-
Posts
202 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Members' Showcase
Posts posted by roicead
-
-
2 hours ago, Black Pearl said:
Fuji X and Lightroom are near perfect partners. Yes there are some very minor issues with some rendering of the RAF files but with the current version of LR it is damn near irrelevant in the real world.
The combination of Fuji and LR for me runs in perfect harmony, I get better images than I ever have, my workflow is simple, clean and swift and I enjoy the pairing more and more every day.
i have a lot of issues with the green details. it wasn't so bad with the x-t1, but with the x-t2 there's a very noticeable difference in the rendering of foliage and the dreaded worms. i noticed it in almost all of my photos from vacation last fall. and when i say noticed, it was evident just looking at the images, not zoomed in to 100%.
-
welcome back to the wonderful world of fuji. i love my fuji x cameras. but i also love lightroom. and i can't get the two to play nicely so i went back to canon. keeping the fuji just in case. it's a shame too because fuji and lightroom would be my perfect setup.
-
well done korky!
-
nice one, congrats!
-
ghost recon dark waters by tom clancy. goes with the new ghost recon video game.
-
hello and welcome!
-
thanks everyone. this is a pleasant surprise after a busy weekend!
-
5 minutes ago, Black Pearl said:
The lens in the link is a Cosina 100-400. If you're not happy with your Canon you'd have ten types of heart attack using that one ?
yea, i realized that not long after i posted and saw the grip in the pic was weird. i've already edited my post.
-
i never really cared much for the quality of bokeh on the 100-400mm. but the teleconverters are a pain in the butt. they work with some lenses, they only work with manual focus on others and then they don't work at all with others, and that's with the canon tc's.
i did post a short review and an image taken with the 100-400mm, but since i'm on midnight shift and can't manage to read correctly i just realized that you're looking at the cosina rather than the canon. i haven't used the cosina so i can't comment. a tc might work for awhile, but make sure it'll work with your 70-200mm f/4.
-
35 minutes ago, Clicker said:
Proof of the pudding eh ..
thats a cracking Milky Way Beth.
I must try some nightscapes later this year... It's not something I have ever attempted...
thanks. it's so easy you'll be wondering why you've never tried before.
-
when i was first starting out with nightscapes some mystic man in the tetons who i just happened to run into told me to bump up my iso to 3200 instead of trying to shoot at iso 200. i thought it was a stupid idea, but i obligingly shot off a few rounds with a high iso. found out in the hotel room later that he wasn't full of crap. he told me the sensor doesn't heat up as much with the shorter shutter speed, a hotter sensor causes more noise. here's the image i made the night i met him around oxbow bend. it was the first milky way shot that i was happy with.
-
excellent choice!
-
a lot of it also depends on the flow of the water. yes, you might get a fair amount of blur with 1/2 sec on a large waterfall that's reached maximum velocity with the help of gravity. on a slow trickling creek you might need 5 minutes. on a raindrop sliding down your car after the rain has ended you might lose to evaporation. this was a slow trickle during a drought, the water on the rocks in the foreground is usually about a foot deep, it was just a few inches when i was there..
chris, i think you're seeing a large amount of white because you're looking at such a small area. look at these photos close up and you'll see details, ebbs and flows around where rocks jut out, pathways taken by the water or trails where leaves or other debris passed through. that's the one place where digital fails, if everyone's looking at a 900px size photo on a computer screen they only see the big picture and don't see the smaller details like you'd see on a 16x20" print.
- 1
-
you've got a very nice photo. thanks for sharing.
here's one of mine at 30 seconds. i definitely wouldn't shoot a large solid waterfall like bridalveil falls in yosemite national park like this, but for broken up waterfalls i think the effect is nice. this waterfall is about 30' high
- 1
-
11 hours ago, ChrisLumix said:
Movement in water needs a shutter speed somewhere between ⅛ and 1/30 second. 'Whited out' water shows no movement whatever, just a solid white curtain.
i prefer the smoother look of flowing water. most of my waterfall shots are over 1 second, up to 30 seconds. avg. for me seems to be about 5 seconds.
-
24 minutes ago, Black Pearl said:
That should read - might result in an over exposed image if you don't pay attention to your meter.
If the light levels are low enough then you could quite easily achieve a long exposure and correct exposure using a small aperture and low ISO.
correct. but i'm not really lucky when it comes to getting to a waterfall and having a cloudy day on the same day. i've always had to break out the nd filter with waterfalls.. but you're right, the meter rules.
- 1
-
generally you use an nd filter when you need to compensate beyond the exposure capabilities of your camera or if you need a particular setting. nowadays they're used for scenarios like photographing waterfalls and getting movement in the water while shooting in daylight. shooting exposure times of several seconds or more with a stopped down aperture and lowest iso will still result in an overexposed image.
-
i've used eclipse sensor cleaner solution and pec pads for a few years on several cameras, easy to use and never had any issues.
-
awesome shot!
-
dave's looks better in terms of white balance. use a grey card or your white paper and ping pong ball and set a custom wb if you want to use what the camera records. the soft shadows look good.
-
dpreview article
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/04/15/adobe-lightroom-5-beta-preview
and adobe beta download page
-
i missed this one, wonderfully done mark!
-
i seem to remember a top gear episode where they ran a bmw 3 series behind a prius around their track and the bmw got better gas mileage - when driven like a prius..
-
wow, thanks everyone.
POTW w.e. 30/04/17
in POTW
Posted
congrats!