Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Connect to User

loading

Overread's Forum Comments

Overread > Overread Recent Activity > Overread's Forum Comments
TopicRepliesLast Post
computer "virused"
Can you get into the Bios? If its not even booting to Bios it sounds like it could be hardware failure, potentially on the motherboard. If the Bois is booting up but then not the OS it could be harddisk failure. That it won't read CDs limits your options and also suggests possible hardware problems.

I think this might be one for the repair shop. The only other thing you could try is if you have a USB stick you can get a copy of linux that can boot from a USB - plug that into the PC and see if you can get it to boot from there (sorry for the sketchy instructions - I know such a process is possible, but I've never done it before - so you'll have to google around for a walk-through).

5 20/10/2014 - 6:03 PM
By JimL
PC Brigade
Jester - chances are if its a pro agreement they might not be able to enforce it off the teams own grounds - however that doesn't mean that coach knows that (all he might know is "we have a pro - only the pro does the shots"). I agree in the open public areas anyone should be free to take a shot.

So unless the park itself has any photography restriction, (and if the team is over 18 chances are they don't - since most "no pictures" restrictions are either for professional use or of under 18s) then the coach is in the wrong.

81 25/10/2014 - 1:00 PM
By redhed17
PC Brigade

Quote: (data protection usually pops up despite zero relevance)..

Amusing side story - the other week someone phoned up our home asking for my mother, I asked what it was in relation to "I'm sorry, due to the data protection act I can't tell you." All I could get was the name of the company from the guy. Sooo he never got any further.

In Off-topic discussion | Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
81 25/10/2014 - 1:00 PM
By redhed17
PC Brigade
It's likely not the PC brigade though.

The rule could come from multiple possible sources including:

1) The team has a pro(s) and respects their professional job in providing the photographs they need. Thus to shoot the team you "need a pass" so that the work of the professional(s) is protected.

2) The coach runs under 18 as well as over 18 and is used to the concept of needing permission for photographs of the team.


Chances are that the coach is just going on their standard policy approach; even though the park is fully in the public domain and chances are if its often used there were a good few phone and point and shoot shots taken of the team through their practice/game.

In Off-topic discussion | Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
81 25/10/2014 - 1:00 PM
By redhed17
Equine Event Photography
I'm using a 7D - I'll take it up to 1600 for ISO and be pretty happy with the results so long as I expose correctly. I could probably push it up to 3200 if needed, but chances are the results would start to drop off.

5 17/10/2014 - 9:10 PM
By Overread
Equine Event Photography
My thanks both!


Cf - I think outside in changeable lighting I would certainly use aperture priority. Indoors where the lighting was more fixed manual mode made more sense because the light itself wasn't changing much so once I had an exposure I didn't have to vary it to keep up - plus it meant that my shutter speed would stay nice and fast even if the dark body of the horse filled the main metering area of the frame.

Hob - if the light were stronger I'd probably have used a faster shutter speed - I might drop down from f4 to f2.8 but for the speed of a horse on the jump the 1/640 did well enough at capturing the motion still. There certainly wasn't, in my view, enough noise to warrant pushing the ISO higher and going for a faster shutter speed.

5 17/10/2014 - 9:10 PM
By Overread
First macro lens help (canon)
It also gives a good argument for not using macro lenses to too short a focal length. Once you start to use below 60mm macro lenses things get hard really fast because you're so close to the subject at 1:1 that you'r really shadowing it with lens, camera and body; plus you've a very small window to actually get light in and onto the subject. 60mm is really the limit I'd say - below that you're making more work and trouble for yourself.


Note this is not to say that shorter focal length macro lenses are inherently bad choices - just that for 1:1 work they are not very suitable (they can, however, make great little close up lenses. I use a Tokina 35mm macro and its a great little performer - I'd not much take it all the way to 1:1 but for close-up work and general shooting it does well).

14 23/10/2014 - 8:05 AM
By paulbroad
Serious Amateurs and Pro's are at least here:
Wait I want to know:
I've got a 70-200mm f2.8, 120-300mm f2.8, 35mm f2.8, 70mm f2.8, 150mm f2.8, 65mm f2.8 and an 8-16mm I can't recall what it is aperture wise but its something not f2.8 for once.

So do I fit in the serious category or do I need to get myself another f2.8 zoom lens to qualify?

252 16/10/2014 - 10:11 AM
By TanyaH
Thinking of Moving from Canon to Nikon D3300 Plus std kit lens - comments?

Quote:
Many professionals have to use whatever the company has adopted as its standard kit and learn how to get the best results from it. Amateurs, on the other hand, have the luxury of choice.

Eh that's not much sense there. If your pro or amateur each group will have its own financial constraints that will limit what they can and cannot purchase as well as can and cannot justify. You get pros using dirt cheap gear because its the best they can afford for what they do - and you get amateurs owning whole collections of multiple top end gear - and vis versa.

