Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]   Go Down

Author Topic: canon ?  (Read 45132 times)

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1615
Re: canon ?
« Reply #200 on: December 30, 2014, 01:07:21 pm »

Until this thread I was unaware of both Hans Kruse and his workshops. What possible motive could I have to denigrate either when I've already suggested that his images are a result of his talent?

Then your blanket denigration is even more inexcusable.

Anyway, I'm bored with your wriggling. Go ahead and have the last word.
Logged

Colorado David

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1178
Re: canon ?
« Reply #201 on: December 30, 2014, 01:23:12 pm »

I wish you guys would post faster.  I'm home sick and reading this thread is my entertainment.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15290
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: canon ?
« Reply #202 on: December 30, 2014, 01:39:47 pm »

I think, Keith, that your image might benefit from a better image stabilization or more stable hands or less dirty mind ;)

bcooter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1511
Re: canon ?
« Reply #203 on: December 30, 2014, 03:04:07 pm »

but I don't remember you ever providing any shooting advice about how these were captured. At best a one liner about a lighting brand. Such contributions would be highly valuable in my view.



Sure, but I usually don't mention "the why"  cause nobody usually asks. 

But here goes and I'll try to limit it with available light imagery.
(All but one image is cropped for a video presentation)


Canon 70d no modifiers available window light.
Simple image.
During a motion shoot in London.  No fill, used for a inset of 20 subjects, all shot separately.
I also needed stills from each quick session and usually used the 1dx but since the light was falling fast, I just used the 70d I was shooting the motion imagery with.
If time had permitted I would have added soft white fill on the left, but it was an easy pull up in post so I just shot it.



Canon 1d3 (not 1ds3).
A still shoot in Brazil.  For a coffee table book project on organic farming for an international client.
I had 1ds and even medium format, but these were brutal conditions, the subjects were real and redo's were difficult.
The 1d3 I bought only for this project and sold it a month later (should have kept it as it produced a very pretty file).
No fill light, no modifiers, just camera, lens subject and overhead light.  Obviously the sky was worked in post, but it is the same natural sky all from one frame.



Commissioned to shoot 4 athletes in Osaka.
Nikon d2x with an old 80 to 200 push pull.
Had a d3 on me on me but for some reason the d2x just felt right.   The key to this image was scouting the location and knowing the look I wanted to achieve.
The d2x shot razor sharp but would blow a highlight easily, so I always shot a little under and it pulled up nicely.
It wasn't known for high ISO and I think I pushed it to around 1200 iso or something like that.
Regardless it worked, available light, no modifiers.


Editorial in Dallas with 1ds3.
Did about 14 setups that day/night.  Window light, no modifiers, though the exposure was a little slow and time was tight so I pulled a table over, cushioned it with my jacket and just shot it.
Though this subject is relatively still, I rarely direct talent while I'm shooting.  I hate that move your hand to the left type of direction.
I go over the direction before we shoot, give the talent some idea of the look and what they should project and let them do it.
We had lights, fill, modifiers, but unless you need them then why use them and usually if we use them it's only to enhance the image, not dominate it.


Advertising in Hong Kong, Nikon D700 or 7000 I dunno the cheap version of the d3.
I used this camera because it focused fast and is not that expensive.  Where we were shooting had waves  with huge undertow.
I positioned a camera grip behind me and would fire off 10 frames hold the camera up he would grab it and run to the beach, the undertow would grab me and pull me under water.
I felt the cheaper Nikon was a camera I'd be less upset with losing and reliably hit focus.
No fill, no modifiers, no lights. 


Editorial and Co-op Advertising in LA.  Leica S2.
I lit this with window light and a 75watt tungsten fresnel for accent, but could have used a 50 watt bulb and some foil.
I use the S2 because I like it.  It's not baby bottom smooth, kind of slow, kind of big, very nice to hold, very nice to use.
It will be a camera I own a long, long time even though it's old tech and actually I think the old tech works for me better than the new tech because I use it's limitations as a positive rather than a negative.

