A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Shoot out: Smart phone vs Canon EOS 5D Mark III



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old October 16th 14, 02:02 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default 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  
Old October 16th 14, 11:30 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default 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  
Old October 16th 14, 01:59 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default 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  
Old October 16th 14, 02:16 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default 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  
Old October 17th 14, 02:06 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
M-M[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default 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  
Old October 17th 14, 03:29 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default 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  
Old October 17th 14, 04:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
M-M[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default 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  
Old October 17th 14, 07:43 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default 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  
Old October 18th 14, 07:17 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
M-M[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default 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  
Old October 20th 14, 05:00 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.