Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 28 Dec 2011 (Wednesday) 21:17
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 60D Users, Unite! (3)

 
this thread is locked
babel_fish
Goldmember
Avatar
1,826 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Seattle
     
Mar 09, 2012 23:49 |  #5086

MakisM1 wrote in post #14055394 (external link)
2 ft... I cleaned it in PP, but had no blinkies when I shot it. I use the x-rite greyscale color checker card to determine flash power/exposure/set WB and then look for blinkies.

I pulled back the exposure by 0.3 f-stops.

Unfortunately I don't have a background yet, so I am using the 42" white reflector as a background. I used a flash to wash it out at the same setting as the flash in the umbrella. In PP, I picked the color with the eye-dropper, selected the areas that needed cleaning (the corners of the photo were outside the frame of the reflector) and filled color with the bucket. Then, I evened out the rest of the reflector/background with a brush.

Saying reflector, I actually used the center translucent part, not the reflecting side on the 4-in 1 cover.

Edit: My bad! I uploaded the wrong photo in Photobucket. This is a completely 'digital' background with a stark white I created afterwards.

Here is the photo I describe in the process above:

thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by MakisM1 in
./showthread.php?p=140​55394&i=i145584182
forum: Canon EOS Digital Cameras

I see this post has a white background, unlike the previous post.

2 feet is awefulluly close to the BG and I think what I'm seeing is your model has some "bleed" coming from the BG onto the model, which tends to wash out some finer details around the periphery of the model and will look less defined.

Just my thoughts, not asked for as usual, but nonetheless if anyone reading this and is interested in fine tuning their white backgrounds without being scoffed at by posting in the "lighting forum" :p read this.

Getting a White Background with Speedlights
http://www.lighting-essentials.com …kground-with-speedlights/ (external link)


"The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time." -Bertrand Russell
"dude, are you even paying attention!,
Mike

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
AlexTakesPhotos
Goldmember
Avatar
1,125 posts
Likes: 77
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Denver CO
     
Mar 09, 2012 23:50 |  #5087

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR


finally got around to test the 70-200mm around town

Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
1Tanker
Goldmember
Avatar
4,470 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction
     
Mar 10, 2012 02:46 |  #5088

Drewc2010 wrote in post #14060010 (external link)
Couldn't help but take out the 300 f/4L for tonight...is this what everyone else is looking at now too?

QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …erphotography/6​822456332/  (external link)
"See the Footprints?" (external link) by Drew Carter Photography (external link), on Flickr

Drewc.....could you please post a 50%-100%crop of this? (i know.."pixel peeping" and all), but i find moon shot's are different than your regular FB/flickr-size shots. I can sharpen the living-hell out of lunar shots, and they still look sweet on FB...or a 4x6 size, but a 50% or 100% on flickr..or print.. shot shows detail( ISO noise control),. I like to do my moon shots at 50% +, which REALLY places the onus on good MF-ing... preferably with LV@1Ox), solid support(tripod) and good overall practices.
Yes..i'm 1/2+ drunk now, my apologies( women problems.. isn't that a photog's nemesis?), so i shan't post til morning.. to see if my focus after 30oz of Rye was what i had hoped.

I use a Manfrotto 055XProbX and simple/cheap/basic 804 RC4 head, and with the 300 f/4L + 1.4X or 2x Sigma APO DG EX telecoverters on.. movement is still substantial! I love this tripod/head, but when i owned the Sigma 150-500 OS.. it was a bit of a joke.
Don''t get me wrong..i adore this this tripod, lens and TC.. it's just that Lunar shots show all the deficiencies at once. Sorry for rambling again.. now 3/4 in the bag..wish me luck? :/

Hope to post a 420mm, and "maybe" a 600 shot. If my eyes are functional tomorrow. What i saw so far from tonight's shoot, was great at 420. good at 600, and poor at 840( stacked Tc's). It was a little windy tonight, but -9C/15F... chilly, windy and clear. :D


Kel
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wolfden
Goldmember
Avatar
1,439 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2008
     
Mar 10, 2012 05:58 |  #5089

rhandzz wrote in post #14054783 (external link)
I have the LR4 already.. i think there's a minor problem when rendering your image going to PS. issue with Camera Raw Plug-in. even i updated to 6.7.. can't wait for the release of version 7 plugin.. :( http://img406.imagesha​ck.us …sktop2012030815​230628.jpg (external link) sorry for the OT :D :rolleyes:

yea, at least 6.7 RC version allows open anyway to work and keep the LR adjustments. At first I had to use the render with LR, argh at all the extra tiff files.


