... but that's not what MAC was writing about; my reply was specifically within the context of his claim that the 100L would result in more keepers for events. The subjects at events are not usually little girls lying motionless on beds.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Question for Great Bustard
- Thread starter Teosax
- Start date
It will produce more keepers handheld even at ss 1/100 since it has 4 stop IS and nobody's hands are rock solid for every shot
In event photography -- dragging the shutter to bring in the backdrop into view when the people are less in motion is important for a 3d look -- otherwise you get those flat 2d flash type of looks - yuk.
For people shots Iwill go down to ss 1/80, ss 1/60, and even ss 1/40 depending on how much motion I see, but then take it back up to ss 1/125 for more motion and the IS is still helping.
More keepers. The IS is there whether at ss 1/40 or ss 1/125
But -- What GB is saying is true. Shallow the 100 f2 wins if you can hold it and get the pj shot in the light available. But-- I really, really like deep dof with FF out of the 100L when I want it -- and there is the huge advantage of IS.
At F5 -- DPReview showed in their review-- MTF's of the 100L is almost off the charts -- highest they've ever seen!
The Digital Picture shows it too
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=674&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=118&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4
The shots that GB gets are best in class art shallow dof shots -- but something I wouldn't be trying too much in a fast moving event where every in focus shot counts.
Event shooters with FF are selling their 85's and 135's for this lens -- the 100L.
It is sooooo good on my FF, I'm having trouble taking it off.
btw -- the focus speed is better than my 50 f1.4 -- but not as good as my 70-200 f2.8 -- so I'm extrapolating that it is not as good as the 100 f2 as far a focus speed -- but it is much much better than the older 100 macro and it becomes very useable as a sports lens
In event photography -- dragging the shutter to bring in the backdrop into view when the people are less in motion is important for a 3d look -- otherwise you get those flat 2d flash type of looks - yuk.
For people shots Iwill go down to ss 1/80, ss 1/60, and even ss 1/40 depending on how much motion I see, but then take it back up to ss 1/125 for more motion and the IS is still helping.
More keepers. The IS is there whether at ss 1/40 or ss 1/125
But -- What GB is saying is true. Shallow the 100 f2 wins if you can hold it and get the pj shot in the light available. But-- I really, really like deep dof with FF out of the 100L when I want it -- and there is the huge advantage of IS.
At F5 -- DPReview showed in their review-- MTF's of the 100L is almost off the charts -- highest they've ever seen!
The Digital Picture shows it too
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=674&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=118&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4
The shots that GB gets are best in class art shallow dof shots -- but something I wouldn't be trying too much in a fast moving event where every in focus shot counts.
Event shooters with FF are selling their 85's and 135's for this lens -- the 100L.
It is sooooo good on my FF, I'm having trouble taking it off.
btw -- the focus speed is better than my 50 f1.4 -- but not as good as my 70-200 f2.8 -- so I'm extrapolating that it is not as good as the 100 f2 as far a focus speed -- but it is much much better than the older 100 macro and it becomes very useable as a sports lens
I'm sure it will produce more keepers when the subject is static in lower light, especially when a deeper DOF is more desireable. In addition, while the AF of the 100 / 2 is the best of any lens I've ever used, I've heard (but don't know from experience), that the 100 / 2.8L IS macro has wicked fast AF as well.
But the subjects are not in motion often enough to where IS would be much more useful than a one stop wider aperture in many circumstances. For example, the 100 / 2.8L IS macro would have killed my 100 / 2 for this shot:
Canon 5D + 100mm / 2 @ f / 2, 1/15, ISO 3200
The question is if that type of shot comes up more often than the extra stop of the 100 / 2 would be more useful. For me, the answer is "no". For others, the answer may well be "yes".
read my reply below about dragging the shutter and deep dof in low light -- two very important event techniques
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Well, of course I cannot comment on which lens would "result in more keepers for events", as it depends on the nature of the event and what constitutes a "keeper".
But, at the events I've shot, there are often many times when the people are relatively still long enough to make very good use of IS:
Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f / 1.2, 1/50, ISO 800
Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f / 1.2, 1/60, ISO 1600
Of course, in the examples above, the f/1.2 over f/2.8 eats away two stops of the IS advantage of an f/2.8 lens with IS, not to mention giving that wonderful effect of shallow DOF (that doesn't appeal to everyone, however).
Naturally, the faster shutter speed that a faster lens allows will often (and even usually, depending on the event and the photographer) trump IS. Sometimes even f/1.2 isn't enough:
Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f/1.2, 1/10, ISO 3200 (minor crop)
I need a 5D3 with Nikon D3s noise performance!
Of course, as I've said, for me , I would take the 100 / 2 over the 100 / 2.8L IS macro. To be totally honest, I think many would be best suited with the 70-200 / 2.8L IS II for long shooting at events, and think Canon needs to come up with a 24-70 / 2.8L IS as good as that lens.
But, of course, being a lover of ultra-shallow DOF, the smaller, lighter, and faster primes appeal to me more. Some who shoot f/2.8 lenses might be better off adopting my style, but I think more would be better served with f/2.8 lenses that have IS.
