Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner
41 - 60 of 89 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
Nice... You were surely using a C-POL on that one...
Yes, I use a Hoya HMC slim C-Pol as I also use it on the 17-40 and a thick filter will shade the image at that angle of view. $140 is pricey but it is worth it. The other problem with C-Pols and wide angles on full-frame is unequal illumination due to the wide angle of view and wide angles off axis to the sun. I was lucky with this shot but at 17mm I've had to dodge out shading.

For my landscape work I'm looking at a 4" Lee or Singh Ray C-Pol in a Lee slim mount filter holder so I can use a Cpol and Graduated Neutral Density filters to get the rich skys but balance the sky illumination with the ground. But this kind of kit is $600 - $700.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,795 Posts
Discussion Starter · #44 ·
The close up photo I always focus on the eyes and if the subject is on the same plane then I do I slight recompose.

If the subject are further away then I put the center focus point on her face.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,795 Posts
Discussion Starter · #45 ·
7D and some beach volleyball

I bought a 7D on June 21 and on the 22nd dropped it off for service got it back yesterday in time to test it out at a fund raiser for sick kids beach volley ball.

On high speed continuous 8fps the 7D sound like a well oiled machine. Im impressed.

Did a few tests yesterday evening and focus is dead on and none of my lens requite any ma.





 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,795 Posts
Discussion Starter · #46 ·
The beauty's







The only problem is I brought the 70-200 F2.8 IS II, and I had the lens at 70mm 90% of the time and it was still too long.

I should have brought the 24-105 F4 IS, oh well there is always next time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
209 Posts
That's ISO 6400?? Did you do any noise reduction? Looks pretty darned good. Cleaner than my 40D at 800.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,795 Posts
Discussion Starter · #48 ·
Yes of course I used noise reduction. I find that the new Adobe Photoshop CS5 with the new raw converter the noise reduction is the best I have come across. I used to use the canon dpp and adjust as I need and then went to Imagenomic noiseware.

The new adobe raw converter is miles ahead of all other noise reduction and still on the luminance noise reduction keeps decent detail.





ISO2000
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
Yes of course I used noise reduction. I find that the new Adobe Photoshop CS5 with the new raw converter the noise reduction is the best I have come across. I used to use the canon dpp and adjust as I need and then went to Imagenomic noiseware.

The new adobe raw converter is miles ahead of all other noise reduction and still on the luminance noise reduction keeps decent detail.
OK - so Yaamon now maybe I'm a little jealous of your 5D II. I haven't tried the ISO 3200 on the 1Ds Mk II yet but I understand that it's noisy (the 1600 cleans up nicely in ACR though). Nor do I have CS5 yet but I have heard that it does obviate the need for a separate noise plug in for all but the most discriminating.

The detail in those shots are simply amazing.

I'm going to see Great Big Sea at Blue's Fest here in Ottawa this Friday so I'll see how the low light performance really works.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,795 Posts
Discussion Starter · #50 ·
Gordon looking on dp review of your 1Ds Mk II, even at iso 3200 using adobe cs5 or lightroom 3 both have the same new raw converter will clean up nice and clean.

The test, iso3200 raw no noise reduction photo sample still looks clean by today standards.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,986 Posts
I find that noise doesn't really look too objectionable as long as the photo is properly exposed (not necessarily just for the 5D II, just in general with dSLRs) i.e. it's in the shadows that high ISO noise looks very out-of-place and 'ugly'.

For anyone who cares to know a little more about Dragonette, I've been a fan of the lead singer's music (Martina Sorbara) for some time. She started out as a solo singer-songwriter in the Toronto indie music scene a little over 10 years ago. I consider her second album release, The Cure for Bad Deeds, as one of the best pieces of music I own. I guess at some point, she got tired eeking out a living in relative obscurity as your stereotypical starving artist, and formed Dragonette along with her husband. The music (which I would describe as brit-pop) obviously bears no resemblance to Martina's earlier solo work. But one thing that hasn't changed is that she remains quite easy on the eyes :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,491 Posts
Yes of course I used noise reduction. I find that the new Adobe Photoshop CS5 with the new raw converter the noise reduction is the best I have come across. I used to use the canon dpp and adjust as I need and then went to Imagenomic noiseware.

The new adobe raw converter is miles ahead of all other noise reduction and still on the luminance noise reduction keeps decent detail.
Is this the same RAW converter used in Lightroom 3? I find the one in LR 2.7 to be less than stellar. Maybe I just found a reason to dish out the $ for the upgrade... ;)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,795 Posts
Discussion Starter · #53 ·
Yes same new raw converter

Yes its the same new raw converter that is used in both Lightroom 3 and Photoshop CS5. The new Lightroom 3 and CS5 has lens correction supplied from Canon, Nikon , and Sigma to auto correct distortion and vignetting.

I also have found in CS4 and Lightroom 2.7(never really used it) the noise reduction to be sub par. I used to use a plug in from Imagenomic noiseware pro which did a much better job than the previous adobe raw converter.

Like I mentioned the new raw converter from adobe is miles ahead of any current noise reduction software I see on the market. Once you open a raw file you can check the camera profile and it will default to adobe 2010 converter. if you switch back and forth you will see a much finer grain with the new converter. Film like with no noise reduction.

The best value would be Lightroom 3, too bad I find it difficult to use and don't really use it but have it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,795 Posts
Discussion Starter · #54 ·
Tezster, thank you for the info on Dragonette. I was supposed to be there to cover her concert from 7:30pm but I did not know who she was and showed up at 8:30pm.

I should have looked her up on the web, if I did I would have been there from 7:30pm. I had a back stage pass and would have gotten some really good photos.

She did put on a great show and it was a pleasure to watch her. She is a beauty, quite attractive in my eyes. :)

Oh the outfit she was wearing definitely captured my attention too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,491 Posts
The best value would be Lightroom 3, too bad I find it difficult to use and don't really use it but have it.
Agreed... It took me a while to get used to LR's way of doing things but once I got the hang of it I found that I hardly ever used Photoshop. I don't process my images a lot and LR works fine for the majority of my edits and for me is much faster than using ACR and CS4. I guess the exception was for high ISO/noisy pictures, I go to CS4 and use noise ninja for that. Now I may not have to... :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
Agreed... It took me a while to get used to LR's way of doing things but once I got the hang of it I found that I hardly ever used Photoshop. I don't process my images a lot and LR works fine for the majority of my edits and for me is much faster than using ACR and CS4. I guess the exception was for high ISO/noisy pictures, I go to CS4 and use noise ninja for that. Now I may not have to... :)
Yeah, for 90% of the event photography I do LR would be way better. I still cant believe that Bridge in CS4 has a worse tool for side by side comparison. The compare feature in Elements is way better. Unfortunately I also do a lot of Photo Restoration and need CS4 and just can't justify shelling out the additional $ for LR (I'd rather save the money and put it towards new glass). Maybe I'll take another course this fall at college then get LR at the educational price ($89US).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,795 Posts
Discussion Starter · #57 ·
Gordon, I signed up last year at Feb at Seneca college for advance Photoshop but the class was cancelled due to low enrollment.

This Sept both my kids are taking photography in high school and they teach them how to use photoshop.

My younger daughter will come home and show me masks and layers. :)

Hoping a 60D will come out by Sept if not will most likely end up getting them a T2i.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
Gordon, I signed up last year at Feb at Seneca college for advance Photoshop but the class was cancelled due to low enrollment. ...
Check out the courses at George Brown. I was looking at courses in TO for a friend there and was blown away by the breadth of the offerings in Continuing Education at GB. Unfortunately they are mostly at the downtown campus.

Layers are pretty simple once you get the concept. They are like stacking negatives on top of each other to form double exposures. Masks just allow you to select which are of the layer you make visible.

Scott Kelby's Photoshop CS<X> for Digital Photographers is a good practical book that focuses on how to achieve an effect rather than a rehash of the manual.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,795 Posts
Discussion Starter · #59 ·
Good idea

I think this fall I will check out George brown and Seneca again for photoshop.

My wife works in graphics but she uses Illustrator and Indesign at her work.

One of her ex coworker, he a pro at photoshop he actually teaches at Humber College. He keeps calling us over his home for dinner and he said he would show me maybe I will accept before summer ends.

But what will I be able to remember after I had a few beer. :D

We had his him and his family over our home for super bowl one year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
232 Posts
Good shot ! ...and I guess you took the picture with another Canon eh ? :)
 
41 - 60 of 89 Posts
Top