graybrick
-
Posts
501 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by graybrick
-
-
about 80GB between jpgs 4-30MB each and scans averaging 8-16MB each. Don't know how many.
-
I backed up my hard drive to an external drive, and wanted a fresh start as I've
been having some hardware issues. I reinstalled my OS software, and in the
process deleted the partitions on my main internal drive. Then, by sheer stupidity,
I deleted the patition from my backup external drive. I should have unplugged it
from the computer to avoid this very thing, and I didn't recognize it as the external
drive when I hit the button... anyway, backup files=gone. Poof.
I'm running scans on the backup drive with some data recovery software which
claims to be able to reconstruct a deleted partition. I don't really have any
experience with data recovery, and I know it can be a trick to get uncorrupted data
back from the dead. Thus, I'm seeking the advice of anyone experienced with this
sort of situation for recommendations for software/procedures to help restore my
image data to its former, uhh, mediocrity.
I hope this is not the wrong place to ask. I know the 'do I need a PC or Mac
question gets a lot of air here, and the threads persist, and as I use my machine
primarily for shuffling/editing/storing/sending/printing photos, I guessed that this
would be a good place to ask. Thanks for your assistance.
-GM
-
Cross-posting... tsk tsk. Congrats.
-
<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5413273-md.jpg"></center>
-
Thanks everyone for your input. I started using digital about two years ago. Everything before that I did on film. I'm not put off by scanning negatives, and I use film almost as much as digital today. I generally carry a film body and a digital body, with an extra film body (Canon a1x2) and a Mamiya C330 in my bag. My only concern is should I have a problem with my digital body, I have no spare to replace it. I could shoot film only in a pinch, though for events I find that digital is less cumbersome in the end. There are certain shots (formals and some candids) that I prefer the 'feel' of film for, and so would carry the Mamiya and a 35mm even if I had a digital backup . I suppose I should have titled this 'mixed format with no digital backup'... If this becomes a regular enterprise for me (don't know if I'll enjoy the stress/time issues at this point) I'll look into buying a 5D and rounding out my digital kit a bit more...
-
I am thinking of shooting a wedding or two soon, but my digital gear is limited to
one body and set of lenses. I do have a Canon FD system including two bodies
and a fairly comprehensive lens set including superwide and fisheye lenses. I'm
wondering if anyone shoots in similar situations, and what the horrors of using a
different format as a backup system might be? I'd like to use medium format for
select portraits as well, and my second shooter will likely be shooting film. Any
comments/ suggestions welcome, and I'll thank you in advance for telling me not
to bother.
-
If you're used to point and shoot the size of the XSi won't be a big problem for you. On the other hand, the size of the 40D probably won't either after using it for a week. Both are serious cameras, and the features you want vs price you're willing to pay should drive your decision. You won't be disappointed by either. Try the search box:
-
Canon is clearly superior in the manufacturing and development fields. As for the actual equipment, both Canon and Nikon have similar features, and which ones are important to you will help determine which suits you. Both are fairly comprehensive systems, will deliver excellent image quality, and will allow you to use the current lenses (save for the crop-format dedicated ones) for the foreseeable future.
-
It's a sharp lens, even wide open. The Tamron is an excellent lens as well, and performs very nicely wide open, and has a very useful zoom range. The minimum focus distance of the 50mm is a little longer than I'd like, but it's great in low light and gives you a little more room to play than the Tamron. I'd recommend it if you don't have the f/1.4 version and have $70 to spend simply because it is useful for low light situations that are just out of reach of the Tamron. That said, if you don't shoot much at this focal length or you find the Tamron suits your needs well, don't bother as you are unlikely to unmount the zoom in favor of the prime lens often if at all.
-
-
Read about hyperfocal distances and aperture relationships. The DOF is dependant on a set of factors, including subject distance, aperture, and focal length. A handy scale estimating DOF at different apertures used to be pretty standard on the lens barrel, but the new generation of lenses is doing away with that for the most part. I think here you need more light to stop down a bit more and perhaps a little more camera to subject distance to correct the out-of-focus issue you're on about. Study the relationships again, and you'll gain more understanding of the issues at work here.
-
-
I have to admit that I didn't read the last half of this post. It's far too long. As to 'is this a photograph'- well, that is opinion. A better question is 'is this art' or 'does this have artistic merit'? This is also opinion, but will have a more concrete bearing on the assessment of the usability of the final image and your pursuit of creating it. The debate over naming the process relative to other image-making processes is academic if the final image is the goal here.
