scott_ferris

May 5, 2014

It looks like over done frequency separation to me, there are a million how to videos on youtube that really explain the process. But you can't do it in Lightroom, you need Photoshop, or a layers capable pixel editing program. Actually it looks so heavy handed it might just be an auto portrait skin smoothing plugin, but the frequency separation would do the job much better.

Why does it look like that? Look at the eyes, the first has crows feet lines coming off the corners of her eyes, and a little lineyness below her eyes, there is no way they are the only lines on her face. Similar on the second image, look at the texture in the makeup above her eye, well that texture should be in her skin as a minimum.

If you want to send me an image, either inline or privately, I'll do a quick retouch for you. This look has nothing to do with illumination or exposure, sure you can't make a bad picture good, but you can get "good" skin tone in the worst of images.

May 5, 2014

Hi there Timothy,

I have the 2x TC MkII, on the 70-200 f2.8 IS it is a real disappointment, there is another guy here William W, who has/had a 70-200 f2.8 non IS and he gets really good results with his, he swears by the combo and actually has a gallery of images here shot with it.

I also have the 1.4 TC MkIII, the results from this are much better, and in my opinion it is well worth getting. But I'd do a quick test of your own personal gear, there ends up being very little difference between IQ lost to the TC or just re-sampling a smaller picture with just the lens up to match.

Have a play at this link, this is for the 70-200 vs the 70-200 with 1.4TC MkII.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=103&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=4&LensComp=103&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=4

February 27, 2014

The United Kingdom absolutely will not hand check anything, if it going in a plane cabin it is going through the X-Ray machine. But I never did have an issue with film damage because of X-Rays via carry on machines.

January 18, 2014

Peter: Yep the YN performs exactly as the ST on my EOS-M (post 2012), but it doesn't fire any flashes with pre 2012.

I haven't reported it to Yongnuo. Maybe I shpuld, they seem receptive to that kind of input.

January 18, 2014

Hi there Peter.

Yes, I am talking about the Remote Shooting feature when used on pre 2012 cameras. The YN comes with two cables to connect to the remote release socket on pre 2012 cameras. With it you can hand hold a 600 and on the second Menu option the left hand button displays REL. Push that and the camera shutter works, with the YN that is all that happens, with the ST the remote flash you are holding and any other in the setup fires too.

I use this feature for real estate accent lighting, the camera is on a tripod and I walk around with a 600 in my hand and fire it at highlights then layer mask the stacked shots in PS, the YN is useless for this. The YN does fire the remote flashes on post 2012 cameras.

The Linked Shooting mode works exactly the same for both YN and ST.

January 18, 2014

Hi Peter,

Yes mine came with Firmware 1.02, I updated to 1.08 last night. The only "issue" I have had with the YN-E3-RT is the remote shooting doesn't fire the flashes, the Canon ST-E3-RT does. I will keep both but for pre 2012 camera body owners the YN really is a huge improvement.

January 18, 2014

Devon,

I ended up getting the Canon 600-EX-RT's and an ST-E3-RT. My only disappointment was in the limitations of the RT system for pre 2012 cameras but Yongnuo subsequently came out with the YN-E3-RT, it allows Group Mode in pre 2012 cameras and has an AF assist lamp, another feature missing on the Canon model.

I am very happy with the Youngnuo and at $137 it is a bargain compared to the ST-E3-RT.

If the Mitros+ had been available earlier I might well have gone that route, but I d like the five groups I have with the Canon/Yongnuo setup.

But the wireless flash market is booming and keeping up to date with the various options is a challenge, I heartily recommend www.flashhavoc.com for all things flash related.

May 13, 2013

Adam,

Glad it was of help to you too :-)

February 15, 2013

Double post!

February 15, 2013

Dan,

I have no intention of "upgrading" from my 1Ds MkIII's to the 5D MkIII, even though I am now heavily into the 600-EX-RT and there are real improvements in the 2012 cameras for radio flash users. The true real photographic benefit of the newer cameras is high iso performance, at base iso IQ is so similar there is no real differentiation, but above 800 the newer cameras pull away substantially.

I suspect, for my uses, the 1Dx MkII will be the "ultimate" camera for me, it will give me the mp I want for good sized prints without going to numbers I deem unnecessary for my uses, and give me the framerate to cover the things I struggle with a little with the 1Ds MkIII, currently surfing and dog trials.

I am content to use my current cameras, they are plenty capable, until a truly better alternative for my uses comes along. Besides, used 1Ds MkIII's now go for a touch over $2,000 on eBay, now that is a bargain!

January 3, 2013

Your ability to read has not improved:

Andrew:""why should I use the Print Size command"?"

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=657840">Scott Ferris</a>, Jan 03, 2013; 04:58 p.m.

"Why don't you tell us what you believe this 'feature' is supposed to provide for you." ...... but when you are charging people for the paper and ink it really helps if they can "see" what they will get beforehand. Scenes printed at different sizes give very different spacial perspective, in my experience, often times, a smaller print will need a closer crop where a bigger print can be printed looser, Print Size was perfect for gauging that.

