Photography Chat

jrista

12:04 AM

@Rob welcome to the wonderful world of Adobe

rfusca

12:18 AM

@jrista howdy :)

@ElendilTheTall cool, we may need to hold off on publishing for a few days but we'll let @Laura know that its complete

jrista

@rfusca hello

rfusca

@elendil - make sure you link one or two questions in your blog entry though, after thinking about it and Laura mentioned it, I think mentioning a question or two may be a requirement to get published

@jrista i still think we need to find a way to get 'compatible' with Pinterest. It's crazy popular right now and we'd be crazy not to find a way to take advantage

jrista

@rfusca: I think thats really just a matter of making our members fully aware of the licensing issues. If a member opts in, were home free for all that members content.

I like CC's licenses since they have the easy to understand version...anyone can figure out whats going on there.

rfusca

right but the CC licenses aren't compatible with Pinterest

jrista

Licenses are more often than not purposely designed to be confusing walls of text, thereby enabling their perpetrators to gain rights they really don't need and should be compensating the licensees for.

rfusca

12:23 AM

@jrista sure

jrista

@rfusca Well...CC is used StackExchange-wide...and its a WAY better license than Pinterest has. I would NOT want to accommodate Pinterest by changing our license.

rfusca

@jrista right, that's fine, but that means that we can't use Pinterest

the only way we can really use Pinterest is for us to relicense the content we'll be sending to something more compatible

Instantkamera

Im not sure how the CC licence is any less compatible with pinterest than it is with twitter.

rfusca

@Instantkamera one is a link to the content and the other is a reproduction was my understanding

jrista

@Instantkamera Twitter only gets a link to PhotoSE...the content is not shared and attributed.

linking is one thing

since the content remains where it is properly licensed

Instantkamera

12:26 AM

why cant we just link?

jrista

but as I understand Pinterest, content is replicated there

its "pinned" in a little box that fits within a page of other pinned items

any content that is a part of the pinned item is shared and attributed on the Pinterest site itself.

Instantkamera

also, that's not technically true. The question TITLES are used when tweeting, and that IS technically part of the content

jrista

well, sure

well, content written directly on PhotoSE is part of photose

but uploading your own photo into an answer is different than creating a title from scratch in your answer.

you own the copyright to the photo beforehand, and are choosing to put it on PhotoSE under CC-BY SA

if someone then comes along and pins that content to Pinterest, THEY are USURPING your right to control how your content is shared and attributed, due to the difference in licences between PhotoSE and Pinterest. You have suddenly lost control of your rights to, under CC-BY SA, always have your work shared with attribution because the Pinterest license does not guarantee that.

Instantkamera

I have looked at pinned items, the only thing that would be significantly different from twitter would be images. There is nothing about pinterest that requires the full content of say, a question at SE, to be reproduced in full, it could be much the same as twitter.com/#!/StackPhotos/status/192388871202410496

rfusca

bbl later, its my birthday and its dinner time

:)

Instantkamera

12:32 AM

So images are going to be the primary concern (such as PoTW)

jrista

Someone could repin the original pin of your answer that contains one of your own photos, remove any attribution, and not be in violation of the Pinterest license. If your image, by chance, was uploaded at a high enough resolution, that photo could then be reused for commercial purpose (lets say beyond the kind of commercial use endemic to a sites operation), and NOT have to even attribute you as the photographer (let alone compensate you for use), because Pinterest doesn't require attribution.

@rfusca HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!

@Instantkamera or any images someone has posted in their answers

but worse yet, I've used a couple images of OTHER photographers who I explicitly asked permission to use.

Instantkamera

@jrista be careful how hypothetical you get, at some point, you are really describing what anyone can do now.

jrista

I don't have the right to relicense their work, only they can do so. So the problem gets even hairier if someone pins an answer of mine that contains explicitly licensed photos from someone else.

Instantkamera

for instance, I can pin something now. Nothing stops me.

@jrista Right, but that's why im saying we shouldnt reproduce the content in it's entirety ON pinterest.

jrista

No, however if Pinterest was also CC-BY SA and you did not attribute the work to the artist, and did so on a regular basis, then either the artist or SE would have legal weight to back up getting unattributed work removed from Pinterest, and wherever else it may have been used.

