richard_arthur

<p>7 or 8 feet (213-244cm) would be tall enough.</p>

<p>I'm looking for some light stands that are sturdy enough to support a large (5 foot) softbox with monolight, and collapse to a length small enough to fit into a large suitcase. Light weight is a plus.<br /> <br /> Any suggestions?</p>

<p>Is it really true that you can't edit 5DII videos on a PC, as you say? And if it's true, why would a Mac be any better? Aren't the fastest PC's just as fast as Macs? After all, both platforms are running on Intel hardware these days.</p>

Does anyone know the name of this statue / site, and where it is located?

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5723372

 

The photographer has several photos of the statue in his portfolio. One lists

the location as Lajatico, Italy and another lists it as Peccioli, Italy.

I would also like an explanation of what exactly this means. I have searched the archives for this forum, but have not seen this explained.

 

From what I gather, when "Rate Recent Average" is selected as the sort criteria (which is the default selection) in the Gallery, then only ratings that have been given anonymously through the "Rate Photos" feature are counted. How about if you choose "Average" for the sort criteria? Is it still only anonymous ratings that are counted, or does it also take into account non-anonymous ratings? Are there any sort categories that take non-anonymous ratings into account?

 

I would also be grateful if someone would point me to an explantion of the rationale behind counting only the anonymous ratings. (I assume that it is because you cannot select which photos you want to rate if using the "Rate Photos" feature, so you cannot target specific photos with the intent of rating them up or rating them down.)

 

It would be nice if a comprehensive explantion of how the ratings system works were posted somewhere on the site.

I was going through and rating some photos, and then I noticed that my ratings

were not being counted if they were low. For example, I can rate a photo a 6,

and it will count my rating, but if I rate it a 2, then my vote will not be

counted.

 

I could understand this if I were going through and giving a bunch of low

ratings, but that's not what I'm doing. My average rating for both Aesthetics

and Originality is a little over 4.

 

If the software is not going to allow me to give a photo a low rating then I'm

not going to bother rating any photos. What's the point if we aren't allowed

to give photos the ratings we feel they honestly deserve?

Thanks again for your replies and especially to Jim for the suggestion on the Sigma 18-125mm. After looking at a lot of sample shots, I have decided that's the lens I will go with. Seems like a great lens for the price, and the light weight and size is just what I want. I plan to drop the camera in a knapsack and carry it around pretty much everywhere I go, unless I know for sure that I will be taking photos, and then I will take along my other lenses instead. Also, for the type of shooting I'll be doing with this lens it will probably be more important to have the extra range at the wide end (vs. the 28-200mm lenses) than at the telephoto end.

BTW, thanks for the suggestion on the Sigma 18-125mm. I will take a look.

Jim, thanks for your reply. You suggested (if I may paraphrase) that the optics of the 18-200mm lenses may be comparable to those of 28-300mm lenses for full-frame SLR's. I understand that with the multipler effect of APS-C size DSLR's, an 18-200mm lens equates to roughly the same zoom range as a 28-300mm lens for full-frame SLR's. However, I don't see any reason to think that this would mean that the optics would be similar unless the 18-200mm lenses are constructed similarly to the 28-300mm lenses, and I don't know that this is the case. (Does anyone know?) Can someone explain to me why it makes more sense to compare the optics of the 18-200mm lenses to the optics of 28-300mm lenses for full-frame SLR's rather than the optics of 28-200mm lenses?

 

If anyone can give a good reason to think that the image quality of the 18-200mm lenses will be similar to the existing 28-300mm lenses then that will make the decision easy for me. The quality of the photos I've seen that were taken with 28-300mm lenses is lower than what I'm willing to accept.

 

BTW, I've also seen the charts where the Canon EF 28-200mm lens ranks below the other 28-200mm lenses in optical tests, but my choice of the Canon EF 28-200mm lens over those from Sigma or Tamron is based on viewing actual photos...well, web photos anyway. There are a few websites (e.g., Photosig and Pbase) where you can search for photos taken with a particular lens. To my eye, photos with the Canon EF 28-200mm lens are generally better than those from other 28-200mm lenses. Granted, this is far from an ideal way to compare image quality between different lenses, but I trust it more than some lens score based on scientific optical tests.

