighting, what I normally do is balance for the prominent skin tones (i.e. what's facing the viewer and gets the most attention), and let whatever happens to the environment/background, happen. Not sure how well Lightroom does it, but I use Capture One Pro which has skin tone-specific dropper tools (it's just like a white balance dropper tool that you click on a spot in the photo, except that it is balanced for a specific skin tone instead of neutral grey).

post #2270 of 2631

So the pumpkin festival was last night and I received the Yongnou wireless tranceivers about 3:00 PM yesterday as well.  Played with them for about 30 minutes and then took them out.

 

Here's holding my 430 EX II high over my head using the Yongnous with the bounce modifier I posed about earlier:

 

 

It needs a bit of PP to fix the exposure and a bit of Photoshopping to get rid of the BudLight logos but I'd say the combo works pretty well.

 

But, on the other hand, there's something to be said for high ISO capture:

 


Edited by leftnose - 10/21/12 at 11:54am
post #2271 of 2631

you got robbed, i m pretty sure those 2 sources on the 2nd pic don't work with a wireless tranceiver biggrin.gif

 

still it must be fun to have a wireless flash. i m all about natural light, but the ability to place the flash where i want could change that opinion a little. if only for fill in.

post #2272 of 2631

"But, on the other hand, there's something to be said for high ISO capture:"

 

Definitely. And sometimes you can't find a flash large enough. Below was at ISO 3200 on crop sensor at its limits of useful high ISO-ness, but it's got a certain charm still.

 

IMG_0880n

post #2273 of 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by otherlives View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyogen View Post

I don't recall, but for all of these shots I shot at either wide open at 1.4 or stopped down a little up to maybe 2.0.  It's interesting that you mentioned before that the picture looked backfocused.  This sigma 30mm 1.4 (and the sigma 50mm 1.4) are known to have high occurrences of front/back focusing/calibration issues.  I was pretty certain my 50mm isn't plagued with this issue, and I didn't think my 30mm had it either..   Maybe it just has difficulty focusing in low light (definitely searches quite a bit). 

Even though shot in RAW, I felt like there was an extremely fine line between making this pic look too cold or too warm, too magenta or too green..  Is it because of the light that's cast by the neon lights? 

 

 

 

IMO that first pic which I quoted of the two people...  you cant tell if the lens front or back focused. What ISO was it at, and on what body?  Its just looks soft in general.

 

 

You need to double process pics like the above if you want them to come out right.  Process once for the background and again for the people, or vice versa.

 

I think at 3200 iso- possibly 1600 iso, though. 

post #2274 of 2631

 

a couple of hopefully more interesting photos :)   i might have shared that top picture before.. Hopefully these aren't too upsetting to anyone


Edited by hyogen - 10/21/12 at 11:13pm
post #2275 of 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon L View Post

Definitely. And sometimes you can't find a flash large enough. Below was at ISO 3200 on crop sensor at its limits of useful high ISO-ness, but it's got a certain charm still.

 

I went to a high school that had a pretty serious student newspaper (the oldest HS student newspaper in the US., published since 1856 blah, blah,etc., etc.).  Anyway, it was printed weekly 16-page broadsheet, 2 sections, with color on the front and back of each section.  I was the photo editor and I generally shot sports since I was blessed with one of the better cameras (an EOS A2).  I can remember pushing Neopan 1600 to 3200 to shoot swimming, squash, hockey and other nightmare indoor sports.  God, If I could do then with high-ISO what is possible now, I would have been in heaven.  It's amazing how quickly we have changed our standards, especially on high-ISO.

 

BTW, if you ever want to give yourself a challenge, try shooting a squash match.  Crimney!  In the end, I just stuck on a 28mm lens and photographed the whole court from above.  I only did a few matches before I assigned that one to someone else!

 

EDIT: Actually, I didn't "stick on" a 28mm lens.  I've never owned one.  I just left the zoom at 28mm.


Edited by leftnose - 10/22/12 at 6:20am
post #2276 of 2631

I still have a bunch of Velvia 50 (!) film that has been waiting for that perfect combination of 1) Me being at a scenic location 2) On a bright day, and 3) with a FILM camera in hand instead of digital.  Will have to wait some more blink.gif

 

The recent Canon 1Dx does (expandable) ISO 204800, and even on the 5D III, shooting ISO 1600-3200 is very, very clean. They should make a hybrid camera that can shoot film in daylight and digital at night..

post #2277 of 2631

hopefully a wise decision to crop it in this fashion . Didn't want the ugly roof top to show below this and a short treeline above the roof.  So I cropped off more than half of the sky

 

 

Saw Looper finally.  Was entertained, but not what I expected. Probably would have liked Argo more. 

 

I had a slightly cooler edit of this one, but went with this one.

 

I moved the highlights slider maybe a third to the left to make the REGAL look a little less blown out

 

 

this last one was a crop of a photo similarly sized as the previous one. 


btw, Koi Fusion is a super popular eating joint that started off as a food cart/truck.  It's a fusion of mexican and korean food--like bulgogi tacos, kalbi (ribs) burritos and quesadillas with kimchi.  Super delicious :D   I think only in Portland...but it has gained a lot of praise from a lot of places including the NY Times.  [url]http://koifusionpdx.com/2010/07/29/the-new-york-times-korean-tacos-and-the-future-of-fusion-2/[/url]


Edited by hyogen - 10/25/12 at 2:06pm
post #2278 of 2631
Well I'm tossing up between the new Sony A99 with some Zeiss glass and a Canon 5D III. I will be ordering at the weekend, so I haven't long to sort it! Usage is mainly for video and a few stills. New Sachtler tripod just ordered too...
post #2279 of 2631

I'd be awfully tempted to go with the A99 if your main interest is video.  Swivel LCD, 1080p60, full time video AF, and built-in IS.  Sony sensors seem to be working out pretty well in Nikons as well.

 

But, OTOH, I personally would never choose to be an early adopter and the A99 is a brand new camera.  I'm also not really sold on the whole translucent mirror idea.  It's not a new concept and if it really were better, it would be much more widely adopted by now.

post #2280 of 2631

i had an eos RT like that, it was so much fun, and hate.

 

//////from memory the good points were:

-almost no delay between pressing your finger and the actual shot. that was huge, it made my eos1n so jealous (should be true with the A99 too)

 

-great help for tracking moving targets as you never lose them. but it was really cool only around max aperture, the view gets darker as the diaphragm closes. (not sure for the A99 i guess the digital viewfinder will compensate to maintain perfect vision)

 

///////bad points:

- you had to care for lights coming from behind the camera.i had a little plastic stuff to close the viewer when i wasn't myself behind it (no idea if they have a solution for when you use live view to shoot on the A99)

 

-in low lights conditions it was a mess because, you wouldn't see much into the viewfinder . (no problem here on the A99 as it s a digital viewfinder, my guess is you can see better than the naked eye can)

 

- sometimes those 2/3 stop loss of light that went into the viewfinder were a problem as you can guess. ( 30/100 of the light is reflected and won't go to the sensor on the A99. and yet they don't talk about any change in regard to iso f/ or speed. my guess on this one would be that they compensate for the light loss digitally by pushing the sensor a little. that s just a guess but it would mean the same added noise as an iso correction)

 

-any dust on the mirror is a mess for the pictures. and it occurs a lot more often than dust on the sensor with usual reflex camera if you think about it.

 

just from the specs it looks like the best for video it should have one of the best autofocus and that is something pretty damn important in video.

i ve tried the 5dMKIII to see if it would be a good upgrade from my MKII and the only thing that really impressed me was the autofocus.it was like i would get twice as much pictures focused on moving targets. but i don't do much action shots so i didn't get one. i m sorry i didn't even try the video so i can't tell. on the mkII it's pretty useless. beautiful video quality, but really not user friendly.sorry i can't help on that one.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home