-= 5D Mark IV owners unite! Post photos and discuss.

PJJ205 wrote in post #18429204
Not offended at all! Wish I knew how I could pull that off. Bikes are pretty heavy, and the smallest thing that I could have used to have it stand like it's on it's own would be a triangle stand that I could have photoshopped out, but even then then bike would be leaning at an angle. I was in a big rush because this was the first project I worked on solely by myself so I showed up early, which was apparently late at the same time to the rest of the media that was there. The rider that I was working with is a multi time champion (Tyler Bowers) and I'm just a hobbyist helping out an industry buddy. I didn't want to hold the rider up so I worked as fast as I could to get some static shots of the bike so he could get out and ride it. Thanks for the constructive criticism!

Here's one possible suggestion, though it would look kind of weird with the resulting image showing a floating bike. But nonetheless, it'll be stand-less.

Setup the bike on the stand, and take the photo with the camera on a tripod (that way the position/angle/distanc​e doesn't change). Then remove the bike and stand and take a second image with the same exposure settings and you'll just have to composite them later in post. The stand looks like it would be relatively easy to paste out with minimal editing time in post.

I suppose if there was a slightly lower stand that at least allow the wheels to touch the ground slightly while still fully supporting the bike would be better. But elevating bikes aren't bad either.

The dynamic range on this camera is quite impressive and very useful ! Love this camera !

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/XvRe​Gi

EightEleven wrote in post #18429144
Following on Flickr!! Excellent work

Thanks, glad you like the feed! I've been trying to add to it more.

I really have been enjoying this camera for the last several months. It is a good upgrade from the 5D3. Here are a few lighthouses from my trip to Maine.

recent sunrise, it is just about to say hello

A quick shot of the kid as she demanded a photo from the dad who was playing with gear Love this kid.

PJJ205 wrote in post #18429204
Not offended at all! Wish I knew how I could pull that off. Bikes are pretty heavy, and the smallest thing that I could have used to have it stand like it's on it's own would be a triangle stand that I could have photoshopped out, but even then then bike would be leaning at an angle. I was in a big rush because this was the first project I worked on solely by myself so I showed up early, which was apparently late at the same time to the rest of the media that was there. The rider that I was working with is a multi time champion (Tyler Bowers) and I'm just a hobbyist helping out an industry buddy. I didn't want to hold the rider up so I worked as fast as I could to get some static shots of the bike so he could get out and ride it. Thanks for the constructive criticism!

I wonder if you could use those bike tiedowns for trailers... the ones that go trough the handlebars.... into some stakes on the ground or something, and photoshop out the straps??

I dunno how that would even be done. I don't even have photoshop installed. I only use Lightroom.

Or borrow Harry Potters invisibility Cloak and have a mate hold it.

From a bike fan, though not a dirt bike rider, there's is absolutely nothing wrong with using the stand under the bike. The only thing better to use would be a current AMA/GP MX or SX star (factory rider for the brand being photographed) standing behind it off the stand. The shots you've posted are great;

Trout Bum wrote in post #18414334

Hosted photo: posted by Trout Bum in
./showthread.php?p=184​14334&i=i228286625
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Hosted photo: posted by Trout Bum in
./showthread.php?p=184​14334&i=i58784375
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

Just FYI, hyperfocal distance of 24mm f4 is 15.8ft. it gives everything from 8ft to infinity in focus.

digital paradise wrote in post #18416402
What you say does make sense. I have always described it that way but I was never really sure it was correct and no one ever mentioned it. Maybe the forum experts can chime in.

digital paradise wrote in post #18416406
https://en.wikipedia.o​rg/wiki/Cropping_%28im​age%29

digital paradise wrote in post #18416412
I read your post again and based on that link I posted.

In the printing, graphic design and photography industries, cropping[1] is the removal of unwanted areas from a photographic or illustrated image.


So it appears if you crop 100% then there will be nothing left. If you crop 90% then only 10% is left to view.

In my opinion, Best Practice to describe a crop, is to do what our friend Romy does. Romy always indicates the remaining dimensions after a crop and then indicates any further resolution resizing.

In my opinion, with the exception of using a 100%crop description indicating these are the only remaining pixels, I believe most people using the xx% incorrectly describing how much they kept instead of discarded.

jcothron wrote in post #18417345
Something a little different for me. 61 images focus stacked, only minor cropping.

Gallery photo (hosted):
posted by DCBB Photography originally in forum: Macro

jcothron wrote in post #18417364
I think it would actually, at this distance the DOF is extremely narrow. Having said that, I don't know that it NEEDED 61 images either. This is the first one I've ever attempted so to an extent I was just playing around with it to see what the result would be. I haven't done the calculations to know exactly how much stepping was needed. I may do it again lol. This is a new area for me.

Use this for total dof based on camera, distance and aperture.
http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html

LJ3Jim wrote in post #18418248
If I mention a crop, I usually say something like "this is 25% of the original image." I think that's pretty clear. But then there's the infamous "100% crop." I do use that to indicate that the image I've shared is a 1:1 pixel relationship with the original image; i.e. cropping to 1200x800 and exporting the image at that size.

The other issue that creeps into this terminology of 25% of the original is that some people refer to % of area, versus percent of linear dimension.

gschlact wrote in post #18430540
The other issue that creeps into this terminology of 25% of the original is that some people refer to % of area, versus percent of linear dimension.

Oops. You're absolutely correct. I never thought of it in the linear dimension. I always thought of it as area, and I'll be more specific in the future. Thanks for pointing out the difference.

Ingredients

1.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/XRra​Rz

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/WzFL​fE

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/WzFL​gb

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/XRra​Sr

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/WBVp​ge