beauh44

Hi John, Almost all wide-angle lenses exhibit distortion, especially around the edges. But there are some things you can do to minimize it.

 

Using a tripod and ensuring your camera is level will help quite a bit. It appears you were standing with the lens perhaps tilted down a little; instead if you mount the camera/lens on a tripod so it's about chest-high and use a bubble-level, that will help a lot. I don't think the flash played any part. The lighting looks good.

 

Secondly, your shot isn't trashed - this is easily fixed in Photoshop with the lens-distortion filter and if you really want to straighten things up you could get a program like DxO Optics Pro (which is taylored to your camera/lens combination). It can fix that shot with mathematical precision: http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo/dxo_optics_pro/exclusive_features/optics_geometry_corrections

 

This isn't something that's unique to Canon lenses - although some do better than others. The Hasselblad SWC camera/lens combination with its Zeiss lens performed very well in this department but wasn't cheap. Good luck!

It's obscenely expensive but I've gotten some amazing results from Epson's new Exhibition Fiber paper with my 3800 printer. I have a few prints with this combination that, to my eye, look just like they came out of a darkroom. It's really amazing - but like I said, Epson knows it and charges accordingly.

Hi Nick, In the example you linked to, it looks like the model is in front of a seamless backdrop (seamless paper would work) with a light source directly behind her, pointing backwards to illuminate the background.

 

A Speedlight would be easy to conceal behind the model, perhaps placed in a small softbox, to softly illuminate the backdrop. Good luck!

Apparently, it does; but support for various camera RAW file formats is up to the vendor to

supply: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=483

 

Looks like when the above-linked post was written, older Canon RAW formats (10D for

example) may or may not be supported.

I don't believe I've ever rated a photo here at PN. To me, it's sort of like rating an album

(CD/recording) - something I may love, others may hate and vice-versa. So, purely from

my personal standpoint, it was always a part of PN in which I just never participated.

 

I'm my own worst critic and always find fault with my own work and see plenty of things I

could've done had I to do it over again... but 99 percent of the time, we don't get a do-

over unless it's a static shot we could re-create to try the suggestions. Most photographs

are of a moment in time that we'll never get to repeat.

 

More often than not, I'll read a post by someone blasting the #$%@ out of someone when

the person doing the blasting hasn't posted a single photograph, link or any photograph

here at all. So how would I know whether that person knows which end of the camera to

point where? I don't. In those instances, I can see someone getting upset with a "drive-by"

troll rating here on PN.

 

There are some amazing photographers here - absolutely mind-blowing, in fact. If I see

someone doing something that I can't figure out, or would love their input, or just to ask a

question, I'd just write 'em and ask. But as another poster in this thread points out, a set

of numbers doesn't say much and the person doing the "saying" might have very different

tastes and thus their opinions and criticisms would be, to me, irrelevant.

 

To dredge up the music analogy again, that's like a rock guitar player telling a jazz player

he or she sucks. Maybe that jazz player just doesn't get off on Black Sabbath.

 

Lastly, there's a comment above: "Simple and plain praises (that I see in more than 95%

cases of photo comments in PN) are nauseatic." Well, first off, I believe the word's

"nauseated" and second, I understand up to a point but I'll look at a couple hundred

photos here sometimes. As with everything most of them aren't very good, a handful are,

and a very small handful are amazing. If the photos aren't good or just average, I don't

leave a comment at all. If it's one that bowls me over, I very well may leave "simple and

plain praise" because I have nothing else to offer and I certainly mean well and want the

photographer to know I liked his or her work. That's all. I imagine not everyone has the

time or inclination to bang out long-winded analysis and suggestions and imho, there's

nothing wrong with a "good job!" now and then.

Many may disagree with me but what you're looking at sounds like overkill to me. I

haven't researched it but I'd be concerned about Photoshop compatibility with 64-bit

operating systems, either XP or Vista. You might be spending thousands of dollars to

shave 5 seconds off of running some filter. Heck there's not a huge gain to be had by

going from dual-core to quad core processors in most cases; again, maybe a few seconds

shaved off running a few filters that you may rarely use.

 

You can go nuts trying to get the latest, greatest, gee-whiz bang GigaGoogle Box and two

weeks after you do, Intel will just announce a supposedly better "Octa-Core" processor.

 

I've always run Windows myself but recently bought a Mac. I know you said you didn't

want to fool with it but a Mac does enjoy one huge advantage over a Wintel box: You can

run Windows on a Mac but not vice-versa. You can run the Mac OS X Leopard while also

running XP while also running Vista in virtual machines.

 

But I digress: Even if you stick with Wintel get a system that you - and its maker - can

support. I'd avoid the "bleeding edge" and what makes a good game machine typically is

not what necessarily makes a good PC for Photoshop and photography.

