Jump to content

craig

Member
  • Content Count

    2826
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by craig

  1. The audio analogy is more appropriate to film versus digital than it is to DX vs. FX. The biggest difference is that film is still capable of excellent results.
  2. Thing is, many raw converters do a portion of their processing in Lab anyway, so there's often a round trip before you even get your image. Lindbloom's example used the sRGB color space to exaggerate the issue. Larger gamut spaces suffer far less. I'm not a fan of converting back and forth to Lab but the details of what goes on are more complicated than it seems at first. There is a quantization error when linear camera data is converted to a color space that is anything other than linear. Lightroom processes in a linear version of ProPhoto for that reason. If you export from LR/Aperture to Photoshop and reimport you sustain a round of requantization error too. Same goes if you use an Aperture plugin. All the more reason to shoot raw and process in 16 bits. Lab is a very large space. If your image requires only a small gamut and you select an optimal working space then you should realize that switching temporarily to Lab will destroy whatever advantage that optimal color space had (if you ever had it to begin with). If you work in a large gamut space then the penalty of a Lab switch isn't so great. Since all this is off-topic I will say that I use Noiseware and like it. I have used Neat Image in the past but found I just didn't "get it". NoiseWare I get.
  3. Not only is this true, I'd also point out that MANY professional fields have these issues. People starting out often give away their services for exposure. Not only can you do little about it, it's not even a bad thing. As a pro, you have to understand competition. If amateurs are destroying your market, then either your work isn't good enough or the skill required isn't justifying the pay grade. Capitalism at work. I know a lot of good points were made in the video, but blaming the guy that gives something away just makes him sound like a douche.
  4. This is the key point. The quality expectations of FX are greater than DX. With greater quality comes more difficulty. Stephen's tests were not designed to enable judgements between formats. What Stephen did was shoot each system using a standard minimum aperture and typical test scene. Such a test shows what can be expected from a given setup. It does not tell you what is the best possible from a given sensor size. There is nothing wrong with Stephen's tests; you simply can't conclude that DX is sharper than FX because of it. Stephen's best result was with a DX setup and the reasons for that were discussed there. The choice of format boils down to choice of lenses and preferences above water. If you require very high resolution then you must go with FX. Otherwise, each format has some unique lens choices. DX ports and lenses are lighter and more compact and DX.
  5. It's not clear that the 14-24 is worse than the 17-35 at 17mm but it is clear that the 17-35 is worse than the 14-24 at 14mm. You have to decide how important the wider perspective is, but you can't say the 14-24 is softer on the edges when you aren't comparing the same edges. A 60mm behind a dome would look pretty good in this test (not criticizing the test) because it doesn't have any wide edges. This test is important, probably the most important; I'm simply pointing out that comparing like fields of view is critical to judging lenses against one another. Normalizing physical aperture is also important. Then you see that port optics are more important than sensor size. It's clear, though, that with the port tested here that the 14-24 is at a disadvantage not allowing a diopter. The 12-24 has significant distortion when used with diopters. How important is that underwater when you consider the popularity of fisheyes? It doesn't seem to be a disadvantage in this test. I'd like to see a Sigma 10-20, Tokina 11-16 and Canon 10-22 though I realize the circumstances.
  6. The 12-24 does look the best of those shown so far. It is also has the narrowest angle of view and the smallest physical aperture.
  7. Stephen, I assume these are all shot at the widest angle?
  8. I witnessed a dive guide on the Pelagian in Bali take a diver to a pygmy. He was shooting with a 60mm so the dive guide literally sandwiched the pygmy between his light and the diver's port. My vociferous objections were ignored. They barged in on my subject (and our boat's dive site) to boot.
  9. James, have you tried the HSL Aqua control in Lightroom? I'd try that first before proceeding to the gradient. I use it frequently with sunball shots. The problem with these variations is that the overall color of the water is varying greatly. Makes it hard to judge.
  10. I am not to blame for that. Other people can use whatever excuses they want but the victim is not to blame, the person who takes another's work is. It read to me like the complaint was that you were no longer overpaid for work because images are easier to come by. I don't see how that's related to intellectual property theft nor do I see it has my "fault" in any way. In fact, I see nothing wrong with it. Maybe if no one created competition then your earning power would be preserved, right? I'll mention that web pages are designed to crosslink and linking to another person's image is not automatically wrong. Presenting that work as your own is. It is preposterous to suggest that photographers encourage such theft by sharing online. That is nothing like what is occurring online. Yes, I leave my car unattended on the street. Everyone does from time to time. It's called parking. I've had two auto thefts in my life; both were in public garages with full time security. Neither were my fault.
  11. These shots involve overexposure. I don't think the new ACR camera profiles make a significant difference since it's highlight recovery that's critical.