In Nikon Cameras | Page: 1, 2 ...16, 17
31 14/10/2014 - 11:41 AM
By MichaelMelb_AU
Serious Amateurs and Pro's are at least here:
Well that depends - if you start off insulting people chances are it will go south faster than this one did. I mean stating that only 3 lenses make a pro and that after those 3 zooms pros will then move onto primes only really is somewhat insulting to anyone not using that equipment. It's also childish and ignorant of the fact that many people use a wide variety of equipment setups and that they are still capable of producing fantastic results.

Yeah there is better, but what you present isn't better its just different and based upon your personal conditions and upon some basic "popular lens" statistics.

In Lenses | Page: 1, 2, 3
252 16/10/2014 - 10:11 AM
By TanyaH
It's called "The Eye"
Dear Eye,

This is brain, I'd like to lodge a formal complaint that you're hogging all the lime light for so called "creative skill" in photography and art. I'd like to remind you that you're just a light gathering receptacle and that without me to sort out that horrid mess of information you spew out; you'd not be able to render anything in focus, let alone focus upon anything.

I'll also remind you that you don't do any creative thinking; you just look for shiny or sparkly or fast moving things to look at, if not you go where I tell you to look because you've not the creative independence to do otherwise.

So I'd like you to formally refrain from claiming that you're the 'bees knees' for composition and creativity. If you fail to do so I'll have to contact you via my lawyer and file for divorce.

Yours, Brain

In Digital cameras | Page: 1, 2 ...16, 17
7 14/10/2014 - 1:11 PM
By Gaucho
Serious Amateurs and Pro's are at least here:
All this sudden talk of we makes me think Illuminati!

252 16/10/2014 - 10:11 AM
By TanyaH
Thinking of Moving from Canon to Nikon D3300 Plus std kit lens - comments?
Michael its important because the OP has stated a clear reasoning for their thoughts. If that reasoning is flawed then even when/if they jump to Nikon it might not cure their problems; as a result they'll be really out of pocket and they'll have not fixed the core problem.

That's why we want to fully establish that this is something that could potentially be fixed by going to Nikon - or if not present solutions that could fix the problem (and since cameras are cameras any fix that works for Canon would benefit the op even if they do change to Nikon as well).

We assume the OP is after fact more than just round of "yeah go for it" support because he's asking here not on facebook Wink

In Nikon Cameras | Page: 1, 2 ...16, 17
31 14/10/2014 - 11:41 AM
By MichaelMelb_AU
Serious Amateurs and Pro's are at least here:

Quote:
don't agree with me Ken as I'm afraid that I think you are completely in the wrong in this case, causing dissent for some reason best known to yourself

Entertainment for the self (typically called trolling).

We don't even know if its the real "Ken" who owns a website that was posted earlier - could be an even more sinister plot to defame another individual!

*flees the thread after adding some petrol to the fire*

In Lenses | Page: 1, 2, 3
252 16/10/2014 - 10:11 AM
By TanyaH
First macro lens help (canon)
In your position I'd also consider:

Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro - nearly the same price as the Canon with the bonus that it will mount onto a fullframe camera body without any issues (the 60mm macro is crop sensor only). Whilst that might not be a factor in the near future it could be a consideration down the line.

Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro - this is a bit more expensive but still roughly in the same price bracket. It's bonus is that you get a fairly good chunk of focal length.



Focal length for macro lenses is important because it means that when you're focused at the closest focusing point the distance from subject to camera is increased if the focal length is longer. The frame coverage is going to be the same (because the closest focusing point is a magnification ratio of 1:1 - size reflected on the sensor by the lens:size in real life); although at the extremes of focal length differences (eg 60mm to 300mm) you'd see the background blurring increase with a longer focal length lens (depth of field remains identical, but with the right angle the reduced blurring effect can make shorter focal length lenses appear to have a bit more depth of field). In the 60mm to 90mm bracket you're unlikely to see a huge difference though.

Each of those lenses contains top optics so they'll all be very comparable sharpness wise. So really its what you can afford coupled with what you think will be best for you - they are all great choices and will do really well.



Personally I own and use the Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro. For me its bonus is that its small, light and works really well (tested next to my Canon MPE 65mm macro and Sigma 150mm macro its just about the sharpest one at f2.8 by a touch). The other bonus is that it will fit to Sigma teleconverters - I'm a big fan of using a 1.4TC on a macro lens - the difference between 1:1 and 1.4:1 might not sound huge, but in real world terms its the difference between seeing the flies eye and seeing the segments on the flies eye clearly.

In Lenses | Page: 1, 2 ...16, 17
14 23/10/2014 - 8:05 AM
By paulbroad
Serious Amateurs and Pro's are at least here:
But we already know there is a really serious world of photography - we're it Wink We are the photographers who are a bit more serious (each in our own way) and we sort of chat about it lots here on the forum. Asides which any serious photographer knows that the tools one uses will be different to those of another even if they are aiming for similar levels of quality.











