petemillis

<p>First post here for a while - having been really over busy, working and building an home extension, and so on....</p>

<p>But had to post when I stumbled across what inspired me to get into tilt lenses. It was a video for Bodycount's "There goes the neighborhood". This is the "no bad language" version.... <br />

<p>Even if the song isn't your cup of tea....you've got to admit the filming is brilliant.</p>

<p>Interested in your thoughts....and also, are there any music vids etc that inspired you in some way in your photography?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is the attitude of "anybody can do this", that lessens the value of the trade. By that I mean if "anybody can take out a brain tumor", then neurosurgeons would be paid less.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Everybody is capable of removing a brain tumour - just need some basic tools and some instructions downloaded from the internet. Problem is, I think one needs some sort of medical qualification and a lot of experience to reach the position of "brain surgeon" :)</p>

<p>I like ugly looking lenses, and seem to be collecting a few - oh, the perils of buying EOS to M42 and EOS to Pentacon 6 adapters!</p>

Women do have an advantage really - because they don't understand the complicated nature of cameras the technical side just doesn't matter so they just go out a press the button and take pictures. Some of them are really quite good. Blokes do like technical stuff more, which has a distinct disadvantage because it results in them sitting indoors all day twiddling with their knobs.

I wonder....is it that women actually get on and do it, while all the blokes are sitting in front of keyboards talking abotu doing it?

Legoland Windsor shows 3D (well 4D including the real effects around the audience) films. These are really pretty good. The glasses are clear. I'm guessing they use the polarised projection technology.

Would Canon, Nikon, Pentax etc charge 3340 euro to fix similar damage?

Stephen, I don't have a "default" value for sharpening. I only sharpen as much as I need to in order to get it right for the final print size or the final displayed picture size. Sometimes it's just a little bit, and sometimes it's a little bit more.

99.9% of the time, levels and curves and cropping and enlarging and final sharpening is all I ever do, and I do this always in Canon DPP.

Yakim, all this pointing your camera at such a bright sun, and looking through the viewfinder...you're probably burning up the sensor and your retina. Could lead to all sorts of difficulties!

Shawn, Mendel....what is so slow and difficult and cumbersome about Canon DPP? It's so simple to use. I'm surprised you can even use a computer at all if you find DPP so hard! Seriously though, it's well worth getting to know it properly and the learning curve really ain't that steep.

Kelly, all good points!

 

Frank, the printer doesn't have to set to print at 5ppi (or dpi) to print an image file with a resolution of 5ppi. You can put a 5ppi print through a printer with a print resolution set to 300dpi, and you'll get ink dots that a 60dots square.And for billboards and any other image that is not viewed up close, fine resolution is pointless (unless course you intend to photograph it with a nice lens from a distance and then start pixel peeping)

I don't understand how anyone could do the test before reading all the responses!

and here...I just saved your ProPhoto RGB picture, opened it in Canon DPP and resaved it as sRGB....and voila!<div></div>

True, GIMP can't handle 16bit TIFF and so converts to 8bit TIFF. But I understand that most people can't see any difference in quality between an 8bit image and a 16bit image (unless they look at exif data and see the words 16bit or 8bit)..

You need to remember, a camera and its software are dumb - the camera has no way of knowing how your eyes and

brain see things. You can't rely on the algorithms in the camera's software to give the results you expect all the time.

Yakim, re your grasshopper shots....Chris mentioned that AWB measurment is on the circle around the centre AF point. In your picture where the grasshopper is small in the frame, there is nothing white or grey around where the centre AF point would be - all the colour around the centre AF point is warmer than white/grey, and so AWB will try and pull it down to neutral giving a colder image. If you use the tool in DPP to select an area of white/grey (I would choose the area between the grasshopper's front feet) then the WB comes up with a much warmer picture (see attached). However, with the picture where the grasshopper is bigger in the frame, the AWB region includes a large area of off-white/grey on the grasshopper's right hand cheek (left cheek in frame) giving a much warmer picture as the computer in the camera sees this already as neutral.<div></div>

Oscar, they're both great for what you want to do, - you need to go to a shop and handle them both to see which you prefer.

Canon DPP is excellent - you need to learn what you can do with curves, levels, repair etc etc as it's all there and easy to do. Then if you want to do more, like in depth image manipulation then look at GIMP2 which is top notch and free. You can take your RAW images into Canon DPP, convert them into TIFF format then do whatever you want and more in GIMP2 - all without having spent anything. Take your $100 and buy a Wacom Bamboo pen tablet to make it even more fun.

I don't understand how anyone could get the car wrong after Paolo let us know that he was surprised it was fake.

One thing I did notice when looking through the hut picture is that there are really obvious stitches - shown up clearly by the movement of the sea. Just move horizontally across the shoreline when zoomed in a bit and you'll see sudden jumps where the waves have moved.

I got the car straight away!

Scott, I've just been looking at the pictures you have linked to - feckin' excellent I say. It's amazing how easy it is to navigate and zoom in on the pictures and see so much detail. I like it.

I wonder....could Mirror Folder, or you new external hard drive, have cause your total system failure?

The original "non-ozone" is best - it's got "real" depth and drama.