|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:The more I mull it over, the more I wonder if I really need a monitor that displays all of the AdobeRGB gamut. There are so many variables between my monitor and the print being viewed anyway, there will always need to be test prints. I've been editing on a ACD that just barely pulls off sRGB for years now. Also, the monitor on which I may have to make tiny color adjustments is at the print shop anyway. LED backlighting is incompatible with most older color units. I found this out with my spyder 2.  e: I think all new ones work with led though.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
Reichstag, any thoughts on whether or not I should bother buying a wide gamut monitor or instead just a very good quality sRGB capable one? I seem to recall you do a lot of printing as well...? or was that brad
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 04:34
|
|
|
I don't do a lot of printing, no, and I haven't gotten anything to replace the spyder yet. I doubt a wide-gamut is going to do much for you though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
Except make you wonder why all your reds are radioactive looking, until you realize you had no idea how color profiles worked.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
So what do you guys recommend as far as backpacks go? I bought a cheapie Amazon Basics bag and it strangles me practically.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:So what do you guys recommend as far as backpacks go?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Reading and posting in the thread dedicated to bag-chat. And every day I learn there is a new thread for another piece of equipment I want. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
I'm doing all of my post-processing on a mid-2010 13" Macbook Pro (I travel a lot for work, so I do the majority of shooting on the road and I like the size of the 13" for portability), and what would you guys consider as a good monitor to hook up to this at home since a bigger screen would be a hell of a lot more helpful, obviously. Price is definitely a factor, so I'm not dropping $930 on a 27" Thunderbolt display. Any suggestions on bang for the buck?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
whatever IPS panel is in your budget.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Dell Ultasharp, spend to taste.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Dell Ultasharp, spend to taste. Awesome; thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Dell U2312HM.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 12:47
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:Dell U2312HM. Dude, you're getting a Dell! (Except an actual good thing.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Dude, you're getting a Dell! I love my 24" IPS Dell .. it's the older one (non led).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
Has anyone got any experience with the Hartblei tiltshifts? Or, even more specifically, the 45mm f3.5 one? http://www.hartblei.com/lenses/lens_45mm.htm
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Does anyone have any hands-on experience with Tiffen ND or CPL filters? I'm looking into picking up a couple for a race event this weekend but don't have the cash right now for B+W stuff. More concerned about IQ than potential glare from not having the multicoat. I'd be using them on good glass, so eventually I'll get better filters... just in a pinch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 14:20
|
|
|
emotive posted:Does anyone have any hands-on experience with Tiffen ND or CPL filters? I'm looking into picking up a couple for a race event this weekend but don't have the cash right now for B+W stuff. More concerned about IQ than potential glare from not having the multicoat. I've heard various things, from they are serviceable (always a reassuring word) to being pretty good. I mostly hear good things about their variable ND filters, but in a pinch they should suffice.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
They're fine. You'd be hard pressed to notice the difference between Tiffen and B+W without being really, really, picky. If your images are never leaving a computer screen or magazine/newsprint, it won't matter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:They're fine. You'd be hard pressed to notice the difference between Tiffen and B+W without being really, really, picky. If your images are never leaving a computer screen or magazine/newsprint, it won't matter. Cool. That's about all I need to hear. I do mostly web in the end (lots of car/motorsports photography). I'll pick up a 77MM ND and CPL filter and then just get a step up ring set since I have lenses varying from 52-77mm... Figured that'd make more sense than ordering two each of 52, 58, 67 and 77mm filters. I'll also pick up a screw on 77mm hood so I don't lose that option. A little worried about the rings/hood showing up in images, but I won't need the rings at all on my 17-50 f/2.8, and all my others are 50mm+ (50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8, 70-200 f4) so I think it'll work out okay. emotive fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Jul 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Just got in the Fotodiox extension tubes, if that is the gateway drug to macro consider me addicted. For $11 no person who owns a DSLR has any excuse for not owning them...........and then likely buying more macro gear. It costing $11, when considering what it does, is one of the most confusing things I've come across. Granted, it's just a hollow tube, so it probably shouldn't cost more than $11, but it's unbelievable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