</blockquote>

See? I answered that the first time you asked.

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=361342">Andrew Rodney</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 03, 2013; 09:12 p.m.

<blockquote>..........I don't know if you're wrong about what the Print Size feature does as yet, either here or on LuLa, no one has explained it.

Using Print size allows you to see ( Scott, fill in the blank). HOW hard is that to do,

</blockquote>

It is easy, and I have done so several times, we have both said ""WYSIWYG in terms of only size" why couldn't I, nor anybody else, possibly find that useful?

Having said all that, I really don't care for yours, or Tim's opinions, I have reverted to 13.0.0 and have my Print Size option back and I am very happy.

Goodbye Photo.Net.

January 3, 2013

Andrew, I will humour you one last time. "What IS it intended to do?" Truth is I don't know what was in the original programmers mind, but a logical guess would be that it gives you a "WYSIWYG in terms of only size", after all that is what it does! And we both agree on that! So it appears the only difference of opinion is you say that, in and of itself, that is a useless feature, I maintain that I do find it useful for exactly the same reasons as other posters do in the numerous threads around the internet and I have already pointed out here. Now you can maintain that we are all wrong, though I really don't understand why you would, but that is all you are doing.

Tim:"Is my silence deafening now?" YES. Don't think for one second I could care in the slightest about how loud you might get, it isn't difficult to gauge the sort of person you are, but anytime you want to email a reply feel free. With regards the thread you would fit into the category of people who don't find the feature useful, I have no issue with that, but many do find it useful, many people are running 27" and even dual 30" monitors, plenty good enough to use the feature to full effect.

January 3, 2013

Dear oh dear Mr Rodney,

Is your ego now getting in the way of your superiority?

You need to learn to read before offering your bloated opinion.

Scott: "Not so much a question as a FYI"

Andrew: "try to explain your point"

Scott: "The feature can be assessed two ways.......does it display the file at the size of your print and is that useful?"

Andrew: "The size may be WYSIWYG in terms of only size. So what?"

You are so hell bent on offering your opinion you are steamrollering over people that do understand the feature, do know how to use it, do use it, and do find it useful. I was merely pointing out the fact of the feature drop in an incremental update that Adobe chose not to mention. I am not interested if you find it accurate enough for sharpening, though why you brought that up I don't know, it was never intended to do that.

Andrew: "I guess I have to file this with "I don't really know what the feature does but it's gone and I want it back"."

If that is your self important take on a public information announcement from a user who does know what it does and uses it often, then it is just a reinforcement to my decision to not come to Photo.Net anymore. I was trying to help people make an informed decision, you just chose to cross examine and insult, I stupidly rose to the bait.

January 3, 2013

Your superiority is exasperating, and entirely misplaced.

The feature can be assessed two ways, is it an accurate WYSIWYG? Or, does it display the file at the size of your print and is that useful?

For the first, no, but it never has and was never supposed to especially bearing in mind screen resolutions, that, paradoxically, have only gotten ever closer to print resolutions! But it has never been deleted because of that, all criticisms of the feature have dwelt on the fact that it is not an accurate WYSIWYG, due to screen resolution and rendering issues with odd percentages, and they are fair points, though bearing those limitations in mind, which were always there, the true advantage of the feature is being missed by your engineering experts.

However for the second the answer is a resounding yes, and whilst you and your experts have made it your latest kicking bag, it still did what it always did just as accurately as ever, which was to display a low resolution version of your image at your chosen print size. You patently make prints for printings sake, I don't, I make prints for aesthetic reasons for myself and paying clients. As I explained earlier, being able to assess reasonably accurate renditions at actual print size is a huge boon, especially for people comparatively new to larger prints.

Further you trying to tell me a feature I really like doesn't work, when it clearly does, is pathetic. I didn't start the thread to be treated like a child, I did it to point out the undocumented consequence of upgrading, something Adobe chose not to do.

January 3, 2013

"Why don't you tell us what you believe this 'feature' is supposed to provide for you."

If you are so obtuse and divorced from the reality and value of showing people a low resolution reproduction at the actual size of the print then I don't really know where to begin.

We all know the limitations of screen resolution and rendering at very odd percentages, but when you are charging people for the paper and ink it really helps if they can "see" what they will get beforehand. Scenes printed at different sizes give very different spacial perspective, in my experience, often times, a smaller print will need a closer crop where a bigger print can be printed looser, Print Size was perfect for gauging that.

But, aesthetics aside, the feature is important enough to me to go back to an earlier version of CS6 where I have it, I know from the Adobe and Luminous Landscapes forums amongst others, I am not alone.

The feature was dropped because it became too convoluted to implement with Apples new screens, not because it didn't work or was a danger to stability, if it had been then it would have been pulled from the PC version too, but it wasn't. But why drop anything mid version without documentation warning of such? Why have they left Screen Resolution in the Units & Rulers Preferences, what can that option affect now? They did it because they just took the easy way out and killed the Print Size option because they were too slow to implement it better on one platform.