If only Canon stopped holding out and gave us sensor IS -- then fast prime shooters would have the best of both worlds! Seriously, I'm really miffed at Canon for not implementing this feature. Of course, there is still the matter of a faster prime vs the ability to zoom, so fast primes with sensor IS doesn't give the best of all worlds.
Nice demo with the pics. Canon always seems to cover their canalization bases. Don't expect too much more anytime soon until they are pushed more. i don't think Pentax's k5 IS body with primes have pushed much.
Peter Dumont
Veteran Member
Awesome Joe !
No, make that A-W-E-S-O-M-E
http://www.pbase.com/peter_dumont
No, make that A-W-E-S-O-M-E
--Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/8, 1/800, ISO 100
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L + CPL @ f/8, 1/250, ISO 100 (check out what the CPL does to the sky!):
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L + CPL @ f/8, 1/500, ISO 100
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L + CPL @ f/8, 1/50, ISO 100
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/2.8, 1/20, ISO 3200
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/8, 1/640, ISO 100 (same road in the pic above, and almost the same stretch of road, but different day, obviously!)
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L + CPL @ f/8, 1/200, ISO 100
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/8, 1/400, ISO 100
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/8, 1/200, ISO 100
http://www.pbase.com/peter_dumont
glad to see f8 from you. I was worried for a moment I'd see scapes at f1.4 Nice work
Nice workTo whom do I send the bill?
Glad to be of service. I cannot stress enough that, unless you take pics like mine, you're probably better off with different choices, and, even if you do take pics like mine, you may well be better off with different choices.
Bryce and Zion are two of my favorite places that I've been. However, I'm notoriously slow at processing. In fact, not only have I hardly processed any of my pics from my last trip there (last December), and haven't procecessed one of the 100 GB of pics I took on my vacation to Japan over the summer!
But, here are a few from last year's trip:
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/8, 1/800, ISO 100
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L + CPL @ f/8, 1/250, ISO 100 (check out what the CPL does to the sky!):
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L + CPL @ f/8, 1/500, ISO 100
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L + CPL @ f/8, 1/50, ISO 100
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/2.8, 1/20, ISO 3200
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/8, 1/640, ISO 100 (same road in the pic above, and almost the same stretch of road, but different day, obviously!)
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L + CPL @ f/8, 1/200, ISO 100
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/8, 1/400, ISO 100
Canon 5D + 24 / 1.4L @ f/8, 1/200, ISO 100
Your photo's are quite awe-inspiring. I really love the your photos of people. I do have a question about your post processing. How do you get your pictures to look so rich but not overly saturated. In a way they are almost desaturated with perfect skin tone but with very rich cyans and magentas. I really love the style of your photos and would like to get more insight on your methods!
Could you share a before and after post process image. I'd like so see what you tweak. I know you've said that you don't do anything special to you colors but you truly have a unique look.
Could you share a before and after post process image. I'd like so see what you tweak. I know you've said that you don't do anything special to you colors but you truly have a unique look.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
I take PayPal.
I'm glad you like them. For some reason, my family doesn't share your love.
Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f/1.2, 1/200, ISO 400
Depends on the pic. I consider the camera capture to be only the first stage in the creative process. The second stage is determining the RAW conversion settings, and the third stage is additional processing.
However, I treat each pic as an individual work (a luxury that we non-professionals can afford), and can't give you any specific answer to your question. Fact is, even for a particular photo, I've probably forgotten what I did
It's interesting, in a way. After I've processed a pic, it's unlikely I'd be able to repeat what I did starting anew.
I did that for my wife once. She was p!ssed.
I don't want to say that I "do nothing special to the colors", but just that I get most of that taken care of with the RAW conversion settings. So, are you asking for comparison between a processed pic and a conversion with default or minimal settings? Or are you asking for a comparison between a RAW conversion and a processed pic?
Those pictures are wonderful. It is easy to see that you are quite experienced with what you are doing. If you could explain a bit about your process that would be really appreciated.
Pictures number 1 and 4 in particular. They scenery in itself is not too special/unique, but your process clearly makes these pictures of "ordinary" scenes something great.
If you could explain what processing you performed or how you approached shooting the scenes, perhaps even post some unprocessed files, I think that would go a far way for me to understand what can be done to make such great pictures.
If necessary, I will gladly give you my address for a bill
Pictures number 1 and 4 in particular. They scenery in itself is not too special/unique, but your process clearly makes these pictures of "ordinary" scenes something great.
If you could explain what processing you performed or how you approached shooting the scenes, perhaps even post some unprocessed files, I think that would go a far way for me to understand what can be done to make such great pictures.
If necessary, I will gladly give you my address for a bill
gdanmitchell
Veteran Member
Teosax wrote:
?
These seem like odd lens choices, or at least atypical ones, for the types of shooting you mention. Generally, though there can be a few exceptions, street photography is more likely done with smaller and lighter gear, and does not rely on giant aperture lenses.
With night photography, most use smaller apertures and a tripod.
Portraits, especially if shot handheld, would rarely benefit from such a lens. Few are going to be shot at the largest possible aperture given the focus/ DOF issues that will create.