Bob Mundon posted:Just got in the Fotodiox extension tubes, if that is the gateway drug to macro consider me addicted. For $11 no person who owns a DSLR has any excuse for not owning them...........and then likely buying more macro gear. drat, wait until you use an actual macro lens. I did enjoy my tubes while I had them as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 04:13
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:drat, wait until you use an actual macro lens. I did enjoy my tubes while I had them as well. I imagine it's way better, but how specifically? Either way, at $11, being able to do what it can do might make it the best deal on the planet. Just shot some coffee beans and the beans were about as expensive as the tube, keeping in mind I got the beans at Walmart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
Speaking of extension tubes, I'm too lazy to do any research myself, but I'm wondering: How much extension would I need to turn the Nikon 55/2.8, which by itself does 1:2, into 1:1? Any neat, easy way to calculate that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 10:48
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Speaking of extension tubes, I'm too lazy to do any research myself, but I'm wondering: How much extension would I need to turn the Nikon 55/2.8, which by itself does 1:2, into 1:1? Any neat, easy way to calculate that? Here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/macro-extension-tubes-closeup.htm
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 11:46
|
|
|
e: nm
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 12:56
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Speaking of extension tubes, I'm too lazy to do any research myself, but I'm wondering: How much extension would I need to turn the Nikon 55/2.8, which by itself does 1:2, into 1:1? Any neat, easy way to calculate that? I believe those were intended for use with the PK-13 tube, which shockingly is 13mm. Or I'm wrong and also an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
I suppose that forcing you to think about composition thing kind of stops working in the tele range, right? I'd be stupid to get say a 135/2 over a 70-200/2.8?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:I suppose that forcing you to think about composition thing kind of stops working in the tele range, right? I'd be stupid to get say a 135/2 over a 70-200/2.8? I think that all depends on how many lenses you want to carry. The 135L is a sexy beast and worthy of anyone's interest, but if you were going to carry it around as your only lens then you'd probably be better off with the 70-200 (and I'd say f/4 if you have a camera with good ISO, only because it's sharper wide open). If you're on a FF camera it's a little better but if you're on a crop then you'd definitely want something more versatile. It sounds like you want this as a walkaround lens of sorts (or at least something to have nearby while walking around in case you need a tele) so I'd probably go with the 70-200 f/4 personally. I had a lot of fun with a lovely old 70-200 f/4 when I shot my K10D. I obviously didn't get any sweeping crowd shots or anything, but it was fantastic for portrait style photos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
The idea was indeed more as walk around on a FF camera. I'd prefer wider aperture, shallow DOF and all. Not too excited about the third party options in the zoom lenses. I have to decide between a Sigma/Tamron with image stabilization with so-so IQ, or a Canon L non-II (the II is too expensive for me, also I hate the white tube) with good IQ and no stabilization. Right now I have 24/1.4 manual, 35/1.4 and 50/1.4, hauling them all with me at all times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:The idea was indeed more as walk around on a FF camera. I'd prefer wider aperture, shallow DOF and all. Not too excited about the third party options in the zoom lenses. I have to decide between a Sigma/Tamron with image stabilization with so-so IQ, or a Canon L non-II (the II is too expensive for me, also I hate the white tube) with good IQ and no stabilization. Buy my 70-200 2.8. Great price in the sale thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
What is everyone thoughts on the Carry Speed FS Pro strap vs the blackrapid straps. I really would like a shoulder strap and I'm between these right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
ManiacMatt posted:What is everyone thoughts on the Carry Speed FS Pro strap vs the blackrapid straps. I really would like a shoulder strap and I'm between these right now. Get a guitar strap, an 1/4 screw and a pressure washer and you'll have an amazing shoulder strap for very little.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
I was in Germany for a couple of weeks recently, and while I was there, I found a Nikon TC-16A for a good price. I'm posting about it in this thread rather than the Nikon one because I think it's interesting to everyone. It's a 1.6x teleconverter, but it also adds limited autofocus to whatever lens you put in front of it. It's driven like Nikon's old autofocus lenses, with the motor in camera body. The range of movement is pretty limited, especially if you are using a long lens, since the amount the elements in the TC can move is fixed, but you have to move glass further to move focus on a long lens. On something like a 35mm lens, though, you can pretty much leave the lens at infinity and get most of the range you would want to use. On an 85mm you can probably figure out a good distance to leave the lens at and not have to move it much, but for lenses that you really want a TC for, like 300mm+, you're still doing a lot of the work yourself. But now you are nailing focus just by getting close, and you can track moving objects, like birds in flight. It actually focuses quite quickly. There's a bit of a catch, though. Unmodified, it doesn't work with digital cameras. The contact pins aren't quite the same as a normal AF lens. Fortunately, someone else did all the hard work for me. It's a fairly simple mod. You