 

And Kaa, I don't see any need to define "acceptable quality" since I am just talking about what is acceptable to me personally, for my own uses.

Any educated guesses on how the image quality of the new 18-200mm

lenses designed for DSLR's with APS-C size sensors will compare with

image quality of the existing 28-200mm lenses for full-frame DSLR's

and 35mm SLR's? I am thinking of buying Canon's EF 28-200mm lens

for everyday use because at this point I have only Canon "L" lenses,

and I find myself leaving the camera at home too often because the

lenses are so heavy. I have looked at a lot of photos on various

websites taken with the EF 28-200mm lens, and to my eyes, the

quality seems to be acceptable for everyday use.

 

However, I see that Sigma, Tamron, and Minolta have all announced

new soon-to-be-shipping 18-200mm lenses designed especially for

cameras with APS-C size sensors. I would like to have the extra

10mm at the wide end of the zoom range, but image quality is

important to me. Any reason to think that the image quality with

these lenses will be either better or worse than quality of the

existing 28-200mm lenses?

 

Also, will these lenses even be useable with the Canon 10D? If I am

not mistaken, Canon's EF-S lenses designed for APS-C size sensors

can be mounted on the 20D, but not the 10D. So will the Sigma and

Tamron lenses be compatible with the 10D or only with the 20D?

I found an adaptor at a camera store in Bangkok. I got the impression that this is indeed a standard item in camera shops as somebody mentioned, but after you've been here a while you don't take anything for granted. :-)

 

Thanks again for all the responses.

Thanks for the responses. I know of only one halfway decent camera store in Bangkok and will try them today to see if they've got a screw adaptor. But in case anyone knows where I can order one online, please post. I know the cost of the screw will be miniscule in comparison with the cost of having it shipped to me, but it's better than being stuck with a ball head I can't use.

I ordered the Bogen Digi 676B monopod and the Bogen 486RC2 compact

ball head to go along with it. Well now that I have hauled it all

the way back to Bangkok I discover that the head's 3/8" hole does

not fit the monopod's 1/4" screw.

 

Is there any kind of adapter for a ball head with a 3/8" hole to

make it fit onto a monopod with a 1/4" screw? (Or an adapter to

screw onto the 1/4" screw to convert it into a 3/8" screw?)

 

On B&H's website I see that the 3232 and 3229 swivel tilt heads,

which are designed for monopods, both include a reversible 1/4"

screw. This is probably exactly what I need - anyone know where I

can order such a thing?

This seems to be a widely used monopod head. I've never seen one,

but I understand that it only allows movement around one axis,

correct? It supposedly allows you to flip the camera over for

vertical shots.

 

But for greatest stability, I also understand that a monopod should

not be used in a completely upright position, but should be angled

slightly away from upright and braced against your body. But if the

monopod is angled away from upright then it seems like you need a

way to tilt the head back and forth to compensate for the angle of

the monopod, i.e., to keep the bottom plane of the camera parallel

with the plane of the ground. But if the only movement the 3232 and

3229 heads allow is to tilt the camera left and right into position

for verticals then there would be no way to do this.

 

Am I just confused or do these heads really only allow movement

around one axis?

Great, thank you.

I'm planning to buy this tripod and head combo and would like to buy

the 3280 35-inch tripod bag also. Anyone know if it will fit? B&H

Photo lists a folded length of 33.6", which I think is the length

including the head, but I'm not sure.

 

thanks

Well, for what it's worth, I tried a few parameter sets and ended up deciding that radius=2.0, amount=150%, threshold=0 was best (out of what I tried). This produced as sharp an image as I've ever seen printed, but not too sharp.

 

This is for 4x6 prints of Canon 10D images professionally printed at a Fuji store in Bangkok, and it worked well for a set of 150 photos of extremely varied subjects (including people and landscapes).

 

radius=1.0, amount=150% kind of looked like the 4x6 prints I've typically seen from 35mm film cameras. Ok, but not as sharp as it could be.

 

radius=2.0, amount=250% was too much and looked unnatural.

 

radius=3.0, amount=200% was also too much.

