If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Shoot out: Smart phone vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III
On 10/13/2014 6:28 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 16:41:07 -0400, nospam wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: For that very reason, jprior to my retirement, I used to wear only custom made shirts cost over $299, each. I only rotated fifteen of them, and they all had french cuffs. I had cut make and trim suits, which were fine. All of my ties were custom made and matched my suspenders. These were also expensive, but like other things i life, presentation counts. Now I were cheap slacks, Am down to one suit and two tuxedos. I will admit that my casual shirts are decent quality, but they fit me better. in other words, you tried to impress people with the price tag of your shirt than your skills (or lack thereof). Hey geniuys, you need to get the retainer, first. Oh! I forgot, you know nothing about business. You don't get retained by a Fortune 500 company, or some of the largest privately owned copanies in the world if you show up looking like a slob. You get the invitation to a retainer conference based upon proven ability. nobody said anything about showing up looking like a slob, but when someone brags about the price of their shirt rather than their skills or accomplishments, it's clear that they have very little to offer beyond appearance. i know an ip attorney who has never lost a single case including against microsoft. *that* is how he gets clients, not who makes his clothes. The clothes you wear are to some extent linked to your clients. If you get your work from the upper strata of the business world you should dress as though you belong there. If you get your work on a contingency fee basis from the hoi polloi you will still need to appear successful but not so expensively successful as to scare off your would-be clients. There are different thoughts on that. I wanted clients who wold figure my fees were at the upper end. It wasn't just the money. Those clients who paid higher fees were easier to deal with. Those who didn't pay, were usually real PIAs who would waste a lot of time. When clients were paying my fees, they tended to stick to business. -- PeterN |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Shoot out: Smart phone vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III
In article , M-M wrote:
Sandman: Here's a guy that only takes photos with an iPhone: https://www.twenty20.com/littlecoal If I hadn't told you, you would have thought all were taken with expensive DSLR equipment. They are all certainly beautiful photos but anyone in the same place and time could do the same with their smartphone. "Could've", the jealous amateur most favorite word Any good photo need to have a specific parameters met, subject, weather, location, sun position and whatnot. And if you're at the right time at the right place, you can take that photo yourself. Good photographers, be it with a Leica, Hasselblad or an iPhone, are the ones that just so happens to be, or find, those places and times regularly. Of course the "eye" of the photographer is the most important. And that "eye" doesn't care about the megapixels or price of your equipment. Which sort of is the point. -- Sandman[.net] |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Shoot out: Smart phone vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III
On 10/14/2014 12:44 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 10/13/2014 5:05 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-10-13 18:37:35 +0000, philo said: On 10/12/2014 09:17 PM, Savageduck wrote: snip Try this for size. https://db.tt/wZ8ds2ot ...and it's OK, you don't have to like it. Ok now I see what the problem is. You and I will never agree on what makes a good photo. Obviously. That one is way over processed. It is processed just enough for that particular capture. Yes, it's a nice enough image but it's so obviously over processed I would never do something like that. I tend to do minimal processing...usually not much more than I would have been able to do in a dark room. Philo, I suppose being a neo-Luddite minimalist is a valid artistic nitch, but I find that mind set somewhat limiting. I like the added edge the processing provides. Actually, I'd like to know more about that effect so I can throw it in my bag of tricks. I use whatever amount of processing is needed to reach my desired result. For example, here is the same scene from a slightly different angle a few frames before the pre-occupied texter showed up. https://db.tt/5irZUWcx I find both photos interesting and (though essentially the same subject matter) they project very different moods. I did a lot of black and white stuff back in the 70's, then work got in the way. Since jumping back in to photography I find that I'm quite distracted by the many effects and all the pretty colors: ~~ http://tinyurl.com/onl76re http://tinyurl.com/mhprbf5 http://tinyurl.com/ljctfh9 ~~ ...and don't envision the B&W potential. That said, I'm wondering what your shots looked like in color. I suspect they have a much larger impact in B&W. I work in both B&W and color. IMHO it's a lot more difficult to get a good image in monochrome, than color. -- PeterN |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Shoot out: Smart phone vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III
On 10/14/2014 4:59 PM, Ron C wrote:
