babart

babart

Lives in United States ME, United States
Works as a Pharmacist
Has a website at www.brucebartrug.com
Joined on Jun 23, 2008

Comments

Total: 109, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

babart: Thanks for an interesting article that certainly states what I think is (is becoming?) the kernal of questions about noise. I.e., sensors being relatively equal the larger will give less noise problems, and exposing to the right (anathema to those of us who shot transparency film for decades) is the better way to expose digital sensors.

However, I often encounter areas of endeavor where a sizable segment of the image I want to capture is at the low end of the spectrum, and yet I don't want to clip what highlights there are. Think architectural photos of large spaces where lights would be fairly useless. How does the use of HDR affect the overall noise in those areas with less light? Yes, one is merging several images, one or two of which expose the darker areas of the scene at a brighter, less noisy, exposure value, but how does merging it with the darker frames affect the noise ratio in the darker portions of the image?

I don't believe any of the current HDR software is capable of "seeing to the right," which would certainly be a great idea. There are, however, ways to use two photos to combine one shot to prevent highlight clipping and a second shot to dig out the data on the dark end. An example is Photo Merge in Photoshop. However, these aren't always so great in merging, so I have used stacked images with masks to combine the photos.

It would be great if there were a merging software/plugin that would retain both the lowest and highest values between two images, then combine the two middles by blending, without the necessity for creating masks. It would also be great to have some control over that blending algorithm. Even using Smart Object snapshots (Photoshop) requires a mask to combine the two images.

Without such a program, HDR is all that's left. Hence the question. I'll be interested in the reply as well.

Thanks for writing.

Direct link | Posted on May 3, 2015 at 18:56 UTC

Thanks for an interesting article that certainly states what I think is (is becoming?) the kernal of questions about noise. I.e., sensors being relatively equal the larger will give less noise problems, and exposing to the right (anathema to those of us who shot transparency film for decades) is the better way to expose digital sensors.

However, I often encounter areas of endeavor where a sizable segment of the image I want to capture is at the low end of the spectrum, and yet I don't want to clip what highlights there are. Think architectural photos of large spaces where lights would be fairly useless. How does the use of HDR affect the overall noise in those areas with less light? Yes, one is merging several images, one or two of which expose the darker areas of the scene at a brighter, less noisy, exposure value, but how does merging it with the darker frames affect the noise ratio in the darker portions of the image?

Direct link | Posted on May 3, 2015 at 13:35 UTC as 25th comment | 2 replies
On Winds of Change: Shooting changing landscapes article (51 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Absolutely terrific images. Traveling to all these places, however, could very well cost more than a new Leica and a slew of lenses. It's great that photographers can reach these areas, and I've been to Iceland myself. I suspect, however, that most landscape photographers would find equally good images close to home if they paid attention. I know. No one looks at anything close to home, right. But there is the place you know best in all it's many varied faces, and it's there one should start.

Too, I'm wondering if landscape photography has become the province of the wealthier among us, just like the latest good equipment. Pardon my mild cynicism, but I'm retired and have to be more frugal. If that sounds envious, well it is, frankly.

I've noticed this is the new way to make a living shooting photos. Ask a few people to finance a workshop so you can travel in exotic places, make a few bucks, and get your 15 seconds of fame in some photo magazine. (It use to be 15 minutes, but this is the digital age.)

@Gediminas: Iceland may be "out" but that's a good thing. Don't have to compete with high-priced tours or workshops. :)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 12:14 UTC
On Winds of Change: Shooting changing landscapes article (51 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: Absolutely terrific images. Traveling to all these places, however, could very well cost more than a new Leica and a slew of lenses. It's great that photographers can reach these areas, and I've been to Iceland myself. I suspect, however, that most landscape photographers would find equally good images close to home if they paid attention. I know. No one looks at anything close to home, right. But there is the place you know best in all it's many varied faces, and it's there one should start.

Too, I'm wondering if landscape photography has become the province of the wealthier among us, just like the latest good equipment. Pardon my mild cynicism, but I'm retired and have to be more frugal. If that sounds envious, well it is, frankly.

Very true. Wouldn't deny that at all. I guess I'm just envious of those who can afford the best of everything, including the time to wait for the best light, etc. I would love to go back to Iceland, though.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 00:33 UTC
On Winds of Change: Shooting changing landscapes article (51 comments in total)

Absolutely terrific images. Traveling to all these places, however, could very well cost more than a new Leica and a slew of lenses. It's great that photographers can reach these areas, and I've been to Iceland myself. I suspect, however, that most landscape photographers would find equally good images close to home if they paid attention. I know. No one looks at anything close to home, right. But there is the place you know best in all it's many varied faces, and it's there one should start.

Too, I'm wondering if landscape photography has become the province of the wealthier among us, just like the latest good equipment. Pardon my mild cynicism, but I'm retired and have to be more frugal. If that sounds envious, well it is, frankly.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 26, 2015 at 18:55 UTC as 14th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

babart: Think I'll pass. It's already annoying there is no way to turn the auto viewfinder switch off. The two-second delay seems just fine. A remote shutter trigger, as with my Pentax equipment, would certainly be a better idea. AND, Sony, you can charge $40 for the trigger device. You can make it so the battery can't be changed, so you can make another $40 every couple years. Pardon my cynicism.