Be cautious about reflexively assuming that the biggest, baddest, largest aperture, and most expensive lens is always the best choice.
Dan
--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell
Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
?
Use: no studio shooting, mainly candid, street photography, night photography, portraits
These seem like odd lens choices, or at least atypical ones, for the types of shooting you mention. Generally, though there can be a few exceptions, street photography is more likely done with smaller and lighter gear, and does not rely on giant aperture lenses.
With night photography, most use smaller apertures and a tripod.
Portraits, especially if shot handheld, would rarely benefit from such a lens. Few are going to be shot at the largest possible aperture given the focus/ DOF issues that will create.
Be cautious about reflexively assuming that the biggest, baddest, largest aperture, and most expensive lens is always the best choice.
Dan
--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell
Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
That would be great to see if you don't mind.
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
Interestingly, you hit upon my facorite form of photography -- to capture an "ordinary" scene in a way to make it "interesting".
As I said in a post above, it varies greatly from pic to pic. I treat each photo as an individual work of art -- not that all "art" is "good", mind you!
In my post with the comparison pics directly above, I show a before and after pic from one that I edited more than most.
Sorry I can't be more helpful. Honestly, I just flub through it until it looks the way I want, or as close as I can get it -- pics of my wife never quite work out how I "want".
Well, you see, there's a significant difference between sending out a bill, and collecting on it.If necessary, I will gladly give you my address for a bill
Thanks for sharing these!
They seems somewhat similar to what I'm doing but your approach is probably much different.
This is what I do for most of my photos.
1. Apply and "S" curve for more saturated and darker darks and brighter but less saturated lights.
2. Apply a subtle gamma vignette accompanied by a more subtle value vignette(I don't have a full frame camera)
3. Boost the colors in all channels except red. (red color boost seems to ruin delicate skin colors)
4. slight sharpening as I downsample the resolution.
I would love to see more before/after of one of your photos of people especially the ones that are mostly grey and desaturated but have strong cyans (light blues) and magentas (pinks).
Thanks so much!
They seems somewhat similar to what I'm doing but your approach is probably much different.
This is what I do for most of my photos.
1. Apply and "S" curve for more saturated and darker darks and brighter but less saturated lights.
2. Apply a subtle gamma vignette accompanied by a more subtle value vignette(I don't have a full frame camera)
3. Boost the colors in all channels except red. (red color boost seems to ruin delicate skin colors)
4. slight sharpening as I downsample the resolution.
I would love to see more before/after of one of your photos of people especially the ones that are mostly grey and desaturated but have strong cyans (light blues) and magentas (pinks).
Thanks so much!
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
De nada.
Undoubtedly -- I just flub through it.
In the RAW conversion, I play with the ev comp, the three sliders on the histogram (shadows, midtones, highlights), try various saturations and contrasts (rarely going above default saturation), fiddle with the picture styles (but usually use neutral or faithful), but use BW or sepia with a filter for the BW conversions.
After this, I usually apply NR (noise reduction), even to ISO 100 pics, as a way to sharpen to taste. Only recently have I begun to use selective NR.
You know where to find me:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/photogalleries/
http://upload.pbase.com/joemama/
Choose a pic, let me know. If you would, make it one from 2009 or later, since the others are on other harddrives.
I would love to see before/after of
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/photogalleries/200910/065.htm
And
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/photogalleries/200909/04.htm
This will help me out tons. Thanks!
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/photogalleries/200910/065.htm
And
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/photogalleries/200909/04.htm
This will help me out tons. Thanks!
Hi Joe,
great idea to show before/after, I'm also very interested for that. I'm interested in pictures OOC vs the final version after RAW converting and finalisation with PS.
Here is an example of me:
(There was a horrible lighting, a mix of fluorescent and halogen lamps.)
I'm interested for the OOC version of this pic:
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/110350942
It's also a artifical light situation similar to my shot and you have it perfectly finalized.
Hopefully that you show the OOC version here.
Helmut
great idea to show before/after, I'm also very interested for that. I'm interested in pictures OOC vs the final version after RAW converting and finalisation with PS.
Here is an example of me:
(There was a horrible lighting, a mix of fluorescent and halogen lamps.)
I'm interested for the OOC version of this pic:
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/image/110350942
It's also a artifical light situation similar to my shot and you have it perfectly finalized.
Hopefully that you show the OOC version here.
Helmut
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
By "unedited", I mean a straight RAW conversion (BreezeBrowser Pro) with setting the same as the camera settings at the time of capture.
OK, so here are the three pics requested -- hope they help!
Unedited (Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f/1.2, 1/400, ISO 100):
Edited:
Unedited (Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f/1.2, 1/200, ISO 100):
Edited:
Unedited (Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f/1.2, 1/160, ISO 1600):
Edited:
OK, so here are the three pics requested -- hope they help!
Unedited (Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f/1.2, 1/400, ISO 100):
Edited:
Unedited (Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f/1.2, 1/200, ISO 100):
Edited:
Unedited (Canon 5D + 50 / 1.2L @ f/1.2, 1/160, ISO 1600):
Edited:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum