aaron d

<p>I am shopping for a pano head, too, and I really like the idea of the RRS slider thing and L bracket. The bogen and nodal ninja will do "multi-row" pans which I think I'd never need, and are bulky and expensive besides. Anybody know off hand where the optical node is for a Canon 17-40mm used at 17mm? I'm still waiting for a camera body to arrive so I can't measure for myself... RRS sliders come in two lengths, the long one might stick out into the photo, the short one may not center the node....</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>-A</p>

<p>Anybody know off-hand where the optical node is for the 17-40 when set at 17mm? I have the lens, but the camera is STILL back-ordered, else I'd measure for myself. I will need to be doing panoramas pretty soon and thought I'd try to order the parts from Really Right stuff, but they have two rail lengths. The short would stay out of the photo, but might be too short to position the camera correctly. Other lens I'd use is a 50mm, but I think it would be fine with either...<br>

Thanks in advance!<br>

-A</p>

<p>As to the original question: absolutely! Sell everything Canon and buy Nikon! No, wait - I meant Canon. No, Nikon I meant Nikon - I was right the first time. The finest photos ever were all taken by the finest cameras - the worst photos EVER were all taken by second best cameras. Buy Canon! No wait...</p>

<p>You do the math like this:</p>

<p>original resolution/target resolution, or X pixils divided by Y pixils/inch</p>

<p>A 5Dii makes an image like this: 5616 x 3744 pixils. </p>

<p>If you want 360dpi (or pixils/inch) you get a print like this: 15.6 x 10.4"</p>

<p>or 300: 18.7 x 12.5"</p>

<p>or 180: 31.2 x 20.8"</p>

<p>But don't get hung up on numbers - if it looks good it IS good.</p>

<p>I second that a 1.4x works on a 24 - I got the tip from none other than Norman McGrath at one of his workshops.....</p>

<p>-A</p>

<p>Sorry to bug everybody before studying properly! I'll read-up/do some tutorials with ACR (not ARC) before I throw it out, but I don't mind letting DPP (or DPD, dyk, fwiw, ymmv) do some of the heavy lifting before I jump in. I enjoy a challenge, but DPP might get me where I'm going quicker.<br>

<br />I'm anxious to see what the latest version will do with 5Dii files......<br>

<br />Thanks for the good input! And forgive me my chain-yanking...<br>

<br />-A</p>

<p>I've seen a couple posts that come close to answering this, but I want to flesh it out a little...<br /><br />I edited a old CR2 file (from a 5D) last night in Photoshop's ARC thinking I could do it better now than I did 3 years ago using DPP - I pulled up the old TIF to compare and it was much nicer than my new version - better colors, more subtle tones and gradations. My new one kinda SUCKED! So I went to the fridge for a beer.<br /><br />I started again using DPP like I did originally to see if I could reproduce my earlier results, it is by far the best of the three. I think the difference is that I shot using "faithful" but changed to "nuetral" in DPP -after ARC I was stuck with making that transition using 'curves'... plus, I know better what I'm doing now than back then. And then there's beer. But in general, do people find DPP "understands" their CR2 files better than ARC? Seems not unlikely, though I've heard people mostly use ARC...<br /><br />And then what about DxO? I've got a 5Dii on order so that won't matter anyway, until they catch up.....<br>

<br />Thanks in advance!<br /><br />-A</p>

<p>I had an FM and had some shutter-stick troubles in the cold, 20's maybe...  It had seen some use and had not been given a tune-up - untill that happened......</p>

Guys, thanks - and NICE photos! I'm jealous! Can you see any improvement in dynamic range? How does the "highlight priority" do?

OK, I ordered one but it hasn't arrived yet and the anticipation is killing me. I've seen some talk and some photos,

but what are peoples' impressions? I'm especially curious about "lighting optimization" - what the hell is that?

Highlight priority I get......

 

Thanks!

