John Bennett
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Try updateing CS4 and ACR.
I cant recall, but I “think” the 7D was out before CS5.At some point they always stop supporting older versions, and so when a new body comes out its files won’t be supported. However to the best of my knowledge/memory CS4 owners should be able to update ACR/PS so that current body files are readable.
The only time you really need to wait is when your paid for assignment work. While every publication is slightly different, the “rights” that you sell to use the images will fall into one of two categories.
The right to be the first publication in NA to use the image. Otherwise known as FNASRs. This leaves you free to do whatever you want. The image remains yours to do with as you please. They have just bought the right to use it once, and to be the first publication to do so.
Exclusive rights.
Can have any number of conditions. For the pub’s I do assignment work for I’m accepting payment for work not published. I’m also getting paid whether I get any images or not. Basically Im paid go to X and shoot Y, but if the weather goes south and I come back with nothing Im still paid.In return the publication has exclusive rights to any and all resulting images for 1 year or until the article/images are published, which ever comes first. After which I am free to do as I please, but during that time I cannot display, redistribute etc. That includes showing them online either on forums, websites, etc.
In both cases the images remain mine to do with as I please.
Display, alter, sell rights, delete, etc. All I’ve done is sell the rights to use the images once. But in the case of assignment work where Im paid for “my time” regardless….They have “dibs” on any and all images for 1 yearIf what your doing is gratis…(no compensation) do whatever you like, when ever you like.
Nice view, wish it was mine 🙂
John the CP won’t impact your exposure with regards to highlights and shadows. It reduces the light evenly. What it would do in this kind of shot is deepen the blues in the skies and reduce any glare on the water or other reflective surfaces.
Whether you’d blow the skies or clip shadows is more a function of where/how you meter (spot, partial, center weighted,evaluative and where you meter) and then adjusting your settings for a “proper” exposure based on that reading.
If the darker part of the scene over weights the lighter and your settings are based on that you’ll blow the skies. Conversely if the brighter part of the image weighs more than the darked when you meter/adj settings, you’ll expose for the sky but clip the shadows.
Sometimes it’s helpful to do a reading off both sky and foreground (shadows) using spot or partial, note the difference in the reading and than base your settings on that.
Cheers.
Can’t say I disagree Doug. There are times when I won’t consider using a filter. Normally around water I have a CP glued on, however at all other times I add/remove as desired.
As we’ve all said, if they aren’t in your bag though, you don’t have the option. That’s my big thing…I don’t leave home without them, even if I don’t end up using them.
With regards to light loss thats one reason why I eventually made the jump to Singh Ray. The light loss on their CP is 2/3s a stop vs the usual 2 stops. Trying to shoot anything at f8-f11 with a  two stop hit in the early or late hours really knee caps your SS…..not fun that.
2 stop soft SR grand ND
SR warming CP (2/3 stop light loss)
Shot very recently, at 1/25th and f18. I could have raised (or lowered) ISO and probably could have shot it without the CP given the suns so low but the minimal light loss (relative) makes it easier to use without fretting about a 2 stop loss
Interesting read.
For the average angler I don’t think it would make much difference one way or the other but for guides and capt’s who I have to beleive swap and spool many reels a lot over a season……………………………
24-70mm at f2.8 and 70mm for maximum separation/compression.
Singh Ray Variable ND. Cant recall exactly but somewhere around 6 stops of light reduction. This allowed me to open the lens (also did same shot with 85 f1.2 set at f1.4), yet keep my SS slow enough for good motion blur via panning.
Singh Ray Warming CP. Both to warm the image a bit ( post possible) and provide another stop of light reduction, but mostly to eliminate glare of the asphalt, helmut,kart and chrome (not possible in post)
2 stop soft grad just to try to hold the upper part of the sky back a bit.
Doable in post but can be obvious at times.I dont think it matters which order you mount the Variable and a CP but when stacking filters I mount the variable first, then which ever CP I want to use for the shot (I have 3). Â Then whichever grads Im using (ive stacked grads as well…and when I stack grads I stack darkest to lightest)
What others have said.
I personally feel that filters are necessary tools, to me, more important than some of my other accessories. In fact if I was ever forced to go out shooting but had to choose between leaving my tripod or my filters at home. Id leave my tripod.
While a lot can be done in post and there are post tools that mimic grads and CPs, the end result isn’t the same. Â That said, there’s nothing “wrong’ with either approach, like Jay I do both. Sometimes post treatment can give you an image that striking in it’s own right.
“That” said, there are certain things that filters make possible, that you can’t correct or mimic in post. So the “only’ option to get it right in camera.
Unconventional use of filters.
Taken around 2pm on a bright day.
ISO 50
f2.8 (wide open)
1/15th panned
If Im not mistaken now with Getty and at the least my own agency. Point here is appreciation of the QC it has to pass as a 50mb tiff, where  post work shows.
Could I have gotten that without the 3 filters I used?
Nopecould I have shot it and corrected problems in post?
NopeCould I have stopped down to at least reduce my SS (if not balance the ambient)? Yes, but then I’d not have been wide for the separation I wanted and my DoF would been way more than I wanted. You cant really tell in this 800px display image but the only part of the image “in focus”, ciritcally sharp, and within the DoF is my daughters upper body/face. Even the kart is both OOF and subject to motion blur. Id say the effective DoF is about 6 inches, maybe a bit more. Which is what I wanted, only her face sharp.
With regards to brand names Hoya and BW are widely used, no reason you can’t start there
Simon what I might do “for now” is go to one of your larger local stores and see if you can acquire a standard 17-55 “kit lens”. You should be able to find one for a song and dance. Or see if any friends who have had DSLRs for awhile have one kicking around. A lot of people do given they get it as a “kit” lens and then upgrade it, leaving them with an inexpensive paper weight.
Build quality isn’t great, optically it’s ok.
That would give you WA coverage (17-55) to play around with and the 50 f1.4 to use when fishing, low light, kids, around the house etc.Use that while you get a sense of what you like to shoot, whether features like IS or faster glass has any relevance to you etc, etc.
Then when your ready pull the trigger on something nicer and in line with what you enjoy shooting.Im going to go a bit against the grain..not much just a bit.
The draw to start adding lenses is strong, I generally try to counsel first time buyers to resist adding as long as possible.Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, I’m working on assumptions and this being your first DSLR, I’m assuming you know some nuances but not a lot. Generally speaking I think people would be best served by discovering where their interest lie and then targeting specific lenses tailored to those interest. In the coarse of taking that approach a person will learn more about what makes one lens different from the next, and which therefore might be best suited to their interest/preferences.
For but one example.
We could suggest the 24-105 f4.0 or the 24-70 f2.8
Two very similiar lenses, with subtle differences. Each “best” suited to two different kinds of applications (although related). A little further away in application but still somewhat similiar is the 17-40 f4.In time you would have a better understanding of those differences and which then might be the one best for you, for your preferences etc.Alternatively you might prefer (discover) a mid range lens as you tend to be in situations where you like a little more reach, a little more often before a WA or walk around. etc,etc.
Long winded way of saying take some time, learn and discover a bit both about photogrpahy..and yourself, your preferences and where/how you tend to find you’d like X but don’t have it, and in the process you will develop a yearning for a certain lens that does certain things better than others.
You might buy the 24-105 f4 this week, only to come to realize for what you do “usually”, IS isnt terribly important in that range and rather love shooting wide open, with selective focus, in which case the choice would be the 24-70 f2.8 or vice versa.
What everyone else has said.
Imo, deciding C/N really boils down such nit picky things me I don’t personally care. If someone put comparable bodies on a table in front of me, blindfolded me, and said pick one.I’d be happy with either.
If I was to start all over with what I now know. I’d still go Canon but that’s due some lenses Canon has, that Nikon doesn’t. They have comparable, but not quite. Conversely if I was a wedding/studio photog I’m sure I’d go Nikon.
6 of one, half dozen of another with minor differences.
I have the self standing Manfrotto pod. Its good and does the job, but
I don’t use it alot, as it’s less bulky and heavier than my carbon pod.What Morsie said. if you can get in the water your golden. Get some low perspectives at water level and even shooting up at the anglers. Would be gravy if you shot vertical and captured some monster skies (just my imo).
What Jay said.
I myself won’t do weddings unless it’s for family. Namely because the price for my time, and  “expertise”, having to deal with unruly MoBs, who think they know best…Bridezilla’s, a long day and even longer Post. I’d be asking puts the “onus” on me. While I’m fully confident the fact remains it’s the brides day and there are no “re-takes”. If Im going to ask thousands, my final product better warrant it. Not once in a while, not when the light and locations are easy….Each and everytime regardless of light,location, time of day, weather and much more.
I can’t tell you how often I’ve been to weddings in the past couple years and have watched “professional togs” make mistake after mistake or who clearly don’t really know what they are doing. I watched one “girl” position the couple against a setting sun.
great location, great idea……Shame she didn’t mount or have a flash.
I was so tempted to walk over and say to the couple…”here, let me take this shot for you.Litigation.
It’s becoming more common. Me personally I can’t decide which side of the fence I’m on.On one hand you have a bride who’s wedding photo’s are at best “mediocre”, usually terrible. Who “hired” a tog that advertised themselves as a “Pro”.
On the other I have a hard time feeling sorry for her. She obviously chose said “Pro” for a reason….budget. Discount rates = discount tog.
Buyer beware imo.A friend of mine does weddings. It’s generally starts at $4,000, usually more due to “extra’s”.
Then again he has backups for bodies and his main lenses (85 f1.2 and 70-200mm f2.8), assistant, and so very much more.
Its tough, especially if you don’t want to crop the image. Focus speed dof.
My advice get creative. Have a friend let one sit on his hand. Pre focus and on the count of 3 have him/her blow it off
If your going to go for the 70-300 L (Ive played with it, like it but imo it has some cons) Id get it, use it on the trip. Then once your home re-evaluate your kit. You can sell it or the 70-200.
/ps its a brick. Which for me was/is a major drawback. If i want a lens like that (70-300 and slow variable aperture) I want one thats light and small. This is neither
John, I’m not sure it’s “expectations” in exactly the way you think.
To be sure, different shooters will have higher expectations. You may think mine are pretty high and anal…I know shooters who are more “rigid” than I…Its all relative. And I am not naive enough to think there are a lot of pure hobbyist out who would estactic with photos I and others delete.Be that as it may. Any picture requires two peices of hardware..a body and a lens. Pound for pound your “lens” is more important to the end result than the body.
I always get uneasy recomending gear to people. First, not everyones expectations are the same and secondly it’s their money, not mine..and regardless its alot of money. $400 for a lens is nothing to me (relative to my other lenses) but its a lot for a “hobbyist” who cant fathom spending 2g on a lens.
One of the fastest ways to “burn” money in this “hobby” is to buy a lens and come to be disappointed. Then “upgrade” it as a result or leave it as a $500 paper weight.
Focus speed. Not all lenses are created equal and it’s very easy to miss opportunities because it’s too “slow” acquiring focus or has a habit of “hunting” for focus…And by the time said lens “locks” on, the opportunity is gone…end result..no image at all.
This is one issue I know some people have with  some Tamron lenses…The Tamron 200-500 is very popular among people getting into wildlife shooting. Optically is pretty darned good and its a heck of a lot cheaper than Nikon/Canon long lenses…Many buyers eventually grow disappointed with it due it’s focus speed/hunting and “upgrade”. Others dont and remain happy with it for a long, long time. I cant make that call for someone and hence I don’t generally recommend gear to people :). I could direct someone into a lens thats expensive and I know they will like..but is “overkill”…or I could direct them to a lens they become disappointed with because it doesnt meet expectations. Of those two (imo) is “safer” to point people to the “better” lens but still…….
What makes one lens “different” than the next?
IQ (optics).
Maximum apertures
Build Quality…etc.etc..
One other note.
Take virtually all online “reviewers” with a very large grain of salt.The 70-300 L is more expensive for a few reasons.
Optics….No way around it..better optics cost
Focus speed and weather sealing
Build quality
New generation ISFor what it’s worth I think you will be pleased with the 70-300 and if that’s the range and it meets budget don’t hesitate.
Im with Brett. I find “all” purposes lenses too..all purpose..hard to describe.
These days, unless Im on an assignment I bring my A) lens and a B) lens. Rarely any more. A is the lens geared towards my main “objective” and B) something different.
That said.
There are probably a couple different options for you in Canons line up, it just sort of depends on budget. The 100-400 could certainly do what you want but its 2g…other like the 70-200 f4 might be in the budget and complement what you already have….A 70-300 or the newer ones Jay mentioned. In the end your expectations will determine your “satisfaction”.
