New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Canon Thread - Page 160

post #2386 of 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post

 

you'd say it does better than dxo for lens aberrations?  last time i ve installed a canon software was ... 2002 or 2003. it might be time to give those a second chance.

 

Canon's DLO is a totally different approach to any other software.  Purple fringe correction is just one part of many things it does, with each lens profile only available from Canon.  One can see some samples of differences at the link below:

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1097029/0

 

Word of Warning.

When DLO is applied to my RAW file, the RAW file size essentially doubles, e.g. ~25 MB becomes 50 MB.  In order to save space, what I do is  convert the 50 MB RAW file to JPEG, then I un-apply the DLO to the RAW file before saving the RAW, which remains 25 MB. 

post #2387 of 2631

thx for the intel. i've looked around on several forums and it is intriguing.

i'll try it (when i can find my cd) but i doubt this will make me give up on dxo+lightroom. any change in my workflow is a painfull and long process now (aging is a bitch)

plus last dxo version is amazing, i actually didn't crash using it. that is a tremendous advance for that company. ^_^
 

post #2388 of 2631

So, apparently, Canon is going to announce the 35L II in early January.  If it's a 35/1.4L IS, my piggy bank will be broken wide open!

post #2389 of 2631
Yeah but I have a funny feeling if it is a 1.4 it's not gonna have IS
post #2390 of 2631

Well, it'll have to have something over the Sigma since it will probably cost 2x as much.  Maybe f/1.2?  Certainly weather sealing.

post #2391 of 2631

My wallet glares at a potential 35/1.2 with much enmity.

post #2392 of 2631

Lately, I've been really feeling the desire to go full frame, but I was kinda inspired by this popular photographer on POTN forums who I found out started with the T1i (Kiss X3/500D).  http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielstoychev/sets/72157625701671707/with/5357987318/  He shot those with my same camera and a nifty fifty.....granted, he was probably using studio lights or flash.

 

Anyway, I aspire to get to this level of marketability someday--here are some of his more recent pics:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielstoychev/sets/72157632179163323/  The guy must make 6 figures a year with as many photo shoots he seems to be pumping out...  I could only do this on the side if at all, but one can dream :) 

 

So, I've been trying to shoot at lowest ISO possible to maximize my dynamic range/color depth.  I probably could for the same money switch to a 5Dc soon, but the goal is to go full frame in a year and half when the wife allows -_-  Even then I plan on either going with a used 5d2, 6D or possibly even switch to Nikon -- used D700 or D600 maybe.  The one lens I almost have dreams about which will most likely keep me with the Canon camp is the 135L. 

 

Just shot these this past weekend/week:

 

The first two I played around with light leaks in PS. 

1000

 

1000

 

1000

not the most natural looking smiles--the wife always gets mad at me when I get so into taking photos and changing lenses, when she'd rather that we be holding hands, walking, and talking -_________-   After a year and a half of marriage, I still need to learn this balance.  The first time we ever fought was on our honeymoon--atop a volcano in Hawaii waiting for the sun to rise   :(

 

1000

Sigma 50mm 1.4     -   Yay or Nay on the light leaks? 

 

 

1000

 

1000

 

1000

 

1000

Sigma 10-20

 

 

1000

8mm fisheye

 

 

1000

 

1000

 

1000

30mm 1.4 handheld.  

 

I took one with the wide angle, but couldn't get a sharp picture without a tripod :( 

Here it is anyway, since the pics here are really small.  (Obviously there were a lot of less sharp ones, but this was the best of the bunch). I tried to brace the camera the best I could against my body.

1000


Edited by hyogen - 12/28/12 at 8:58am
post #2393 of 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftnose View Post

Well, it'll have to have something over the Sigma since it will probably cost 2x as much.  Maybe f/1.2?  Certainly weather sealing.

 

How important is weather sealing for lenses?  I've never shot for more than a minute in rain here in Portland..  Is it more useful/practical for protecting against humidity?  Is it still sealed if the lens is not attached to the camera and in your bag? 

 

My friend is basically gonna give me his 40mm 2.8 pancake lens!  i probably won't use it much until I go full frame.  It's too early to be counting my apples yet, but my planned lens line up for FF is:  Samyang 14mm 2.8, 40mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 135 f2L and later on I'll add a full circular fisheye...     I might even get the fully manual Samyang 35 1.4 and 85 1.4.... If you guys haven't considered these, you might want to consider them.  I almost bought a 85 1.4 like new for $150.......both of these lenses are considered to be pretty much as good as the 35L and 85L in terms of IQ--the only downside being that you need to manually focus which can be aided with focus confirmation chip / split focusing screen / live view + zoom. 


Edited by hyogen - 12/28/12 at 11:06am
post #2394 of 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyogen View Post

 

How important is weather sealing for lenses?  I've never shot for more than a minute in rain here in Portland..  Is it more useful/practical for protecting against humidity?  Is it still sealed if the lens is not attached to the camera and in your bag? 

