Just another Canon shooter: It is amazing that the author thinks of the removal of the AA filter as a plus. By this site's own admission, there is little gain in resolution but visible "gain" in aliasing, like here:
The most significant thing, if true, would be the ability of the sensor to register more photons, and the better tonality associated with that.
I was doing a comparison myself with their test scene between the Sony A7R, D800, D800E and Canon 6d. The A7R shows TONS of moire, the D800E a bit less, the D800 shows less than the D800E but still a surprising amount. The Canon 6d… NONE!
This isn't a fanboy post… I'm actually thinking of getting a Sony A7R and metabones to complement my 6d. But everything comes at a cost and the lack of an AA filter may help some, but it causes a lot of problems also.
Just know what your getting and be sure its what you want.
Real McKay: This is exactly why, I along with what I believe is the majority, prefer programs to be on our computers.Can you imagine earning you living in photography & this happens - its just not acceptable. I am switching to something where I do not depend on the cloud. LR5 & PSE12 are available still outside the cloud so no great loss of functionality for 99% of what I need.I also believe that this will hurt Adobe more than they think.
"By DStudioCraig76 - You're saying you don't need Photoshop, and you will NEVER need it it the future either!
I have my ideals, but in the end Adobe gets to decide most of what happens, and I just need to decide whether or not I need the product."
NO that is not what I said at all….. Stop putting words in my mouth.
I have CS5 suite of ALL of Adobe software. I am a graphic designer/web designer/photographer. I also have LR5 and *cough cough* I have heard there are ways *wink wink* of getting Photoshop CC for free…. Not that I would know anything about that.
I'm against this method of marketing their software. So I am taking a stand against it. I'm well set up software wise for years to come.
Also, there are getting to be many excellent alternatives. Adobe is not the only game in town.
Im done with this discussion.
Well, tell that to Adobe… I was on the phone with several agents over the course of a week while I was signing up for the program.
I was told by multiple agents that the photoshop/lightroom bundle is an annual contract… etc.
SO maybe YOU should talk to Adobe personally.
One 'minor' thing I want to correct you on. It is not a MONTHLY subscription, it is a YEARLY subscription.
You commit to 1 year, and at the end of that year have 1 chance to cancel your membership without penalty, or you are automatically renewed for another YEAR at ANY RATE THEY CHOSE. And Adobe does NOT have to notify you of any change in rate.
If you decide to cancel you must pay 50% of the charge for the remaining months on your contract.
I looked into this quite extensively. The backhanded shady ways that Adobe tries to present this are the main reasons I didn't, and will never, go with the CC.
LVPhoto1: Just hold the filter in front of any lens; pros' have been doing this for almost fifty years of my career in business......only a thought!!!
Dude, all of your sarcasm aside look at the front of the Samyang 14mm f/2.8. It is bulbous and has a petal hood. HOW can I hold an ND filter in front of the lens for long exposures (sometimes several minutes) and keep light from bleeding in and spoiling the shot?!?!
The only thing that has me a bit worried is the filter strength. I would want a strong 8-10 stop ND filter. The ND8 is only 3 stops. The filter holder will hold two filters so you could slip in two ND8s I suppose.
Does anyone know of another company that makes filters that size at more like 9 or 10 stop ND?
DVT80111: Why bother, just shoot raw, NIK it later.
If you don't know why shooting HDR is not sufficient then you don't need a filter system like this.
Its a bulbous front element. Holding an ND filter in front of the lens for several minutes wouldn't work to keep the light out.
Its great news that this filter is coming out. I was planning to buy that lens very soon anyway for astral photography, but now I will be able to use it for long exposure (water/cloud smoothing) as well!
On the 60D it'll be wide angle, on the 6D ultra wide. Heck of a great lens for the price and now I want one even more!!!
Incredible shot!!!!!!! Great composition, excellent sunset and perfect shutter speed to get just the right amount of flow for the water. LOVE IT!!!!!!
Your focus is off. The girls face is out of focus, instead the auto focus (unless you did that manually) is on the drapery behind her.
Its pretty sad how sharp the background immediately behind the model is, but she is out of focus. Laughable.
Im not sure what this is supposed to be… pretty pathetic.
Try getting your models to loosen up, and straighten the camera. Also the tone…it appears to be sepia, but is has a greenish cast on the right of the image.
Composition is unbalanced due to the horizon being off center and the island on the right. The girls expression appears troubled, and the white balance is to blue.
Your key light is way to strong… blown out all the shadows, looks flat. I pity the model.
Ace Disgrace: Its funny how much negative comments from a noob in PS or should i say who have zero knowledge in the SW. How much can u judge from a 2D image in its real distance if ur not the one who took the photo? So many people think they know so much about photography that they can judge which one is real or not. Be real and embrace the technology. Be thankful somebody is sharing their knowledge in these things.
One thing I do like about CS6 is the new oil filter. I ran that filter on one of my old landscapes to give it more of a painted look.
With careful masking, removing (deleting to prevent bleed) the trees, then layering things. Im not saying its impossible to create a fake DOF change. Will it look the same as shot at a shallow DOF to begin with? Probably depends a bit on the complexity of the scene. In general? I would say no. Bottom line, this is nothing revolutionary and does not take the place of shooting the image with the DOF you want to begin with.
I think that first shot with the flowers gives a false impression of what this filter in CS6 is capable of. That image had already been shot at a shallow DOF and was simply accentuated a bit by additional blurring.
My galleries can be seen here http://www.pbase.com/cpilecky
I am not a newb as people like to say. I am a professional graphic designer. I am finishing my first book. I know how to use Photoshop. Ok? Can we stop calling people names?
Heres a rough of the cover http://www.pbase.com/cpilecky/image/142431292
The 'technology' is not going to be able to make an F/16 shot look the same as an F/2.8 one. As I pointed out before, look at the trees on the cityscape shot. The top half of the tree is blurred out as if it is receeded further into the distance even though it is on the same focal plane as the rest of the tree..... How anyone can look at this tutorial and tool as some sort of revolution is beyond me. And yes I have the beta of CS6 also.
The tilt shift effect with the guy on the stairs is not very good. Its to obvious where the edge of the blur is. Also the top half of the trees wouldn't be blurred like that. Its not realistic and its distracting. These additional tools may prove useful under some circumstances, but the way they are being shown here is not very good IMO.
It would be much easier, and you would get much better results, if you just knew how you wanted to take the shot in the first place and then did it that way. When your doing the shoot if your not sure if you want a shallow DOF or not take one each way and then decide later.