All Forum Comments
Comment by Don posted on Which lens would you use for portrait work? at 20/04/2011 - 00:26
testdasi wrote:
On an unrelated note, this reminds me of arguing things like lager vs ale, chicken vs pork, to-maa-to vs to-mae-to.
clearly we need to thoroughly try out each to the point of overindulgence. In the name of scientific research of course.... I'll start with a pitcher of lager and a bucket of wings, then try a pint or two of ale and some ribs... I'll get back to you when I'm done studying!womble wrote:
It is very much courses for horses, and this whole endless debate is pretty pointless. The race car on the 20mph road is a bad analogy really. A better one would be if you had the chance to drive on a racetrack at 200mph the race car would be the best choice, but if you had to drive on a Romanian "yellow" class road, you're much better off using a Landrover. Use whatever you need to get the job done.
We just look at it from a different perspective. You look at RAW vs JPEG as tools. I look at RAW vs JPEG as limitations.It is very much courses for horses, and this whole endless debate is pretty pointless. The race car on the 20mph road is a bad analogy really. A better one would be if you had the chance to drive on a racetrack at 200mph the race car would be the best choice, but if you had to drive on a Romanian "yellow" class road, you're much better off using a Landrover. Use whatever you need to get the job done.
On an unrelated note, this reminds me of arguing things like lager vs ale, chicken vs pork, to-maa-to vs to-mae-to.
I don't care much for tomatoes, get somebody else to test that one.
Comment by Don posted on K-x Raw or Jpeg? at 19/04/2011 - 23:24
take the uv filter OFF before you put the cpl on....
if it still vignettes b+w makes a good slim cpl.
if it still vignettes b+w makes a good slim cpl.
Comment by Don posted on Advice about filters at 19/04/2011 - 23:18
Offertonhatter wrote:
However, as dangermouse said, its the law of dimishing returns (like most things). So, if you are happy with MF, then the Samyang will be a great lens. But if you don't trust your eyes (like a glasses wearer like me) then the Sigma makes more sense, albeit a more expensive sense.
Ultimately it is nice to see that you can get two 85mm F1.4 lenses for the Pentax mount. It is a shame they don't still make the FA* 85mm, in an all plastic body and plastic mount, using the same optics ,but labelled as a DA lens, and sell it $325.00 Canadian...., but I would be very happy that the Sigma runs the mighty FA* really close, and in certain aspects, exceeds it.
fixed it for you.....Cayman wrote:
They tested a portrait lens without actually taking a portrait????
It does seem strange.They tested a portrait lens without actually taking a portrait????
Dangermouse wrote:
I wouldn't mind seeing how it compares to the Samyang 85mm. It will inevitably be better, but I'm intrigued whether it will be 4x as good as well as 4x the price!
Well AP did do a comparison test between the Samyang and the Nikon, and it was so close, they really could'nt split them (the Nikon won, only because of the AF)I wouldn't mind seeing how it compares to the Samyang 85mm. It will inevitably be better, but I'm intrigued whether it will be 4x as good as well as 4x the price!
However, as dangermouse said, its the law of dimishing returns (like most things). So, if you are happy with MF, then the Samyang will be a great lens. But if you don't trust your eyes (like a glasses wearer like me) then the Sigma makes more sense, albeit a more expensive sense.
Ultimately it is nice to see that you can get two 85mm F1.4 lenses for the Pentax mount. It is a shame they don't still make the FA* 85mm, in an all plastic body and plastic mount, using the same optics ,but labelled as a DA lens, and sell it $325.00 Canadian...., but I would be very happy that the Sigma runs the mighty FA* really close, and in certain aspects, exceeds it.
Comment by Don posted on Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Review at 19/04/2011 - 22:41
well this pony has been beaten more than once.
two inescapable facts always results:
1) many for and against with personal experiences backing each side. so buying the filter as "Insurance" is a crap shoot at best.
2) most people that do use them, buy them with thier camera or lens, moments after the sales clerk says "Oh and one more thing you might want to add is this... it is cheap insurance for your xxx$$$ investment"
so it's usually too late to save anybody any money by the time the debate starts.
two inescapable facts always results:
1) many for and against with personal experiences backing each side. so buying the filter as "Insurance" is a crap shoot at best.
2) most people that do use them, buy them with thier camera or lens, moments after the sales clerk says "Oh and one more thing you might want to add is this... it is cheap insurance for your xxx$$$ investment"
so it's usually too late to save anybody any money by the time the debate starts.
Comment by Don posted on Filters cheap or expensive? at 19/04/2011 - 22:04
Karl wrote:
I want to some some indoor portrait shots using available natural light.
I have the following lenses at my disposal. Which would you use?
DA16-45 DA 55-300 Kit lens
M50 2.4 M40-80 2.7 A 28 2.4 (i think I've got the f stops right)
Also, I am tempted to buy the DA35mm f2.4 as it looks such a bargain, but would it be a waste considering the focal length is covered by the 16-45.
Finally, any other manual lenses that I could consider for portraits.
Thanks!
any of your m lenses should work just fine. I use a 50 1.4 m often....I want to some some indoor portrait shots using available natural light.
I have the following lenses at my disposal. Which would you use?
DA16-45 DA 55-300 Kit lens
M50 2.4 M40-80 2.7 A 28 2.4 (i think I've got the f stops right)
Also, I am tempted to buy the DA35mm f2.4 as it looks such a bargain, but would it be a waste considering the focal length is covered by the 16-45.
Finally, any other manual lenses that I could consider for portraits.
Thanks!
Comment by Don posted on Which lens would you use for portrait work? at 19/04/2011 - 18:47
dannyh wrote:
I was interested to read on the comments section of an article titled 5 Kinds of Photography Equipment That Waste Your Money
link
One of which was cheap UV filters. Comments were to the effect that with them your pictures are not so sharp. I have always used fairly budget filters and i need to replace them and its made me think.
Question is what do you use, are they pretty much the same as expensive filters and are you just paying for the name? Do they adversely affect the image?
I only use them to protect the lens(although im having a lot of fun with CPL at the moment), but if they are affecting my image quality maybe i won't use them at all.
fools gold I tell ya...I was interested to read on the comments section of an article titled 5 Kinds of Photography Equipment That Waste Your Money
link
One of which was cheap UV filters. Comments were to the effect that with them your pictures are not so sharp. I have always used fairly budget filters and i need to replace them and its made me think.
Question is what do you use, are they pretty much the same as expensive filters and are you just paying for the name? Do they adversely affect the image?
I only use them to protect the lens(although im having a lot of fun with CPL at the moment), but if they are affecting my image quality maybe i won't use them at all.
you think it is protecting the lens, until you ding it and the thing jams onto your lens and you break the lens trying to pry it off... or it takes a hit the lens might have survived and shatters and scratches the lens... especially true when you think of it this way.. the glass in the front element of your lens is like ten or twenty times thicker than your cheap filter....
Best defence? Don't be clumsy.
Second best defence? Rigid lens hood.
You'd roll down your car window, rather than shoot through it, right? so why put an even cheaper, more inferior piece of glass right on lens?
as for rocket blowers, I use 'em...in conjunction with gravity... blow the debris loose with the blower while holding the item upside down, and you got a pretty good idea where the debris will go....IT FALLS DOWN.
Comment by Don posted on Filters cheap or expensive? at 19/04/2011 - 17:28
K10D wrote:
I have no negative outlook to RAW and accept that "more" detail etc. can be achieved/retrieved but it's not for me. I can say that I don't set out to get a certain result. I just see the image, asses it (mind’s eye may say it’s a mono result, EV comp etc.) and shoot it. When I do see EV shortcomings on my images, they are normally close enough that a tweak in curves will fettle it.
To some, just getting into digital photography is a daunting task never mind the additional burden of PC/software skills needed.
Best regards
I'm not against shooting jpegs. I use the same level of care no matter what I'm shooting. I have reasonably fast computers, lots of memory cards, ram and hd space, with Apple's Aperture, there is no loss of performance, or time inn my workflow. I have import presets that process the files on import. It is absolutely seamless from start to finish from the end user perspective... I could easily switch to "Jpeg only" and not see a huge difference anywhere in my workflow... Until I want to do drastic changes to an image, like heavy photoshopping, or completely changing the raw processing... So like it or not, I have the best of both worlds. If I shot jpegs I'd have the same workflow, little speed gains, a few extra gigs of space on the hard drives and be screwed if I want to to do extreme editing on any one image. That is where jpegs bites you when you need to or want to you can reprocess the raw files to your hearts content, jpeg is much more limited. but a good shot is a good shot, irregardless of file format.Don wrote:
the drawback to "In Camera" processing vs "RAW" processing is this:
IF everybody uses the same thing, then everybody gets the same results....
So I cant swap sensors but I can process the raw file differently to achieve the results I want.
