SteB

SteB

Lives in United Kingdom North Shropshire, United Kingdom
Joined on Apr 3, 2007

Comments

Total: 216, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I updated to the new versions of Photoshop and Lightroom. I was processing a photo and usually I finish it off in Photoshop. I noticed when I was using the brush tool on a mask laying that there were these red lines which indicate the direction you are brushing. It's seems needlessly gimmicky, and a bit glitchy because a couple of times after I stopped brush the red line remained.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 22:39 UTC as 116th comment

I think I'll have to read that again as my mind just went into meltdown and I have no idea what it all means.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 14:17 UTC as 293rd comment

Some may call me cynical, but they look awfully like copies or rebrands of those Chinese tripods you see on eBay.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 09:42 UTC as 11th comment | 3 replies
On article 10 macro photography tips for beginners (50 comments in total)

Generally the advice is good. However, the advice about what weather to find insects in is not so good, and a bit contradictory. It's says to go out in weather warmer than 17C to photograph insects as they are more active. But then says "Overcast weather is usually better than sunny weather".

If you are talking about butterflies, dragonflies, damselflies, bees and hoverflies etc. you need direct sunlight and shelter from cooling winds to find good numbers. If the sun goes in i.e. it becomes overcast, these insects tend to stop being active and will disappear unless the air temperature is much warmer than 17C.

Direct sunlight rather than air temperature determines when insects are most active. This is because they use radiant heat from the sun to warm their flight muscles up to flying temperature. Insects will be active in direct sun at >17C.

The best tip is to look for sun traps which receive direct sunlight, but where there is shelter from a cooling breeze, unless it is very warm.

Link | Posted on Oct 2, 2017 at 16:39 UTC as 28th comment
On article The 7 Commandments of Great Photo Walks (126 comments in total)

The article video makes some good points, pointers I've discovered myself over the years. Most of my nature photography is done on such walks. However, I'll add a few things. First there are no absolute rules, no commandments, and especially with photography rules are for fools. There are only rules of thumb, and rules in photography are only guidelines that are meant to be broken.

The one commandment I would definitely disagree with is "you should always walk somewhere new". There is no "should" about it. It can be inspiring to walk somewhere new, but there is much to be said for re-walking the same route, over the year, from year to year. I've made many discoveries about animal behaviour, new species for the site, for the whole area or county I'd never have made constantly using new routes. In other words, it is not one or the other. Unfortunately for nature photography no lens exists that can take hand held macros and long lens shots (near macro is nowhere near macro).

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2017 at 11:54 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

SteB: I think it is very sad that the media invented term "Photoshopping" is being used by photographic websites that should know much better. This stupid term for the retouching and warping of photographs of models and celebrities has entirely misled the misinformed public of what the role of an image editor is. It has misled the public that "Photoshop" and image editors generally, are just sort of filters for creating false images, a type of fake news. I am particularly angry about this as regards nature photography, which I primarily use as a tool to convey the importance of the natural world. On newspaper comments sections I have repeatedly seen first class nature photography with no obvious image manipulation, just dismissed as "Photoshop".

Image editors are not just used to create fake images with stuff cloned in or out etc. They are also used for tone adjustments, acutance etc, where the content of an image is not changed at all, and in fact the aim is to correct default settings.

@mxx

This was my point. You can understand the general media coming up with this type of meaningless term. But when a specialist photography site like Dpreview starts using it, there is a serious problem.

To the none photographer public, "Photoshopping" has now come to mean a completely fake image. In newspaper comments sections I now regularly see genuine images just dismissed as "Photoshop".

It is a serious misunderstanding because most more advanced photographers use Photoshop or a similar image editor to process their photos. But they are no doing major cloning, warping, compositing. Yet the use of Photoshop, with this term, misleads the vast majority of the public to wrongly believe that every image processed with Photoshop is fake.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2017 at 08:30 UTC

I think it is very sad that the media invented term "Photoshopping" is being used by photographic websites that should know much better. This stupid term for the retouching and warping of photographs of models and celebrities has entirely misled the misinformed public of what the role of an image editor is. It has misled the public that "Photoshop" and image editors generally, are just sort of filters for creating false images, a type of fake news. I am particularly angry about this as regards nature photography, which I primarily use as a tool to convey the importance of the natural world. On newspaper comments sections I have repeatedly seen first class nature photography with no obvious image manipulation, just dismissed as "Photoshop".

Image editors are not just used to create fake images with stuff cloned in or out etc. They are also used for tone adjustments, acutance etc, where the content of an image is not changed at all, and in fact the aim is to correct default settings.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 19:07 UTC as 100th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

SteB: It sounds like an embarrassment of riches. Another hopefully affordable and good performing 100-400mm lens in addition to the Sigma. If it performs as well as the Sigma this lens might have the edge, because a tripod collar is always useful on a lens like this even if optional. Whilst neither lens is particularly heavy nor are they light and if on a tripod a long lens like this always handles better with a tripod collar. Having said that I think a lot will be using these lenses handheld. Weather sealing is another plus for Tamron. It's all down to performance and price.