solder a short wire to the flex cable at position 3, and to one of the springs that hold the pins in place. The camera gets whatever signal that used to go to contact 3 at contact 6 now, which fools it into thinking there's a normal autofocus lens attached to it. With this part of the mod complete, the camera will only shoot wide open, and thinks a 5mm f/1.0 prime, shooting at 8mm is attached to the camera (yes, that's impossible). If you try to stop down you get the fEE error. The autofocus works with digital cameras like this, but on my copy (and it sounds like, many others), it severely front-focuses without the next part of the mod. Luckily, Nikon used the same chip for this TC, a 50mm f1.8 prime, a 35-70 f/3.5-4.5 and a 70-210 f/4. There are two pins on the TC which determine what lens or TC gets reported to the camera. By clipping both of them off, it reports the 70-210 zoom. After doing this, the AF miraculously becomes accurate, and you no longer have to shoot wide open. I'm not exactly sure why this fixes the AF, but it does. You have to set your lens's aperture to 6 stops below wide open, because on the 70-210 zoom that's stopped down all the way. That does mean that you can't stop down any further than 6 stops even if your lens is technically capable of doing so (who cares?). It does also mean that you cannot use lenses that only have 5 or fewer stops of aperture, unless you switch the camera to use the aperture ring rather than the dial on the camera. I can't really say much about the image quality yet. I haven't tested it out to make sure the AF really is completely accurate, but I can definitely say that it's within the capabilities of my D300's fine tune. I just finished the mod this afternoon (actually I finished fixing the tear I made in the flex PCB  ). I can say, though, after playing around with my Samyang 85mm on it, that it does seem like stopping down a bit is a good idea. My parents have an AIS 300mm f/4.5 that I will be testing extensively with the TC  . That should give me a 480 f/6.7 lens. It should AF alright; technically lenses slower than f/5.6 don't, but some guy got AF to work with a 500mm f/8 on the TC, which is f/12.8. I'm probably going to break down and get a manual focus super-telephoto one of these days. The old manual focus 800 f5.6 shows up on KEH for around $3000 fairly often, that's practically free compared to the new AF-S one! I can totally hand hold one of those if it autofocuses, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
Would someone take pity on me and explain to me, start to finish, how the gently caress color profiles and monitor calibration and printer profiles and color spaces and color management in photoshop and all that poo poo actually works and interfaces with each other? I understand that monitors cannot display all of the colors that cameras can capture and printers can print. I (think) I understand that color profiles are a way of telling monitors what color to display that looks closest to a color they can't display. I don't think I get what all goes on with setting a color profile for your monitor, setting a color profile to a photo in Photoshop, how printer profiles work, how calibration helps/what it does, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
I'm still learning, but I have found this to be a great source: http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
I'm not sure if anyone else has this problem but hey. I use a canon eyepiece extender and I keep losing the eyecup off the thing. It's really loose and I'm getting really tired of it. Should I use put black electrical tape around it or is there a better way? The eyecups themselves are crazy loose to the point that they'll come slip off inside my bag.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2013 08:25
|
|
|
dakana posted:Would someone take pity on me and explain to me, start to finish, how the gently caress color profiles and monitor calibration and printer profiles and color spaces and color management in photoshop and all that poo poo actually works and interfaces with each other? Buy this book: http://www.amazon.com/Real-World-Color-Management-Edition/dp/0321267222/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373244900
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:The more I mull it over, the more I wonder if I really need a monitor that displays all of the AdobeRGB gamut. There are so many variables between my monitor and the print being viewed anyway, there will always need to be test prints. I've been editing on a ACD that just barely pulls off sRGB for years now. Also, the monitor on which I may have to make tiny color adjustments is at the print shop anyway. I don't know about all calibration hardware, but my i1Display pro works fine with my LED back-lit screen. As does a friend's Spyder 3. Calibrating it will require quite large adjustments to the R-G-B gain of the screen's back-light. So it must be able to adjust the fine LED gain individually or you'll be screwed. AFAIK even the IPS gamut is not wide enough to account for the full LED color shift. I couldn't believe how cool the LED back-lighting color temperature actually is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
Any thoughts on off brand grips? I really, really want a grip for my 6D (I shoot in portrait frequently enough). I was looking at one from Zeikos (link below) for $60, seems to have mostly good reviews .. http://www.amazon.com/Zeikos-ZE-CBG6D-Battery-Canon-Black/dp/B00AZRGIO0/ref=cm_cmu_pg__header
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
mAlfunkti0n posted:Any thoughts on off brand grips? I really, really want a grip for my 6D (I shoot in portrait frequently enough). I was looking at one from Zeikos (link below) for $60, seems to have mostly good reviews .. The zeikos ones are supposed to be pretty good, especially for the money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2013 17:40
|
|
