Ben Cochran
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sorry for the OT guys: Great to see you here Randy, yep, would be nice to get out again 🙂
Loren: Were you ever able to remove the dust spot off of your sensor?
Sure enough I notice now a small S shaped smudge on some of my photos that was there for both lenses, so not a lens issue but a camera issue. I looked carefully at my sensor and it appears clean, but I could be wrong. Is there something on my sensor? Notice it towards the bottom right corner in the first two photos. Easily photoshopped out but I’m a bit concerned how to fix this.
Yes, some very nice shots and you have a great eye!
In response to your question and issue: It is a dust particle on the sensor and it fairly common. Simply use a hurricane blower to blow off the sensor and you should be fine. Never ever actually blow air, from your mouth, on to the sensor though.
You must be proud of these photographs, real keepers. 🙂
First off, all images have official copyrights on them, it is just that a registered copyright provides for much more substantial damages, in infringement cases.
You can register them online and it is actually cheaper and easier, as well, online tracking is available for those who use that service. You can also register published works but they have to be filed separate from those that are not published yet.
Here is a link from the Library of Congress with FAQs http://www.copyright.gov/eco/faq.html
Follow the menu as it takes you to the point where you can actually start uploading and filling for copyright registration. Hope this helps.
The 90 day rule is only in effect if infringement takes place within 90 days of first publication. Providing a 90 grace period for the owner of the image.
I realize that this may be larger than what you are looking for but I, personally, love the 1600 and the 1620NF (has wheels).
One thing that I might suggest is, look at the future use and additional equipment that you may acquire. I normally take a very good while before making purchases, as I try to incorporate the future use of the product and the ROI that I may get from it. IMO, purchasing for present requirements may cost more in the long run, through a forced upgrade and/or need. Also, I love the foam padding, it absorbs far more of the shock and holds all of my equipment firmly in place. This is one of my lighting cases, with only speedlights and all of the essential gear that I would need, with this particular case of lights. The case has been used a lot and this is the condition after about 2 years of regular use. Love these Pelican cases!!!
There he is 🙂 Happy New Years, my friend! Don’t forget to pick up that 24″ double baffled Lastolite, during this new year too LOL..
Neal is so very right about wide gamut monitors not being a requirement. I will also add that if anyone does decide to go the wide gamut route, hold onto your old sRGB monitors, as they are better for web use. There are a few browsers that read ICC profiles but the majority of images, posted to the web, are not tagged. The wide gamut monitors have a difficult time with this and many images will have a reddish cast, due to it. So, sRGB is the better choice for surfing the web, (at present).
Additionally, a 14 or 15bit camera setting and/or shooting in Raw or even Adobe RGB is counter intuitive when processing on an sRGB monitor. The same goes for setting LR3 or PSCS5 to a ProPhoto or even Adobe RGB working environment, as even the Apple Cinema covers just a little over all of the sRGB gamut. Again though, this does not mean that the Apple monitors are bad, it just means that it is hard to tell how much a user may be missing, until they see their same images on a good wide gamut monitor. The same goes for printing and matching true rendered color between both a printer and monitor.
Neal, the 526 has been out on the market for awhile but it still outperforms most of the market. The sad thing, for you lol, is: They did come down in price, for a bit, but the demand is still there and it still holds its own in current reviews so, the price has gone back up again. B&H has the best prices, with the colorimeter and hood, at about $1,700.00. You’ll find them next to those Lastolite double baffled 24″ softboxes LOL
For anyone that is curious, about this monitor: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/495366-REG/LaCie_130766_526_25_5_Widescreen_LCD.html or http://www.lacie.com/us/products/product.htm?pid=10897
I’m not offended Ben just trying to learn all I can.
FWIW my iMac is LED or at least it said so on the box. It was the main reason I switched to mac.
I am glad that I did not come across in a negative way and thanks for confirming it for me.
It is good that Apple finally decided to put the LED backlight monitors in the iMac line up too. The monitor in the MBP are essentially the exact same as what is in the IMac now. Apple does not give out their technical data, per gamut, as they use the NTSC measurements, which is more
Yes, I was but I don’t want it to come across as though I am trashing it and I want to be very careful in not offending anyone. The 24” iMac display is not a high-bit LUT display and only covers about 72% of the RGB gamut; in essence, it is an expensive sRGB monitor. The Apple Cinema does cover 78% but the iMac monitor is a good match for the iMac, as the iMac isn’t designed to cover all of Adobe RGB anyway, ( I have no idea why Apple decided to do that with the iMac’s), another advantage for going with Mac Pro or MBP. From what I have read, I understand that Apple had to halt production on the 27”iMac monitors, due to intermittent flickering and some have had issues with faint yellow tinting issues, as well, this may be due to their use of a pseudo white.