Very true Don in absolute terms but looking at the images we post here and other sites, we end up seeing differences in the quality and appearance of JPEG only shots.the drawback to "In Camera" processing vs "RAW" processing is this:
IF everybody uses the same thing, then everybody gets the same results....
So I cant swap sensors but I can process the raw file differently to achieve the results I want.
I have no negative outlook to RAW and accept that "more" detail etc. can be achieved/retrieved but it's not for me. I can say that I don't set out to get a certain result. I just see the image, asses it (mind’s eye may say it’s a mono result, EV comp etc.) and shoot it. When I do see EV shortcomings on my images, they are normally close enough that a tweak in curves will fettle it.
To some, just getting into digital photography is a daunting task never mind the additional burden of PC/software skills needed.
Best regards
as for jpeg+RAW, I'd be wasting time and space, Aperture handles the files in such a way that the jepgs are irrelevant.
There is NO disadvantage whatsoever to shooting raw if you have ANY duo-core or better intel mac, lots of ram, decent hd space and Aperture.
I can take 1000 images from several cameras, at a wedding, transfer them into my macbook, RAW process them, make a slideshow for same day edit slideshow, and be able to play a 300 image slideshow by the time people have finished eating thier supper, when the lights go down for the first dance (no photoshopping).
Comment by Don posted on K-x Raw or Jpeg? at 19/04/2011 - 17:04
[quote:3496ace15f="testdasi
But if you want to (for example) recover 1 EV of blown highlight, you can't do it with a JPEG (all other things being equal).[/quote]I tend to fall back to the old skills used while shooting film. I tend to be able to judge EV compensation situations. If it's a "critical" shot I'd shoot 3,5 or 7 frames with EV comp presets.
That function could or should also be removed from the camera if we all shoot RAW as why have any photographic skills, the software will cover exposure mistakes.
I agree about the post processing advatages of RAW. I do not batch process. I aim to get the original shots correctly exposed.
Odd how the camera talk mimics HiFi jargon. Unfortunately I don't have the skill to say if a finished image started as a RAW or jpeg file from the camera.
Technically speaking, all my images are RAW but I choose to let the camera do the conversion. If the in camera conversion is not good enough for some people, maybe they should write to the manufacturer to get the in camera software improved.
Of course, depending where or how any prints are produced can also wipe out that extra detail gained so a double whamy.
Why do we even bother with producing images with so many pitfalls?
Best regards[/quote]yep
in the old film days, we had choices about what film to use and how we exposed that film to achieve results we wanted. I preferred to over expose my 800 kodak neg film, underexpose vlevia, properly expose agfa ultra fifty, and slightly over expose agfa portrait 160.... unless I was shooting black and white film...
the drawback to "In Camera" processing vs "RAW" processing is this:
IF everybody uses the same thing, then everybody gets the same results....
So I cant swap sensors but I can process the raw file differently to achieve the results I want.
But if you want to (for example) recover 1 EV of blown highlight, you can't do it with a JPEG (all other things being equal).[/quote]I tend to fall back to the old skills used while shooting film. I tend to be able to judge EV compensation situations. If it's a "critical" shot I'd shoot 3,5 or 7 frames with EV comp presets.
That function could or should also be removed from the camera if we all shoot RAW as why have any photographic skills, the software will cover exposure mistakes.
I agree about the post processing advatages of RAW. I do not batch process. I aim to get the original shots correctly exposed.
Odd how the camera talk mimics HiFi jargon. Unfortunately I don't have the skill to say if a finished image started as a RAW or jpeg file from the camera.
Technically speaking, all my images are RAW but I choose to let the camera do the conversion. If the in camera conversion is not good enough for some people, maybe they should write to the manufacturer to get the in camera software improved.
Of course, depending where or how any prints are produced can also wipe out that extra detail gained so a double whamy.
Why do we even bother with producing images with so many pitfalls?
Best regards[/quote]yep
in the old film days, we had choices about what film to use and how we exposed that film to achieve results we wanted. I preferred to over expose my 800 kodak neg film, underexpose vlevia, properly expose agfa ultra fifty, and slightly over expose agfa portrait 160.... unless I was shooting black and white film...
the drawback to "In Camera" processing vs "RAW" processing is this:
IF everybody uses the same thing, then everybody gets the same results....
So I cant swap sensors but I can process the raw file differently to achieve the results I want.
Comment by Don posted on K-x Raw or Jpeg? at 19/04/2011 - 01:02
I also have vlc on the mac....
Comment by Don posted on Video from K5....can't open in PC?! at 18/04/2011 - 18:56
here is a snap I just took to illustrate: