michael_young3

October 26, 2015

Basically, he says the Library view

is limited by JPEG's 8-bit color

space, and will display differently

than the Develop module's native

16-bit color space. No mention was

made of why you might perceive one

to be markedly warmer than the

other.

December 31, 2014

I'd be more specific if I could. I doubt it's something so simple as blocking the fuselage.

I like the front quartering shot on the 737. It stands on its own: great crop and classic composition; fortuitous background; golden twilight; and good angle for the wide focal length. There's lots to gush about. The 707 is not so bad. The front quarter view flatters the nose. (It's the far wing tip, on the right edge of the photo, that bothers me. It still looks chopped. The other, near, wing tip isn't really in the view center.)

Trust the gut. You chose these shots to illustrate your question, I'm presuming because you felt similar. Too plain, a bit static, as you say, maybe sums it up. That's maybe not far from my Why this angle, that moment in time? The lighting is good and the tones are pleasing. What else do you find to like?

December 30, 2014

Steven, I don't think that's quite it. It might be just the near co-altitude, three and nine o'clock views.

December 29, 2014

The relevant questions to ask, as for any photo, but possibly more so in these examples: Why that angle? Why that moment in time?

I found myself looking for evidence that the missing wing or other parts aren't really missing, but just not in view. We're all pretty good observers of airplanes these days. We can fill in the missing pieces, but the image shouldn't provoke us to do so unless that was the intent. Is that 707 wing tip missing a few feet, or is that just an illusion of some kind? The Emirates A380 is oddly proportioned on its own, without that seemingly too small wing poking you in the eye.

I can see why you posted these. They're all nicely executed photos, but they seem to be more unsettling than pleasing.

December 2, 2014

Monolights are relatively inexpensive if size and weight are not particularly limiting criteria. For example: http://www.adorama.com/l/Lighting-and-Studio/Monolights-and-Strobe-Lighting/Monolights.

July 21, 2014

Every now and again, long and far between episodes, I miss the ground glass on my 4x5, dark and pebbly grained though I know it to be. I miss it most when working hard and still just missing the precise focus I want with a TS-E. In theory, working tethered should be lighter, simpler, and better, but I never got around to clamping a suitable mount on a sturdy enough tripod. It isn't there when I need it.

The rest of it I don't miss at all, good riddance to the tools of bondage. I had to think a few moments to come up with even that little bit of nostalgic rememberance above. My other woes are not so much digital versus film, but simply those of the small format versus large film acreage. I have in mind the depth of field, and the laundry list of things we give up for the convenience of a small package. Overall, the votes were in long ago, and small format digital wins by a ton of miles.

June 17, 2013

I do realize that the unadulterated reality makes for a less spectacular image... You might have to shoot a day earlier to catch the moon while the sun is still setting. In general, the moon rises somewhat more than 45 minutes later each succeeding day. A quick peek at the azimuth and altitude chart for those days http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/AltAz.php puts the sun setting almost directly upriver as the moon rises into position at 8:00 ET on 6/22. But... why bother when you can just 'Shop it.

June 17, 2013

PF, your friend is a natural talent. She nailed you dead center in the frame, and the antennae growing ceiling-ward from your pate are all but unnoticeable. Who's counting the megapixels? The table clutter tells of an enjoyable evening shared by friends, and unselfconsciously captured with a pocketable device. This shot is unlikely to ever be printed, destined instead for viewing only on tablets with un-calibrated colorspaces and displays. It is, in short, a whole different genre of photography, the counterpart to the wedding photographer's stiffly formal, carefully lit, casual portrait.

June 10, 2013

Leslie, I actually thought you might have something to add, some insight help us understand why we might care. I perfectly well understand if you don't have an answer. A casual observer would think, probably correctly judging from your later responses, that mirror-less was never intended to do the job of a DSLR. Let's be very clear, though, about which of us is doing the trolling and time-wasting.

June 10, 2013

You're absolutely right, Leslie. None of us are up to date on the latest in mirror-less systems. The real question for this group is: "Why might we care?"

Do the mirrorless systems:

<ul>

<li>support TS-E? I have $2500 invested in tilt-shift lenses.</li>

<li>have remote flash setup menus on camera? I have $1500 invested in Canon ETTL flashes.</li>

<li>make good use of my L- series lenses? I'll spare us both a full accounting...</li>

<li>have good basic exposure control on my thumb and finger wheels?</li>

<li>have easy control and selection for ISO, focus, exposure compensation, shot count/rate,... without taking the camera from the eye?</li>

<li>really, really compare favorably on exposure lag?</li>

<li>have a bright enough view screen to use in daylight?</li>

</ul>

How compelling is a mirror-less system, next to my usefully full DSLR gear bag?

Posted May 6, 2013 · May 6, 2013

Equivalent DoF is f/2.9. I would have to see the bokeh to get excited.

April 17, 2013

I also wanted to share a nod for the 15-85. I don't have it, have never shot it, but I do have both the 17-55 and 24-105, and find neither suitable as the one the only single lens solution.

April 15, 2013

I have nothing on topic to add. Only just wanted to

thank you for brightening my day briefly with that

Freudian slip in the title. Some things just might never

change.

April 14, 2013

... is a "get it right when you shoot it" kind of guy not a Photo Shop fixer.

</blockquote>

Stephen, who here thinking, asking, reading, and writing voluminously about the incremental contributions of minutiae to image quality is of that latter and presumably vile category?

April 4, 2013

Bob, that snipe at math retards was hardly meaningful. The simple fact is that the larger formats predate 35mm (miniature format).

I find it useful to think in FOV equivalents. Actual mileage obviously varies.

Posted March 26, 2013 · March 26, 2013

Did it NOT work after converting the ProPhoto space image to sRGB?

March 4, 2013

Good consumer grade, 3-TB SATA III drives are under $150 each. It wouldn't be difficult to scheme up a way to shuffle the contents of 3 current drives onto a single new drive.

Striping alone for faster access might not be such a great idea. A single drive failure loses up to 6 TB at a time, more than your entire current library. RAID 1 mirroring gives some safety by storing two copies of everything.

RAID 10, mirror and block level striping, is a reasonable plan. 4x 3-TB drives makes a total of 6 TB striped+mirrored storage. 5 total drive bays is just enough to clone your system drive, and then copy one drive at a time to its new home.

(And then you get to do it all over again in a few years. How long does it take to generate 1 TB of keepers? Longer than it takes drive manufacturers to meaningfully increase cheap drive space?)

March 2, 2013

Following up on Mendel's comment, f/ number is subject to the same crop factor as focal length. Same size actual opening, same DoF, regardless of focal length. This is both good and bad. Some subjects call for creamy bokeh and shallow DoF. Longer focal length and larger aperture makes for shallower DoF. A 50mm f/1.4 is very similar to 85mm at f/2. But you won't get the butter softness possible with 85mm at f/1.2. On the other hand, f/4 full frame has similar DoF as f/2.8 on APS-C (close, but not exact). Shutter speed can be one stop faster. 200mm f/2.8 is on APS-C is similar in reach and DoF as full frame 300mm f/4. That's a benefit for action and long medium range sports shorts. To shoot the same shutter speed in full frame, the lens alone costs $4000 more and adds 5 lbs of glass. (Consider, though, the full frame picture quality at slightly higher ISO would give similar quality as the APS-C). So,... it depends, you see, on budget and appetite. You won't notice much in most of your shooting, but there will be times when a little longer, or wider, or shallower is what you really want. But mostly, it doesn't matter.... it costs big money to cover those rarely visited corner cases and we've all learned to do without.

February 25, 2013

Hi Jeff. Yes, that is true, and something I had not thought of in many years. To be more correct, viewed through the camera, the lines representing the DoF limits appear *equidistant* from the projected intersection of the plane of focus with an imaginary plane parallel to the image plane at the distance of interest. *Bisect* is not correct and is misleading. For me personally, distances are far easier to visualize and estimate than angles, as is judging visually "the same 'above' and 'below'".

February 24, 2013

Hence, the discussion of focus wedge, and how to visualize it. Once visualized, it explains immediately both why your shot succeeded and his failed. Further to that, tilt wasn't *useless* in his test shot, but had rather limited benefit, less than his earlier expectation. There is no other way to focus on both the near object and selected objects in his background. Understanding the DoF as a wedge bisected by the focus plane explains both why it failed, and what might succeed. Rotating the tilt axis vertical might also become apparent as a possible solution.

