Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Posts for: orrie smith
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 127 next>>
Feb 22, 2019 15:01:35   #
RBal wrote:
I have a Canon Zoom lens EF75-300 1:4-5.6 with my Canon EOS and would like use it to get to 600 mm. This would be better then getting a fixed lens and lower cost. Some of the places I asked said that it would not fit my camera. Any suggestions.

The ef75-300 lens is not compatible with a teleconverter. Google your teleconverter/lens compatibility to find the lenses that will be compatible with your teleconverter. FYI, Nikon has the same restrictions, as in not all lenses will work with a teleconverter. You will probably need to buy a 300mm prime to be compatible, and even then, you may lose your autofocus capability and you will lose about 2 stops of light. Teleconverters are nice in a pinch, but they are not very reliable. Just my thoughts on the subject, and through my experience with them.
Feb 21, 2019 17:10:00   #
Delderby wrote:
Thanks to all who have replied. I was / am looking for a point at which PP might prevent a picture being thought of as a photograph?

You have reached that point. Even though your photos are both considered photography, the first one would be considered normal photography, reality, while the second one would be considered art, removed from reality through post processing.
Feb 21, 2019 09:42:19   #
ricardo7 wrote:
Yes, but neither very good.

Art is in the eyes of the beholder, no need to be rude.
Feb 21, 2019 09:38:24   #
Delderby wrote:
Well, #1 is a photograph - but what about #2?

They are both considered, technically, as photographs. But, to answer your curiosity, the first one is a realistic photograph, with minor adjustments in post processing, the second is more art, with more drastic adjustments to make it look more artistic. Very nice photos, both of them.
Feb 16, 2019 17:52:42   #
xptom wrote:
For the past 5 years I have been printing at home with a Canon Pro 100 printer using Canon's Print Studio Pro plugin for Photoshop with outstanding results. Last week there was a discussion about which paper is the best. Someone mentioned using Costco (Kirkland) paper. They make great hot dogs and pizza so I gave it a try. To my surprise the results were stunning, no difference between Canon and Costco papers --- except for cost: 20 sheet pack Canon 8 1/2 x 11 glossy from Amazon = $7.99 > $.40/sheet; 150 sheet pack Kirkland 8 1/2 x 11 glossy from Costco = $24.95 > $.17/sheet. Don't know about durability, but I'm sure they will outlast me. BTW, I did do a comparison of the two papers using the "Print" mode for Photoshop. The prints came out the same, but not as vibrant as with Print Studio Pro.

I have also wrestled with the problem as have many with getting prints just right. For what its worth my print settings for Print Studio Pro using Relative Colorimetric Intent: Brightness = +20, Contrast = +10, Cyan =+10, Magenta = -5, Yellow = -5. Note: Have not seen much difference between Relative Colormetric and Perspective Intents.

Intent Definitions - Per the Photoshop Print Dialog

Perceptual - Aims to preserve the visual relationship between color so it's perceived as natural to the human eye, even though the color values themselves may change. This intent is suitable for photographic images with out-of-gamut colors.

Relative Colorimetric - Compares the white of the source color space to that of the destination color space and shifts all color accordingly. Out-of-gamut colors are shifted to the closest reproducible color in the destination color space. Relative colorimetric preserves more of the original colors in an image than Perceptual.
For the past 5 years I have been printing at home ... (show quote)

Good to know. Another source to check is Red River Paper. You can find them online.
Feb 16, 2019 07:08:54   #
The hopper wrote:
I have a Canon 7D which has an APS-C camera sensor and gives a crop factor of 1.6. Some literature I read says that as a consequence, a standard lens will provide a perceived zoom. So for example, if I have a 100mm lens, the camera sensor will provide the equivalent to a 160mm lens (100x1.6 = 160 mm). Other literature just says that it just provides a reduced image from that which a full sensor would provide. In other words a reduced image.

I can't see how a standard lens will provide a perceived zoom. I think it will just in essence crop the picture that would be provided by a standard lens. A lens will just do what it is designed to do and cannot zoom beyond its normal range ... or have I got it wrong?

In short - help!!!
I have a Canon 7D which has an APS-C camera sensor... (show quote)

In my opinion, you are over thinking this. You are correct on all counts. A cropped sensor does in camera what you might do in post processing, cropping the photo to a 1.6 value. That would give you a "larger" image than a full frame body would. It seems that the lens is larger, as in your example of a 100mm lens becoming a 160mm lens. Some wildlife photographers prefer a cropped lens, as you will not need a larger lens, thus saving money. And you hit the nail on the head when you stated that the camera sensor will just in essence crop the picture that would be provided by a standard lens.
Feb 15, 2019 23:05:04   #
junglejim1949 wrote:
I have been considering a lens purchase and there are many options.

My question is:
1) Is it better to purchase from manufacturer (Canon)?
2) Purchase from Amazon?
3) Purchase from B&H?
4) From local Best Buy?

I live in Sacramento, CA

The prices are the same and I am wonder what advantage there might be.

Thanks for your input,

If the prices are the same, all are decent options. The one you have not mentioned, if you have a local camera shop, check them out. If we do not support our local brick and mortar stores, they will be gone soon.
Feb 15, 2019 18:42:47   #
Personally, I would take the shot with the geese at a side angle, putting the structure in the background. If I was going specifically for the geese, I would take from the angle you took, but I would get in close enough to take the background structure out of the photo. Also straighten and level the horizon. With some post processing, should look good with both of these compositions, as you do not have much to work with.
Feb 14, 2019 20:15:34   #
Nalu wrote:
I am having a tough morning as well. He said Yosemite, not Yellowstone. Sorry, had to catch you!

That was Jerry, not me, just saying.
Feb 14, 2019 07:07:54   #
Buffalolensman wrote:
I will be visiting Yosemite for a few days in October. Need advice on what to photograph. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Everything. Yosemite has bears, waterfalls, and other wildlife and landscape opportunities.

Feb 13, 2019 18:36:16   #
Nice shots
Feb 12, 2019 06:28:08   #
Feb 11, 2019 12:01:30   #
Feb 10, 2019 13:09:03   #
tonyi wrote:
Hi, going to the Grand Canyon in July and looking to capture some great memories. I have a Canon 760D with the following lens. Canon EFS 18-85 mm 3.5 IS, Canon EF 70-200 4, and a Canon EF 50 mm 1.8. Do you think I need a Prime wide angle lens, or any other lens that may work better than my current outfit.

Photos at the Grand Canyon are primarily landscape, so the 18-85 would be my first choice, and the 50mm would be my second choice. The 70-200 would probably be too much.

Feb 9, 2019 17:46:55   #
frankraney wrote:
I am going through a bunch of photos from when I worked for a living, as an employee for the power company. I worked in the Hydro PLants in the mountains. This photo was taken from a high road looking down at the camp where we stayed and some people live full time.

Taken with my Old Minolta Max 5D. Looks good except the sky, which looks like it was painted in. It really shows in the download...Would I be correct in guessing overexposed for the sky? I can make it look a little better in LR but not much.
I am going through a bunch of photos from when I w... (show quote)

It would appear to be the sky is blown out, or overexposed.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 127 next>> - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.