Posts for: bcrawf
Jun 5, 2018 17:06:25 #
Odd problem here: my Canon zoom lens, EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS II USM, which I was using with sharp results at a Tele calibration setting of +9, reset itself to 0 when I stupidly let the camera battery go flat. I now find that this lens, at Tele length, is best at a calibration setting of +2. It was hard to accept, but I have tested and retested. Anybody have related experience?
Apr 5, 2018 09:56:39 #
BebuLamar wrote:
At the minimum an image file must contain 3 values for each pixel. One for red, one for green and one for blue. The JPEG met this requirement.
The RAW file however only contain 1 value for each pixel. That is the most significant difference between RAW and any other image file format.
The RAW file however only contain 1 value for each pixel. That is the most significant difference between RAW and any other image file format.
You are saying that a RAW file is a trimmed-down JPEG.
Mar 9, 2018 13:39:55 #
schneiss wrote:
Planning to travel in retirement. Interested in tips for traveling with friend and family. Upcoming trips: China, Japan, Africa safari. Tips, techniques, equipment. Cost effective is important.
Since you sound like an inexperienced traveler, I suggest that group tours or cruises will be your choice. As far as doing photography is concerned, where you go will make a difference in what lens will serve best. For example, if you go on a safari trip, a lens with a good tele reach will be good to have, whereas a lens covering about 24 to 85mm will probably be adequate for a tour of cities (with some countryside included).
Mar 3, 2018 10:23:20 #
david vt wrote:
Hi br br Since taking up Digital Photography and ... (show quote)
Well, you've asked a lot. My answer is: If your present system doesn't offer what you want in speed or capacity, upgrade accordingly, but consider getting one or two iterations back from the latest model if finances dictate.
Mar 3, 2018 09:51:15 #
Gene51 wrote:
Aren't most mysteries, like how to use Live View - solved by a brief look into a camera's manual, in the index for a topic named "Live View"?
Am I missing something?
This really is a mystery . . .
Am I missing something?
This really is a mystery . . .
I agree -- the mystery is how people don't get it.
Mar 2, 2018 13:33:22 #
charlestonwalker wrote:
I live near two ponds and a creek with some trees.... (show quote)
You are underexposing as a result of setting your camera so that, given the choices you've set, it simply cannot capture enough light. It appears you are using a manual setting, in which you specify all three variables (SS, ISO and aperture). That approach makes no sense unless you are referring to an external light meter so that you know what settings will be appropriate for the subject brightness.
Mar 2, 2018 08:41:01 #
Red Sky At Night wrote:
Okay, so I have watched tutorials and have found varying opinions. I am shooting with a D850 and want to add a lens. I've seen glowing reports on the new Tamron 24-70 f2.8 G2 especially for the money. For those of you who have used both this lens and the AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm F2.8G ED in LOW LIGHT, which has given the sharpest image? Please note that I am asking specifically about LOW LIGHT situations. Thank you.
Well, the sharpest lens is the sharpest, but the lens with the larger maximum aperture has the best chance of focusing accurately (i.e., on the chosen point).
Feb 22, 2018 13:40:51 #
burkphoto wrote:
Amen, Bob!
For those who don't get the whole gray card thing, buy a decent incident light meter, learn how it works, calibrate it to your camera, and trust that. (Metering a gray card properly does the same thing as does using an incident light meter properly.)
For those who don't get the whole gray card thing, buy a decent incident light meter, learn how it works, calibrate it to your camera, and trust that. (Metering a gray card properly does the same thing as does using an incident light meter properly.)
Feb 22, 2018 13:39:19 #
Feiertag wrote:
Just curious, how would you know that for certain?
I guess you ask how I know for certain that the current standard for the exposure standard (18% gray) is "rational and consistent." My answer is that it is rational because it pegs a good average value for a mixed scene (--not every mixed scene, of course, but the average off many). Being consistent just means remaining fixed in use, important for any standard.
Feb 22, 2018 11:00:52 #
Feiertag wrote:
I like the way you think. This is why I started this post, for same reason as you described.
This reminds of when ST. John CPR was taught to the masses for so many years with a certain number of compressions and resperations. Only to find out that there was a better way of doing CPR. Maybe the 18% factor could be the same and there might be a better/accurate system?
This reminds of when ST. John CPR was taught to the masses for so many years with a certain number of compressions and resperations. Only to find out that there was a better way of doing CPR. Maybe the 18% factor could be the same and there might be a better/accurate system?
A "better" system? What is important is that the standard be rational and consistent (which I'd say it is now).
Feb 22, 2018 09:54:14 #
Delderby wrote:
To all interested posters. br My topic was to demo... (show quote)
If you do not alter an image and then merely "save-as" (in the same format), you have done no more than changed its name, so it would be the same.
Feb 22, 2018 09:42:52 #
Feiertag wrote:
I know that Kodak came up with this idea/method but why not 0%? You shoot white subjects, you have to keep the gray factor in mind. Why not design a camera that gives you the option, that meters at 0%, not 18% gray?
A meter reading of a scene (an "average" one, heh heh) tells the camera how to expose to get the scene's light parts, dark parts and the rest to average out to the middle of the light-dark scale (called the gray scale -- think of it in black and white), which is 18% in tonal value. Now, when you photograph a black cat in a coal bin or an Arctic Hare in a snowdrift, you don't want the result to come out medium gray (i.e., the middle of the lightness scale), so you must apply some visual thinking (and adjust the exposure).
Feb 20, 2018 17:11:07 #
bkijek wrote:
I tried bird photography for the first time today ... (show quote)
First, you needed to have your focus set to use just the central spot, given your description of the existence of surrounding limbs.
Q1: f/10 probably is way too small an aperture to allow you to get a fast enough shutter speed (especially since your lens seems not to have stabilization. Additionally, the small aperture may have killed the autofocus.
Q2: I do not know that extender, but it probably killed any chance of a steady exposure (--too long and too much effective loss of aperture) and may not be optically worthwhile anyhow.
Q3: For BIF, first get your setup working for sitting birds, then try BIF. Photographing against a tree background (mountainside, etc.) is different from against the sky. Against the sky, use a central focus and set to overexpose about 1.5 to 2.5 stops (or more), depending on the sky's brightness.
Feb 19, 2018 11:35:51 #
Rab-Eye wrote:
I'm curious about using a monopod without a head. I've always used a tilt head for side-to-side adjustments, but I know some prefer to attach the monopod directly to the camera. What do you see as the advantages of your method of choice, and if you attach directly, how do you handle situations when tilting it forward or backward will not give you the angle you want?
Thanks!
Thanks!
I wouldn't want to use my monopod without a head unless I were photographing a landscape or other fixed and simple subject (but then I wouldn't want to remove the head to do it, either).
Feb 16, 2018 09:14:47 #
bkijek wrote:
I tried bird photography for the first time today ... (show quote)
I think your focus needed to be set for spot focus but you had it set for a wider field.