-
-
For sharpness/contrast, I'd also recommend the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. I owned this lens for about a year and a half until it was stolen (along with a small fortune in other gear). I found it to be a fairly versatile lens overall, useful in subdued light conditions, and plenty sharp even at wide apertures- definitely a big step up from the kit lens. The kit lens, however, does have some nice qualities- close focus, 18mm wide end, decent (not great) optical quality, and you already own it. The 28-75 overlaps the 18-55 range significantly, and I always chose the 28-75 for shots that either lens could potentially do. It's sharp and f/2.8.
The 55-300 is a huge zoom range. I don't know anything about the quality, but I'm guessing it's a pretty slow lens and probably not going to give you much oomph if it's in the $300 range. I'd definitely go the 85 f/1.8 route over that unless you're willing to live with softness, CA, and sloth in exchange for the extra reach and versatility (judging by your question you're not). Buying lenses is always a tradeoff of what you want, what you're willing to pay, and what form of convenience you expect from your lens. You can't have it all, and in the $300 price range I find that you have to make some pretty significant sacrifices. The optical quality and speed of the primes generally makes them winners in my opinion, but I don't mind frequent lens changes (been doing it since my film days...).
I also agree that many of your shots are fine and your kit lens doesn't look that bad. I think some practice on focus and light/scene selection will help a bit (what Ken said). Midday is a tough time to shoot for the most part.
-
green, blue, purple, pimk... my developer turns yellowish when it ages, and depending on film turns color or not during the development process due to dyes in the film, or in paper attached to 120/220 format, if you don't remove it all. it shouldn't affect your final product.
-
Nope! Not in the least. And no CA so far as I can see. Bought 'used once' from
ebay seller, and I have to say I couldn't be happier. As an added plus, I won't
need to go to the gym anymore, as I can just do curls with this hefty mother...<div>
</div> -
Looks like the standard rate from Canon is $93, subject to the possibility of additional charges to be approved by you if necessary, and they may choose to replace instead of repair if unrepairable. You may end up with a Frankenlens built by Canon of spare and/or salvaged parts. But it's probably worth $93 in any case. I wish things didn't break when they get smashed on the floor...
-
You can try to get an estimate and/or feasability prognosis from Canon, and I think they'll look at it for free if you send it to them (i think, and you do pay s/h charges). Wolf outsources all thier repairs, so it's better to go directly to the source. Also, try searching for camera/lens repairs on the net- I've had pretty good luck having older Canon bodies rebuilt for reasonable rates.
-
Is that $120 from Canon for dx? My first thought was get a 50 f/1.8 as a spare, but I know it's not the same quality build as the 1.4. You'll have to decide what the lens is worth to you. Other options include, of course, looking for a gently used one, or switching all your gear to Nikon :P (simmer down, I'm only kidding). Sorry about your loss.
-
Your camera is fine. Your lens is the kit lens, with the requisite chromic aberration, minor softness, and slight distortion that you can expect from any $100 lens (except maybe the 50 f/1.8, which even has its drawbacks, too, but for $100...)- that said, your lens is fine. I've taken plenty of pleasing shots with mine. Midday in direct sun is a rough time to get great shots.
You'll need to sharpen a bit for most digital images, even with a really great lens/body combo. A little tweaking of levels/curves/saturation, etc on top of that can help even more. Some serious photoshop work can add depth to even some mediocre shots. Oh, yeah, and a polarizing filter is nice to have on sunny days.
It's ok. You're ok, I'm ok. Your camera is OK. Shoot a lot, and pay attention while you're doing it. Read a lot, and figure out what works, and more importantly, what doesn't and why. Then fix that why, and shoot some more. Good luck.
-
Is a radiograph a photograph? Is a CT image (composite reconstruction of electronically collected radiographic data)a photograph? Is a digital image a photograph? These are silly and superfluous rhetorical questions that could be argued either way, and I think only your degree of self-importance will determine your willingness to argue the nuances of the point. I recommend taking some time away from your algorithms to go outside, relax, and maybe smell a flower or two. I think the radiation is getting to you.
-
@James: I ordered this glass because my current glass isn't big enough :P
@Savas: I think I got the response I was looking for. Thanks for the critique of my title, though.
-
That's the guy! Thanks!
PJs crowded around injured man; still want to be a photojournalist?
in Street & Documentary
Posted