Asides which even more we know that the real sign of seriousness and dedication isn't a lens. It's not a camera body either nor a tripod nor a flash - its a beard and a hat.

Seriously go look - nearly all the top photographers in the world have at least a hat or a beard and the really good ones have both!

252 16/10/2014 - 10:11 AM
By TanyaH
Thinking of Moving from Canon to Nikon D3300 Plus std kit lens - comments?
William - I believe that's because you can use a clear (no glass) adaptor to fit a Nikon lens to a Canon body - whilst with the reverse the difference in mount distances means that you have to use a glass element and thus risk losing a degree of image quality (likely very minor, but also likely to be most of the edge doing such would get you over just using a Nikon equivalent).

Also far as I recall that mostly only is done with a single Nikon wide angle zoom lens (I think its a zoom). Otherwise most of the time its not done by many people.


But we are sort of getting away from the original point now, where we are mostly waiting for input from the OP again.

In Nikon Cameras | Page: 1, 2 ...16, 17
31 14/10/2014 - 11:41 AM
By MichaelMelb_AU
Is sophistication in software reducing the need for full blown studio's?
Thing is are they using the CGI for Ikea because they can or simply because the objects are already rendered in 3D images for their CAD design so it just makes sense to take the already established 3D models and make use of them.

In Digital cameras | Page: 1, 2, 3
43 13/10/2014 - 3:18 PM
By User_Removed
Serious Amateurs and Pro's are at least here:
This one is cute - mods can we please keep it as a pet?

Promise we'll take it for walkies and feed it and look after it all up till around Christmas - then we'll probably get bored and we can put it up for adoption or something Grin






But yeah seriously, stupid stance being taken attempting to justify the perfect "pro" or "serious" setup. I mean for a start its Nikon equipment so that mean the OP can't be talking about any "serious" macro photographers because they all shoot Canon with the MPE 65mm f2.8 macro lens. And its probably not much of a "serious" photographer anyway because its all zoom lenses; and everyone knows that "serious" pros use prime lenses only!

Also no lighting gear so all those studio togs are out of the game too!

In Lenses | Page: 1, 2, 3
252 16/10/2014 - 10:11 AM
By TanyaH
Is sophistication in software reducing the need for full blown studio's?
My view on filters:

1) Polarizers - can't be mimicked in editing - the ability to remove reflections (on none metallic surfaces) is very powerful

2) Neutral Density filters - sometimes there is just too much light for the shot you want. The ISO only goes so low and smaller apertures and/or faster shutters speeds might cut out light, but they also makes significant chances to the produced photo.

3) Graduated Neutral Density filters - like the ND filters above these help cut out the light. Whilst you can argue that their most common use can be to produce a divide in the amount of light entering the camera from two different light sources (thus allowing even exposure over both) - and thus can be replaced by the use of HDR methods; the fact is that sometimes you can't have split second between shots; or again like the ND filters above there is just too much ambient light present.

4) Colour filters - if you want special colour effects on your light from specific sources, thus cast upon only specific areas of the photo - again the filters prove to be a stronger, simpler, quicker and cheaper option (cheaper if we count money as time spent editing.

In Digital cameras | Page: 1, 2 ...16, 17
43 13/10/2014 - 3:18 PM
By User_Removed
Is sophistication in software reducing the need for full blown studio's?
The computer of course - because unlike the warming filter the computer does your emails, internet, editing (which you pretty much have to do anyway - esp if using RAW), games, word documents, website building etc.... The computer does masses, heck these days you pretty much have to have computer or a good phone/tablet with net access to do much.

In Digital cameras | Page: 1, 2, 3
43 13/10/2014 - 3:18 PM
By User_Removed
Sigma ring flash
Double check that you got the batteries in the right way around and such.

If that fails check the manual or online google search to see if it has an internal battery compartment. Many electronic items have a small button cell battery and if that fully drains out it can sometimes cause it to mess up and fail to start. If it has one it should be accessible (normally behind a panel with a small screw securing it).

Those would be the most likely causes of the problem since you didn't leave any batteries inside it (thus leaky battery isn't an issue).

In Lighting | Page: 1, 2, 3
3 15/10/2014 - 10:01 AM
By altitude50
Is sophistication in software reducing the need for full blown studio's?
Time is another factor.

Throwing a filter on for changing global colourbalance is easy in editing - but some other effects, even with the very good tools we have today take a fair bit of time to do as well as a studio shot. As a result the photographer ends up having to spend far more time before a screen than behind a camera; for many this is not the ideal approach.