~KJS~
Photos by KJS (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Blog (external link) | 500px (external link) | Google+ (external link)
Canon 60D Shooter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Keyan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,319 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 78
Joined Mar 2011
     
Mar 10, 2012 06:33 |  #5090

todmac wrote in post #14059430 (external link)
Keyan, how about next time I go to the Grand Canyon I will make sure and consult with you on what settings I should use. I apologize to you and everyone for even considering to post the photo shown below. It clearly was shot using the wrong aperture with the wrong shutter speed.

Whoa, your pic is awesome, don't get me wrong. We have generally provided feedback to everyone in the 60D thread, if you don't want any just say CC not welcome. We are all still learning things about our cameras and by no means do I think I have it all figured out, I was just asking because maybe you knew something that I didn't where using those settings yielded a better picture for the look you were going for.

For all I know trips to the Grand Canyon are regular for you, I haven't been in like 10 years and would love to have a chance to take my 60D there.


Cameras: 7D2, S100
Lenses: 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, 18-135 STM, 24-70 f/4L IS USM, 50 f/1.4 USM,70-300L IS USM
Other Stuff: 430 EX II, Luma Labs Loop 3, CamRanger

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,619 posts
Gallery: 25 photos
Likes: 368
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Mar 10, 2012 08:36 |  #5091

babel_fish wrote in post #14060169 (external link)
I see this post has a white background, unlike the previous post.

2 feet is awefulluly close to the BG and I think what I'm seeing is your model has some "bleed" coming from the BG onto the model, which tends to wash out some finer details around the periphery of the model and will look less defined.

Just my thoughts, not asked for as usual, but nonetheless if anyone reading this and is interested in fine tuning their white backgrounds without being scoffed at by posting in the "lighting forum" :p read this.

Getting a White Background with Speedlights
http://www.lighting-essentials.com …kground-with-speedlights/ (external link)

Your thoughts are gratefully welcome. You dropped off the face of the Earth in the previous discussion we had (in PM), so I thought you lost interest.

Let me organize my thoughts (I am an engineer).

1) If you can take the time, can you add a few arrows in the photo to see where you see the bleeding, so that I can try to figure out what happened.

2) I am extremely limited in space (and funds, if I want to get that 70-200L f2.8 :D ...this century...).

2a) I can't get background gear (seamless, stands etc) because I don't have space to store them in my Manhattan appartment.

2b) This leaves me with the option to shoot high key, or low key.

Low key (small aperture, distant background) doesn't work because the 32" umbrella spills too much light to the distant background. The fact that the whole room is white and camera left I have a white lacquer wall unit... I tried flags, but only a small circus tent would work...

I tried black foamcore background near the model, but you can see it, and I failed to remove it digitally. At the time, I didn't have very good control of the lights, so that maybe something I should try again.

High key is more promising. Initially I used the wall, which is white, but the wall to wall distance is 12 feet... not enough for 6 ft separation of model/background and separation of model/camera. I was shooting with a zoom at 30 mm cropped of course.

So I moved in the long dimension of the room and used the translucent 42" reflector as the background. Unfortunately, even for this shot, the edges of the photo are beyond the circle of the reflector, so I had to remove the edges digitally and pour color from the reflector portion.

At least the reflector part got lit evenly (I started with A:B flash power ratio 1:1 and finished dropping the flash power of the background by 2/3 f-stop (if I remember correctly).

I was pretty happy with my 'digital' background...

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i37.photobucket​.com …IMG_3265GIMP_10​24bgnd.jpg (external link)


Maybe you don't see it, but I feel that I have seen tremendous progress and increase in my knowledge and skill.

I owe a lot to the critique I got in this thread (yours among others) that focused my effort to improve my skills in specific issues.

I put my first effort in portrait/PostProcessin​g here and Nick Owensby and Rivest did their take in PP. For me, this became the standard to achieve and I devoted a lot of time and research on how to do it (in Linux, let's not forget... I can't go out and buy a package of Photoshop/LR actions). And I had some success...

So believe me, I am grateful for your thoughtful and constructive comments.

I apologize for the long thread to our fellow 60Ders, but I feel there is some value in learning from other people's experiences, trial and tribulations.

Gerry

Edit: I just finished reading the article you linked to. It dawned on me that flashpower ratios are wrong if I don't factor in the distance ratio as well. So, instead of 1.6:1 that I thought I had it was more 1:2 because the background flash was half the distance to the background than the umbrella to the subject.

I have to figure out how to meter this... without a lightmeter...

Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Almondsaz
Member
208 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Location: USA
     
Mar 10, 2012 09:23 |  #5092

The Superstitions last Sunday. The original photograph is very dark because I was shooting into the sun. I tried LR4 and Vivezia to "fix" the photo and this is the best I can do with my skill level. I was fascinated by the rays of light and that was my focus to obtain this photograph. Would really appreciate any C&C. And by the way....I really like my Canon 60D.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Canon 70D & a few Canon lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Drewc2010
Goldmember
Avatar
1,369 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Greenville, NC
     
Mar 10, 2012 09:42 |  #5093

1Tanker wrote in post #14060711 (external link)
Drewc.....could you please post a 50%-100%crop of this? (i know.."pixel peeping" and all), but i find moon shot's are different than your regular FB/flickr-size shots. I can sharpen the living-hell out of lunar shots, and they still look sweet on FB...or a 4x6 size, but a 50% or 100% on flickr..or print.. shot shows detail( ISO noise control),. I like to do my moon shots at 50% +, which REALLY places the onus on good MF-ing... preferably with LV@1Ox), solid support(tripod) and good overall practices.
Yes..i'm 1/2+ drunk now, my apologies( women problems.. isn't that a photog's nemesis?), so i shan't post til morning.. to see if my focus after 30oz of Rye was what i had hoped.

I use a Manfrotto 055XProbX and simple/cheap/basic 804 RC4 head, and with the 300 f/4L + 1.4X or 2x Sigma APO DG EX telecoverters on.. movement is still substantial! I love this tripod/head, but when i owned the Sigma 150-500 OS.. it was a bit of a joke.
Don''t get me wrong..i adore this this tripod, lens and TC.. it's just that Lunar shots show all the deficiencies at once. Sorry for rambling again.. now 3/4 in the bag..wish me luck? :/

Hope to post a 420mm, and "maybe" a 600 shot. If my eyes are functional tomorrow. What i saw so far from tonight's shoot, was great at 420. good at 600, and poor at 840( stacked Tc's). It was a little windy tonight, but -9C/15F... chilly, windy and clear. :D

This was so confusing to read so maybe I could get a sober translation from you today?

Haha


My Gear:
Canon 1D Mark III / Canon 60D / Tokina 12-24 f/4 / Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC / Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC / Canon 300 f/4L / Canon 50 f/1.8 /
Facebook Page: facebook.com/drewcphot​ography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
todmac
Goldmember
Avatar
1,201 posts
Gallery: 27 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 108
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Dallas, TX
     
Mar 10, 2012 11:08 |  #5094

Keyan wrote in post #14061113 (external link)
Whoa, your pic is awesome, don't get me wrong. We have generally provided feedback to everyone in the 60D thread, if you don't want any just say CC not welcome. We are all still learning things about our cameras and by no means do I think I have it all figured out, I was just asking because maybe you knew something that I didn't where using those settings yielded a better picture for the look you were going for.
For all I know trips to the Grand Canyon are regular for you, I haven't been in like 10 years and would love to have a chance to take my 60D there.

Maybe I took your approach the wrong way...I have never had any issue with CC on any of my photos. But both of your responses weren't a critique of the photo, they were more of a tone of "why would you even try to do this" when clearly in the photo non of the issues you believe to be true are there.
When you make a statement like "All the way down to 18 on the 17-55 is going to start to get into the area where diffraction starts to show up" is statement taken by me as "why would you even try something like this when you know it's a problem" ...well there's nothing wrong with trying f/16, f/18 and even f/22 for that matter. If you have read somewhere that you shouldn't go above let's say f/11 and you believed it for whatever reason even though many landscape photographers do, and without experimenting on your own, then your only limiting yourself.
Just because one person may follow all the rules doesn't mean others including myself should follow them or be criticized for not following them. Now maybe this wasn't the way you meant it, but it's how I took it. Sorry if I took it wrong and no hard feelings towards you or anyone else on this thread. I have learned so much here from others and I would never discourage anyone from wanting to learn more by asking questions and allowing critique of their photos. I am certainly no expert and have so much more to learn in the world of photography. Keyan, you or anyone else for that matter are welcome to ask questions of me and critique my photos anytime.
Sorry, I got a little rubbed the wrong way.
todd


Todd | flickr | (external link)5∞px (external link) | todd.photography (external link)
Gear
Feedback | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Keyan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,319 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 78
Joined Mar 2011
     