 

Lastly, you're certainly right about RAM. But look at the benchmark differences between a

Dual-Core and Quad-Core processor, particularly Photoshop filter benchmarks. You may

be surprised at how little difference there is. Good luck!

I believe if the people in the photograph can be identified and you are using the

photographs for commercial purposes, then it would be a very good idea to have model

releases. I'm not a lawyer so if you're really concerned, it might be best to consult one but I

would think something could be written up that's thorough yet simple. Good luck!

Let's hope the sun won't go away if one tries a few substitutes now and then. You can always

use one or the other when appropriate. I guess I'm crazy but I've seen a few high-quality

portraits that were taken without the benefit of sunlight.

I know but I can't say because I'd have to kill myself.

As Edward said, my .02 cents would be to try a large softbox as close as is reasonable to

your subject for that soft, wrap-around light. I find that's typically all I need, maybe a

hairlight and/or reflector on the "shady" side. Good luck!

Michael, IMHO you can use a zoom as a great landscape lens, so it'll depend on what you

need to capture at the moment. If you equate width with landscape, then I'd definitely

choose the 10-22mm. It's probably not weather-sealed as well as the "L" glass but I bet it'll

hang right in there in terms of image quality.

Hi Alex, I'd just make a couple of points. Newer bodies like the 40D have newer image

processors (Digic chip in Canon's case) that can handle noise a bit better when the camera

is cranked up to higher ISO values than the cameras of just a year or two ago. This helps a

lot in low-light photography.

 

I really can't comment on dynamic range (I suspect it's improved too) but with regards to

your 50mm f/1.8: All lenses will have shallow DOF at f/1.8. That's just the way it is. You

might decide some other models have a more pleasing out-of-focus area ("Bokeh") or

better build-quality, etc. Or you may want a longer or wider focal-length. But when

shooting a relatively "fast" lens that has a wide aperture, the depth of field will be very

narrow when shot wide-open, regardless of the lens. Good luck!

What Bob said. Ask your tutor if he/she can tell you whether any given shot - without

telling him or her first - was taken with a full-frame camera or not. They wouldn't have a

clue and neither would anyone else. Unfortunately some people equate the cost of the

camera with the "professionalism" of its owner and that's nonsense.

 

No great pianist needs to play on a Steinway, nor every great guitarist on a Strat or Les

Paul.

 

They're basically saying that if you didn't have to take out a second mortgage you can't

possibly be serious about this and that's just way off base. If you like your camera that's

what counts the most.

I have, I think, 10 Canon lenses and 2 Sigmas - the 20mm f/1.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8

"Macro". Yes, the 20mm is soft wide-open, but at least you can still get the shot. Stopped

down, it hangs with most Canon WA lenses I've used. (I own 17-40mm f/4L)

 

IMHO, the 24-70mm f/2.8 does *not* hang with its Canon counterpart, or at least mine

doesn't. But, it sure was a LOT cheaper and unless you're making 13X19" prints, no one

will ever notice.

 

I got a kick out of the poster who didn't like the EF 85mm f/1.8. Mine kicks @$$. I've also

used my 2 Sigma lenses on two Canon film bodies and three digital bodies without any

compatibility problems at all. I'd like to see links about a relatively modern Sigma lens

"frying" a Canon camera's electronics.

 

What I don't like about EX Sigmas: The (usually) huge filter size and that goofy, push-pull

clutch mechanism for manual/auto focus *along with* a manual/auto focus switch. In

general, I find the build quality fine with the EX lenses.

 

Back in the day, Sigma did make some clunkers but it would appear they're doing much

better now and sometimes, for some photographers in some situations, they make good

sense, especially economically.

 

AFAIK, Canon doesn't make a 20mm f/1.8 lens that focuses 7 inches away from the

subject, for example... Not to mention the "Bigma" lenses.

There are lots of ways to emulate infrared in Photoshop with channel mixer, etc. Try Googling

"photoshop infrared". If you do end up doing the conversion, I can vouch for Lifepixel. They

did a great job with my 10D. Good luck!

Godfrey's right, I believe. On *some* images one could flatten multiple variations with a

different layer on "top", then convert to LAB and re-combine each version in LAB mode.

Obviously this wouldn't work with all images but it might be a klunky workaround for some.

I've often read that scanning negs as slides and inverting can produce better results on some

scanners. I'm not entirely sure why. I think Ctein had an article on this in a recent edition of

Photo Techniques magazine and suggests doing exactly that.

