alanrusso

<p>Bill- the flash did fire here. I noticed this same effect in strong sunlight with no flash.</p>

<p>Hi there - thanks for the response, it's on Auto WB. The pictures appear overly red both in camera, and on my calibrated monitor. It's very odd!</p>

<p>Hi - I bought my wife a Canon S90 for Christmas, since she wanted a high quality compact camera - and I wanted one with full features and the ability to shoot RAW if I ever wanted something more portable than my 5D MKII. My wife uses it on full auto, and we've both noticed that often times there is a distinct red color cast to the images, with or without the flash firing. No shooting modes are enabled, and My Colors is not being used. The clear discoloration is a surprise, since the camera got excellent color accuracy reviews.<br>

I've attached a picture she took today, with a before of how it looked right out of the camera, and an after with my having backed off the reds in PS CS4. The retouched one is clearly the more natural looking. The need to retouch however sort of takes away from that instant point, shoot, upload to facebook gratification she is looking for.<br>

Any ideas?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Alan</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks everybody... yes... a lesson learned!</p>

<p>Hi - I recently bought a Canon 5D MKII body from Photoloon.com... finding the experience frustrating at many levels. I'll kick myself for being a bottom feeder on the price later, but I did find one aspect of their service very wrong.<br>

During the sales process, I ended up having to call an agent to claim a free 8GB memory card that was part of the online deal, and of course was subject to the usual hard upsell pitches. At one point he explained that at the online price they only offered a "store warranty", and that if I ever wanted to have Canon service the unit I've have to pay the Canon deductible. I told him I just wanted the Canon standard MFG warranty - and he tacked about $100 onto the price.<br>

Is this legal? Is it possible to unbundle the manufactuer's warranty?<br>

I can't believe Canon would condone this type of behaviour in it's channel if true.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Alan</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi Danielle</p>

 

<p>I've had the 5D for about a year now, and I love it. Above everything else in the MkII - what has me tempted to upgrade is the expanded ISO range. The 5D has a non-expanded ISO range of 100-1600, and expanded to 50-3200. At 3200 there is very obvious visible noise. The MkII has an ISO range of 100-3200 and an expanded through as high as 25,600. I'd love to be able to have more high quality low light options without flash.</p>

 

<p>If you're not going to make massive prints, and you don't need low light shooting capabilities - then you may very well want to put the extra money into L glass. For weddings/portraits you probably would want the 24-105mm L and/or the 70-200mm L. I have both - and they are spectacular. Bear in mind that when you go from the crop sensor to a full frame sensor, you're going to feel like you "lost" 60% of the zoom all your existing lenses. If you feel like you are at the edge of you zoom range now for the work that you do - you may well be wanting to upgrade your lenses anyway.</p>

 

<p>Alan</p>

Before I upgraded to the 24-105mm f/4 L, I was pretty happy with the 28-135mm f/4-5.6.

<p>Hello - While I know CS4 is just released, I was wondering if anyone had a sense for how compelling the new

version is for users of CS3. I went through the online demos, and alot of the enhancements seem to be UI

related. Masking in RAW is nice, but other than that I'm not clear what if anything is improved if you're

already comfortable with the CS3 interface. </p>

 

<p>Alan</p>

Sorry - what's the relationship between the number of pixels and diffraction? I thought this was more a function of the lens and aperture.

I personally haven't used full auto since the days of film, when I only had 24 to 36 exposures per roll, and didn't have the luxury of instant feedback on 4 or 5 test shots before I started shooting for real. Now that I'm a bonafide 5D "L-coholic" elitist, I try to dial the camera in perfectly for every shot - but I have to say my film shots came out pretty good as well in idiot mode. At the end of the day, no camera setting makes up for poor composition. To Jared's point, if I ever want to be in a picture - that's when full auto comes in handy. "Here honey, just push the button halfway until you hear the beep!"

Stanly, what the shot details? ISO, shutter speed, Aperture setting?

Dan - thanks for the work on this! This picture was just a test shot, I was dialing in for when my wife was starting shortly there after. It may be flat light on a hazy early morning. What I'm trying to understand is why shots with virtually the same settings come out of the camera tack sharp at the same time. Thinking a bit more on it, the better shots were closer to the camera, and the very best were shot with flash with high shutter speeds and high speed sync. This was Monterey where we currently have a number of forest fires. Maybe its as simple as bit of haze that's raising my ire.

<p>Today I was taking some pictures at a mountain bike race, and a bunch of my non-action shots seem unacceptably

soft - I just don't understand why. Please see the attached photo. This was shot with a 5D, ISO400, 1/200,

f/5, 105mm using a 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM. The subjects aren't moving, the shutter speed was 2x the focal length,

the lens is clean and clear, IS is on, the ISO reasonable. The camera indicates the focal point being one of

the lead riders, and exposure is correct. Other pictures taken moments later, are tack sharp. Throughout the

day I have a bunch like this, where for reasons I can't discern, the picture was not acceptably sharp. I don't

expect 100% of my shots to be perfect, but when they don't work out, I try to understand why.</p>

<p>Any ideas?</p><div></div>

Just to add to this - if you plan on shooting in close at f/1.4, you'll probably find that you won't have acceptable depth of field for satisfying shots. In a night club setting I'm sure you'll want at least enough depth of field to have a few people together all be in focus at the same time. I agree you are going to want something "acceptably wide", and use bounce flash or a large diffuser like the Gary Fong Whale Tail. Some rear curtain flash shots where the flash goes off at the end of the shutter cycle as opposed to the beginning should have a nice effect. It will stop your subjects, but still give a sense of motion. Check your manual for the appropriate function setting. At high shutter speeds, it makes no difference, but at relatively slow speeds it's pretty cool.

<p>Oh - and remember, when the nice men with the bullet proof vests ask to check out your camera... say yes.</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>Shabbir</p>

<p>I was just in the same situation last week - rest assured, you'll come through it fine, especially if you can pre-shoot a day or so in advance to get comfortable with the settings. I have a 5D (full frame), and shot almost everything with my 24mm-105mm L f/4. I took a bunch of shots the day before, to test lighting, and to get acceptable depth of field (f/6.3-f/8). I found that I needed fill flash for acceptable results. Unless all your shots are going to be posed, folks are going to move around on you more than you imagine, and you'll need a fast shutter speed and the stopping power of the flash. Resist the temptation to rely on natural indoor lighting, or you are going to shoot with too wide an aperture (some people will be sharp, some soft), or too fast a film speed (noise). I used my 580EX with a Gary Fong Whale Tail diffuser which kept everything natural looking. I switched to my 70-200mm only when I wanted head shots around the conference table. With a 1.6 crop sensor camera like you have, I'd use your 17-55mm. Unless you are shooting from very far away, the 70-200 will be too long, and the 60mm won't give you enough wide options. I shot all manual as well, so when I walked the VIP route the day before, I made notes of aperture and flash settings, and then for the day I taped them to the back of my flash so I had the reference handy. It worked out well so I could dial in and shoot quickly. You are going to be amazed how people get out of your way if you are the official photographer - enjoy the moment! The State Department sent an official photographer along, and I was pleased to see he had almost the exact same set up, except that he had 2 cameras instead of one to avoid lens changes.</p>

<p> Shoot RAW, and bring and extra card in your pocket. I shot about 400 frames in around 1.5 hours, and needed to use 2 cards. Out of all the pictures, 50 were "A" shots Marketing could use, and 100 were good enough to at least not delete. The rest got deleted. Shoot more than you think you will need!</p>

<p>You can see a couple of the shots from our VIP tour here:</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/bikecrazy/sets/72157605219798704/</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Alan</p>

Today after post processing a picture I intend to print in CS3, I generated a

TIFF file to upload to MPIX.com. Normally I generate JPEGs from my RAW files,

but I've been told that TIFFs are lossless and better for high quality imaging.

The TIFF files I created appeared more like a negative in my folder thumbnail

than a full color image, though opens correctly into CS3. If I open the file

however with Microsoft Picture Viewer however - it appears like a negative

again. Is this normal for TIFFs? If I upload the file as is for printing,

will it come back as a full color print?

Thanks for your response, Ian! I think I agree. I'm going to take some samples tomorrow at the office under the various lighting conditions and different aperture settings. I think the wide end is going to be most handy, especially during the factory tour.

<p>Hello</p>

<p>We have a couple of VIP's from DC touring our offices on Thursday, and I've

been asked to photograph the event. I've shot weddings for friends and casual

events and wanted this opportunity.. and now that I have it, I'm starting to

sweat a little... :)</p>

<p>I shoot a 5D, and my favorite indoor lens for shooting people is my 50mm

f/1.4, but am concerned that this is not wide enough for the day. I only have

one camera body, and won't be at liberty to swap lenses frequently. I am torn

between my 24-105mm L IS f/4, or my 70-200mm L IS f/2.8. The pictures will be

all indoors, so I like the idea of the wider aperture on the longer lens, but am

concerned about missing the wider shots. I love the 24-105 range... but find

that at f/4 when shooting indoors I have to shoot ISO400 or higher to get

acceptably fast shutter speeds. For lighting on I have a 580EX to use on camera

with a whale tail.</p>

<p>I'm going to take my kit in tomorrow and take some practice shots - but I am

curious to hear what set up people would recommend. What is the widest aperture

you'd suggest, to not risk getting only some people acceptably in focus?</p>

<p>If this weren't "for real" all of a sudden - I don't think I'd worry so much!</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>Alan</p>

<p>Doug,</p>

<p>Thanks - I figured out a way around my organizational dilemma with further tinkering. Bridge has the ability to create, and associate a number of keywords with each photo. There is a filter dialogs then which lets you then hone in on only the combinations of key words you want to view. It's nice - but moving my pictures over is going to take time! There does not seem to be a way to convert Element "Albums" that I can see. I'd have hoped Adobe would have made the upgrade more seemless with a "convert albums" function, similar to how the installer works from one version of Elements to the other.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Alan</p><div></div>

Hello!