_____________________________________________________________________

I know that a certain faction on this forum thinks photographers in my genre make up the deficiencies for our "not so good" cameras with lights, crews, generators and post trickery.
Not actually true.
I also have the impression that the same people think we have two days to do one photograph and a crew of 50 . . . also not always true.  We do double digit setups a day, long days and if we get it in 5 frames or 50, we get it.
A lot of people on this forum understand that there is no option not to get the shot, because that's how they pay their bills.  That doesn't mean that the people that shoot for fun don't have an investment and don't want to succeed.
But wanting to and having to are different responsibilities.
Actually of all the images I and some others post, the camera and equipment is very secondary.  We produce our imagery with something more precious than a sensor that some tech site rates as good.
We do it with experience, planning, an obsession  to never let  the people that count on us wanting.
We might wax on lyrically that we shoot for ourselves, but in all honesty we shoot with the audience in mind.

IMO

BC   
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11252
    • Echophoto
Re: canon ?
« Reply #204 on: December 30, 2014, 03:30:04 pm »

Hi,

I have been a frequent traveler to the Dolomites for many years. In the last couple of years I have seen a lot of splendid images from the Dolomites by Hans, so when I discovered that he had workshops in the area I was eager to join.

The workshop I have taken part in was the Dolomites West workshop in early June 2013, and it was a very good one. Hans talked about both Canon and Nikon, and the participants were shooting Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Fuji and Sony cameras. Hans was not advocating either Canon or Nikon but the workshop had a bias towards processing in Lightroom.

Just to mention, the cost was around 1200$, all inclusive, except rental cars. Participants having access to cars did the driving. Accommodation was good and both food and wine was included.

I have signed up for Dolomites East, in September.

Best regards
Erik


Until this thread I was unaware of both Hans Kruse and his workshops. What possible motive could I have to denigrate either when I've already suggested that his images are a result of his talent?

Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 12881
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: canon ?
« Reply #205 on: December 30, 2014, 06:39:38 pm »

Sure, but I usually don't mention "the why"  cause nobody usually asks.  

...
_________________________________________________________________

I know that a certain faction on this forum thinks photographers in my genre make up the deficiencies for our "not so good" cameras with lights, crews, generators and post trickery.
Not actually true.
I also have the impression that the same people think we have two days to do one photograph and a crew of 50 . . . also not always true.  We do double digit setups a day, long days and if we get it in 5 frames or 50, we get it.
A lot of people on this forum understand that there is no option not to get the shot, because that's how they pay their bills.  That doesn't mean that the people that shoot for fun don't have an investment and don't want to succeed.
But wanting to and having to are different responsibilities.
Actually of all the images I and some others post, the camera and equipment is very secondary.  We produce our imagery with something more precious than a sensor that some tech site rates as good.
We do it with experience, planning, an obsession  to never let  the people that count on us wanting.
We might wax on lyrically that we shoot for ourselves, but in all honesty we shoot with the audience in mind.

Thanks James, very interesting!

At least one of my images maybe somehow feels like one of yours. ;) i think it was shot with a cheap 70-300 VR, probably on the D800. DR irrelevant, I wanted to convey the brightness and fun of these Hawaiian kids.



Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: December 30, 2014, 07:01:14 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Chris_Brown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 939
  • Smile dammit!
    • Chris Brown Photography
Re: canon ?
« Reply #206 on: December 30, 2014, 07:00:02 pm »

Sure, but I usually don't mention "the why"  cause nobody usually asks.
But here goes and I'll try to limit it with available light imagery.
(All but one image is cropped for a video presentation)

Thanks for the post BC. Very nice work. Very nice approach to it all.
Logged
~ CB

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11252
    • Echophoto
Re: canon ? A general comment…
« Reply #207 on: December 31, 2014, 06:41:33 am »

Hi,

In my view, cameras are enabling technology. Excellent pictures can be taken by almost any camera. But, cameras can have features that extend usability, some examples:

