Jump to content

sam_zaydel1

Members
  • Posts

    32
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sam_zaydel1

  1. <p>I have to agree with the external enclosure approach. The added benefit of using it is that it is upgradeable, as your capacity requirements grow, it is often cheaper, some allow for redundant configurations, and you can re-purpose disk drives that you replace with higher capacity drives. I personally always lean towards a dedicated storage server, which is what I run myself, but my storage requirements are far greater. I also always advise to backup your backup. I spent enough years in IT to tell you that 2-tier backup is almost a must...</p>
  2. <p>Not directly answering your question, but wanted to point out that you should not try to buy a tripod to match a specific camera. Instead, a tripod should match your shooting style, preferences, subject matter, etc. Cameras change, lenses change, and a good tripod has to be able to adapt to these various changes and give you the right kind of support in your shooting situations.</p>
  3. <p>I have to agree wholeheartedly that degradation of information whether on a digital media, or paper, or file is unavoidable. With data, challenges are even greater. Try to read a 5.25" floppy disk today, or even a 3.5" disk, how about some other short-lived media, there are plenty of those. Multiple backs are a reality today, especially when technology is moving so quickly. Proper storage and organization is absolutely paramount. I personally have a NFS file server which I run on a server-chassis with mirrored and raided disks, and create a backup of critical data on the NFS server to outside media. Nothing is ever fool-proof and absolutely guaranteed with files. Files do corrupt, media fail (hard drives are failure prone due to the nature of their design), so you should definitely develop a backup strategy to both protect your data, and make sure that media on which data is stored is current with the time.</p>
  4. <p>If you were to do this in Photoshop you could apply a Layer mask and reveal only parts of the image, like the tree and branches. If you shoot RAW, you can always create a couple of images from your RAW file, one being underexposed, one over-exposed, and then blend the two in Photoshop. There is a lot of detail in RAW images, and you can often recover a lot of information even with pushing or pulling exposure quite a bit.</p>
  5. <p>Lightroom is not exactly like Photoshop where you can work with Layers and adjust opacity of layers themselves. You can move between Lightroom and Photoshop, in fact that is the intended workflow which Adobe designed. I think most people use Lightroom as their RAW process and for basic enhancement and corrections of spots, dust, color cast, exposure, etc. Obviously, if you shoot RAW, Lightroom is really a goldmine, and a wonderful RAW processor. After basic enhancements are done, people move to Photoshop for more advanced work, such as adjusting parts of the image. Things like layer masks are not possible in Lightroom for example.</p>
  6. <p>I would think that with shorter lenses benefits of IS become less pronounced, and, this is just my guess, but I believe Canon is, to a degree, concerned about the sales of a short IS lens versus the same lens in a non-IS form. It all comes down to money. After all, most of their IS offerings are at the longer focal length...</p>
  7. <p>I believe it is really just a design aspect, where for example 50 is a good starting point and you adjust from there. Obviously, these are set prior to any corrections being made, so they are still base values. They just to be values other than zeros. I think as far as brightness goes, 50 is middle of the field, with 100 being basically white, and 0 basically black. My guess is the thinking behind other adjustments was similar.</p>
  8. <p>Macro lenses should in theory offer optics that will be as good as, if not better than dedicated portrait lenses. However, I am wondering about performance wide, or almost-wide open. Bokeh is an important element of a portrait lens. I am thinking the quality of bokeh would be inferior if two lenses (one macro, one portrait) in the same price/performance class, were tested against each other.</p>
  9. <p>Lenses are not for ever, nothing is. If the lens shows significant signs of wear, it may mean that it was heavily used, which means that it may have a short life after you purchased it. Repairs are often very costly, so this is something to keep in mind. Optically, I would guess the lens is as good, and maybe better than others you considered new, but there are other costs to consider, such as possibility of early failure.</p>
  10. <p>Perhaps one other bit to throw into this discussion is the possibility of shooting stitched-panorama images with the equipment that you already have. Panoramas are certainly popular, when it comes to Landscapes, and digital technology opens up a whole new real of possibilities with even limited equipment that you are starting out with. Some people opt for shooting a number of images and then stitch them together with software such as Hugin, or Panorama Factory. This often means that you have to learn to shoot series of images which will be stitch-able later, and of course it will take more time, but I find that when I do this, I slow myself down enough to produce higher quality images, then when I take single shots.</p>
  11. <p>It also depends on whether the camera has a crop factor due to a sensor that is smaller than a full 35mm frame. Some cameras end up with crop factors of 1.5x and more, which makes the really wide lenses on paper be much less wide, thus not requiring one to use slim filters. I would use a slim filter on a 15mm lens if it was mounted on a 35mm film or full-sized sensor camera.</p>
  12. <p>I think part of the problem is that most of your shooting is at night, and flash is not always your best friend. What shutter speeds did you use? I am guessing that some images are blurry, some underexposed. In low-light situations you almost have to use a tripod or up your ISO, to achieve decent shutter speeds.</p>
  13. <p>Viewfinder is an imprecise tool, and I would judge lenses only by the resulting images. That said, I would also compare sharpness of an identical image shot with the same aperture setting and same focal length of course, before making any judgments about which lens is really sharper. Keep in mind that larger aperture lenses will often seem less sharp only because more light is entering the prism and the image is overall brighter.</p>
×
×
  • Create New...