Also many of the people I know who do use a LOT of digital editing are more akin to digital painters than photographers - but they can often be the most demanding photographers too. Because they know they have to get the shot perfect because they are going to then spend hours working on it and push and pull it to the limits.


It's a new kind of approach and certainly very valid, but I don't think it will negate full studio setups. Yes we have lost some tools that are no longer needed as much as they were in the past; but I don't think we'll see the studio itself vanish.

Asides from that you've the general pleasure most photographers get from seeing the photo they want on the back of hte LCD - if anything the LCD increases the desire for the photo to be as finished as possible in the camera itself.
.

edit - whilst I think of it a filter in editing can easily change the global colour levels - but if you want to change select areas and have a believable colour cast from directional sources - then its a whole lot harder to do in editing. Again something where taking the shot for real creates the real effect in likely far far less time than editing - with no risk that you'll miss areas.

43 13/10/2014 - 3:18 PM
By User_Removed
Thinking of Moving from Canon to Nikon D3300 Plus std kit lens - comments?
Is there any chance you could upload some 100% crops from your current camera to show is the problem that you are having with sharpness on the various lenses. It might help also since it will give us a clear idea of what you are seeing (at present we can only guess).

With that info we can also see if its a case that you're being more demanding than the camera+lens can perform at; or if its a case that something in your methodology is in need of an adjustment; or if its something that can be resolved with a change in the editing process. The latter two points will remain valid even if you jump to Nikon.

A few things to also consider:
1) When you view at 100% on higher mp camera bodies you get a much greater enlarged photo. The result is that they can look soft when compared to older bodies that have a lower mp count. When I shifted from 400D to 7D I found that the 7D shots looked soft at 100% compared to my 400D - but only because I'm now blowing them up to a much greater magnification at 100%. I now tend to tone back to 60% or so to judge sharpness on the 7D and keep 100% for sharpening/noise removal.

2) When you increase the MP value of a camera you increase the magnification at the 100% view. The result of this is if you want a perfectly crisp 100% view shot you've got to increase your base handholding shutter speed limits. Because now you're magnifying that much more you've also got that much more handshake showing at 100% view. So to get it perfectly crisp you have to use a faster shutter speed than you would in the past to counter that shake effect.
Note this is a lesser concern in the practical world because we don't tend to view at 100% size - we print or resize for web display - which when combined with staged sharpening and resizing steps means that we lose that "softness" (much like we lose noise)



Also have you considered simply moving to another Canon line body? A 7D or even shift into fullframe with the 5D line of bodies. They might give you the performance improvement that you want without forcing you to sell off your current gear and jump ship.

In Nikon Cameras | Page: 1, 2, 3
31 14/10/2014 - 11:41 AM
By MichaelMelb_AU
The upgrade bug - pet or pest?
Yep I think the only time its a "problem" for people is if you're buying new gear and then not using it, whilst at the same time not enjoying the simple act of collecting (nothing wrong in collecting camera gear be it digital or film - new or old). Then it is indeed more money burning a hole in your pocket than anything else.

Otherwise I see more being people critical of others spending money; many times (esp with people in that new-intermediate bracket of skill) people will be critical of another purchasing equipment "too good for them" Which often translates into "I really wish I could afford that" or "I really wish I could have afforded that when I was at their skill level".

On the filpside if someone they respect buys a new camera they are complimented for the correct choice in improving their potential quality/diversity.


My view is so long as you're not making yourself or your dependants suffer; then if you can afford and justify the cost - get it. Sure sometimes you'll get things that have a potential greater than your current actual skill; but by having the potential there you can grow into it rather than grow and then be hampered by lower performance gear.

In Light-hearted chat | Page: 1, 2, 3
29 10/10/2014 - 6:47 PM
By Paul Morgan
The upgrade bug - pet or pest?
Whilst older gear still works as well as it did, when something new comes along that new thing can perform better. It doesn't mean that the old thing no longer doesn't work well, it just means that the bar for performance has gone up.

For many of us we desire to get the best we can - to get it right in camera- to get the best exposure - the best composition etc... To get the best.

If our finances allow us to improve the quality of equipment we work with then we increase the maximum potential of our equipment. We might not all reach those limitations, however raising the bar often happens both at the low and the top end so we might well see a general rise; even if not by a night and day difference.


Then you've conditions and needs. The conditions in which we shoot and what we want to shoot (and how) will vary over time. Some of us might get our thing and stick at that and be quite happy shooting that one thing the whole time. At the other extreme we might be jumping from subject and situations very quickly. The more toward the latter end you are the more you'll likely look to upgrade, add to or replace your equipment to better meet the newest interest you have.


Keeping up for many on the forums is likely a lesser element - we are often the more keen so we see more desire to upgrade with a general functional real world advantage; not so much the desire to keep up with Uncle Bob.