February 23, 2013

I wouldn't want you gentlemen putting your backs out straining to explain LiveView. I wrote earlier strictly in context of learning to focus the TS-E. Those shots are clearly of a corner in his studio, lit with a studio strobe. Tethered isn't out of the question in that environment. It would be hard to beat snapping a quick series of test shots and reviewing them closely immediately.

February 22, 2013

That certainly leaves little to add. I'll say only that LiveView isn't at all necessary, since "film" -- exposures, actually -- cost nothing at all. If you're shooting tethered, go ahead and snap it and really sniff those pixels, rather than try to squint at them stopped down on the tiny display.

And while I don't mean to wax nostalgic, 4x5 was what we had as recently as 10 years ago when I bought my first tilt lens, for that new-fangled digital thing. Film, and each exposure, cost dearly. Now, you have video to go along with instant gratification down to the last pixel.

There's no substitute for seeing the results of your twiddling, and relating them to your adjustments. Find an area with plenty of texture throughout the frame, so the areas of focus become evident. An inside corner with papered walls and parquet flooring, for example, or the inside of a brick ell around cobbled paving. The wedge of focus becomes plainly evident against these backdrops. Set up each shot as well as you can, and then shoot one extra with the lens wide open, to record where you put the wedge.

If your camera can do it (are there any that can't?), try shooting video as you tilt through the full range, and cycle the focus ring a few times. All with the aperture wide open, to better see what is happening. Narrate your actions and expectations as you do so. You'll get there in no time. But, ... read Merlkinger's first, so your experimentation has a "focus", some expected result to compare against. Pun not intended.

February 21, 2013

As Steve points out above, Merklinger's "Focusing the View Camera" is the best and final word. It's a free download (a voluntary donation is possible). There's no point in us trying to summarize what it takes him numerous pages of carefully thought out text, illustrations, and simple formulas to describe. I set rough focus "by the numbers" in seconds, and often get the image I want with minimal fiddling.

For your example image, camera height looks about 3ft. The foreground object 1 ft above the floor; the hinge point is thus about 2.5 ft below the camera. The wall looks about 10 ft away. "By the numbers" (below), rough tilt is maybe a hair less than 2 deg. f/16 should get a fair amount of the background detail. Near focus point is the foreground object; far focus point maybe 3 feet up the wall from the floor.

The above table is mine; Merklinger's will have the details on what the numbers mean.

February 19, 2013

Lifting just the shadows makes this more a question of dynamic range and metering. Meter for midtones in the shadows if that is your subject and adjust ISO to suit. The brighter areas will then tend to blow out, but that's a dynamic range issue not solvable with ISO. (Dynamic range at low ISO tends to be slightly* broader, but generally not enough to be noticed, let alone make a difference in the usual context of pools of artificial light and deep shadow in high ISO scenes.)

June 1, 2012

That's it guys, completely ignore a practical, real life example test and concentrate on the theory. Way to go!

</blockquote>

LOL. I appreciated the info, and your summation. That seems to have put the original question to rest very nicely. The remainder was just everyone else piling in to help explain what memory is, isn't, or doesn't. :)

I thought at first I would do some more of the same, but realize now that this isn't the time, place, or audience. It suffices to say here that there are several concepts all bunched up and tangled together when we start talking about "memory" space. In the end, the suggestion made of keeping the background processes to a minimum about sums up the important points.

I would only add, Joe, that external USB2 drives are quite a bit slower than internal SATA3 drives; a theoretical maximum 6 Gbps transfer rate versus 480 Mbps for high speed USB2. I expect the difference to be much smaller if you first copied the file to an internal drive. You might also experiment with plugging the drive into a different port. My PC, for example, has a small hub feeding the front panel, but the high speed ports are on the back panel. It also makes a difference what else is attached and active on that particular hub. External audio or a webcam on that hub will compete for bandwidth. That 480 Mbps seemed huge when USB2 first came out. The latest standard is 5 Gbps, which is pretty close to the limit possible for copper with current technology.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by michael_young3