zafar1

July 21, 2016

When you are creating environment portrait, your choices are dictated by the environment. In this particular scene, even if you light the subject with flash, there is no way to light those dark buildings. So if you want to get a dramatic view of bridge in the background,

1. Forget about including buildings in the frame (along with bridge properly exposed).

2. Use flash light for lighting the model, however most likely you need to use high-speed sync so that you can slightly underexpose background for dramatic results. Using HSS means that your flash power is limited, so most likely a flash on camera will not properly illuminate the subject. So you need to put flash on a stand, move it closer to the model at about 45 degrees right or left) and use some sort of wireless sync to trigger. Properly done, you can get an image like this (or better)

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uiXkgJ8xW2s/maxresdefault.jpg

3. Place the subject against a dark background (building walls) and use back light to highlight the subject outline (e.g. hair). This will most likely overexpose bridge, but you will still get bridge lines which you can use for better composition. The trick is to choose a dark background, and let highlights go to town. You will just need fill flash in this case, which can come from external flash mounted on camera.

There are many ways to skin the cat, you don't have to have bridge properly exposed to have it adding to the picture. A good picture is not about proper exposure, it is how different elements work together.

That said, I will confess that while I can think about all of this sitting on my couch, I can't remember all of this when taking pictures (I am not a professional). That is why I shoot in raw (using cameras with better DR) and do some of the highlight pull-down and shadow push-ups in post.

March 6, 2015

My head is spinning! I moved from Canon to Nikon a couple of years ago and never liked Nikon mount. For one thing my lenses wobble when standing on mount as I am changing them, happens everyday.

Canon made the right decision of killing the old mount. With Nikon it is long term agony and for someone like me who does not have 20 years of history with Nikon, a diploma is needed to understand what works with what.

May 25, 2014

Thanks for the sound input on this question. So, here's a logical follow up to it: is there a full-frame fast wide zoom for the D610 (or even the D800e) that compares by price, quality and range to Sigma's 18-35 f1.8 zoom for APS-C? Any brand?

</blockquote>

Why are you interested in 18-35 f/1.8? Usually people want wide aperture lens for low light or for Bokeh. In both cases a 24-70 f/2.8 on FF will be equivalent of 18-35 f/1.8 on APS-C (and will have more zoom range).

Tamron 24-70 VC is supposed to be good and and closer in cost to Sigma 18-35.

March 19, 2013

Thanks Michael.

March 19, 2013

Michael

Thanks for uploading images. I checked them out. For my taste, the right and left edges (vertical center) are softer as are corners. Would it be possible for you to upload 18mm@f/8 ?

Thanks

March 18, 2013

I needed the software to create profiles for my printer. I bought Color munki and created profiles from it. The profiles were a bust. I print a lot of nature elements, including flowers and munki could not resolve the tones needed.

I then bought Spyder3. I bought the non-SR version but it had some problem so Datacolor sent me the SR version. It created much better profiles then the ColorMunki. The Spyder3 suit also includes Spyder3 Elite. I use it for display profiling. Initially I did not see much difference but then I upgraded my video card, and it made a big difference. Now the colors on my display are pretty accurate (my monitor display a color shift from left to right, but there is nothing Spyder can do about it).

I will recommend Spyder4 only if you are interested in profiling iPad and other non-computer devices. Otherwise Spyder 3 is good and it uses latest software version (the same that Spyder 4 uses). I am quite satisfied with Spyder 3 SR. It is not perfect but pretty good and when a color is out of gamut, it does a good job of mapping it to something close to it.

Of course, the Gold standard in this is i1 Profiles, which is about $1400. However to get full advantage of it, you should also be investing in an automatic patch reader also which is about 2-3000 more.

March 16, 2013

[KR quote begin] I even had a veterinarian friend in Africa who specializes in elephant care send me some phallus hide from the Loxodonta Africana (known for its flexibility and grip when wet) which I then had a local taxidermist apply to my camera in place of the original rubber. It took a lot of paperwork with the U.S. Dept. of Fish and Game but at least it doesn't peel off on my <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d1x.htm">D1H</a> as the rubber does. [KR quote end]

</blockquote>

Is there any doubt he is not kidding.

February 18, 2013

Stopped down to maybe f/2.8, even the 50mm f/1.8D is great for D800E.

February 18, 2013

Here is one.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/index_controlled-tests.html

I have contributed enough, so I am out. You can have the last word.

February 18, 2013

So Zameen, you seem to be saying that you couldn't similarly lift shadows and pull down highlights similarly with your 5D MkII. I kind of doubt it, but your demonstration is not meaningful without a comparison of the two cameras.

</blockquote>

David

Yes, this is what I am saying, and if you are interested in investigating this further, internet is full of side by side examples.

February 18, 2013

First of all, I have taken 20K+ images with Mark II and similar number with mark I. Almost all the images in my portfolio are from these two cameras. So, this is not about dishing 5D. My point is that AF aside, there is nothing in Mark III that you can not do with Mark II.

I arrived at the previously posted image by simple lifting of shadows, pulling down of highlights, and applying burn brush in Lightroom. If that does not excite you with the possibilities, then surely D800 is not the camera for you. This is not meant to be offensive, different people have different needs and preferences. If I was making my living as a PJ, sports photographer, or wedding photographer, my choices would be completely different too.

February 18, 2013

To paraphrase Ansel Adams, if you make your images, then DR is important for every image. Following is the image that sold me on D800. I used Nikon's cheapest lens, 50mm 1.8D, for this.

This bland image became <img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-KyOgmFB5-dw/USG9mAl6BwI/AAAAAAAAA7Y/wif-Y0c_uNw/s800/DSC_0016-2.jpg" alt="" />

I had been using 5D at that point for years, and knew its limits very well. This was an eye opener for me.The details, even in this web sized image, are extraordinary.

Anyway, the bottom line is that for some people productivity features are important, for others Image quality is. Obviously there is place and cameras for both. When I got into photography and joined this forum, there were several heated discussion comparing 40D with 5D. A lot of people chose 40D over 5D for its features and were obviously happy with its IQ. Even though I used 5D I and II for five years, I would never have picked them if I was doing wedding shoots on a regular basis.

5D Mark III is the third iteration in the 5D series with a previous generation sensor. D800, on the other hand, is the first iteration of the new generation, specially for Nikon. Sure it has its flaws, but still it got most of the things right and is much more usable then original 5D or 5D mark II.

February 17, 2013

I try to stay at above 1/500 too, and that is why the ISO goes in five digits, when using f/2.8.

There is no doubt that 85mm is at the short-end but I don't think 135mm f/2 is going to cut it for action at all, and 200mm f/2 is well out of my reach.

February 17, 2013

I'll continue to shoot with my D800 and my 5DIII, as they are both amazing cameras, each with its own area of specialization. But my future sights are set on a high-megapixel Canon equipped with the 5DIII's outstanding Live View implementation. That's my dream machine.

</blockquote>

If Canon continues to iterate with essentially the same sensor technology that was in 40D, the high mega pixel won't do anything. As far as color depth, noise, and DR are concerned, even D7000 and Pentax K-5/K-5 II (pretty much anything with Sony sensor) beats the pants of Canon sensor. What I am looking for from Canon, is not necessarily more pixels, but better pixels. I regularly process the tens of thousands of images I have from Canon 5D and 5D Mark II, and it clearly feels like a previous generation technology.

February 17, 2013

I will be using it on D800E, the same camera on which I tested this lens a couple of months ago.

For high school events, I will have ringside seats :). The f/2.8 zooms have required ISO between 6400 and 25600. The noise is not bad at all for the ISO, but still.

February 17, 2013

I am looking at this lens for indoor sports shoot in poor lighting condition. I have tried it briefly before, not with the intent of testing for sports, but I found the AF to be slow to lock.

Can other people who own this lens comment on the AF of this lens and it suitability for action events?

Thanks

February 13, 2013

Yes. You will be correct.

February 12, 2013

Using a moderate telephoto, such as 70-200 or 300mm AF-S without TC, my keeper rate is about 100%. When using TC it drops to 70-80% (or worse depending on TC used), but that is expected and might be the same on Canon. I have no experience with 400+ lenses.

February 12, 2013

Even though Dan's assessment is probably based on his experience, my own experience runs contrary in many cases.

1. AF on D800 is no slouch, and I am talking about tracking birds in flight and focusing in dark. During CES Canon had setup a special dark booth to demo the low light focusing of 6D. I walked in there and checked 6D, which was impressive. Then I checked my own D800 on the same target, and I got the same results, same speed and accuracy. I am sure that Canon's system, being new, maybe better at tracking in some difficult conditions, but D800 is equipped with color matrix array to help with AF accuracy (which is only available on 1Dx on Canon side). 2. D800 users, myself included, frequently use 1.2x crop mode for birds/sport shooting which gives a 25MP image at 5FPS. Pretty close to 5D Mark III. One can also get 6fps in DX mode if using a battery grip (I use a 100$ chinese knockoff). 3. Live View focusing could be better, but is not what it is made out to be. The aftershot screen black-out is ~4 sec vs ~2 sec for Mark III (Mark II was much faster). Manual focusing is easy if you realize that full magnification is 300% and so is bound to look bad. Best is to stay at medium magnification and trust the shimmering effect (tell-tale sign of max contrast). When shooting full manual lens, in full manual mode, in full darkness, you do get dark LCD, but change any of those three conditions (even if temporarily), and it works. I am not saying it is not a pain, but it is not something that 5 second of fumbling will not fix. 4. High ISO on D800 is amazing, specially given the resolution of image. As I said previously, I have many hundreds of usable images at 25600. 5. On camera flash is a big blessing, I had not realized it until I started using it. I have used it for fill and remote control in thousands of pictures. It is fast and powerful and rises well above lens axis to not cause a shadow in most cases. 6. I do not see any color cast on my camera LCD. 7. I get sharp pictures hand-held at normal shutter speeds. It is a myth that you need tripod to get sharp pictures from D800. If you can get sharp pictures hand-held from T3i,T4i, 60D, and 7D, you can get them from D800. However Nikon makes available mirror-up mode which greatly reduces camera shake, and there is also an exposure delay mode. 8. Canon's radio flash is a good step forward, but RadioPopper and PocketWizard already have these out for a couple of year for both Canon and Nikon.