 

-A

Guys,

 

Thank you and mercie, but I'm OK with setting the points - the question is about setting the points separately in R and G and B -versus- setting the points in RGB. If I could, I would set them sepately in raw before converting, because once I'm using levels I worry I'm throwing away information...

I discovered a what I thought was a cool way to get close to correct color balance: in levels, I go individually to R, G

and B and set the white point/black point for each histogram. What you get is more vibrant than an "un-leveled"

image for sure but also closer to nuetral than if you just adjusted the RGB histogram alone, since each channel

starts and stops in a different place. The red "hill" is always farther right, blue is always farter left - not unlike politics.

 

Some of my images are looking vaguely "harsh" and I'm beginning to suspect it's my genius tecnique causing

images to fall apart a little. If I could do this same sort of thing in the raw converter, I think I could avoid the

excessive trashing of information...

 

Anyone tried such a thing? Or know what the hell I'm talking about?

 

BTW: I'm using CR2 files converted to DNG using ACR in CS3, DYK (dontyaknow)

I gotta play devil's advocate for just a moment... Don't get me wrong, I still have and use a Hassleblad and a 6x9 view camera, but the old masters didn't use MF cameras or Liecas because they loved the classic look and image qualities - these were cutting edge cameras back in the day. I don't doubt the camera club members sat around and cranked about those whipper-snappers. "I'll buy one of those dinky gimick toys when they can get the resolution and smoothness I get with my CROWN GRAPHIC!"

 

I'm just as guilty as anyone - it's hard not to be distracted by equipment when I should be spending my energies on making IMAGES...

Roman,

 

Sorry, I didn't see your second post - I would definately go for the 17-35 with FX - and FX is definately the way to go with architectural. A 14 would be wonderful to have but is much less essential than the 17-to-20 or 24 range. Especially since architectural will be only one of several subjects. In all those other things, you'll want filters out front and not an expensive glass basketball....

Roman,

 

On a D300 with its 1.5 multiplier, even the widest PC lens works out to being a 36 equivilant - and that's just too

narrow for interiors. The 14-24, and 17-35 are both killer lenses on an FX, but even they are 21 equivilant at the

widest which is JUST usable. And you're carring a damn lot of expensive glass around only just to cookie-cutter the

inside of your widest picture out of. I would shop for a DX specific wide angle, though I'm not very familiar with what's

available. There is the 10-to-something that would be great...

 

If you're doing residential interiors, the width is far more important than straightening your verticals, which won't be

much of an issue anyway since you're not having to to lean back and look up at your subject. Realators like their

properties looking spacious, and they're shopping to homeowners, not the architectural press.

 

Also as a side note, as gorgeous optically as the 14-24 is, I use a polarizing filter a LOTeven at the wide end, and

even in interiors. I think I'd regret not being able to use them, except at 14 where you're distracted by more dramatic

things to look at anyway...

 

Good luck!

Ilkka, that seems to jibe with (and explain) what Shun heard - that the one "diagonal" shift means turning the camera

over. So is it the case that the smaller of the two knobs clears the camera body, but the larger one doesn't?

 

Also, what do you think of the lens otherwise? I'm familiar with Canon's 24 TS - can you compare it to that, sharpness

or picture quality-wise?

 

Thanks both of you for your help!

 

-A

Anybody have experience using the Nikon 24mm PC-E on a D700 body? Ken Rockwell warns that the lens’ knobs

whack the camera body when you turn it for a vertical shot at full shift, and a photo he posts looks to confirm it. But

Nikon says, “Note: These lenses can be used with the D3, D700 and D300 without any limitation…” Read here:

 

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/index.htm

 

The D3 is much faster than I need for photographing very, very slow buildings – but I’d hate to find that my $3000

camera will only do landscape oriented photos…

 

Thanks!

 

-A

This is a REALLY good sign of Nikon's thinking and I hope somebody there is reading my say-so! Canon tends to go full speed blasting into the ultimate extremes of expense and bulk when they make a new lens - their 50mm "L" lens is just waaay too big and heavy and EXPENSIVE for the difference between its 1.2 and Nikon's 1.4! Big deal! Especially when such high, clean ISOs are available now. Nikon is right-on if the ultimate goal is USEFUL!