Yes, there are, but they appear to be priced at $50 to $100 for the a7. There could be off-band less expensive options as well, but the 2-second delay is fine for me, as I mainly use the a7 for architecture where it is locked down tightly on a heavy tripod. Thanks, however, for the information.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 26, 2015 at 15:34 UTC

Think I'll pass. It's already annoying there is no way to turn the auto viewfinder switch off. The two-second delay seems just fine. A remote shutter trigger, as with my Pentax equipment, would certainly be a better idea. AND, Sony, you can charge $40 for the trigger device. You can make it so the battery can't be changed, so you can make another $40 every couple years. Pardon my cynicism.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 26, 2015 at 00:13 UTC as 40th comment | 2 replies

Very interesting gallery. The images are different from using a 'softy' filter in front of the lens. The effect is consistent, as is the bokeh. Close up the images have still have some detail. Should be a most useful for those who specialize is portraits, weddings, etc.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 13, 2015 at 18:24 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

DaGurney: Too bad their lenses suck the big wad. I bought the Rokinon 35mm cine lens, and it was abysmal. It ruined numerous shots with softness across the entire frame and ridiculous ghosting. Don't compromise your work with garbage like this.

I own one Rokinon lens (an APSC 12/2) and have used a couple more borrowed from friends. I've never found one so bad I would complain. Purchased with an eye toward the use of the lens (they are all manual focus) Rokinons are one of the best bargains in photo glass.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 4, 2015 at 13:57 UTC

This lens weighs 730 grams, almost twice my Tamron 90/2.8. So there may be something to this seemingly redundant offering. I'd love to see some reviews. As sensor resolutions improve, perhaps our lenses must as well. It would be interesting to find a tack sharp full-frame macro for $550 (B&H). Here's a few images on the Samyang site, courtesy of alachin: http://www.syopt.com/en/camera/photo-lenses-100mm-F2.8-ED-UMC-MACRO.php.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 4, 2015 at 01:50 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

alatchin: I am definitely reserving any judgement until I see some image reviews.
As Pixel densities have gone up resolving them has required larger and heavier glass time and time again.
This could very well be a spectacular lens and therefore well worth the money... But only the images will give us the answer.

Just had a look at some samples, bokeh looks smooth with low CA, contrasty etc... Might be well worth the money.

Where did you find photos taken with this lens? I'd love to see them.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 23:48 UTC

Strange offering in a well-filled camera niche. However, could we wait for some reviews before jumping all over Samyang with both feet? Never know, this piece of glass could be the APO-Lanthar or Zeiss Distagon of macro lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2015 at 18:34 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply
On Sony Alpha a7 II Review preview (806 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cameracist: My quick 'tests' shows the A7's ARW files to be noisy as hell when processed in ACR, but clean and fine-grained when processed in RawTherapee. Can anyone comment on that? Similar experience, anyone?

Could this have something to do with variations in noise suppression in the conversion software? That ACR gives a noisier image is not a super heavy issue. There's this thing called Luminance on the sharpening screen.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 2, 2015 at 18:02 UTC

For those put off by the price, you can have a mint Zeiss Distagon T ZF 35/2 for $700 on eBay. Manual focus is good for you :). Or a Sigma 35/1.4 art for $900 new almost anywhere and $700 used.

Sorry. But I'm retired and I'm tired of being priced out of the market.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2015 at 13:38 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

John Summers: Looks good. I want to see how it fairs next to the
Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM | A

Especially given the difference in prices. I understand Zeiss's well-deserved reputation, but I'm being priced out of the market. So I welcome Sigma's art series as offering high quality images for the rest of us who really can't afford to keep up.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 8, 2015 at 13:31 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Problem being that standard Manfrotto camera plate, which, when the camera body is moved to vertical position, allows the camera to rotate on the mount screw. Especially if it has a heavy-ish lens mounted. In this case, of course, "heavy-ish" might be misleading :).

Oh, I did. Long ago. Went to Arca-Swiss style clamps. I was referring to an old Manfrotto tripod head of similar configuration to the one discussed here, and that I could never sell so still have it.

Thanks for the suggestion though.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 22:48 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Problem being that standard Manfrotto camera plate, which, when the camera body is moved to vertical position, allows the camera to rotate on the mount screw. Especially if it has a heavy-ish lens mounted. In this case, of course, "heavy-ish" might be misleading :).

Thanks. Unfortunately it won't help my old Manfrotto tripod head that looks like this but isn't so snazzy. That unit has no plate, just a threaded screw :). I suppose I could drill and thread an arca plate onto the camera platform. This type of head is very useful for architectural work. Ballheads are too, but they're a bit more fidgety when setting the camera and lens level.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2015 at 01:52 UTC
In reply to:

babart: Problem being that standard Manfrotto camera plate, which, when the camera body is moved to vertical position, allows the camera to rotate on the mount screw. Especially if it has a heavy-ish lens mounted. In this case, of course, "heavy-ish" might be misleading :).

Sorry, but I don't see any locating pin on the camera mount plate............http://www.manfrotto.co.uk/product/24329.31708.1108718.0.0/MHXPRO-3WG/_/XPRO_Geared_3_Way_Head_with_Adapto_Body

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 14:31 UTC

Problem being that standard Manfrotto camera plate, which, when the camera body is moved to vertical position, allows the camera to rotate on the mount screw. Especially if it has a heavy-ish lens mounted. In this case, of course, "heavy-ish" might be misleading :).

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2015 at 13:01 UTC as 11th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

DStudio: Looking at the samples, looks like a great 15mm lens!

Now, since it's going to be shot at 15mm most of the time, can anyone please remind me why we need the zoom?

That's true. My mistake. Actually I also have a zoom that starts at 24mm for FF, so I simply wasn't thinking. Duh.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 27, 2015 at 13:52 UTC
Total: 109, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »