pablomatsumoto

May 13, 2014

Let me give you a short and straight answer. Both cameras are very similar from a technical perspetive, don't let minor details blind you. If your dauther seems to be serious about learning photography, I would recommend the t3i. It has a larger body which is more suitable to hold medium to larger lenses, and also is more ergonomical. It can also be attached to a grip. Once you growth from amateur to enthusiast or even beginner professional, things like ergonomics began to matter more than convenience. In addition, if video is part of the equation (we are talking about doing some sort of serious video, not point and shoot birthday parties), the t3i's articulated LCD would proved to be very usefull. The autofocus the SL1 claims to have is not ready yet for serious work, so is not a real advantage. On the other hand, if your daugther plans to study photography just to know a little bit more and sees photography as a hobby, and also like to take her camera everywhere all the time or plan to travel a lot, the SL1's small size and convenience prevails.

May 7, 2014

Of course this could be biased due to the kind of source, but this Panasonic article gives good information regarding the use of Bluray for archiving. http://panasonic.net/avc/blu-ray_disc/biz_ideal_media.html

After researching a little, Bluray seems a better choice than HDD in terms of reliability. In my personal experience, I have seen 2 Western Digital Passport refused to power on (have to admit that were never store in ideal conditions).

April 25, 2014

I agree, Wayne. Digital backups involve updating the supporting media every 5, at least 10 years. I remember myself backing up in Zip drives more than a decade ago, now impossible to read. CD-R and DVDs had had quite a long lifespam from this perspective, but in 10 years experts forecast that optical media will be dead. In this respect, I believe cloud storage provides a good answer and it seems to be the future of mass storage (although it has another issues such as recurrent fees). The problem with prints is that they can't be alone. You do need a digital copy in case of destruction and also for displaying. More and more people don't see pictures on paper. Probably, to have the best of both worlds best practice would be a solid digital backup of mass data plus good prints storage under reasonable conditions of those "special" pictures. At least for me, print large amounts of photos is not a possibility (too expensive, too bulky, too cumbersome).

April 25, 2014

Good discussion! Good prints really last but I believe they should not be alone. Risk of permanent lost is high (fire, theft, environment, bad care, lost, etc) and degrade naturally occurs anyway. Probably, one should identify those really key pictures to consider for special long archiving (guesstimate, may be around 1% of the pictures people take these days) to reduce volume.

So, let's add to the list of backups a bullet-point of backup in prints for those special photos.

April 25, 2014

Let me suggest a discussion on the best practices for pictures long term archiving. I am talking about those pictures such as family memories or historic material that have to be preserved for decades/centuries, not just a couple of years. My procedure and fundamentals are: "Digital era" pictures:

<ol>

<li>SLR's raw files converted to .DNG for archiving (DNG consider more universal than RAW), to save pictures in the highest possible quality.</li>

<li>JPGs considered the best format as regards future visualization capabilities, so a copy of DNG files in high-quality JPG are also archived (easy to do saving both RAW+JPEG on camera).</li>

<li>JPG originals archive as they are with the best possible quality .</li>

</ol>

"Film era" pictures:

<ol>

<li>Low/Medium quality prints (such as those taken with cheap pocket film cameras) scanned at 600dpi / 24-bit and .TIFF</li>

<li>High quality prints scanned at 1200dpi / 48-bit and .TIFF</li>

<li>If negative is available, scanned negative at 2400dpi / 48-bit and .TIFF</li>

<li>A .JPEG copy chould also be archived to facilitate visualization</li>

</ol>

Then follow 3-2-1 backup rule (at least 3 copies in 2 different formats and at least 1 off-site):

<ol>

<li>1 Backup originals on a cloud service (ideally 2 with different providers if money is not an issue)</li>

<li>2 copies in 2 different hard disk drives on same computer + 1 more off-site copy, such as in removable HDD or Blu-Ray (I think Blu-Ray is more stable) in case of fire/theft.</li>

<li>Optionally, store low quality copies with an online free service such as Google Photos (Picassa), Flickr or similar, in the very remote case all the others failed.</li>

</ol>

Very important:

<ol>

<li>Leave detail instructions (including passwords) for key relatives or persons to be able to access your archives if something happens to you.</li>

<li>When possible, pay cloud services annually in advance, and alert in the instructions that those in charge of preserving the material must pay the service. Password and sensitive information can be left on a close enveloped or in a safety box.</li>

<li>Have detailed records on what has been stored and where.</li>

<li>Update this information at least annually and send by e-mail to multple persons, and leave paper copies (surprisingly, paper is one of the best way for long-term storage even in the 21st century!).</li>

<li>NEVER encript the data, use compression or use password for individual files. Probability of not being able to be restored in the future is very high. If material is sensitive, store unencripted in a bank safety box.</li>

</ol>

Descriptions In most family pictures you have people. It is almost a must to have information about who is who, as in 1 or 2 generations this information almost surely fades... This is where I don't have a clear guidance. Should you input description in Metadata for .TIFF and .DNG (lossless)? What to do with .JPEG?

