Breitling65
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.3 #9 · 5d Mark II ... discontinued. | |
gdanmitchell wrote:
Breitling65 wrote:
gdanmitchell wrote:
Breitling65 wrote:
"Composing your shots better" is wholly unrelated to the function of AF. Composition is about choosing what goes in the frame, where to place the camera, etc. Not sure at all what you are getting at here.
Whew...
Huge file size is not an issue. Hard drive space and camera memory cards are cheap and computers are fast.
Dan
Are you saying that printing this size is not enough with 20+ mpx? 
That is a very confusing sentence. I'll go with the assumption that you meant to write something along the lines of Are you saying that 20+ MP is insufficient for printing at this (24" x 36") size?.
No. In fact I have written precisely the opposite many times.
Composing shots when you have more than one good focusing point is much easier and effective,
"Composing" and "focusing" are completely different things. I don't have any problems with either.
If you are pointing out the obvious fact that there are more AF points in a camera with more AF points, a) no one ever said otherwise, and b) I specifically pointed out that the AF system is among the incrementally improved aspects of the 5D3.
You seem to be making up points that are not mine, so that you can argue with the imaginary person you have made up in your own mind.
I am surprised you don't know this but i see many other glitches here as well. Speed of computer or free space having nothing to do with fact that much larger Raw files slowing PP a lot even on "fast" computers and if you are dealing with large numbers of shots same time - effect is even worse.
First, I "know" quite few things about this issue in that I have a 24" wide printer that I use frequently. Do you have a lot of direct experience producing your own large format prints on your own equipment?
Second, concerning your point about larger files, storage space and processing speed are pretty much the precise issues that folks raise when they express concern about larger image file size from higher resolution images. (And you go on to raise them yourself in your statement!)
Let me try to be clearer for you. If storage price and size and computer processing capability remained constant as file size increased, there would be a functional and cost downside to working with larger files. In that imaginary circumstance, the problems would include: increasing costs for disk storage and camera memory cards and capable enough computers, and/or an increase in the time we would wait for the camera to write files to the card, files transferred to the computer, files to be loaded into our post-process apps, and much more.
But, as with the supposed "problem" of increasing noise as photosite density increases (the opposite of what has actually occurred in cameras), this is another imaginary issue and it is contradicted by the evidence. Cards, computer memory, and hard drives have become more capacious, faster, and less costly as the speed of cameras, file transfer protocols, cards, computer memory, hard drives and their connection systems, and the computers themselves have increased. And, in the end, we pay less for these more capable systems, even without accounting for inflation.
In other words. by comparison to working with a 640k image file from a very early digital camera (which I did in the previous millennium) using that era's networking, storage, and computers... working with a 20 MP or larger file from a contemporary DSLR is faster and less expensive... and produces far better results.
Besides who said it is better "value" to buy $3K Mac or powerful PC instead of $3K 5D3 and stay with same PC or Mac for another 2-3 years?
I didn't, but if that is your way of looking at the issue, then feel free to continue using the older equipment. Everyone has to make their own personal decisions about the point at which upgrading is necessary or appropriate.
Nothing personal, but are you shooting raw and PP after? I saw your shots, many looks like no, but I can't say for sure with such sizes.
OK, you keep bringing up these strange notions that perhaps I'm shooting and processing in some unsophisticated way - not shooting raw or doing any PP!? - and implying that perhaps I don't understand or need a sophisticated approach to photography in order to produce the photos that I create.
In a general sense you could get a better idea of what I shoot and how I work by visiting my web site: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/. However, I'll play along if it will end this distraction - though I'm not optimistic. Your point about the size of files I post online is utterly irrelevant - that is a choice fhat I've explained elsewhere many times, and one that many others in my situation also make.
To answer your question, I virtually always shoot in raw mode. (The only times I might not are with a few high speed sports subjects, where I need to maximize camera buffer depth for burst mode shooting.) It is hard to answer your "PP" questions in a way that doesn't sound condescending or pedantic, so I'll just give a very brief and superficial description and then link you to a post that describes aspects of it as a further example. You and other readers can decide whether I know what I'm doing in post.
My usual workflow is to open imported RAW files in ACR (Adobe Camera RAW), where I sort/select and then do initial basic adjustments that I won't list here. I transfer 16-bit ProPhotoRGB directly into CS6 as smart objects where I apply whatever post-processing is required for the image I'm working on. This can range from as basic as a few sharpening operations and a curve with simpler images to many layers of various types with more complex photographs... etc. My target output is prints, which I produce on my Epson 7900.
As one example of how I approach post processing, an article on sharpening: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2009/10/15/how-i-sharpen-a-quick-overview
In the end, I'm still left wondering what your overall goal is here and, as I wondered earlier, what ax it is that you seem to want to grind.
Dan
I give-up since my questions are not written to trick you or find something wrong with your photography but to get more idea behind "not a value to me" statement. Again up to you what to buy with your money, but for many people 5D2 left very minimal value including myself. I replaced 1DIV body with it and I like better AF and using any focusing points not just central and faster fps than 5D2 and 100% viewfinder etc, many other things 5D2 is missing or limiting.
Enjoy!
|
