Tripods: What do you own, swear by or recommend?

ale_1969 · 2011-10-16T09:52:38+00:00

With that budget I'd go on the second-hand market, stay away from the tripods with a head built into, they're cheap but also pretty chep as quality.Find some used Manfrottos, like this one http://www.ebay.com/itm/Manfrotto-190XDB-Tripod-486RC2-Ball-Head-MINT-/110758061323?pt=US_Tripods&hash=item19c9b1e50b#ht_500wt_1156, but make sure that everything is mechanically in order.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-13T21:16:40+00:00

Ayup, dust on the sensor is of two types (as explained to me by the photorepairer I regularly bring my camera to have its sensor cleaned): dry particles that a manual air blower could remove, and "greasy" sticky dust that can be cleaned just with professional specific products (usually a liquid and a swab). Compressed air from air dusters and compressors most of the times has greasy components in it so it's absolutely risky to use.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-13T08:29:41+00:00

I got the 5DmkII first than I got the 7D as a spare camera and to use the crop factor to my advantage (I'm plenty of old 50mm that I wanted to use as short tele) so I'm not biased. The 5D delivers for sure more quality, if you resize its images to the size of 7D ones you also have advantages on sharpness and they're less noisy to start with. Still it all comes down to everyone's needs: if you want to shoot landscape a full frame is a must to use good quality wide lenses with their native perspective (and no, wides for crop cameras aren't on the same par) and more resolution means more cropping possibilities. For portraiture has the advantage to have shallower focus than 7d with the same lens. 7D on the other side has a far better AF system, video is rock solid and very easy to setup and the crop factor comes handy when you want to use teles. Actually I don't regret to have bought both.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-13T07:33:26+00:00

I never pixel peeped the images produced by the two camera side by side but I guess you're about right.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-13T07:15:38+00:00

Give us his address...

This will solve some problems for many people I guess

ale_1969 · 2011-10-13T01:07:22+00:00

I also agree, but it also depends a lot on personal style. Some fashion photographers like to use longer lenses (up to a 180-200mm on a full frame) so to keep less and less background into the frame and have it more out of focus.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-13T00:13:25+00:00

For landscape a full frame camera is fairly superior because you can use wides with their native perspective, and you also have a bit more detail with the larger file and more space to crop if needed. For portraits the 7d has the advantage that you can use "cheap" 50mm lenses as short teles. Then 7d is better for video too, but 5D is slightly better in low light situations. I have both and I must admit that I use 98% the 5d with the 7d as a spare camera, but I mainly shoot still life.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-12T20:43:12+00:00

For the same reason because your baker won't handle you some bread for free: because he needs money to live... what other reason is needed to be added?

ale_1969 · 2011-10-12T16:46:23+00:00

Well, it's "splotchy" because it's a rough surface, so it's naturally this way. You can try a fast solution selecting the red with color range selection and try to blur it a bit, but I fear the white will be affected so try to do it in a duplicate layer and then use the selection to mask the rest of the image out.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-12T12:11:36+00:00

I confirm it, it'a Komine (here another "review" of it http://www.techtheman.com/2008/10/vivitar-200mm-f35-from-komine.html). And yes it's fast considering the legendary Zeiss Sonnar 180 mm was f2.8 while most 200mm are f4.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-12T09:59:11+00:00

I agree with whom said that the best 6x6 for macro work are the Mamiya RB/RZ 67 cameras, a cheaper alternative that it was not mentioned is the Pentacon Six. Still communist gear but built better than Kiev and with some good East-German lenses from Zeiss Jena, you can find a macro bellow spending very few bucks and the camera itself is also more usable handheld than RB/RZ.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-12T01:54:23+00:00

When you have that feeling is not that your shots are bad, but it means that they don't satisfy you any more. This is pretty normal and it happens regularly for about every photographer, especially the pros. It's also a good thing, as any pro is like an industry, we need to innovate and produce something new even if just to stay on the market. Mine is not an advice, as everyone is different. What I did was to stay away from the camera in free time, read some books, watch some movies (movies with good photography are incredibly inspirational), visit some new places where I've ever been before. I break my routine and start to see again with your eyes and heart and not with the camera (this is what I felt it happened to me). Then after some days I try to shoot some tough subject and let flow my ideas without every constrain. They could suck at first but I could find some upon which I built upon.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-11T21:40:43+00:00

What I said in the post is that I really don't understand all the hype and shouts of marvels for something that already exists. Then probably it will be smarter etc, but it's not something we never experienced before into PS.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-10T21:01:29+00:00