That said many professionals often want to stay at the forefront of gear; not just to keep their maximum potential high; but also because if you're hired you want to turn up with the right gear - and in todays market turning up with a rebel camera would not be the best way to start a client/professional relationship (since most clients will know that a rebel is "entry level").

In Light-hearted chat | Page: 1, 2
29 10/10/2014 - 6:47 PM
By Paul Morgan
Noise reduction and Speckles!
Nikut - could you go through your sharpening methods in more detail please? I've tried them in photoshop and unless I'mg getting something wrong they are causing all kinds of issues with the colour and contrast of the shot.

I went into layers - duplicated the base layer and then applied a highpass (filter - other - highpass) and tried the value you suggested. I then set it to the Luminosity overlay and a value of 60% opacity. That in itself makes the shot significantly different, though more so in colour rendition (its like a huge de-contrasting of the shot).

Trying with your unsharpening mask in overlay mode similarly messed with the colours - pushing saturation and contrast way up.

In Digital imaging | Page: 1, 2
21 09/10/2014 - 6:19 PM
By SlowSong
Equine Event Photography
So I recently did a day shooting at an indoor horse jump event - first time shooting such an event so it threw up a few things that I'd not experienced nor done before specifically. Below I've got a few of my thoughts from the day, however I'd also like to hear about others experiences in this area; chances are I'll get to go back again this year so I'd like to go back as armed as I can with new ways to tackle the event.

1) Try not to get right in front of the jump - even if the riders head is up chances are the horses head is going to go up as well and with that and the mane most of the time the riders head will end up hidden. Instead try to position to the side a little more so that you can catch the head looking toward the next jump (seems to be the direction most look at once the horse is in full swing over the jump).

2) Riders make really strange facial expressions. Some of them very unfetching as they ride, which adds an added complication since all else might be ok with the shot.

3) A horse and rider are very tall in the frame, so portrait aspect is going to be very common unless your totally side-on to a jump or moving horse and rider.

4) I found I was shooting rather wide and that when I've been editing I've needed to crop away parts of the shot - partly as a result of the tall rider and horse aspect and trying to ensure all parts remain in the shot. Whilst its wasted frame its not too bad in my view - better to get hooves and tail and heads in than to have them clipped off.

5) 70-200mm f2.8 is a good workhorse for an indoor shoot; however 120-300mm can work as well giving a bit of a tighter frame for some shots in the 200-300mm range; but 120mm is far too long (esp on crop) to be the shortest working distance.

6) I shot most of the event at f4; which combined with the small area made for some very unfetching and busy backgrounds. Sadly even at f2.8 I suspect they'd have still been fairly busy backgrounds - not an easy thing to deal with inside (I stuck at f4 mostly to try and ensure horse and rider were as much in-focus as possible - rather than pull back to f2.8 and risk more blurred noses or faces).

7) Manual mode all the way in the mostly constant lighting inside; handheld light meter might be more use than test exposures and histogram review; but otherwise stick to a fairly staple series of settings that work. Saying that after editing I think I could have gone to f3.5- lost a bit of depth but gained that little bit of aperture for a little more brightness (I've been boosting by around 0.48 on exposure on most shots).

8) Knowing what direction riders will take on the course is easy once you've seen one or two do it - however that means the first few shots are oft a mess as you're playing catch-up and guess (small course so not too hard to guess what they were aiming for; but still one doesn't want to be running up and down trying to chase them).
Thus I think that next time I would be wise to ask and walk the course with the riders before they jump. That combined with a little quick sketch of the jumps means I can get a rough idea of the course they'll take and thus try and position myself where I can get a few good shots whilst also keeping in mind things like trying not to get them coming head on - or looking for straight side on shots.



So those are my thoughts, anyone else got any others to share?

5 17/10/2014 - 9:10 PM
By Overread
Noise reduction and Speckles!
Ahh that comb effect now I know what you mean! Yeah I try and avoid that as much as I can in general - normally it is indeed a sign that you're pushing things that bit too far (andbanding becomes more an issue).

21 09/10/2014 - 6:19 PM
By SlowSong
Noise reduction and Speckles!
It's sort of got a comb effect going on

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/Untitled_zpsc82005f8.png

Yes this was a dark shot with too much horse and subject shadowed by the light present.

In Digital imaging | Page: 1, 2
21 09/10/2014 - 6:19 PM
By SlowSong
Ebay hiccough
I'd only use bank transfer on someone who has a proven track record for honest dealing - that means not just a load of green dots in ebay; but actual feedback from buyers. Even then though its still risky because there are no safeguards on bank transfers - you pay your money and you trust totally in the other party with no back-up protection. (I think there is some but you've got to go through lots of legal stuff to get there and then its mostly going to be a small claim court situation).


Ebay won't protect you if you pay outside of their system -heck they specifically state if anyone asks for payment outside of their system that you're advised to stop trading with that person and inform ebay.

16 07/10/2014 - 11:54 PM
By Chris_L
Noise reduction and Speckles!
Here's a sample of the spots'

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/overmind_2000/test_zpsd47e22a5.jpg


I don't think its dust, they appeared only one one or two shots and they don't have any distribution pattern that suggests its dust in the air; but rather something camera-side causing the effect.

Another person has raised the point of using the remove dust and scratches tool in photoshop which has done a decent job of removing them; still softens the details but its one option to use (its also less crude than the de-speckle feature as the power of the dust and scratches tool can be adjusted).

In Digital imaging | Page: 1, 2
21 09/10/2014 - 6:19 PM
By SlowSong
Ebay hiccough
If a scammer gets hold of a good standing ebay account they will use tricks like asking for payment by another method. Some also get pretty forceful because they basically get one chance to scam before someone likely reports them and they have to track down another account to hijack.

It's always buyer beware and if anything seems dodgy just contact ebay and if need be cancel the order - far better than risking your money (or at least your time since you'd have to prove and wait for any challenge should something go wrong).

16 07/10/2014 - 11:54 PM
By Chris_L
Noise reduction and Speckles!
I've heard of Topaz (think I used it in the past too) though I don't really want to end up adding too many programs (I hardly know what to use that I've got Wink)

Mike - I don't think these are hot pixels; they are not standard in spacing and are not even present on some shots. It just seems to be a random artefact of the exposures sometimes (I'm shooting equine so shots are typically fairly fast so long exposure noise aspects to deal with).

In Digital imaging | Page: 1, 2
21 09/10/2014 - 6:19 PM
By SlowSong
Noise reduction and Speckles!
So I've been working on some ISO 1600 photos from my 7D; I don't normally shoot that high so I'm hitting a barrier on my noise reduction methods a bit. There are also a few with some under-exposure so that isn't making things any easier.

The problem I'm most encountering is speckles - white dots all over the shot. I can't seem to reduce them without impacting sharpness too much; the de-speckle tool in CS5 is doing its job well, but just destroying the sharpness. Even when I use the fade option any meaningful impact on the speckles kills sharpness.

Neat image (my go-to tool for noise reduction) can't seem to deal with the speckles at all, does the noise fine, but the speckles aren't touched. I've also mucked around with the use of a mask from the colour-channels to mask off areas for noise reduction and then invert and mask for sharpening - however whilst that seems to work well (got to practice more with it) it, again, seems defeated by speckles.

I can spot heal them out - but that seems to be an excessively time consuming approach.


So has anyone got any general advice on dealing with speckles - or just working with high ISO noise in general.

For reference I've got the latest editions of Photoshop and Lightroom - Neat Image and I'm using a Canon 7D

In Digital imaging | Page: 1, 2
21 09/10/2014 - 6:19 PM
By SlowSong
Lenses and teleconverters
Mike - thanks for that bit of information! I've not used Kenko and didn't even know Tamron made any (I use Canon and Sigma). I based my Kenko info off what others have said and on a photo I saw of one of their line that appeared to have a protruding front element (very shallow, like a coins width in height if I recall right).

In Lenses | Page: 1, 2
10 06/10/2014 - 9:48 PM
By Overread
The Basics of Photography
Personally I found running a simple blog a good exercise in ones own learning.

Because what it forces you to do is really pause and write out what you did and why - and from that you can often learn a lot more because you're organising and formalising your thoughts. Sometimes you'll suddenly realise and something will go "click" in your head and you'll understand a concept that through reading and practice you just couldn't get your head around.

It can also encourage you to read a little more into things (as you're doing now) and also helps give some structure to what you shoot so you can more easily do projects or focus on key areas.



Also a few books you might find of help:
1) Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson.
2) Light Science and Magic 4th edition (all about lighting control)
3) The Photographers Eye by Micheal Freeman (composition - its a LOT more than jsut rule of 3rds).

13 05/10/2014 - 12:56 PM
By Chris_L
Lenses and teleconverters
A few points to consider:

1) All teleconverters have a front element that protrudes into the rear of the lens that is being mounted into it. As such there is a physical limitation on what lenses can and cannot mount to a teleconverter. Note that there is variation - Canon has large, Sigma are a little smaller, but nearly the same, Kenko Pro series (comparable quality to Canon and Sigma) have a nearly flat but not quite protrusion.

So always check to see if your lens can take it - note many lenses also move the rear element so your lens, if you tried it, might fit at one focus/zoom position - but set it to another and it parts could start hitting each other.

2) Teleconverters magnify what the lens delivers, as such any weakness in the lens is magnified as well. This is typically shown in softening. All teleconverters will soften on all lenses; however high end lenses with a 1.4TC will typically show very negligible softening. However those lenses in lower tiers (esp cheaper zooms at the long end where its already softer than at the short end) can oft be unsuitable because the image quality drop is just too much.