<p>I currently use Photoshop Elements 6.0, and am looking to upgrade to CS3. I

just downloaded the 30 day trial of CS3, and while impressed with the power of

CS3 vs Elements, I'm struggling with Bridge.</p>

<p> Question 1: In Elements, it was super easy to view a selected photo full

screen (F11), and 2 photos side by side (F12). I couldn't find any equivalent

hot keys in Bridge. It seems like you have to navigate the menus to view a

slide show. It's a nit - but a hassle. The help file didn't suggest any hot

keys. Is there one?</p>

<p>Question 2: Over the years of having used various versions of Elements, I

have a robust organization of pictures. ie: Japan->2003->Tokyo->Mom & Dad

visit, etc. Because it was so easy to organize my photos in Elements, I never

did anything more than put my raw files in a folder with the upload date. ie

5_10_2003. While I'm hoping I'm wrong - there doesn't seem to be a way to

import this organization into Bridge, no even create one. The organization

mechanism seems to rely on what you name your file folders.</p>

<p>Does anyone have experience moving from Elements to CS3?</p>

<p>What are the best practices in doing so?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Alan</p>

<p>I shoot exclusively in RAW on my 5D, and except for my 50mm f/1.4, have all L

lenses. I've always used Photoshop Elements since 3.0, upgrading with each

release, and now use 6.0. I find that for the amount of post processing that I

do, it is fine - and I'm sort of invested to the tune of 1000's of pictures to

the way Elements organizes the photos. Over the years however as I've developed

a more critical eye, I've become very disappointed in the quality of the JPEG's

converted from my RAW files, even at Max quality.</p>

 

<p>I have researched this topic here in Photo.net, and there is an overwhelming

amount of information suggesting that Adobe's raw converter is not as good as

others available, including Canon DPP. I have done some tests with both RAW

and TIFF files, and have convinced myself that DPP produces much better

conversions.<\p>

 

<p>That all said - DPP is not nearly as versatile for post processing. When I

try to do the post processing in Adobe and then open the RAW file in DPP, all

the processing is lost.<\p>

 

<p>Does CS3 have a better RAW converter?</p>

<p>Is there a way to use Elements to do my processing, and DPP to do

conversions?<\p>

<p>Of the other available products - what are your experiences?</p>

<p><\p>

<p>Thanks!<\p>

<p>Alan<\p>

<p>Fairly consistently each week there is a FF vs 1.6 crop factor discussion

regarding camera and/or lens selection. I am confused at the implication that

a 1.6x crop factor has 'greater reach.' Doesn?t a crop sensor just capture a

smaller image circle than the EF lenses are able to project? By this logic a

2x or 3x crop factor sensor would be even better. On a FF camera, you can

achieve this same 'extra reach' by using software to crop your image if that

provides for a better composition, while at the same time retaining the

flexibility for capturing a wider image at lower focal lengths. Some folks seem

quite passionate that a 1.6x crop is a benefit.</p>

 

<p>I get making a purchase decision based budget, image quality, usability, etc.

But, so long as you have the ability to crop an image, then it seems to me

that FF clearly offers a benefit over a crop sensor.</p>

 

<p>Am I missing something?</p>

<p>Hello - Everything I've always read indicates that before a picture of an

individual is published, you need to get a model release. I've always wondered

however about the dramatic war time footage you see in print. Below is an

example of an incredibly evocative shot from the New York Times this week. I

can't imagine that this woman was in any frame of mind to discuss a model

release, or that in the midst of an unfolding tragic event that it was likely

she could have been tracked down later to do paperwork. If it were the same

woman smiling with a fruit basket in the local market, naturally you would

however expect to get a model release before publishing the picture.</p>

<p>Are there different standards for these circumstances?</p>

<p>

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/04/03/nytfrontpage/20080403POD_3.html

</p>

<p>Hansen, I had the f1.8, and didn't like the slow auto focus, the fact that it often "hunted" in trying to focus, or the cheap feel. I bought it for something like $85 bhphotovideo, and within less than a month I sold it to a friend at work for $50. I bought the f/1.4 - and I love it. Of my other 3 L lenses - the 50mm f/1.4 spends the most time on my 5D. I love everything about it.</p>

<p>Here are some of my favorite recent shots taken with the f/1.4</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/bikecrazy/sets/72157604142186448/</p>