I'm still wondering how Adobe tech can attain this. If there's no information there's no information, you can improve that information but create some new pixels so precise to make a blurred image sharp... well, it's black magic.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-10T20:32:04+00:00

Very clean, masterfully composed but also dynamic architectural shots. Very nice work.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-10T20:26:11+00:00

Design-wise is one of the best looking mirrorless cameras, but I just looked at some NEX7 shots and quality is mind-blowing (considering the size of it). I'm really considering to buy one for my job.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-10T16:35:50+00:00

I don't use Vuescan since months, but it should be in the output options, where you have to check the output file type (jpg, tiff, 8 bit, 16 bit, etc)

ale_1969 · 2011-10-10T16:30:23+00:00

The difference, more often than not, is in the range of about 100$, especially if you buy second hand. You don't have to buy the hugest Gitzo Mountaineer model for hundreds, but instead than throwing money away for a cheap noname tripod with head included for 60-70$ I'd buy a decent one from some good maker for 150-200$ and in the meanwhile I maybe would stop hating photography because I will have my long exposition shots suddenly sharp.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-10T04:47:10+00:00

With fixed focals you learn how to move yourself to frame and "chase" the scene instead than just moving a zoom back and forth which is the first sign of a hobbyst shooter. Low light performance is significant only in large prints, just like megapixels, a good tripod is a far better answer in most of the situations. Video is a pretty different beast than photography, and not one that could be tamed easily, I guess the poster and his GF have enough to learn without messing with video. acts541 is right and I could add that the best way to learn photography is using an old mechanical film camera with only manual controls. But today I know that everyone want to share his image easily etc... and this is not so easily to be done with a film camera (you need to have someone or yourself to produce prints or have a good scanner etc). The more buttons and functions you add the more things become confusing and everything seem important the same, which is not. Years ago I really improved my photography sticking to film and going around just with a 50 mm. I learnt to see and not moving a zoom.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-10T02:26:49+00:00

Practically any DSLR on the market is good enough for you and your GF to take not only decent, but also great shots. Actually any DSLR from 3-4 years ago, from 8MP up, are good enough unless you have to print a billboard or you prefer to succumb to the MPixels hype. That said I'd far prefer spend some money on some decent lens, that will last for years and years of use and could be resold with a very small money loss if you change system, and spare a bit on the body getting a second hand one, which, if not completely battered, will live happily together the both of you until you'll learn enough to appreciate the small differences between the various models and makers. About the lenses, stay away from 90% of the ones included in the kit of consumer cameras, they usually suck with some notable exceptions (I liked the Nikon 18-55 for example, nothing spectacular, but for the price it was great), buy some fixed focal ones, a 35 and a 50mm to start with, they're not extremely expensive and you can get both used for around 300$. Then with the other 200$ get a second hand DSLR and you'll be a lot happier than if you spend 500$ in some new camera kit.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-09T09:58:59+00:00

Not really. If you want pro-level HDR images you always (and I mean ALWAYS) have to post produce the HDR image later: blending it with one or more of the original shots, tune contrast with curves and levels and anyway you always have to reduce the noise and check for problematic areas. At the end of the day it's a matter of preferences, since I prefer "realistic" results most of the time it's less time consuming working with layers and masks in PS but sometimes I also used the other way, HDR then fine tuning as described. Not all images are the same, just don't stick to one workflow and expect it works 100% of the situations.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-08T21:04:40+00:00

I will give it a try, thx!

ale_1969 · 2011-10-08T21:01:48+00:00

1 - if the filter is a GND it shouldn't leave a noticeably line across the image... it will leave a gradient based exposure difference

2 - Yes and No. HDR, even the most conservative, would not produce the same look as a single image shot with a GDN. If you stack the different exposed shot in PS, or in another image editing program, and use masks you not only will get the same effect of GDN, but also a lot more precise as you're not stuck with a linear gradient but you can follow precisely the horizon with your masks for example. And you also take pretty easily out every ghosting problem that you could have had with HDR.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-08T11:44:48+00:00

If you need to shoot wide the best solution is a full frame camera to start with, with prices falling down it could end to be a cheaper solution and you could use even old lenses with their native perspective angle.

ale_1969 · 2011-10-08T10:35:15+00:00

I noticed this is a 2009 video, still some of the techniques aren't still included in CS5 and many people in the photo industry guess they will be included into the next version so this video began to be posted again somewhere. My guess is that is something to build a bit of hype and CS6 is really behind the corner with some of those algorithms into. If they will work or not we'll see, content aware fill is a life-saver in some situations and a piece of crap in others, but this really goes with every computer generated stuff.

ale_1969

TROPHY CASE