The MBP monitor covers the same gamut as the iMac display. Comparing the MBP monitor to an Apple Cinema Display, visual differences can be noticed in certain images; even when both monitors have been properly calibrated.
I am taking for granted that the OP is currently in a MS environment so, I would offer other choices over the expensive sRGB iMac, as better value and investment.
Also: Unless I have missed something, I don’t think that they are using LED in the iMac monitors but are using them in the Cinema display’s. The extra 6% of gamut can also be noticeable.
Keep in mind that a lot of these smaller diffusers are really useless in outside settings. The primary reason that they work so well indoors is due to the fact that they scatter light everywhere and help to create multiple points of bounced light on your subject. In an outdoor setting, without all of the walls, as a bounce source, you will notice that there is less wrap around light on your subject, meaning that the diffused qualities are less apparent. This isn’t because diffused light is less outdoors as much as it demonstrates that most of what we thought was diffused, was actually bounced fill.
As the distance to subject is increased, the quality of truly diffused light is diminished. At a point, the light is no longer diffused but this variable depends upon the size of the diffused light source. The larger the source of diffused light, the further the diffused quality of light will travel, the smaller the size is the opposite. Another little trick of the trade is to use the feathered edge of the light, when shooting outdoors, to help soften the light landing on the subject.
So, what I am getting at is, if you are using light as a fill light outdoors, you may not need to diffuse the artificial light at all. An alternative may be a reflector, which can serve as an excellent source for fill light.
As far as matching the Kelvin, you can use gels to do that. Keep in mind that you will loose some light but that is the better method for matching the Kelvin of the primary light source.
I agree with Tom Cannons suggestion and will add that it really depends on what your expatations are and your budget. For photography and on the high end, I would strongly recommend the MultiSync PA241W-BK-SV 24.1″ Widescreen LCD Monitor with SpectraViewII Color Calibration Solution or the LaCie 526 25.5″ Widescreen LCD Computer Display with VGA/DVI-I/DVI-D Inputs and Blue Eye Pro Colorimeter. The SpectraviewII Color Calibration Solution does a fantastic job of accurately calibrating the NEC monitor, as well as the Blue Eye Pro Colorimeter does for the LaCie monitor. Both cover 98 % of the Adobe RGB gamut and although they are a bit pricey, they are very well worth every penny.
Personally, I have the LaCie 526 with the Blue Eye Pro and would not trade it for anything on the current market. I can’t recommend the LaCie 300 or 700 series, as they do have some issues with them. The LaCie 526 is an older model than the latest NEC but it still holds its ground in the reviews. Also, the Apple Monitors are good monitors but they aren’t really all that great, biggest plus are the built in bells and whistles. At best, the Apple top end monitors cover about 78% of the Adobe RGB, with the MBP covering about 72%.
If you are looking at a smaller budget, I might suggest the HP LP2475w 24″ LCD Computer Display. At less than $500.00, it would be next to impossible to find a better monitor in that price range. A friend of mine purchased one, out of curiosity, and is very impressed. If you chose the HP LP2475w, I would recommend the Eye One II colorimeter for calibration.
I am a Mac user myself and do strongly recommend the Mac but I am not a fan of their monitors.
Hope this helps some and as had been mentioned; Calibrate your monitor, no matter what you get, upon its first use and then routinely calibrate often.
P.S. None of these monitors can serve you well unless you have a really good high end graphic card.
Great to see you again Graham! Seems that it was way back during the FFF International Fly Tying Competition and the associated forum, that I last saw those amazing realistic fly tying patterns that you tie. Glad to see you still paddling up stream and look forward to seeing more of your amazing fly’s. :).
LOL David.
They actually changed their format now. Now the photographs link back to where the originals are posted and they took down the links for peoples pleasure in posting to their social network sites. In essence, they are now direct inline linking which is ok under the international copyright laws. They are basically nothing more than a Google/Yahoo image clone now.
One of their web hosts suspended the site and just got word from the other. The web site owners promised to add an opt out feature for those that want to remove their photographs from that site. The hosting company said that if they do not do so, they will suspend and probably terminate the hosting.