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SHARE YOU THOUGHTS AND PRACTICES ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT MATTER. THANKS!

April 5, 2014

Thank you very much to all. After long researching, it seems that changing system to SONY Alpha is not a reasonable idea. Sony's bodies have good reviews with good diferentiators (such as better video AF) but it seems that they are not fully ready for prime leagues yet.

I have never used non-Canon lenses but an SL1 / Rebel paired with a Tamron 17-50 (much smaller than Canon's) seems a very good set.

March 19, 2014

Hi. I have always use Canon EOS line (pretty happy with it). My base equiptment is an 40D + EF 17-55 2.8 zoom. In the past I didn't have any problem with it but now it has became quite bulky for casual street / vacation purposes. I am thinking on swapping the 40D for a new SL1 or Rebel, but the 2.8 Canon zoom is still quite bulky. Despite being "a Canon guy", I am looking if Nikon or Sony have better alternatives (better means smaller without sacrifying image quality). I narrow Nikon/Sony because other brands are rare in my country. Please, I don't want to change to a mirrowless or something like that, nor do I like to use primes. I want to keep myself in the D-SLR + 2.8 zoom world but looking for the smaller combo possible. I could live with a 4.0 (constant aperture) zoom as an alternative. The Sony 16-50 2.8 lens + Alpha A body seems smaller than the 17-55 2.8, and around the same price. Any alternatives? Thanks in advance.

March 19, 2014

Absolutely. RAW files give your much more control on post, from correcting errors on white balance, exposure and framing to digitally manipulating the image. Try some simple PS editing and you will see that RAW is lightyears ahead from what you can do with JPEG. JPEG is an output (delivery) format, is not for processing.

Think RAW as a digital negative and JPEG as a cheap print copy. Also, as previosuly mentioned, space is no longer an issue. Now gigabytes are very cheap.

In my case I always shoot RAW (then convert to DNG for long term storage) and medium JPEG simultaneously. JPEG only to be able to quickly scan the shots using Windows Explorer.

February 1, 2013

Hi. I have never done video work with a DSRL, but it is time to start thinking so. One issue that worries me is the maximum recording time, which is 12 minutes (60D-7D) and 30 minutes in the new t4i.

I were not able to find information on how much time the camera needs to stop recording and start recording again. I mean, you reach the time limit, stop and push the record immediately. How many time do you lose?

I don’t to studio neither movie work. I do most live performances so having long recording time, or being able to stop but start recording again without losing more than 1 or 2 seconds is very important for me.

Thanks!

January 30, 2013

Thanks for your help. In video I don't shot scenes like in cinema. I always shot live events, usually stage, so 12 minutes is not that long. As a matter of fact is short. Sometimes you have a performance which cannot be cut until it ends. The digital zoom for video is a very handy feature of the t3i, that surprisingly was drop in the t4i. It does not degrade quality because it uses the pixels that are not used during video recording, and let you zoom 3x. This is very handy for close-ups at long distances. The t4i seems appealing but going back to a Rebel body for still shooting really does not convince me.

January 29, 2013

I have a Canon 30D which I am looking to replace. I also do video and having a DSLR with good video capabilities is very convenient for me (currently use a Canon Vixia G10). Increasingly video work is being done with DSRL rather than camcorders. Also, low light video seems to be much (very much) bettern with DSRL than camcorders, unless you have a $5,000 pro camcorder.

These 3 models are within my budget.

60D

Despite not being the same semi-pro level of the previous X0D series, is of course the natural choice in terms of built quality and usability. It also has good video capabilities, as far as I researched equal to the t3i except for digital zoom, which seems to be a great feature.

Recording time is limited. 12 minutes per clip may end to be short for live recordings.

t3i

Very cheap right now and have digital zoom feature, which as mentioned seems great and very handy for the type of work I do (stage video) to have close-ups. Only 1 cross sensor for stills + all the issues of the Rebel line (small viewfinder, no second wheel, etc).

t4i

The best video capabilities of all, but a Rebel. It has the new constant focusing feature, which is suppose to keep subjets in focus like a common camcorder, but in practice the reviews are not good. They say it useless for real work.