 

 

 

If you don't shoot in the rain, it's not important at all.  Pros who need to get the shot no matter the situation want weather sealing.  And if you're shooting with a non-weather sealed body, a weather sealed lens isn't going to be of much use when the body goes down for the count.  IIRC, Canon bodies aren't weather sealed until the 7D.  Also, note that it's called weather sealing.  It's good for rain (up to a point), fog, snow, etc..  Don't expect it to survive if you take a fall while wading in a river and it gets dunked.

 

If the rear lens cap is on, a weather sealed lens should be pretty tight if it's off camera.  But, if you need a lens to be weather sealed inside your bag, you need a new bag.  Nothing should get wet at all when it's in your bag.


Edited by leftnose - 12/28/12 at 12:27pm
post #2395 of 2631

cool.  I'm guessing 5Dmark I is weather sealed--but i'll look into it.  Can you comment on any pics above, leftnose?  :)  

post #2396 of 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyogen View Post

 

1000

 

1000

 

1000

 

 

Big nay from me on the light leaks.  Your photos need to speak for themselves on the strength of their content and composition.  You shouldn't feel the need to add to your photos in post.  You comment on the lack of smiling from your wife.  I actually like the second one.  Drop the light leaks convert to black and white, add a bit of clarity and contrast and see what it looks like.  Actually, I was curious so I did this in about 45 seconds.  I did add a post-crop vignette as well to darken the sky:

 

 

 

The blacks are a bit crushed because of the vignette so it needs a bit more work but this is the direction I would take that photo.  I think it still needs a pure white in there somewhere.  (Remember that every B&W photo needs a pure black and a pure white somwhere in the frame).  Mine still has the light leaks in it as well since I don't have the original file.

 

The first photo, her smile is probably a bit too unnatural.  The third, you cut her off too high.  She looks like she sneaked into the frame by accident.  Watch where you cut off arms, legs, hands, etc..

 

 

 

1000

 

 

That's you in the photo, no?  Did someone take this for you?  If so, you shouldn't claim it as one of your own.

 

 

1000

 

Fisheye?  The distortion of the lodge is distracting to me.

 

1000

 

See above regarding if someone else took this.  Plus the bit of flare right in the middle of the frame is distracting.  Plus, it might be a bit too wide.  You and your wife get a bit lost in the background.

 

1000

 

1000

 

Very nice.  Need slight adjustments on the exposure--the ground is a bit dark since you exposed for the sky.  Is there a reason why you included the tree on the left?  I would have walked twenty feet to the right (if possible) to get it out of the frame.

Sigma 10-20

 

 

1000

8mm fisheye

 

Again, very nice but you've got the tree branches on the right.  Also be careful with structural elements when shooting with a fisheye.  I might take this into lightroom and straighten the distortion enough so that the sign on the left is straight vertical.

 

 

1000

 

I don't like the power lines in the foreground.

 

1000

 

1000

 

Both are way underexposed.  Maybe by as much as 2 stops.  You can't tell where the bridge or buildings end and the sky begins.

 

 

I took one with the wide angle, but couldn't get a sharp picture without a tripod :( 

Here it is anyway, since the pics here are really small.  (Obviously there were a lot of less sharp ones, but this was the best of the bunch). I tried to brace the camera the best I could against my body.

1000

 

MUCH better exposure.  But again, the distorted bridge and buildings are distracting.  Plus, at full size, there's a ton of noise and it's not the sharpest.

 

 

Much of what I say above can be construed as negative but you continue to make much progress.  I think I've said this from the beginning but you really need to learn how to take a proper photo before you start playing too much with adding stuff in post.  Once you've got composition and the technical side down pat, only then should you play with effects and filters in post.  Learn how to take a perfect photo first by getting everything right in camera and thenusing not much more than the technical adjustments in Lightroom before you do anything else.

 

I also think you rely a bit too much on the fisheye.  I think, if you did a survey, most photographers use it as a specialty lens, not for general purpose.  A UWA and a fisheye are two different things and they aren't necessarily interchangeable.


Edited by leftnose - 12/28/12 at 5:53pm
post #2397 of 2631
Quote:
Originally Posted by leftnose View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hyogen View Post

 

1000

 

1000

 

1000

 

 

Big nay from me on the light leaks.  Your photos need to speak for themselves on the strength of their content and composition.  You shouldn't feel the need to add to your photos in post.  You comment on the lack of smiling from your wife.  I actually like the second one.  Drop the light leaks convert to black and white, add a bit of clarity and contrast and see what it looks like.  Actually, I was curious so I did this in about 45 seconds.  I did add a post-crop vignette as well to darken the sky:          

 

OK about the light leaks.  I think I also need to have her looking away instead of at the camera all the time.  I see what you're saying about cutting her off too high, etc.  I kinda don't like the outfit....makes her neck look reaally long......almost as long as those African women who enlongate their necks with those rings.....