I agree with Dan in

1. Default WB and Skin tones on most Nikons are ugly. They are probably more accurate (I have compared side by side) but look bad. So if you shoot jpg, forget it, you have lost the DR advantage anyway. 2. The quick HDR feature of 5D Mark III is very welcome. The standard bracketing in D800 does not allow a separation of more than 1EV necessitating more images with longer bursts, which in turn cause ghosting because of natural movements of objects. 3. Configuring flash and AF is a pain. One has to invariably take the eye out of VF and fumble with dials/buttons. 4. Nikon Lenses. They are not bad, in fact some are excellent, but there is a lot of mediocrity, so you have to know your way around. Also the selection is limited compared to Canon.

Additionally, I love the quite shutter on 5D Mark III (Normal mode is quiet, and silent mode is almost silent); very useful for event, indoor, and candid photography. 5D Mark III allows user to set AF point for portrait and landscape mode, then just rotate the camera and AF point is selected according to orientation. Also users can set the camera to engage AF tracking just by pressing the Function/DOf Preview button. Though I get closer to this feature on D800 by using AF-On button.

February 11, 2013

Obviously Canon is doing something right, but probably not enough. 5D mark III is just what the name implies, it is the next iteration on Mark II. Those who were happy with Mark II were ecstatic with Mark III with the addition of better AF and few other operational improvements. Nikon D800 is a different beast though. It has probably 85%-90% of the operational goodness of Mark III, and about 110-150% of the IQ (depending on which lens you use and what you shoot).

I have had 5D, 5D.2, and 5D.3 (briefly). I now have D800e because I was frustrated with high noise floor on Mark II/III at low ISO (I don't care about high ISO although when I do use it, I get usable images from D800 at 25600). Here is what I preferred, and still do, about Canon.

+ Sensible and consistent mount.

+ Sensible and consistent button layout (which incidentally allows Canon to have Custom settings Banks)

+ Much better menu organization

+ Better color rendition at its default settings. Better White Balance.

People talk about Nikon's better User Interface, but I find it a mess. Of course, this is not a show-stopper for me, which is why I am with Nikon. In terms of pure IQ, (color depth, resolution, DR) D800 is significantly better. BTW, DR is not just about when I need to retrieve shadows. It is useful anytime I want to creatively modify the contrast of the scene (whether increasing or decreasing).

February 2, 2013

I have this lens and it is impressive. Just the build quality is atypical Sigma. If there was no markings on it, I would accept it as a German made lens.

My copy required AF adjustment of +2, and is consistent after that. So no big deal, this is why we have MFA. Also the left AF point on my D800 yields softer result, not completely out of focus, but just a bit off (this becomes important when shooting in portrait mode).

January 31, 2013

According to the Article currency fluctuations are only one issue. Falling compact camera sales, absence from mirror-less market, and European economy are also factors.

Don't go by the Amazon sales rank, a company the size of Canon, needs to be at the top of its game to maintain the momentum, specially with its stock price which already factored in strong growth.

October 9, 2012

Jenna, always look closely at the reflections in the subject's eyes. You will almost always see the sources of light used in the photograph. A large square reflection on the side or bottom of the eyes is usually a large reflector. Umbrellas are easy to spot, because they look like umbrellas.

</blockquote>

Except that a lot of fashion photographer know how their shots can be reverse engineered and they touch up the eyes to hide the reflections.

October 9, 2012

Don't know if it is your problem or not, but any painter will point out that areas lit by the sky rather than directly by the sun are blue. The eye tends not to notice, because it has a sort of psychological AWB. ;)

</blockquote>

Thanks JDM. It definitely solves a mystery for me. As evidenced by the pictures I posted above, I knew that the tint is there but didn't know why. Thanks again.

October 9, 2012

have you done nozzle check? Maybe that is causing the tinting. If it is not the case, read below.

There are two kinds of Black. One is where RGB values are zero for every channel. However most images do not have that kind of black. In most cases RGB values are very low and are not equal. It maybe because the original scene had some tint which you did not notice (our eyes are very good at subtracting tints) or the WB was off. If there are some tints in the dark areas, after post processing the tint may become stronger (e.g. increasing saturation or contrast will do that). So you may end up with bluish or pinkish dark areas. This also can depend on your color profile which may exaggerate the minor differences in RGB values and create a pronounced tint.

One way to fix this would be to apply white balance using dark areas as reference (use the dropper tool on dark areas). However this may yield unsatisfactory results as bright areas will assume strange tone. So the other option is to burn or desaturate black areas.

Here the tint is visible on white shirt.

and here the tint is visible on black tar

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by zafar1