Also, increadibly the t4i does not have the digital zoom feature (but is has much longer recording time).

Any thoughts?

January 29, 2013

Let me put a short and (in my honest opinion) practical answer. If you are a beginner but believe your are entering photography rather seriously, go for the 60D. It is almost the same price as the Rebel t4i but it is much better in terms of built quality and usability. You can also make some light pro work with them to start with, like event photography.

If you are unsure and just want to get an idea of what is this about, go for the t4i or event the t3i which is on discount now. Picture quality won't be a compromised, you can take stunning pictures with all these three cameras.

Buy the kit lens (the difference is very small) and learn. Then you will have time to step-up.

January 29, 2013

For still photography both cameras are almost identical in specifications. Having the same price tag, the 60D is much better built, has more physical controls and is a material step-up in usability. The only drawback is some increase in size and weight. Some may argue that picture quality is better in the t4i with the new processor, but for practical purposes in my personal opinion is neggible. Being fond on wildlife photography, this would involved having large long lenses, so the extra bulk of the 60D won't be an issue at all. Also, it is an advantage as it will balance much better with long lenses than the t4i.

If you are also interested in video capabilities, then the decision is much more difficult. Probably the t4i has an edge.

April 8, 2011

Thank you very much for your fast response. As I usually make the pictures with a portable studio, I use umbrellas.

The lights are usually reaching the head in a 45º. It is more difficult when I have to make a full body shot, as I need to have light in the legs and feets.

April 8, 2011

Dear all,

Hi.

Doing studio portraits with black background I cannot create strong dark ones. It always turn out gray and not uniform, some parts are darker than others. I use a Colorama black paper background.

The distance from the model to the background is about 6 feet in an usual 2 strobe set up.

Any suggestions?

April 8, 2011

Hi, all.

I am beginning doing studio portrait photography and I am finding it difficult to use backlight.

I usually set up an usual 2 strobe set up, one as main light and the other as fill light, with a 2:1 or 4:1 ratio, in 45 degrees.

When I made close-ups, I fire a portable speedlight (like the Sigma 500 in slave mode) at 1/2 power from behind the head, so it creates a nice halo (sometimes works very nice, sometimes is a bit strong).

- the backlight should target the neck, the shoulders, the hair or the back? I usually target the hair.

- the backlight should be right from behind or could be from behind but from one side? in this case, sometimes it creates an ugly white border in the model (probably is too from the side)

One unsolved problem I have is when the photo is for the entire body. Sometimes I can disguise the speedlight with one leg or with a dress, but usually this is not possible, so I have to fire it from one side. is this approach right? Sometimes with this approach in the backgrond appears the "light beam", which is very ugly, or some unwanted shadows and the light difuses as it has to travel more space.

Is there any other way to "separate" the model from the background?

Thank you all in advance.

September 13, 2009

Hi. I am writing because I am experiencing a strange issue. When I want to download images to my computer, when I try to do it trough a card reader (either using windows explorer or import from lightroom) the system hangs up... it keeps waiting a lot, copy only 1 or 2 photos and then prompt an error.

First I thought it could be a corrupted card or card reader, but I change readers (both good quality: Verbatim and Kingston) and cards. Also, I try it in two different computers (one runnning Vista 32 and other 64-bit).

However, when I download the images directly from the camera using EOS Utility all is ok.

Can anyone help me? Thank you.

August 24, 2009

Hi. I am writing because I am having an annoying problem and I don't know if it is normal or not. I've recently bought a Kingston 8GB 133X Elite Pro CF and I find it extremely slow in comparison with my other 2GB Cards (Also Elite Pro, same model, and Sandisk Ultra II, very similar).

For example, when I press the PLAY button it lags a couple of seconds to show the picture. Also, the other day the card was 80% capacity and suddently my camera busting cache become near 0.. I had to wait for 3/4 seconds to be able to shot again.. Then I shot one picture and again have to wait.

This issues makes me discard the card, as it makes it useless for social photography, which I do.

Have you experience this issues? Is normal or the card may be deffective?