On 10/14/2014 3:51 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-10-14 16:44:28 +0000, Ron C said: On 10/13/2014 5:05 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-10-13 18:37:35 +0000, philo said: On 10/12/2014 09:17 PM, Savageduck wrote: snip Try this for size. https://db.tt/wZ8ds2ot ...and it's OK, you don't have to like it. Ok now I see what the problem is. You and I will never agree on what makes a good photo. Obviously. That one is way over processed. It is processed just enough for that particular capture. Yes, it's a nice enough image but it's so obviously over processed I would never do something like that. I tend to do minimal processing...usually not much more than I would have been able to do in a dark room. Philo, I suppose being a neo-Luddite minimalist is a valid artistic nitch, but I find that mind set somewhat limiting. I like the added edge the processing provides. Actually, I'd like to know more about that effect so I can throw it in my bag of tricks. I use whatever amount of processing is needed to reach my desired result. For example, here is the same scene from a slightly different angle a few frames before the pre-occupied texter showed up. https://db.tt/5irZUWcx I find both photos interesting and (though essentially the same subject matter) they project very different moods. Very much so, that is one reason I return to them from time to time. I did a lot of black and white stuff back in the 70's, then work got in the way. Since jumping back in to photography I find that I'm quite distracted by the many effects and all the pretty colors: Yup! I did a lot of B&W in the 50's, 60's, and into the 70's, first in my father's darkroom, then my own, before life got in the way of maintaining a wet darkroom. ~~ http://tinyurl.com/onl76re http://tinyurl.com/mhprbf5 http://tinyurl.com/ljctfh9 ~~ ...and don't envision the B&W potential. Probably not with those shots, but here are a couple of thoughts when it comes to producing B&W images from digital sources. I picked those shots to show some of my distractions. Seems I've always had a thing for high contrast and saturated colors. It all goes back to learning to make printed circuit boards, Kodalith and photo-resist at about the same time I was starting out in photography. Um, that and all the psychedelic art of the time. ...old habits and all that. :-) Some subjects and events do not lend themselves to B&W interpretation, and in those cases only color or a duo-tone treatment will work. Looking for B&W subjects, selecting and capturing them as B&W originals to be presented to their best effect, takes a reasonable amount of preparation (even if you are a Cartier-Bresson or Weegee) and subsequent darkroom work as demonstrated by Adams & Weston. Shooting intentional B&W with a digital camera requires similar selection, preparation, and post processing, only these days the darkroom is your computer. The wonderful thing about photography today is a lot of that painstaking work regarding the mechanics has been simplified. So while some subjects & images might not initially appear as potential candidates for B&W processing, the digital darkroom gives one the tools and freedom to experiment to find that potential. That said, I'm wondering what your shots looked like in color. I suspect they have a much larger impact in B&W. They have a different mood & feel in color, so the impact is different. https://db.tt/6STtc1jB https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_962.jpg https://db.tt/t4mKtPM1 https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_963.jpg Very interesting. From the B&W I'd imagined the window as being a rich deep mahogany. Then you can get an image captured in the most unlikely locations & circumstances and use the digital darkroom (in my case Photoshop) to get something beyond the original. This was an opportunistic shot taken in the back of a car with the window rolled down. A mobile studio if you will. This one involved selection, extracting, masking, adding a texture, and then making the B&W conversion. The result: https://db.tt/sU8pOMbA The progression from original, to extracted color with added texture, to B&W: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_964.jpg I'm rather enjoying the technical content of this thread, or at least this sub-thread. Here arre some that were taken with an IR converted camera, so I cannot show a color version for comparison. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/bow%20bridge.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/clark%20gardens.jpg -- PeterN |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Shoot out: Smart phone vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III
In article , PeterN
wrote: Here arre some that were taken with an IR converted camera, so I cannot show a color version for comparison. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/bow%20bridge.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/clark%20gardens.jpg I had some fun with the same photo taken in IR and also in BW. It's way more interesting in IR: http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/gsir/gsir.html -- m-m http://www.mhmyers.com |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Shoot out: Smart phone vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III
On 10/16/2014 9:06 PM, M-M wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: Here arre some that were taken with an IR converted camera, so I cannot show a color version for comparison. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/bow%20bridge.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/clark%20gardens.jpg I had some fun with the same photo taken in IR and also in BW. It's way more interesting in IR: http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/gsir/gsir.html I agree that IR can be and interesting technique. There are times when you see things in the image that you never though was there. Looks like you had done more in post than a simple desaturation on some of those immages. Do I see the effects of channel swapping. This image I simply swapped the red and blue channels. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/ir/ir%20faux1.jpg As you can see the image has too much of a blue cast. So I played around with removal of the blue cast and got this. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/ir/ir%20faux2.jpg BTW The sculptue garden is a facinating place. While I didn't see great photo ops, I just enjoyed walking around and admiring the sculptures. -- PeterN |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Shoot out: Smart phone vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III
In article , PeterN
wrote: On 10/16/2014 9:06 PM, M-M wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: Here arre some that were taken with an IR converted camera, so I cannot show a color version for comparison. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/bow%20bridge.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/clark%20gardens.jpg I had some fun with the same photo taken in IR and also in BW. It's way more interesting in IR: http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/gsir/gsir.html I agree that IR can be and interesting technique. There are times when you see things in the image that you never though was there. Looks like you had done more in post than a simple desaturation on some of those immages. Do I see the effects of channel swapping. I really did no more than convert to grayscale. Some of the ones from the sculpture gardens were left as is. This image I simply swapped the red and blue channels. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/ir/ir%20faux1.jpg As you can see the image has too much of a blue cast. So I played around with removal of the blue cast and got this. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/ir/ir%20faux2.jpg The second is nicer, but I figure, why mess with false color so I thought it neater to simply use grayscale. BTW The sculptue garden is a facinating place. While I didn't see great photo ops, I just enjoyed walking around and admiring the sculptures. The sculptures were not much to photograph, true, but some of the plantings were very interesting, especially in IR. -- m-m http://www.mhmyers.com |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Shoot out: Smart phone vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III
On 10/16/2014 11:12 PM, M-M wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: On 10/16/2014 9:06 PM, M-M wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: Here arre some that were taken with an IR converted camera, so I cannot show a color version for comparison. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/bow%20bridge.jpg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/clark%20gardens.jpg I had some fun with the same photo taken in IR and also in BW. It's way more interesting in IR: http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/gsir/gsir.html I agree that IR can be and interesting technique. There are times when you see things in the image that you never though was there. Looks like you had done more in post than a simple desaturation on some of those immages. Do I see the effects of channel swapping. I really did no more than convert to grayscale. Some of the ones from the sculpture gardens were left as is. Did you use an IR filter? I am surprised that there was just a hint of pink. All of mine from the converted camera come out red. I can convert to grayscale in one of several ways, depending on the look I want. Check the grayscale box in ACR. Desaturate each color in ACR. (this way leaves me s hint of whatever color I want, If I want a color tint.) Use the B&W adjustment layer. Swap the red and blue color channels. Use a plug-in. Any of the above methods are valid, and each will give you a different look, if you want one. This image I simply swapped the red and blue channels. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/ir/ir%20faux1.jpg As you can see the image has too much of a blue cast. So I played around with removal of the blue cast and got this. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/ir/ir%20faux2.jpg The second is nicer, but I figure, why mess with false color so I thought it neater to simply use grayscale. Strictly a matter of individual choice. BTW The sculptue garden is a facinating place. While I didn't see great photo ops, I just enjoyed walking around and admiring the sculptures. The sculptures were not much to photograph, true, but some of the plantings were very interesting, especially in IR. -- PeterN |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Shoot out: Smart phone vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III
In article , PeterN
wrote: Did you use an IR filter? I am surprised that there was just a hint of pink. All of mine from the converted camera come out red. I can convert to grayscale in one of several ways, depending on the look I want. Check the grayscale box in ACR. Desaturate each color in ACR. (this way leaves me s hint of whatever color I want, If I want a color tint.) Use the B&W adjustment layer. Swap the red and blue color channels. Use a plug-in. Any of the above methods are valid, and each will give you a different look, if you want one. I used an R72 filter on a camera without an IR blocking filter. Yes, they come out with some a hint, others a bit more red. But not all red like I saw with the same filter on a different camera. I did also discover that there are many variations of grayscale. -- m-m http://www.mhmyers.com |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Shoot out: Smart phone vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III
On 10/18/2014 2:17 AM, M-M wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: Did you use an IR filter? I am surprised that there was just a hint of pink. All of mine from the converted camera come out red. I can convert to grayscale in one of several ways, depending on the look I want. Check the grayscale box in ACR. Desaturate each color in ACR. (this way leaves me s hint of whatever color I want, If I want a color tint.) Use the B&W adjustment layer. Swap the red and blue color channels. Use a plug-in. Any of the above methods are valid, and each will give you a different look, if you want one. I used an R72 filter on a camera without an IR blocking filter. Yes, they come out with some a hint, others a bit more red. But not all red like I saw with the same filter on a different camera. I did also discover that there are many variations of grayscale. Thanks. My converted camera is an old Nikon Coolpix. So it has what I guess is a built in R72. It has limitations, but it doesn't need a tripod. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Which smart phone has the best camera? | Paul Furman | Digital Photography | 18 | February 27th 09 02:29 AM |
Camera..Pc..Laptop..Phone Accessories..Mobile phone..shopping onlineat Amazon | mster | Digital Photography | 0 | March 26th 08 11:47 AM |
Camera..Pc..Laptop..Phone Accessories..Mobile phone..shopping onlineat Amazon | mster | Digital Photography | 0 | March 26th 08 11:47 AM |
Canon Mark II versus Canon Mark III | Savant | Digital SLR Cameras | 50 | March 2nd 08 02:44 AM |
cheaper IPOD nano,cell phone,iphone,vertu phone,samsung chinasupplier | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | January 26th 08 01:24 AM |