Oh, and the pathetic script that Adobe have put out to "address the issue" is such a clunky workaround it is a joke.

January 3, 2013

"Now I know who will jump to Adobe's defense,"

And right on time!

Look, you might not have liked it, or thought it worked well, but many people did. Working out how to use it is not rocket science, indeed it is one of the less convoluted controls available (ex-available) in PS, if every control that required such minor input was deleted there would be no PS.

It worked fine for what it was. But my real gripe is the fact that it was just killed mid version with no warning. I was simply giving others that warning and an option Adobe decided to not inform people about.

January 3, 2013

Not so much a question as a FYI.

Adobe have released an "upgrade", 13.0.2, for Mac platform users that includes better integration with Retina displays, if you have one get the update, however, in doing the code rewriting it seems they have tripped over themselves with the "Print Size" option in the zoom menu, it has gone. I do not know the situation for Cloud users, I believe you can decline the update too but I don't know for how long.

If you know how to use the Print Size option, and it seems many do, then be warned if you upgrade then you will no longer have that option, and it seems there is some effort from Adobe to leave it dropped. I do use the feature a lot and am reinstalling my earlier version.

Now I know who will jump to Adobe's defense, I often have, but to drop a feature on an incremental update with no warning seems stupid.

December 28, 2012

"I'd like to add some depth/drama to the clouds, because I find the sky a bit too flat compared to the bottom of the image. (That ray of light, on the other hand, doesn't need boosting.)" That is why, in this instance, the graduated filter is useless. The only way to do what is asked, is to make a selection, the only way to do that without plugins is to use the adjustment brush. I have often thought a brush to eliminate parts of the graduated filter would save a lot of time.

December 24, 2012

Here is my go in Lightroom 4. I used the adjustment brush and have done a screen shot showing all the changes I made.<div>

00bAAJ-509953684.jpg.7df62eed0fc32922083b8811fa207be2.jpg

</div>

November 27, 2012

"Example: see how soft <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/before_recovery.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this looks off the camera</a>?

And when it's <a href="http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/muscovy_bolam_PN_1.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">properly converted and processed</a>?"

This "example" might have some weight if it was actually the same image pre and post processing, but it clearly is not, so it is worthless.

November 16, 2012

I have traveled extensively in Cambodia and Thailand, I would, and do, take a tripod to both as there are few, if any, restrictions on using one. This is not true in places like India where it is not worth carrying a tripod because of extensive restrictions in their use.

November 12, 2012

Simon,

If you are game then there are detailed tutorials on how to repair it yourself online, <a href="http://www.fotomozaic.ro/artikel.php?s=1&categ=0&idstory=225">here is one.</a>

November 11, 2012

Jesnie, just like William, I am glad we could point you in the right direction.

November 11, 2012

And that kind of self defending diatribe is exactly the reason I no longer post here.

For your own personal purchasing decisions not trying something before deciding to not buy it is fine, offering advice to people who are asking the difference between two readily available and popular lenses when you haven't used one makes your input considerably less relevant, however well meaning, accurate, or verbose your defense.

There are plenty of people out there who do have experience of both these lenses, some chose the 1.2, some the 1.4 and many even went to the Sigma 1.4, and it is interesting to hear their actual experiences and reasoning as each lens works for each person for many intangible reasons, be that real or imaginary image characteristics, balance, weight, focus speed, focus accuracy etc etc, the important thing is they are happy with their purchase and use their cameras more because of it.

Thanks, William ;-) and Mark!

November 11, 2012

David,

We are both wrong, and right. I was referring to my speedlites, the 550EX goes 1/1 -1/128 in full stops. I now have the 600EX-RT's and they, as you say, do have 1/1-1/128 in 1/3rd stop steps in M mode. So it depends on what flash you have, it obviously changed on the 580EX or 580EX II but I don't know which. See attached cut and paste of both manuals

Eventually I got the 600EX-RT's over the Odins for a couple of reasons, though the differences really are in the details. I will be getting newer cameras and then the functionality of the Canon's will shine, but as is even with pre 2012 cameras the 600EX-RT and ST-E3-RT I have more functionality than I did with the ST-E2 (apart from a focus assist which I have never needed and the Odin doesn't have either, but it is all in the details! ). The Odins do offer some features that Canon don't, second curtain sync and variable groups M/ETTL etc with pre 2012 cameras, but for me I have never taken a picture in second curtain sync apart from demonstrations and the biggest use for different metering of groups would be to have my background lights in M and my on camera in ETTL, but you can't do that with the Odins because the controller has to be in the hotshoe so on camera fill is out. I have no issues with the 600's syncing at 1/250, the native sync speed of my 1Ds MkIII, and HSS works at all speeds, despite the warnings in the manual.

In the end the 600's just made more sense for my uses but it wasn't clearcut and the Odins really are a good bit of kit, also I was lucky and got my 600's for under $550, cheaper than a 580EX II and an Odin receiver at the time.<div></div>

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by scott_ferris