This type of lens is ideal for birders, and naturalists, as opposed to bird photographers and nature photographers. They often carry binoculars and even telescopes, so a lens too big is a burden. Not that bird photographers and naturalists won't find a use for these lenses.

@Nojo

I've got and have used a Tamron 150-600mm. Although I mainly use a Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II now. It is considerably easier carrying this lens than one of the 150-600mm lens. This is not a criticism of them.

I do quite a bit of survey stuff where I have to primarily use binoculars. I take the Canon 100-400mm along for recording anything interesting. It's just about okay to have this slung over your should for long periods. Whereas I found the 150-600mm just a bit to long, heavy and awkward for when you might only occasionally use the camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 19:25 UTC

Just a note on the Meike MK-C-UP electronic reverse adapter. I've noticed before that Meike tends to make a production run of devices, but once sold out they are not manufactured any longer. Meike used to make an automatic helicoid extension tube for Canon, but as soon as it was sold out, that was it. It appears to be the same with the Meike MK-C-UP reverse adapter. There are practically none left on eBay UK, and only a few left from other suppliers at very high prices. There is a similar Novoflex device but it is much more expensive. In other words if you want this adapter you better grab one quickly.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 10:13 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

User0127324968: Have you people ever heard about Thomas Shahan?
You won't believe when you see his camera ans lens setup for macro photography. The hole set is less than $250!!
https://www.youtube.com/user/terser
By the way the photos above are AMAZING!.

Yes, Thomas Shahan is another one of the best photographers and a great communicator. You are right that the reverse lens approach he uses is potentially much cheaper. An old manual reversed wide-angle can get you really high magnification for not very much money at all, with just a reverse adapter and some manual focus extension tube rings. Just look for a 50mm, 35mm, 28mm, or 24mm manual focus lens, which can be got for not much money.

However, it should be noted that this approach will not give you auto stop down focusing. Therefore you are going to have to either focus at the taking aperture with a dark viewfinder, or open up to focus and manually stop down which is impossible handheld with flash.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 10:07 UTC

It sounds like an embarrassment of riches. Another hopefully affordable and good performing 100-400mm lens in addition to the Sigma. If it performs as well as the Sigma this lens might have the edge, because a tripod collar is always useful on a lens like this even if optional. Whilst neither lens is particularly heavy nor are they light and if on a tripod a long lens like this always handles better with a tripod collar. Having said that I think a lot will be using these lenses handheld. Weather sealing is another plus for Tamron. It's all down to performance and price.

This type of lens is ideal for birders, and naturalists, as opposed to bird photographers and nature photographers. They often carry binoculars and even telescopes, so a lens too big is a burden. Not that bird photographers and naturalists won't find a use for these lenses.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 16:56 UTC as 23rd comment | 4 replies

Very good. It's worth mentioning here that the article linked to is by John Hallmen, one of the best macro photographers in the world. I've found that Google translate does a great job with this blog with only the odd word it can't translate.

This is John's Flickr Photostream for anyone who wants to know why I regard John as one of the best macro photographers in the world. Prepare to be blown away.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnhallmen/

Anyone who is interested in this article may be fascinated with another article by John, where using a similar set up to this, but with the Canon 24mm f2.8 STM + a small CCTV lens John has created a relay lens set up, a type of high magnification fish-eye lens, which produces images only this type of set-up can produce. Just pop the link into Google translate to read in English.
http://makrofokus.se/blogg/2016/9/22/diy-makro-fisheye.html

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2017 at 19:35 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies

Just a general macro photographers point of view. It's a nice looking macro lens but the price seems to be way too high for what it is. I thought the same about the Sony 90mm f2.8 macro. The thing is that most macro lenses are excellent optically, and cost a lot less than this lens.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2017 at 13:08 UTC as 12th comment
On article Canon introduces Macro Twin-Lite MT-26EX-RT (23 comments in total)

$990 for a flash?

I had the MT24EX for a long time (well I've still got it, but it no longer works). Prices like this for an electronic flash are just ridiculous. You can make a flashgun our of fairly standard electronic components that are available for not much money. Even high end flashes tend to be in cheap plastic cases of the standard of cheap transistor radio from 40 years back. It's the interface with the camera's metering and exposure system that's difficult to replicate, without knowing the detail of the manufacturers system, which can make flashes difficult for independent manufacturers to make. It's a classic abuse of monopoly.

The Yongnuo YN24EX I'm now using, actually works better than my MT24EX did, and it cost less than the standard service fee, without costs of parts I was quoted for repairing my MT24EX by an official Canon agent (they failed to be able to repair the MT24EX).

Without the light modifications I invented, the lighting from the Canon twinflash is crap.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2017 at 08:24 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

SteB: In the old film days before digital cameras even existed, only one equivalent tended to be used, and that was focal length, based on 35mm as a datum point. It was just a quick way of telling people what they could expect in terms of angle of view. Yet formula and calculations were far more necessary with film.

There really isn't much real practical use for other equivalents. Experience, instant preview, test shots tell you all you need to know about DoF, how different formats perform in low light etc. These other equivalents mainly seem to be of interest to those who like starting online arguments rather than taking photographs. I can also see some interest in it for camera testers, but really it shouldn't be of much interest to photographers who actually take photographs, rather than talk about it, or see their camera as a measure of their manhood.