 

Now I'd like to see a 28mm f2.0! Doesn't have to be a $3000 f1.4 boat anchor.....

Thanks you guys very much for the good advice! And gorgeous photos, by the way.........

 

-A

Hi,

 

I'm hoping to hear some advice from photographers actually making their income with architectural photography for architects and

publications...

 

My question is: When I am hired by the architect to photograph a project and the owner wants photos as well, in what proportion should I

split the creative fee (or I say "photography" fee) and usage fees? Meaning, if my fee is in three parts - expenses, photography and usage

- I will split the first two equally between clients and estimate separate usage costs. I typically give unlimited time usage and only specify

that no advertising or editorial rights are included and no third parties. The expenses part is a split 50/50, the photography is split 50/50

and each have 100% of their separate usage fees. What I'm looking for is: if the total project cost for a single client is $100 (for example)

is $50 reasonable for photography, $50 for usage? And then if there are TWO clients, does it make sense to charge each $25 photography

fee + $50 usage? All things being equal otherwise...

 

Sorry to post such a long question.........

 

Thanks in advance!

 

-A

Whata moke who broke a bokeh!

 

Justa poke, you know.

 

A jokeh.

Why on earth do you want a TS lens anyway? That's a lens for a very specific architectural

application and is really, truly overkill for anybody not doing brochure photos for the

architect or for publications. If you like buildings, just use a wide angle lens! Save your

thousand bucks and take a trip to Italy! Besides which, 24mm is only a wide angle on a

full frame camera - it becomes a 31 or 38 or whatever the factor is on a 30D and is just

not very useful. They're slow to use and there is no point using one without a big heavy

tripod at f8 or 11 like Robin says. And they aren't auto focus because BUILDINGS DON'T

MOVE! Canon's is a fantastic lens - if you gotta have it, don't hesitate. But you really have

to be honest with yourself and decide WHY you want it. If you're an ophthalmologist with

a tiny sense of self esteem, then of course.... Sorry to rant. This is just one of those "how

much money should I spend so I can ride as fast as Lance Armstrong" topics and gets me

all riled up...

Full frame OR tilt-shift lenses that are wide angle at whatever sensor size is what I need. I'd like a FF Nikon, but they don't have but one antique 28mm TS lens, and honestly, their camera controls suck compared to Canon. Hate to say it.

You will rarely use the 50mm for architecture unless you're shooting detaily parts. Or a soccer stadium, strangely enough...

 

Add another vote for the 24 TS. It's important to have one to understand the whole converging lines concept, unless you've already used a view camera. You'll use it about 70% of the time, and a 20mm the rest of the time. I wish I had a 14mm too, but don't and can't offer any help there - it costs a friggin fortune anyway..... You can also use the 1.4x converter to make the 24mm about like a 35mm TS - and it stays really sharp. That might be used 5% of the time(for a total of 105%). The 24 is a clunky pain for regular photos, but you can sell it easily enough I bet, if you want to unload it afterwards.

Right now Canon is the only digital system available for architectural photographers who can't afford a $30,000 back and a brand new collection of shorter-than-what-I-already-own-and-don't-want-to-throw-away lenses.

 

And Photoshoping a building into straight is just cheesy. Sure it's fine for the doctors out there on vacation in Venice, but no self respecting professional is going to sell DX photos to a client, digitally straightened.

 

AND, Nikon hasn't introduced a new PC wide angle for DECADES! I loved the Nikon stuff I USED to own. I hate the swollen, ugly, wide-angle-limited stuff Canon sells, but they take fantastic photos. Sure that's the ultimate goal, but is really so unreasonable to want to LIKE the equipment I'm using? Or to have a choice of even just two manufacturers?

 

Full frame is NOT just some stupid wish.

 

OK, I'm done now.

 

-A