 

I still need to experiment with radius=1.0 and a higher amount of sharpening (maybe 250%) to see how it compares, and also radius=3.0 and a lower amount of sharpening (maybe 100%).

Thanks to all of you for giving me a few values to try as starting points.

 

Is it correct to say that, in general, for 4x6 prints you need to use a larger radius than if you were making large prints?

I forgot to mention that at this point I am primarily interested in making 4x6 prints, not larger ones.

 

(And yes I realize there is no specific "answer" and that the appropriate parameters depend on the particular image, the printer used, etc., but I am looking for a good general set of numbers to use as a starting point, if possible. Most of my pictures are highly detailed landscapes, BTW.)

I've only recently started printing some of my photos, and I'm not

sure what's the best radius to use for the unsharp mask. When I do

the sharpening for the on-screen version I almost always use a

radius of 0.5 and sharpen between 25% - 100% (this is for Canon 10D

photos).

 

But it seems like I read somewhere that when you sharpen for the

purpose of printing you're supposed to use a larger radius and

you're also supposed to oversharpen slightly (sharpen beyond what

looks good on the monitor).

 

What radius and percentages do you typically use when sharpening for

prints?

To everyone who said that the problem with the first picture is just that it is overexposed, you're right. I knew that the white sky was overexposed, but I did not look at the picture closely enough to realize that there are no black shadows among the trees. (I guess I would have seen this if I had looked at the histogram as suggested.) If I just adjust the levels and drag the input shadow slider and the brightness slider each a little to the right and boost the saturation by 20%, I get something that looks good to my eye. (Actually it looks very similar to the picture that Brian posted above.)

 

I don't really understand yet what caused the trees to be overexposed instead of just the sky, but I know that this camera has different metering modes, etc., so I will figure it out as I learn how it works.

 

Like I said, I've got a lot of learning to do with this camera (and with Photoshop). I am looking forward to it. :-)

I think what it all boils down to is that my expectations were wrong. I was expecting to see something more like the images that come straight out of my Canon Powershot point-and-shoot, but I now understand that by default the D10 does not process the images and boost the saturation and contrast, etc. the way that camera does.

 

The upshot of all this for me is that I have more to learn than I thought. I've been doing a lot of reading about exposure, metering modes, etc., but now I've gotta actually do it!

 

Richard: Thanks for your processing tips and especially for telling me how to turn the command switch on. :-)

 

Mirtos: Funny response. :-) Yes it looks like you recently asked pretty much the same thing. I was in such a hurry to figure out whether my camera was broken that I didn't have a chance to look at what had been asked before. Thanks, and I guess I'm masochistic, but I am looking forward to working more in Photoshop.

 

Macman: I've heard how important the lens is, but I thought it had more to do with sharpness than anything else. If I'd known it was relevant to the colors, I would have specified it. BTW, it's an EF 28-105mm f/4-5.6 USM that I borrowed from a friend. But I have a top quality Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM that should be arriving some time this week! I've seen photos taken with this lens, and I'm excited about it.

 

Greg and Denis: Thanks for the tip on the polarizer and paying attention to the histogram. The thread that Mirtos mentioned talks about those things too.

 

Alan: I haven't used a hardware calibration tool, but I think it's calibrated pretty well. I think the default color space for the 10D is sRGB, which is also what I'm using in PS (will probably change to Adobe RGB at some point).

 

Thanks again to everyone for your help.

Ok, that's what it was - I did not have the command dial switch set to ON. As you all can tell, I am a total newbie with this camera. At this point I guess I am ready to relax and start the learning process instead of worrying about the colors unless I hear something to the contrary.

 

Thanks for your help.

Well, if it takes a lot of image manipulation to get good colors out of a digital SLR, I have no problem with that. I'm used to a Canon point and shoot where the colors come out well straight out of the camera, but I can adjust.

 

BUT, please see my comment above about not being able to set the white balance in manual mode.

 

Also, like I said there's no way for you guys to know, but these really just don't look anything like the natutal colors, including the fixed photos by C.G. above.

 

Thanks for your responses. Let's have some from 10D owners about setting the white balance, please.

By the way, your fix of Photo 23 is nice, but unfortunately it doesn't look anything like the natural colors. Everything is way more green and much less yellow.