  • The ability to use extreme telephoto or ultrawide lenses
  • The ability to use tilt for Scheimpflug and/or shifts
  • Small pixels maximise pixels on target when shooting distant small objects (like animals)
  • Subject following AF may be essential in some cases
  • High ISO capability allows for existing light shooting in the darks
  • High DR gives options to expose for maintaining highlight and still have clean darks
  • Large formats can collect more photons, given enough light, and therefore can have less noise
  • Larger formats make lesser demands on lenses, but small formats can have very good lenses. Some 4/3 lenses may be extremely good and the Fuji lenses for their APS-C platforms are very good, AFAIK.
  • More pixels allow for larger prints. To relate to my experience I would say I see little difference between say 24 MP and 39 MP in A2 size, and I have also seen little difference between 16MP and 24 MP at A2. On the other hand I have been told by a professional printer that there is a significant advantage of 36 MP over 16 MP when compared side to side on glossy paper at A2. Anyway, I feel it is possible to print decent sizes from todays APS-C and 4/3 cameras with proper technique. But, more MP will always be beneficial for larger prints. I would also say that very few aspects of image quality can be demonstrated with web size JPEGs.
  • High FPS can be needed for capturing action, even if some photographers can predict action and do fine without high FPS.
  • For many kinds of photography short flash sync times are necessary, for some cases leaf shutters are needed. But, I have seen planty of action stopping photographs with DSLRs.
  • The ability to do focus stepping on some cameras may be very beneficial for macro shots.

The list above is just a few features that may be beneficial in different situations. No camera is a jack of all trades but some can do a credible job in many cases.

Best regards
Erik
« Last Edit: December 31, 2014, 06:43:46 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

claudefiddler

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: canon ?
« Reply #208 on: December 31, 2014, 10:06:24 am »

Bernard

Sometime back in this thread you mention that you use focus stacking and stitching to make the photo. Could you please share with us your method in the field and in post. For me at least, insights into craft and illustrations of craft are what make forum discussions useful.

Thanks for your post
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 12881
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: canon ?
« Reply #209 on: December 31, 2014, 10:18:18 am »

Bernard

Sometime back in this thread you mention that you use focus stacking and stitching to make the photo. Could you please share with us your method in the field and in post. For me at least, insights into craft and illustrations of craft are what make forum discussions useful.

Hi Claude,

This is the same technique I described in the article I wrote recently.

I use a RRS panohead, take 4-6 images with different focus points at each pano location. I then use Helicon focus to create an infinite DoF image at each pano location, then in this case Autopano pro to stitch these infinite DoF images together.

Cheers,
Bernard

Colorado David

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1178
Re: canon ?
« Reply #210 on: December 31, 2014, 10:40:06 am »

Bernard, have you switched from PTGui to Autopano Pro?

claudefiddler

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21
Re: canon ?
« Reply #211 on: December 31, 2014, 05:06:20 pm »

Bernard

Just reread your article. To clarify, at the basic focus stack/stitch you focus stack each pano tile. In other words if you were making a single row, three tile/frame pano, starting on tile one you focus stack that tile. Then rotate, focus stack tile two. Then rotate, focus stack tile three. OR do you focus, rotate/expose tile one, rotate/expose tile two, rotate/expose tile three. Refocus and repeat.

Thanks for the article. The techniques described open more doors of expression.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 12881
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: canon ?
« Reply #212 on: December 31, 2014, 06:53:43 pm »

Bernard, have you switched from PTGui to Autopano Pro?

Hi David,
 
No, I continue to use both on a case by case basis. The article published recently gives some visibility about the typical selection criteria.

Among the 3 images initially posted in this thread, the first one was stitched with PTgui, the other 2 with Autopano pro. I would probably mostly use PTgui for such scenes if it did a better job with automatic pano alignement.

Cheers,
Bernard

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 12881
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: canon ?
« Reply #213 on: December 31, 2014, 06:55:18 pm »

Bernard

Just reread your article. To clarify, at the basic focus stack/stitch you focus stack each pano tile. In other words if you were making a single row, three tile/frame pano, starting on tile one you focus stack that tile. Then rotate, focus stack tile two. Then rotate, focus stack tile three. OR do you focus, rotate/expose tile one, rotate/expose tile two, rotate/expose tile three. Refocus and repeat.

Thanks for the article. The techniques described open more doors of expression.


Claude,

For image 2 I used the first technique. For image 3 I used the second technique as it is a 4-5 rows pano with little front/rear depth (but still some, foreground is probably 1km away, Mt Fuji is more than 100kms away).

Cheers,
Bernard
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]   Go Up