Mar 10, 2012 11:17 |  #5095

todmac wrote in post #14062092 (external link)
Maybe I took your approach the wrong way...I have never had any issue with CC on any of my photos. But both of your responses weren't a critique of the photo, they were more of a tone of "why would you even try to do this" when clearly in the photo non of the issues you believe to be true are there.
When you make a statement like "All the way down to 18 on the 17-55 is going to start to get into the area where diffraction starts to show up" is statement taken by me as "why would you even try something like this when you know it's a problem" ...well there's nothing wrong with trying f/16, f/18 and even f/22 for that matter. If you have read somewhere that you shouldn't go above let's say f/11 and you believed it for whatever reason even though many landscape photographers do, and without experimenting on your own, then your only limiting yourself.
Just because one person may follow all the rules doesn't mean others including myself should follow them or be criticized for not following them. Now maybe this wasn't the way you meant it, but it's how I took it. Sorry if I took it wrong and no hard feelings towards you or anyone else on this thread. I have learned so much here from others and I would never discourage anyone from wanting to learn more by asking questions and allowing critique of there photos. I am certainly no expert and have so much more to learn in the world of photography. Keyan, you or anyone else for that matter are welcome to ask questions of me and critique my photos anytime.
Sorry, I got a little rubbed the wrong way.
todd

No hard feelings, I can see how what I wrote could be taken that way, I didn't mean any offense at all, just to point it out. Not everyone is aware of diffraction, I know I wasn't for a long time. Your pics are great and I am very jealous, the light in your grand canyon shot is really awesome.

I hate how things can sometimes come across online when there is no inflection or tone to help determine if someone is trying to help or just being insulting, and if I came off that way I certainly did not mean to.


Cameras: 7D2, S100
Lenses: 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, 18-135 STM, 24-70 f/4L IS USM, 50 f/1.4 USM,70-300L IS USM
Other Stuff: 430 EX II, Luma Labs Loop 3, CamRanger

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rivest
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,678 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Canada.
     
Mar 10, 2012 11:56 |  #5096

todmac wrote in post #14062092 (external link)
Maybe I took your approach the wrong way...I have never had any issue with CC on any of my photos. But both of your responses weren't a critique of the photo, they were more of a tone of "why would you even try to do this" when clearly in the photo non of the issues you believe to be true are there.
When you make a statement like "All the way down to 18 on the 17-55 is going to start to get into the area where diffraction starts to show up" is statement taken by me as "why would you even try something like this when you know it's a problem" ...well there's nothing wrong with trying f/16, f/18 and even f/22 for that matter. If you have read somewhere that you shouldn't go above let's say f/11 and you believed it for whatever reason even though many landscape photographers do, and without experimenting on your own, then your only limiting yourself.
Just because one person may follow all the rules doesn't mean others including myself should follow them or be criticized for not following them. Now maybe this wasn't the way you meant it, but it's how I took it. Sorry if I took it wrong and no hard feelings towards you or anyone else on this thread. I have learned so much here from others and I would never discourage anyone from wanting to learn more by asking questions and allowing critique of their photos. I am certainly no expert and have so much more to learn in the world of photography. Keyan, you or anyone else for that matter are welcome to ask questions of me and critique my photos anytime.
Sorry, I got a little rubbed the wrong way.
todd

Todd, I don't think it's a rule, but pretty much a proven fact. Diffraction reduces sharpness. Now if you don't care about it and want to use F22 go for it, but you can't avoid the fact that it affects your image quality. I would never use it, I'd prefer focus stacking or other techniques that will give a similar result without impacting the quality of a picture.

By the way, I find this sentence''"All the way down to 18 on the 17-55 is going to start to get into the area where diffraction starts to show up."'' helpful and not rude at all.

Now it should be the time where I post a picture to close this discussion but sadly, I don't have anything new to show you so I'll just repost an old shot :p

60D + Meike Tubes + 50mm

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Hi, I'm David.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
adivineeternity
Senior Member
Avatar
335 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 20
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Bronx, NY
     
Mar 10, 2012 11:58 |  #5097

BAH. Must go through the shots I took yesterday during our random fly-by snowstorm and see if I produced anything reasonable. Urge to share something is strong right now.


I have a flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,619 posts
Gallery: 25 photos
Likes: 368
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Mar 10, 2012 12:12 |  #5098

Visine!...:p


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Vixen89
Goldmember
Avatar
4,521 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Aug 2010
Location: D-Town, TX
     
Mar 10, 2012 12:23 |  #5099

I must be lost, I wasn't aware diffraction existed at f/16 and on..lol :(


I'm actively lazy!! :D | Gear List | photovxn.com (under construction)external link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rivest
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,678 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Canada.
     
Mar 10, 2012 12:29 |  #5100

MakisM1 wrote in post #14062360 (external link)
Visine!...:p

I see what you did there :cool:


Hi, I'm David.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,282,853 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 60D Users, Unite! (3)
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is REPTILEDAN88
2557 guests, 209 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.