"I won't argue that some of the most pedestrian photos I've seen have been from those arguing against Equivalence. ;-)"

You claim those arguing against equivalence take "pedestrian" photos. Really? It's funny, because going through your whole comments I don't see a single photo by yourself. Here's my Flickr Photostream.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/steb1/

Let's see a link to some of your photographic output? Let's see if your photographs match your talk.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2017 at 07:05 UTC

As a Canon user I take my hat off to Nikon for producing what seems like perhaps the best and most versatile DSLR yet. FF, but with enough per pixel density to match the best in APS-C when cropped. A fast enough frame rate to please sports and wildlife photographers, but with the resolution for even the most demanding photographer. Focus stacking etc. I think this is the first DSLR that can cover all bases.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 11:54 UTC as 131st comment
In reply to:

SteB: In the old film days before digital cameras even existed, only one equivalent tended to be used, and that was focal length, based on 35mm as a datum point. It was just a quick way of telling people what they could expect in terms of angle of view. Yet formula and calculations were far more necessary with film.

There really isn't much real practical use for other equivalents. Experience, instant preview, test shots tell you all you need to know about DoF, how different formats perform in low light etc. These other equivalents mainly seem to be of interest to those who like starting online arguments rather than taking photographs. I can also see some interest in it for camera testers, but really it shouldn't be of much interest to photographers who actually take photographs, rather than talk about it, or see their camera as a measure of their manhood.

As I say, in the pre-digital film days focal length equivalents were often given for both smaller and larger formats than 35mm film in 35mm film equivalents. But I never remember any other equivalents being used. What's more in film days working out DoF, exposure, performance was far more important than now because there was no instant preview, only Polaroid backs and clip testing.

People just knew that DoF was different with different formats. As knowing the effects beforehand was far more important with film than digital, then whey weren't all these other equivalents given?

Inevitably on this forum battles about equivalents, those engaging in convoluted arguments about it seem to have very few worthwhile photographs to show.

Good photographers have always understood the limitations of various formats, and their are pros and cons to all formats.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 11:50 UTC

In the old film days before digital cameras even existed, only one equivalent tended to be used, and that was focal length, based on 35mm as a datum point. It was just a quick way of telling people what they could expect in terms of angle of view. Yet formula and calculations were far more necessary with film.

There really isn't much real practical use for other equivalents. Experience, instant preview, test shots tell you all you need to know about DoF, how different formats perform in low light etc. These other equivalents mainly seem to be of interest to those who like starting online arguments rather than taking photographs. I can also see some interest in it for camera testers, but really it shouldn't be of much interest to photographers who actually take photographs, rather than talk about it, or see their camera as a measure of their manhood.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2017 at 16:59 UTC as 60th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

SteB: I know what I say doesn't apply to all photographers, and not even most. However, this is a very important aspect to a significant minority of photographers, and this is not addressed in the article.

Yes it is true that a larger sensor "usually" means better low light performance. However, if you are a nature photographer primarily using long lenses or shooting macro, it is not as simple as that. With say bird photography cropping is often the norm, no matter what lenses you can afford. If you have the same lens on an APS-C and FF body, and you are cropping, then the advantage of FF is often lost. If you have to crop to APS-C dimensions or less, and this is not uncommon for those using FF, you are effectively using a crop sensor, and there is absolutely no advantage to FF.

To some extent the same can be true of macro and close up photography. To get the same frame filling power you will need higher magnification, need to be closer and there will be a concomitant loss of light.

If you crop a FF image to APS-C dimensions the image quality will be similar, and is unlikely to be better (the actual result depends on individual sensor design, pixel density etc). Unless the FF sensor is very high resolution the resolution will be less. No current FF DSLR has the pixel density of a 24mp APS-C sensor.

Of course as @Dr_Jon points out there are still possible advantages to a FF DSLR when cropping heavily, such as a bigger frame, so you are less likely to lose track of a subject when it disappears out of the frame. Also of course not every shot is going to be cropped to APS-C dimensions or less. It's not all one way though as say an 80D has a higher frame rate than a 5Ds.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2017 at 09:38 UTC

I know what I say doesn't apply to all photographers, and not even most. However, this is a very important aspect to a significant minority of photographers, and this is not addressed in the article.

Yes it is true that a larger sensor "usually" means better low light performance. However, if you are a nature photographer primarily using long lenses or shooting macro, it is not as simple as that. With say bird photography cropping is often the norm, no matter what lenses you can afford. If you have the same lens on an APS-C and FF body, and you are cropping, then the advantage of FF is often lost. If you have to crop to APS-C dimensions or less, and this is not uncommon for those using FF, you are effectively using a crop sensor, and there is absolutely no advantage to FF.

To some extent the same can be true of macro and close up photography. To get the same frame filling power you will need higher magnification, need to be closer and there will be a concomitant loss of light.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2017 at 21:42 UTC as 56th comment | 6 replies
Total: 216, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »