roy_r_robinson

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2321611">Alec Myers</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 21, 2009; 04:27 p.m.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>So, should I still ask for a fee, even though I'll be credited?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The day that the supermarket takes photo credits instead of cash in exchange for groceries will be the day that a photo-credit replaces a fee.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>==> On My Gosh, Alec. This is so succinct, so straighforward, so rational. I expect that it will immediately jon my response repetoire. Thanx. Roy</p>

<p>BR Photo, Bri Photo, Bri Studio, Bri Images, Bri Art<br>

'Relax with Bri,<br>

No Fussin with Rasmussen'</p>

<p>Howard; I am not a web expert. <br>

I visited the site. It was easy to navigate, drill down and return. The response was fine, not too slow.<br>

The intergataion with Zenfolio seemd smooth to me.<br>

I worry for you though, that the Images are not protected. If this is not an issue to you fine, no bother.<br>

R</p>

<p>If you are using LightRoom - I use Friedl's Metadata Wrangler (dontaionware) for complete control<br>

<a href="http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/metadata-wrangler/">http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies/metadata-wrangler/</a></p>

<p>Another solution outside of LR for complete control you could look at ExifTool by Phil Harvey<br>

<a href="http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/">http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/</a></p>

<p>Wow - Bill Clark !<br>

That is a fabulous resource. thnx much for the post.</p>

<p>YEs - Yes about the Constant light</p>

<p>But ....<br>

There may be another option for DIY. With a Construction light or Ceiling light - strip away the light and harvest just the Reflector. I have thought that these would make good attachments for existing flash or studio lights.</p>

<p>I have been using ExifTool from Phil Harvey <a href="http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/">http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/</a><br>

You pose an interesting question, deeper than it sounds on the surface.<br>

YMMV - There may be far more available than I found;<br>

I tried to uncover this info from my pics and the best I could find was lens info. <em>Lens Type : Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS</em><br>

So with this little experimentation, I could not determine IS on or off.</p>

<p>In March when I was in NYC I too was looking for used Canon Lens bargains. I made my way to B&H<br>

What I found was that the sales staff can search their inventory and show you what is available immediately. Don't just wander through the used dept. there is way more behind the scenes aparently. I did not buy anything on that trip.<br>

Also this list was NOT the same as the listing published online under Used on the B&H site.<br>

---> I wish that is was possible to have an RSS feed out of the site(s) Used deprtments.</p>

<p>Thanks Jim, this must be a labour of love. I can hardly imagine the hours invested to assemble this info.<br>

Roy</p>

In my attempt to rationalize the 1DS3 I am analyzing how the increased resolution

would be applied.

Several have offered that even double the Meg is NOT double the resolution. I get

that now and it has a significant difference.

If we setup two the two Bodies 1DS3 and the 1D3 an equal distance

from a 1 Meter by 1 Meter (square) subject and

adjusted the zoom lens to fill the frame to 100% for both

( I expect the crop factor will change the Lens Focal length, shorter on the 1D3

due to the 1.3 crop)

OK, set that aside. Both bodies same full 1meter square image.

It seems correct to calculate

that the 1DS3 will provide 5.616 px/mm and 3.744 px/mm

and the 1D3 provide 3.882 px/mm and 2.592 px/mm

across these 1_meter images?

i.e. 5616 pix divided by the 1 meter (1,000mm)

True? or misguided

I am using this as a proxy for a Full Portrait Image, say a wedding photo. In this

way contrasting the real-life pixel density of the two images and how it might be

applicable to a Tight shot of a blushing bride.

1728 more pixels by 1152 more pixels in the 1DS3 case

I was previously trying to simply eyeball the pixel density across a high contrast

image from each of these two bodies. The expression of Kpx/mm sensor density

got me to thinking more about this. The increase in Kpx/mm is not enormous.

19.2 / 24.3 ~113%

thanks for the replies from Tien Pham, Mark and Colin Southern

Colin - I appreciate your response and acknowledge that your points are valid.

I was not so much looking at the size of the image or the physical area captured by the image.

Isn't there more going on here though?

If we take 2 RAW images

1) 5616 x 3744 from the 1DS3

2) 3888 x 2592 from the 1D3

Would it not be reasonable to expect that across a high contrast edge within the image there would be significantly more pixels to represent the detail of that edge in the 1DS? Assuming that the edge is infocus and at the same focal length.

Back to early high school science days and PAPOC for an experiment.

I accept that I may not have executed a correct procedure for this experiment.

I am hoping that someone might know how or already have conducted this type of test.

R

-- I pretty sure that I am missing something in my compare process -

I wanted to compare images @800 ISO between the 1DSMk3 & 1DMk3.

My expectation was that the 1DS image would support substantially greater

zooming in before presenting pixelations. I have used a 1DMk3 for some time and

respect its ability to capture an image in existing light even when using a higher

ISO.

I have one image @800 ISO from each camera body in Raw format.

I am looking at them in LightRoom, locate a high contrast edge, and zoomin to

11:1 right at the edge.

My test displays same level of pixelation for both images.

While they are not the same subject I was expecting half the pixelation to appear

in the 1DS.

All insights to correct this comparison or to perform another compare are

appreciated.

Roy