1.4TC are normally safe with most good lenses - 2*TC are generally best only on to of the range lenses.


Personally most of the 70-300mm that I know of are not high enough in quality to really take a TC - plus many are designed with rear elements that stick back far more so so they oft don't even have the capacity to take a TC even if you wanted one.

10 06/10/2014 - 9:48 PM
By Overread
Messenger bag recommendations
Hmm couldn't find the one with coupons (I don't get their coupon book thing as I don't have a tesco card and the family one tends to get lost in the mess that is the kitchen).

However in better news I found a small steal on Ebay and picked up a Lowepro Stealth Reporter 650 AW! Bag hardly looks like its been used either, some minor wear on the zipper buckles, but otherwise very clean and in great condition!

Best of all it's even big enough to hold a 120-300mm f2.8!

8 21/10/2014 - 5:10 AM
By Darcy11
Is it better to crop than sharpen for sharp photos?
My rough resizing process (note I have lightroom I but I tend to finish off editing in Photoshop so my output method is measured against that, but there is no reason at all that the following shouldn't work in Lightroom.

1) Perform all required adjustments to the photo.

2) Perform noise reduction (global and/or local).

2) Perform a single sharpening pass over the whole photo to get it looking sharp to the eye (again global and/or local).

3) Resize. Note I use a 7D so I've files just over 5K pixels on the longest side. So my first resizing is to 3000 pixels on the longest side.

4) Sharpen again - typically a global sharpen.

5) Resize to 1000 pixels on the longest side

6) Sharpen again - typically a global sharpen (note that by this stage the amount of sharpening needed is normally very slight).

7) Save - typically for the web its a JPEG on high quality settings.

By doing it this way I counter the softness introduced by the resizing; and by doing it in a few stages you tend to get a sharper end result (I assume this is because whilst you've still lost a lot of data, the in-between sharpening stage simplifies the info a little via the clarification of boundaries (ergo sharpening) so when its resized again less detail data is lost).

Global = the whole photo
Local = using layer masks to specify select areas of the photo only.

18 24/09/2014 - 10:26 PM
By arhb
Canon 7D mk II
Oh yeah the 7D will beat pretty much everything that isn't 1D for AF now - chances are (as its the pattern with Canon at present) its video features will be the best yet - although it's almost a given now that whatever the newest DSLR is (barring rebels) it will generally have advances in video features.

In Canon Cameras | Page: 1, 2
55 25/10/2014 - 8:07 AM
By keithh
Canon 7D mk II
6D is fullframe so there is a good chance that it will retain an edge over the crop sensor 7D in terms of noise performance. That's not to say the 7DMII is bad, just that its a lot easier to produce improved noise performance on larger sensors.

In Canon Cameras | Page: 1, 2, 3, 4
55 25/10/2014 - 8:07 AM
By keithh
Canon 7D mk II
Honestly I'd upgrade if I had the money - BUT - there are a good few things that I'd rather upgrade first (eg more flashes - Cognisy's toys - tripod - tripod head - big lens etc...). So whilst I consider it a viable upgrade to the 7D, its not night and day/make or break for me at present to upgrade.

In Canon Cameras | Page: 1, 2, 3, 4
55 25/10/2014 - 8:07 AM
By keithh
Machine gun photography
A) Depends on the situation and sometimes an element of experience plays a part here. The more experienced will likely need less use of burst to get the shot - those with less experience might want to have that added insurance of more frames to work with (note that an otherwise experienced photographer in a new situation/subject can be very inexperienced with that specific type of photography)

B) For most I suspect this isn't a factor; sure there are a tiny handful who are using it just to show off; but I suspect most show off for a day or two with the new camera and then just get on and use it.

C) Some I suspect don't know that they can limit the burst rate (eg my 7D can cut it in half to 4fps if you set it to in the menus); and others likely want to stay in multi-shot as a standard mode because it means less time in the menu changing settings when a fast action shot comes along.

D) You never know!

E) Kind of like B, but otherwise not an avenue of thought I've really considered much as a primary intent of using burst mode.

F) As daft as it can sound sometimes this is likely a primary reason many are doing it intentionally. It might not be that plane and background change significantly, but that the framing the photographer has changes. And they'd rather get the frame right in the camera than shoot wide and then fiddle around with it in editing (most of us like the purity of getting as much in the camera correct at the time of the shot - its also more pleasing to get a keeper right there from the get-go than only after editing).

G) Yeah for some it will be.

H) Yep like G for some this will be the case.


Myself. I tend to shoot action subjects so I live in continuous AF and burst mode on my cameras. I also have sufficient card space that this doesn't affect my capacity to shoot through a full day, so the "waste" shots are not prevening me taking more.