  12. So you are saying we are all to blame for having photos stolen because we post them on the internet? How stupid is that? I suppose I'm to blame for having my car stolen because I bought it, too.
  13. If you'd like to see an RD conversion I'll do one and post it. If you aren't on a Mac it would be largely academic. With Lightroom you could adjust the cyan and with LR2 there are localized adjustments than may help. Highlight recovery is one of the differences between converters.
  14. I don't think LR 2, that is to say ACR, has progressed much in that regard. Do you use Mac or PC? On the Mac, there's Raw Developer. In my experience it handles sunballs better than ACR. Eric reports that Canon's own software does as well. If you like, I can try a Raw Developer conversion of your raw file. They allow demo downloads though.
  15. I know you weren't, Paul. I'm also aware that you know a great deal about the inner workings of the gear and what's important. I think the pro perspective is perhaps the most interesting one here. It's just not the only one. I wish I could go to a forum and learn more about the art of the photograph that it turns out is possible. In my experience, being on the boat talking to an experienced photographer and diving with him teaches me more about the art of shooting than forums do. Equipment is only a small part of the equation; experienced photographers, travel agents, and dive guides arguably contribute more to excellent results.
  16. Implied here is that being technically obsessive is bad. There are fine photographers who are "technically obsessive". We have good equipment because of the technically obsessive. The question isn't whether a technically "ignorant" photographer is capable of excellent work, it's whether he would benefit more understanding than he has. Agreed. Current tools all have liabilities though. ACR has good CA correction but is not the best converter for UW images IMO. I used to not believe that, but reading comments from those more technically obsessive than I am encouraged me to look more carefully into the matter. Why is this unfortunate? Should all UW photographers have your goals in mind? If a photographer never intends to "use" an image in the manner you do, is that bad? No need to introduce derogatory terms for people who don't share your perspective. I think you are hung up on the "need" part. You define quality and requirements arbitrarily from your point of view (and that's someone who sells his work). What I find curious isn't that you don't care about quality improvements beyond a certain point of usefulness, that I completely understand, it's that you find it appropriate to criticize those that do care. Wetpixel has evolved to have similarities to other large photographic forums. There are photographers of a very high caliber that care only about the art and/or the sale. There are also those that care only about the nuts and bolts and there are some who excel at both. The nuts and bolts people never criticize the art people. In fact, they hope to learn from them. The art people, on the other hand, frequently criticize the pixel peepers, the measurebators, the technically obsessive. Why is that?
  17. The 52mm diopters were called the 3T and 4T. The 62mm diopters were called the 5T and 6T. The 3T and 5T were +1.5 diopters. The 4T and 6T were +3. In my experience none of them had any special effect on DOF as you would not expect any. DOF narrows as magnification increases, of course. Focus can be harder to achieve at f/2.8 but the end result is the same.
  18. Some athletes are in it to get paid. Others for the love of the game.
  19. I sure am glad I shoot stills on tape. If I used solid state I'd be vulnerable to accidental deletion.
  20. Yes, provided the cropped and full frame cameras have the same ISO rating. A D300 will require 2 stops less than a 5D2, one for sensor size and one for the difference in base ISO. I think you'll find most strobes are still adequate though it becomes closer. For very small subjects, bellows factor effects full frame more so the one stop difference becomes a little greater. Not a big deal but I'm being thorough.
  21. The short answer is no, IQ is damaged by TC's regardless. If a TC were optically perfect it would deliver its intended magnification without any degradation of its own. That means all the flaws and diffraction of the main lens are magnified. Degradation is inescapable. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use TC's. My experience is that 1.4x is OK and 2x somewhat less so, but given the choice I'd rather choose a macro lens with the focal length I need than to add a TC to one I've already got. Of course, this issue has nothing to do with how much light is needed for full frame. Adding a diopter to a lens of the right focal length should be kinder to IQ than a TC but you should always test.
  22. A 1.4x takes one stop of light and a 2x is 2 stops of light. Each effectively increases the aperture by one and two stops respectively. Because of that, shooting a 100mm + 2x at f/22 is equivalent to f/44. That's why it takes so much light. Doing so also results in soft images. If you shoot your 100mm at f/11 with the converter then your diffraction will be equivalent to f/22 and the light required will be the same. Teleconverters soak up light needed for focusing but they do not need extra light as long as you are adjusting aperture to comparable sharpness. In other words, imagine have a 100mm + 2x converter and a straight 200mm macro lens. The 100mm combo will likely have a wide open aperture of f/5.6 which is dark but adequate for AF. The 200mm will likely be f/4 or a full stop brighter. The 100mm combo will get to 2:1 without diopters whereas the 200mm will only do 1:1. With a wet diopter, both will give a lot of power. If you shoot the 100mm at f/11 and the 200mm at f/22, you will get comparable DOF but the 200mm will give a sharper image overall. They will require the same strobe power. You would never shoot the 200 at f/44, even it it were an option, so why would you shoot the 100mm combo at f/22?
×
×
  • Create New...