I once took some 6X6 slides I'd shot at Yosemite (stupidly) to a local Ritz for developing. I

asked them if they'd please put them in a sleeve and as the girl was cutting them, I watched

as she chopped right down the middle of - of course - the BEST shot of the entire trip. Cut it

right in half. Thanks, Ritz.

I certainly don't speak for the site in any way shape or form but I'd think that it's fine to store

the photos on another server and simply post a link to them. I can't imagine how much

storage Photonet needs to hold all the images it does but it must be expensive. I would think

it would save them some bandwidth costs too.

Perhaps the use of "tags" would be a useful feature for Photonet to implement. When one

copies up a photo of a hammer and nails, say, one would have the option of entering some

relevant, descriptive "tags" so users could search for the photo. I know it won't help Bart out

now but maybe some day in the future!

There are some excellent EF-S lenses out there and sometimes I'm sorely tempted, but I

own a FF body and couldn't use them on it, obviously.

 

When the 5D came out at the price that it did, it blew me away. It wouldn't surprise me at

all if in 4-5 years FF sensor bodies become quite reasonably priced. Even if Canon doesn't

choose to up the megapixels, a bit more real-estate in terms of the size of the sensor can

mean better light-gathering characteristics and lower noise. So I think there are

compelling reasons to make FF sensors apart from losing the 1.x "crop factor" and

cramming more photosites onto a chip.

 

In the end, all EF lenses will work on all EOS bodies. The same cannot be said of EF-S and

that's the only reason I haven't bought one. It's certainly not because some of them aren't

excellent lenses - because some are.

Consider too the various criteria. If sharpness is paramount, Canon's most inexpensive

lens, the lowly 50mm f/1.8 sells for around $70, brand new and is sharp as a tack. But its

build quality leaves a lot to be desired. If you'd like a much better build but still very

sharp, the venerable 50mm f/1.4 is a great choice and if you need a 50mm lens that's

*very* fast, very sharp and has an excellent build along with weather-proofing, the 50mm

f/1.2L is there if you've got the money and need those features.

 

It's the same with their zooms; you get what you pay for. The EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

is capable of taking making great images in the right hands for just a few hundred bucks.

It's got Image Stabilization and is a good but not great lens. The 24-105mm f/4L IS has a

similar focal range and also Image Stabilization... But the IS is at least second, if not third

generation, it has a constant aperture, a much better build and weather sealing for, I

dunno... 3-4 times the price. Some say this lens is sharper at 50mm than many of Canon's

primes.

 

If you think Canon may be ripping people off you'd really think the Leica folks are nuts!

I'm not sure you could get a Leica camera *strap* for what you'd pay for a Canon 50mm

f/1.8.

I think what Marc is referring to is how Photoshop renders the image on-screen when you

view it at a percent that is not a whole number. In other words it's a Photoshop issue, if I'm

following correctly.

I've had mine for 6 or 7 years and it still focuses just fine on film and digital bodies - even

my 1Ds2. I know I'd take a 50mm CM over the 50mm f/1.8 - it's a much more expensive

lens, too. You've got a good insurance company!

Sigma has some decent primes that are priced between the Canon "L"s and "Non-L's".

They're usually a bit faster then the "Non-L" lenses and quite a bit less expensive than the

"L" wide-angle lenses.

 

I own the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 which can be had, brand new at B&H for $409. One really

cool thing about this lens is, that afaik, Canon wide-angles can't match its 7.9 inch

minimum focusing distance. It's also got a 9-bladed aperture diaphragm for some really

nice bokeh.

 

Now, of course it's not going to be as sharp at f/1.8 as it is at f/8 (most aren't - even

Canon's) but you'll still get the shot when things get pretty dark. And when there is ample

light, I think you'll find that at f/8, this thing can hang with the best of 'em.

 

Downsides: That 82 mm filter size is a beast and filters that big are expensive. It's not the

smallest, lightest prime lens in the world and I'm not a huge fan of Sigma's push-pull

AF/MF "clutch" mechanism. But it is actually a decent lens with a sturdy build. It also

comes with an excellent case that Canon would do well to emulate. Even many of Canon's

"L" glass lenses - like the 17-40 mm f/4L - still ship with just a felt/leather bag to put

your lens in.

 

Here are a couple of shots where I've used mine - the first was with a 1ds2 (full frame) and

the second was with a 10D (1.6x crop) - I wish I'd had the 1Ds2 for the Yosemite shot! ;-)

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3674758

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4105399

 

Sigma has 5 prime lens offerings from 8mm to 28mm: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all.asp - scroll to the bottom 'til you see "Wide

Lenses" They also offer a few primes under their "DC" - or digital only bodies. (1.x

multiplier bodies... like Canon EF-S) Good luck!

 

 

 

 

 

Some of the other Sigma primes might be worth considering too, of course. Good luck!