Keep your eyes peeled for the opt out and I don’t know if it will be in english or not, only the site owners know, at present.
Keep in mind John and I think that this is what Zack was talking about. If we use a 50mm 1.4 (which is an awesome lens in our Nikon world! 🙂 ) and want the same frame size, with both DX and FX sensors. The DOF will be shallower on the FX, compared to the DX. Granted there are work arounds but there is a point of “no” work around.
Think I saw your same photographs down in Peru, that is where that other web sites administrators are;)
I’ll do you one better John. This is from attorney Carolyn E. Wright, who has given permission to use her outline:
To email the current active hosting site: support@midphase.com
Infringement of several of my photographs have been found on the website http://www.fotosimagen.com. The following pages /entries are being displayed and distributed without permission.
Mark them here:
This letter is official notification under the provisions of Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) to effect removal of the reported infringements. I request that you immediately issue a cancellation message as specified in RFC 1036 for the specified posting and prevent the infringer, who is identified by its web address, from posting the infringing article to your servers in the future. Please be advised that law requires you, as a service provider, to “expeditiously remove or disable access to” the infringing photographs upon receiving this notice. Noncompliance may result in a loss of immunity for liability under the DMCA.
I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted material described above on the allegedly infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. The information provided here is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Please send me at the address noted below a prompt response indicating the actions you have taken to resolve this matter.
The other problem is, at 800px and even 750px, the images would still be considered large for web commercial use.
Just found out that they have 2 web hosts, mirrored sights. One has been shut down and a group of us are sending emails to the other. Demanding that our copyrighted images be removed, via formal DMCA takedown requests. Both hosts are in the US so, by law they will have to remove the photographs or share, as equal infringing party, to any infringement law suits. After enough DMCA notifications have been delivered, they will most likely shut the site down too.
They have been shutdown for now. What they were also doing was providing the data for people to upload the photographs to their personal myspace and facebook pages. The really bad thing is that they advertised them for free to anyone and even though I “clearly” have copyrights on my images, they were still on there and fully downloadable, even photographs that I had deleted over a year ago.
Exactly!! That is how I incorporate the optics law into my photography and the best part. It keeps your other DX format as a very viable tool! 🙂
In addition, not only is the chip larger, there is a change in the size of the CofC and this is what really made the difference.
Tim, I am by no means an expert in physics and with my limited knowledge, I needed to try and find a way to make this, Prozac laced CofC knowledge, a controllable an applicable tool.
I may have completely missed the boat on this, taken Zanax as opposed to Prozac, but this is my understanding and the mapping guidelines that I use for mapping out “some” shots. Lets say that I want a shot with a DOF that is no greater than 4’ and I only have 10’ of space. It is vital that I use primes so, with the FX format I can use a 50mm prime and achieve a DOF at 3.75’; the CoC is .03mm. In order to get the same frame on a DX, I would have to use a 31mm prime (no such creature) so, I would have to use an off brand 30mm prime (good luck finding a Nikon one). My DOF would now be 7.63’ and the CofC is .02mm. Clearly the DX format will not work, for the mapped out shot.
Lets say that I have more room and use the same 50mm prime on both formats. I would have to stand at 16’ to subject, with the DX format and my DOF is now 6.47’ and, of course, the CofC is a constant .02mm. Again, does not meet the requirements of the shot.
Lets now say that I want to shoot and frame a shot with a hyperfocal length at aprox. 80’. Using the same 50mm prime, I can reach hyperfocal at 81.5’ with the DX format. For the same frame and distance, I would have to use an 80mm on the FX format and my hyperfocal is now 139.1’. Making the DX format a better choice.
Granted there are ways to work around this, like cropping in post but that is at sacrifice and for assignment work, might as well nail my foot to the ground. As I said, I am not a physics major, just a photographer. You clearly have a much better knowledge of the physics behind optics law. Am I missing something here, as this is a topic that can require medication? 😀 I say this all respectfully as I only focus on the applicable knowledge that applies to the business side of my tools and not so much into all of the technical details that would not serve my business side any. Meaning, I don’t manufacturer cameras, just use them. You clearly understand the physics better than I so, thanks for any and all information. 🙂
Zack, it has to do with the “Circle of Confusion:CofC” aka “Circle of Incidence”. The larger the sensor the higher or larger the CofC and this is the reason why P&S sensors have such a shallow hyperfocal distance. This is also the reason why there are great applications for the DX over the FX and vice versa. Hope this helps.