 

 

The blacks are a bit crushed because of the vignette so it needs a bit more work but this is the direction I would take that photo.  I think it still needs a pure white in there somewhere.  (Remember that every B&W photo needs a pure black and a pure white somwhere in the frame).  Mine still has the light leaks in it as well since I don't have the original file.

 

The first photo, her smile is probably a bit too unnatural.  The third, you cut her off too high.  She looks like she sneaked into the frame by accident.  Watch where you cut off arms, legs, hands, etc.. 

 

If you by chance want to edit the RAW file, I have one handy:  https://www.dropbox.com/s/2m3wvchduzljtl4/IMG_5150.CR2

 

 

1000

 

 

That's you in the photo, no?  Did someone take this for you?  If so, you shouldn't claim it as one of your own.

 

I used a tripod :)

 

 

1000

 

Fisheye?  The distortion of the lodge is distracting to me.

 

No, this is the 10-20 wide angle still.  Just the one below is with a fisheye. 

 

1000

 

See above regarding if someone else took this.  Plus the bit of flare right in the middle of the frame is distracting.  Plus, it might be a bit too wide.  You and your wife get a bit lost in the background.

 

also with tripod and 10-20 @ 10mm

 

 

1000

 

1000

 

Very nice.  Need slight adjustments on the exposure--the ground is a bit dark since you exposed for the sky.  Is there a reason why you included the tree on the left?  I would have walked twenty feet to the right (if possible) to get it out of the frame.

Sigma 10-20

 

As you can see in the fisheye pic below, it was a small and narrow viewpoint off the side of the freeway.  I don't think I could have stood anywhere without the tree and still get a wide shot of the river, but I could be wrong...didn't really think to remove the tree. 

 

 

 

1000

8mm fisheye

 

Again, very nice but you've got the tree branches on the right.  Also be careful with structural elements when shooting with a fisheye.  I might take this into lightroom and straighten the distortion enough so that the sign on the left is straight vertical.

 

good point about the branches on the right.  I did try using a recommended profile to correct the distortion to make the sign vertical, but that messed up the rest of the photo.. A proper defishing plugin would have probably worked better.

 

 

1000

 

I don't like the power lines in the foreground.

 

My friend said the same thing.  I stopped by the side of the highway to take this, so it was impossible for me to move closer and under the power lines. 

 

1000

 

1000

 

Both are way underexposed.  Maybe by as much as 2 stops.  You can't tell where the bridge or buildings end and the sky begins.

 

I was going more for the look of the photo--bright highlights and dark shadows, but I see your point about not being able to see the start/stop of bridge/sky/buildings. 

 

 

I took one with the wide angle, but couldn't get a sharp picture without a tripod :( 

Here it is anyway, since the pics here are really small.  (Obviously there were a lot of less sharp ones, but this was the best of the bunch). I tried to brace the camera the best I could against my body.

1000

 

MUCH better exposure.  But again, the distorted bridge and buildings are distracting.  Plus, at full size, there's a ton of noise and it's not the sharpest.

 

 

Much of what I say above can be construed as negative but you continue to make much progress.  I think I've said this from the beginning but you really need to learn how to take a proper photo before you start playing too much with adding stuff in post.  Once you've got composition and the technical side down pat, only then should you play with effects and filters in post.  Learn how to take a perfect photo first by getting everything right in camera and thenusing not much more than the technical adjustments in Lightroom before you do anything else.

 

I also think you rely a bit too much on the fisheye.  I think, if you did a survey, most photographers use it as a specialty lens, not for general purpose.  A UWA and a fisheye are two different things and they aren't necessarily interchangeable.

I come for the negative harsh feedback.  Noted about perfecting the shot first :o  Thanks

post #2398 of 2631

1000

1000

 

 

I agree this is better now.. I think before I wanted to make the photo as sharp and defined as possible.  It'd be fun to stitch these 2 together...

 

well that was easy... took 2 seconds using Microsoft ICE

1000

 

next time I'll use a tripod.  These were shot at iso3200, f/5.0 for the left half and 1/6 shutter, and right half at f/3.5 1/25sec  


Edited by hyogen - 12/29/12 at 8:18am
post #2399 of 2631

Hyogen. Your compositions are proper. If you've been shooting less than 5 years you are far advanced compositionally than your peers.  I can see how you are experimenting with subject placement for maximizing impact.  Photography is a interesting art. you can have the gear heads that love the mechanical, electrical, optical, accessorizable elements of it and you have the people that use it to create visual images to their liking. but to complete the criticism with the bridge shot may try it a bit sooner when the sky still has a touch of blue in it. A Twi-night photo. It'll be a better challenge for you anyway as you have to balance the sky to the city light. think you can pull it off? but manually as the exposure should remain constant for panos.


Edited by musubi1000 - 12/31/12 at 10:34am
post #2400 of 2631

I'm selling a low actuation (less than 7,000 clicks) 5D2 kit (body, grip, battery, cables, RRS QR plate for the body) for a friend who isn't very internet savvy.  PM me if you're interested.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home