stamos

<p>If you may use edit then shoot with all red background, expose carefully the background and later with photoshop mask the area you want to be white. It would be easy mask because the difficult part are the hairs that will remain over red background. If you may not do this then may you use a big TV/monitor as background?</p>

<p>Perhaps I am alone with this opinion but my opinion is: Photography = Prime and Cinematography = Zoom. In my opinion don't sell the zoom.</p>

<p>For those who want to buy a lens I recomend them to read such reviews as academic studies but not to decide based on these reviews. Usually they test one copy and sometimes when they test two copies they realize differences. Imagine if they could test 100 copies and make statistic average. For me Photo.net is much better place than any other photo website just because you may read different opinions about different copies that members they used. I know some people consider not reliable all opinions but a scientific test of only one copy does not say much for me.</p>

<p>It really depends on you. For your portraits photoshootings how much of your subject you want to include and from what distance? Your choise is only between these too lenses or you can keep the 35 and buy a cheeper 50mm? It has to be L?</p>

<p>For many people I would recomend to see the simillarity of (optical) bokeh and the dithering of gradiants in digital art backgroung blur. It is not how much we blur but how well we dither the blur to give smoother gradiants. Just see it as a photographic-digital art analogy that might help to understand quality of the rendering of out of focus (blur).</p>

<p>Every person-model has unique character and this character we capture. So as you start with friends you know their characters and this helps a lot. Not all poses are for all people. Try to be original, find your own way. About soft or hard light I would say the same, depends on personality of model and photographer. In my opinion try to avoid conservative poses.</p>

<p>In my opinion the choise is Canon 85 1.8. Good optics, good AF, nice price, nice background blur and not very long on crop body (for me).</p>

<p>There is a very big difference in price and the 85 f1.8 is what I would recomend. You can use it in street photography (street portraits) as it does not attract a lot of attention.</p>

<p>In my opinion keep the same camera and improve your photography with these photography classes, you can do very nice photos with that camera. Perhaps buy a nice prime lens.</p>

<p>For me the perfect would be galeries driven not by numbers but by something else, but this is utopia. The today system is not perfect but it is acceptable, it gives views and it does not create tension between members, especially between new and older members. I learnt many things in Photo.net and I try to teach but I never learnt anything from these number, they give views though.</p>

<p>I think that Adams would use photoshop and not only photoshop, also 3d and 4d and n-d and every technology. I am very much surprised that some purists (not all) like and admire his work. The purists usually like the natural look and his work is the definition of unatural-manipulated work. Some of his work look nearly like science fiction. There are no such landscapes in nature, there are in his vision. Pure B&W fantasy!</p>

<p>I have to say that the new PN rating system is better. There was no (nice) reason to see detailed anonymous numbers. Better the numbers not to be shown at all.<br>

Good job Josh.</p>

<p>General stabilization!</p>

<p>Thank you Andre, Paul, Joseph, Mike, Scott, Hani, Brian and all of you for your answers.<br>

I get the point for in-lens IS (viewfinder, protection of sensor, film use, commercial factors and others) but I think some lenses cannot have it technically because there is too much glass and no space where to put mooving optical elements. I am not sure but I think 85 f1.2L is not possible ever to have IS and the same for 35 f1.4L. About the 200 f2L IS this is very, very expensive monster.</p>

 

<p>Thank you Robin but the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS is white, big, heavy and attracts too much attention in street, conserts and other places.</p>

<p>Thank you Rob and John for your replies.<br />I do not ask Canon to change everything, only some of Canon cameras could have IS.<br />I just hope that Canon reads (carefully) these PN forums, we are users of their products and they may learn our needs. Wonderful pieces of glass like 135 f2 L are many times practically useless without tripod for under 1/60 shutter speed. Technology exist, they may use it.</p>

<p>I take many photos of people and I really do not care about the photo pseudo-rules. Compose and crop as you want your photos, feel free to express yourself with you work.</p>

<p>Thank you Rob for your answer but I like Canon lenses and I just hope someone from Canon will read this.<br />Anyone else from Canon users that need IS on camera body?<br>

Thank you Sravan, I think Canon may read PN forums.<br />I do not have any connection with Canon. I just use Canon and some products I like others I don't.</p>

<p>Is there any hope for Image Stabilizing on camera body from Canon?<br />I would love to use the 135 f2 L and other superb non-IS primes with low shutter speed without tripod.<br />Is it only me?</p>

<p>For me the choise would be (like a previous poster wrote) the Canon macro 100mm f2.8 L that has very useful Image Stabilizer and you can get very nice macro shots and close-up portraits.<br>

The Canon 135 f2 L could (theoretically) be improved with IS.<br>

This just my personal opinion.</p>

<p>For me the best option is 5D MKII and EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM. This is just my personal opinion.</p>

<p>I prefer a carefully-considered, thoughtful, detailed critique with a REAL FULL name (and surname) attached than a carefully-considered, thoughtful, detailed critique without a name attached.<br>

Stamoulis Theodorikas.</p>

<p>I do not like the anonymous postings. If you have an opinion then sign it. I write my (polite) opinion and I write that this is just my opinion, nothing more than an opinion of one member. I do not see any military top secret about that.<br

<p>Here the result.</p><div></div>

<p>Here the 3D object is casting only shadows but remains invisible (the faces of the 3D object are not rendered).</p><div></div>