Thanks for your kind words lads - coming from a crowd I hold in such esteem it means a lot
These two both had no saturation adjustment in PS, but I found converting them with Fluro white balance really brought out the colour. This is something I didn't expect and will have to look into more - Is this something anyone else has seen?
I know what you mean about 'Nulla being a little ordinary in the landscape dept, the tidal baths are the only thing of real interest landscape wise, it's just the closest beach to me - getting up at < 4:00am to get to one of those pretty northside beaches... well *that* is beyond me!
Oh yeah - Does the 1D2 have an alarm clock? (I'm searching for reasons to upgrade at the moment).
NO Smelly, it's the other way around, I think shooting RAW requires too much post-processing work. I am just happy with large jpeg and too lazy to shoot in RAW (and learn a new workflow)
One thing I'm looking forward to is upgrading to a camera that writes both raw and jpeg. The reason is I presently dump all my crw's into a directory, then have a PS batch that creates small (700px longest dimention) jpegs. I then proof the jpegs to decide which raws I'll process & which will end up in the bit bucket. I'd love to skip this part of the process.
IMHO, dealing with RAW's with PS actions, and the Apply Format Settings gizmo in PS's Browse window makes them just as easy to deal with as jpegs, but as always with these things it's as much a matter of taste.
I tried shoot both R + Large Jpeg twice, I can see my jpeg pics from image browser and my other similar software called Firegraphics. but lost all my Raws, I had to open the RAWs on Canon's DPP. But it's so bloody slow. I probably have a slow computer which is one of the reasons I don't shoot RAW (My computer only has 256MB RAM!!)
usually I shoot raw only, convert in c1, then process in photoshop.
For last weekend's frisbee thing (where I ended up with about 2,200 shots), I did it all in jpeg. I don't think there'll be much processing. I still have about 900 shots to look through...
I think I got 768Mb on my machine. Some on board video card.. I think Nvidia something or rather (I don't play games on it so I'm not that fussed) and a AMD 2600+ CPU.
Zane, what CPU is your machine running? I'd say bump up the CPU + m/b before going RAM. If the machine is slow, RAM won't do all that much. (though I know a lot of ppl say the opposite).
Question time again.. last night I went to dinner and there was those photographers that go around asking people if they want a photo etc... and I noticed they used the flash directly at the ppl's face. I didn't catch what brand of camera is was.. (I think it was Nikon) but the resturant was too dark... anyway, why use such a harsh light and lose the background? Wouldn't that give you a really strong "headlight effect" look with harsh shadows etc?
Usually they use medium format cameras with polaroid backs. Those things have a smaller DOF than 35mm so you need to use a pretty small aperture to get decent coverage. This also means that the shutter speed will have to be slow, so you have to use a reasonably strong flash to freeze the foreground.
That's what I think, anyway. It could also be that the photographer doesn't know what he/she's doing.
SmellyTofu wrote:
Zane, what CPU is your machine running? I'd say bump up the CPU + m/b before going RAM. If the machine is slow, RAM won't do all that much. (though I know a lot of ppl say the opposite).
I can't really remember what CPU, I got the computer about 2 years ago
Yes, Smelly, a lot of people told me the opposite
Also, I think I will definitely need 512 but not sure about 1GB
Ed W wrote:
That's what I think, anyway. It could also be that the photographer doesn't know what he/she's doing.
More likely for this case from how Smelly described the camera
But I found that if you are not particularly close to the subject, this will probably work: say you are using focal length of 28 - 50mm, put camera on M mode, f5.6, 1/45 - 1/60 + direct flash. slower shutter speed, like 1/30s, will risk handshake but will bring in more ambient light in the background. If the background is really DARK, then I dont know....
Zane Yau wrote:
I can't really remember what CPU, I got the computer about 2 years ago
Yes, Smelly, a lot of people told me the opposite
Also, I think I will definitely need 512 but not sure about 1GB
Definitely 512.. better if it's 1Gb or more. RAM is so cheap these days. But don't bother wasting money on 2 y.o. machines. It cost me everytime I upgrade around $500 to do a CPU, M/B and RAM upgrade. I have no clue as to what is the latest and greatest though.. I just rock along to the North Rocks computer fair and choose whatever is gives me bang for bucks there.
Think of RAM as the transmission in a car. You still need a more powerful engine to make it go faster. Then it can utilise the RAM better.
Last night, the photographer was standing maybe 1.5m away or so. Maybe Nikon really got a super good flash. No ideas really.
Yeah.. just the main bits. You really only upgrade 3 things and it's be good for another 1.5 yrs or so though I think I've had my PC for > 1 yr... haven't really needed more power out of it. It's stuff like DVD writers, HDD replacements that cost a bit more. 120Gb + 80Gb still isn't much... just burnt maybe now 8 DVD and finally got 30Gb off the PC. I must get rid of the MP3 off the machine!
JamesGreen wrote:
Very nice work at the races Chris !
Thanks James
SmellyTofu wrote:
Btw, Chris, is there all that much to photograph at the drags at a quick rate or do you have to wait a while for cars to roll out? I'm not a real fan of drag races (I find it quite pointless to point a car straight and hold it straight).
I like the 2nd shot the most.
I think there would be. There is only a one minute break between each race, so you wouldn't get bored.
You have about three differently angles to choose from at WSID. Directly behind when they do there warm up burn outs, on the starting line when you get wheels lifting and further down the straight you can try panning shots.
The pits area is huge and it has a few photo opportunities.
On my 20D my longest lens is a paltry 50mm so I had to use some heavy cropping. I also had the Sony F717 along with a 1.7x teleconvertor for the longer shots but this camera is too slow for motor racing.
I'm in the market for a 200mm canon lens next, but I'm a little put off by the big white 70-200 L lenses, so I'm considering getting a 200mm f2.8 prime instead. That will give me an equivalent of 320mm, which is roughly what I get with the Sony plus tcon-17 (190 x 1.7 = 323mm).
I would use it mainly for tennis and motorsports and possibly nature shots.
(I'm searching for reasons to upgrade at the moment). 