This way I can leave many settings such as the AF and the burst mode just as they are and ready for any action/wildlife shot I want without having to bother with the menu. On the 7D if I have a specific subject type that I'm going to work with for a longer period of time where I don't need a burst of shots chances are I'll setup a custom mode for it with custom settings - however I typically don't want to leave the comfort zone of settings that "work" in varied conditions when shooting something on a one-off - even if its a one-off for the day sometimes.

I will admit that most of the time my bursts are closer to a small group of shots - I don't gun for several seconds and get dozens of identical shots.

In Taking photos | Page: 1, 2, 3, 4
41 23/09/2014 - 2:28 PM
By TanyaH
Messenger bag recommendations
Thanks for the suggestions all - esp manfrotto I didn't even think to check them (been a while since I was last after a tripod so hadn't noticed that they'd pushed more so into the bag market).

In Accessories | Page: 1, 2, 3
8 21/10/2014 - 5:10 AM
By Darcy11
Messenger bag recommendations
So I'm looking for a messenger bag which I can use along with a backpack whilst going around college (backpack has other things in it already so I can't use a backpack for the rest).

Ideally I want something that can carry:
1) Laptop
2) DSLR with grip
3) Bigger lenses (f2.8 70-200mm etc..)
4) Book(s)

So far the: Timbuk2 D-Lux Laptop Bondage Messenger (medium/large) along with a camera insert has been recommended by a few.

I've also been looking at some and the Lowepro Stealth Reporter D650 AW appears to be a good option (though it won't likely hold many books); It's also discontinued and there appear to be D650 and 650 models though I can't find if this is a difference in product or just naming convention.

So anyone got any further thoughts or suggestions that might help?

8 21/10/2014 - 5:10 AM
By Darcy11
Canon 7D mk II
More samples http://www.cameraegg.org/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii-sample-images-movies/

Honestly I want this camera, I've a 7D and its fantastic - MII is just better! Though I'd say I'll hold off till the price drops and I get a few more things that I'd rather get first (flash.....lasers.....fancy tripod head)

55 25/10/2014 - 8:07 AM
By keithh
Sigma 500 f4.5
I'll be keen to see how the 120-300mm f2.8 OS stands up to the new 150-600mm high end option from Sigma.

That said if you're after birds chances are you won't have much need for zoom; there's no point having a zoom where you're always at one focal length, you might as well get a prime (if they are of comparable image quality and aperture range, chances are the prime will be lighter).

In Lenses | Page: 1, 2, 3, 4
11 26/09/2014 - 7:27 PM
By ARI
Crisp sharp images
Always use the lowest ISO - honestly I hate that advice; its really one of the worst a beginner can read because it starts to make them avoid anything above ISO 100. They sacrifice depth of field or shutter speeds to try and stop the photo "getting noisy" and it hampers their early development if they are shooting moving subjects and shooting handheld.

Noise is annoying, but it can be dealt with; furthermore expose correctly at a higher ISO and you'll get less noise than if you underexpose at a lower ISO. Furthermore if you're shutter speed is too slow you get subject and/or handshake blur - blur is something you can't fix. It's there to stay in a shot* - so let the ISO go higher, you can deal with the noise. In addition when you resize for the web or print out your photo most of the noise will vanish on its own even without noise removal (noise removal helps give a cleaner result - though be mindful that you want to avoid doing it too strongly and getting banding in the blurry regions).


Sharpening and noise reduction are two very common steps that can be as quick as a few clicks; or can take a few hours. There is a skill in using the software; but for early starting focus on the camera side of things; editing can then be there to really pull the best out the shot.

Also remember there are many ways to the same end result in editing; so read around - you might find a workflow that suits you and gives you the results you want.

35 17/09/2014 - 6:52 PM
By Chris_L
Photography magazines
What shocks me is that in the USA the British magazines on photography are supposed to be very good in comparison to what they get - and most of the time my thoughts mirror those said above; that the content is repetitive and very light on details.

It also always annoyed me that all the editing was done on photoshop = pre the new contract approach to getting Photoshop this meant that any beginner basically was expected to shell out as much as they'd just done on the camera, on the editing software in order to do any touch-up tips the magazines gave. Why they didn't use elements or something more affordable is beyond me.

Articles annoy me too - most are just so simple and quick that there is no meat; its rather like a lot of TV documentaries - pretty pictures and childish commentary with nothing to really engage or draw the person in more. Only the magazines then add half of their pages as advertisements. I'd not mind the latter if they content they gave was solid and had appeal beyond the first year or so of owning a camera; but they don't so it just adds to the problem.

I suspect we'll see this pattern continue until such time as the market for new photographers dries up or shrinks considerably. Thus forcing magazines to either adapt to an intermediate or advanced market or they'll slowly fall apart.


Honestly I'd say get something like National Geographic - fantastic inspirational photos and good articles.

76 17/09/2014 - 5:07 AM
By StrayCat