July 15, 2009

Thanks all for your replies. May be I didn't describe myself. I am a "beginner pro", to say is this way, and I do a colour digital photography, shot in RAW processed in PS CS4. Apart from the pictures I do for pleasure, I do mainly event and wedding photography and books. Most commom size I copy are 7.8 x 11 inches and 11 x 15 in., colour mate. For my personal pictures I do not copy many, around 30 per month. For work, for each event a copy around 200 in the sizes mentioned.

As I said, until now I was sending my digital work to the lab for copying, but I would like opinions about "pro" work printing in-house.

July 15, 2009

Dear all.

Up to now, I was sending my digital pictures to a pro lab for copying on photo paper (Kodak Professional), as I used to with film.

As a matter of fact, I believed that it was the way to achieve the best quality.

However, I've seen prints in inkjet printers that have made me reconsidered.. They were really excellent, colours were much vibrant and the picture was more clean and sharpness was higher I believe.

I will appreciate if you could tell me your thoughts about this. Do to think going to ink printing is the way? If so, what to I need to start with? I have an EPSON R290 but I guess it not suitable for the job. What paper do you use? Do you print yourself for your work, too (let's say for a wedding when you need to copy around 200 pictures? Is not very expensive??

Thank you.

July 15, 2009

I have the same considerantion.. Really, preserving digital data is a matter of backuping in several locations and media. Currently, I am doing 2 mirrow backups in external hard drives (too much photos for DVD).

To reduce the size, I've started to separate things that deserves to be preserved (like family photos) than other that not (such as my wedding photography.. I keep it for 5 years if the client don't want to buy the original).

I have make my mind that I must change the media every 5 years.. Seems complicated, but couldn't find a better way.

March 4, 2009

Hi. I make event photography and whenever I can I bounce my Speedlight flash light to the ceiling (45° or similar depending on subject distance), with a white card attached. I believe this is the standard technique.

My doubt is what to do when you don't have surfaces to bounce (i.e. walls and roof are too high or far way, very common at parties). I have seen many photographers with different techniques, basically:

1 ) tilting the flash unit as if it were a roof, with and without the white card

2) tilting the flash unit 100% vertical (90° degrees). I really believe this technique is incorrect, but saw many doing it.

3) direct flash with no diffuser

4) direct flash with a diffuser, usually a plastic white box.

Personally, I usually used 1) with mix results but I am in doubt whether 1) is better than 4). Tilting the flash with no bounce surfaces wastes a lot of light but I think it send lights in a more downward direction, which avoids shadows. However, I’ve seen many reporters that use 4)

I will appreciate your comments. Please let me tell you that I don’t like bigger diffusers such as Lightdome, because they are very distracting for people.. Usually they are intimidated enough with an SRL camera system… they call people's attentions too much.

Thank you.

February 12, 2009

Hi.. I being investigating and it is clear from your comments that I need a hardware callibrator. My doubt now is that with something like Spyder 3, for example, I can make my monitor to match the information of the file from the camera. That's right and I guess it is a great first step.

But I cannot clearly understand the second step, which is matching the screen with the prints. I've seen a product called Spyder3 Print which scans a print sample and generates a ICC profile. but from the documentation this type of product seems to work when you do your own prints.

I do not print myself, I take my .jpeg files to a photo lab to be "printed" in photo paper. They do not "print" with ink, they generate a "digital negative" and burn the paper in the old fashion way.

How to you manage this? I try to contact Spyder support but haven't received any answer if SpyderPrint works with lab printing.

February 11, 2009

Hi.

Does anyone know if it is possible to edit the details of multiple submitted pictures? For example, I uploaded 10 photos that share equipment and copyright information, but I have to edit it one by one, which is very time consuming.

Thank you.

February 9, 2009

Hi. I am not very sure if this topic goes in this forum but I couldn't find one specifically related to product photography.

I need to shot clothes for a catalogue in a way that they look as if an "invisible person" were wearing them. I need them to have the shape of the body without showing any model or mannequin. I've seen this type of shot in some catalogues but I cannot wonder how they are achieve. It is possible to shot it with a model and then erase it with Photoshop (that is fairly easy) but I cannot figure out how the inside of the clothes are showed. For example, in a v-neck shirt, when the front part of the neck is bigger than the back, the photo should shown the inside part of the back. One possibility could be taking a second shot and then using Photoshop, but if I could get the right shape to take the second shot then I would to it directly in this way. Another possibility is using some kind of internal frame, but it is difficult to make it real and also very time consuming for a large catalogue, as it should be modified depending on the clothes. Also, for open clothes (such as women bras for example) it is almost impossible.

I will really appreciate your help. Thank you.

Pablo

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by pablomatsumoto