The problem with incompatible licenses is SE CANNOT allow content to be pinned to Pinterest without also getting an additional license grant from the original content owners (in regards to photography.)

Instantkamera

12:35 AM

pinterest doesnt have to by anything, you still have that right.

jrista

Otherwise they put themselves in a nasty legal quandary.

Instantkamera

@jrista I agree, in regards to photos themselves. But I think it would be very easy to share questions where they look like the tweets do, with the question title and a link back the SE.

jrista

that may be one solution to the problem

guess it depends on how Luara intends to implement it.

Instantkamera

I think the PoTW are the catch here.

jrista

If they are planning some kind of direct integration, it might be difficult for them to have different behavior for PhotoSE vs. all the other SE sites that would be involved.

Instantkamera

12:38 AM

right

so getting people to agree to give up more rights is the only way, I think.

in terms of photos

rfusca

if the picture isn't visible on pinterest, it won't get interest (see my rhyme) ;)

jrista

@rfusca Yeah, I agree.

Instantkamera

I guess one other concern is that the pinned questions won't necessarily be interesting enough to get people to click

oh fuck

yeah

what he said

rfusca

delay is delayed due to baby

Instantkamera

sorry, ball game on at the same time

not looking at screen

I think the idea of pinterest is good, and it's a shame that, while we are talking about it, people are probably pinning all sorts of photo shit they don't have the rights to. It's a bit of a quandary: do you want the attention, or do you want your rights?

jrista

1:01 AM

@Instantkamera Its simply too bad that photographers generally have their rights taken away because they don't have the legal prowess to combat the legal divisions of internet companies. Its simply too bad that you essentially have to give up your rights to get some attention. Thats so NOT what copyright law nor content licensing was supposed to be about.

rfusca

@jrista I'm surprised you don't think its worth giving away one picture in order to gain exposure froim winning a contest.

(not in reference to this, but your comment on a thread)

Instantkamera

I disagree and I dont sympathize with my photographer brethren regarding this. I think we need to take a page from online comic artists, those who have embraced the internet.

rfusca

@Instantkamera many, MANY photogs have

i'm of the opinion that my work right now is worth less arbitrarily than the additional exposure of giving one image away. So I don't mind at all releasing the rights to images that increases my exposure non-trivially

Instantkamera

As I mentioned before, there are many of them (artists) who have to fight far worse theft of their IP every single day. Many of them have cleared their minds and don't sweat the small stuff. Do they care about retaining their rights? yes. But I find they have a far less of an attitude about it than photographers.

@rfusca good for you. That's a good attitude to have

When one of your photos appears on funnyjunk without credit, then we'll talk.

by "you" I mean all the butthurt photogs who care more about "rights" than about sharing their creativity

not anyone here specifically

rfusca

ya, I mean, I don't want my image ripped off without my permission for a national ad campaign , but i'd definitely not sweat something like this pinterest thing or a contest

Instantkamera

1:11 AM

and the problem is that people want a license to dictate all that, but it (the Internet in general) just doesn't work that way.

and yes, I use license and licence interchangeably :D

jrista

@rfusca Well, two things. First, its largely a matter of principal. Artists in general, and photographers specifically, are shit on by the commercial enterprise at large, and its practically free-reign for ANY content online, protected by a license or not, at all times.

Second, I have actually submitted some of my works to contests. I've always read their license agreements thouroughly, and only ever submitted a photo if their license only grants them directly the use of my work in relation to the contest. Far, far, far too often, such contests use the artists desire for exposure as a means to some companies ends...to gain artwork for what is essentially free.

rfusca

@jrista well...ya...what do you think funds all those prizes and stuff...they're not altruistic

jrista

I've LONG watched the contest machine churn over on DeviantArt.com. They have dozens of contests a year, all of them sponsored by some big name company. There is usually some decent reward for the winner (or maybe two or three finalists), like a Wacom Bamboo tablet or a camera backpack. The licenses usually grant the sponsor ROYALTEE-FREE, PERPETUAL, WORLDWIDE usage rights to ALL submitted content, though, and there are often thousands of participants.

I'm not saying companies shouldn't sponsor such things, but the way its all managed these days, with the kind of legalese language used in licenses that wards contributors towards the "accept" button without a second thought to what they might potentially be giving up...it just gets more wrong as time goes on.

Instantkamera

exactly, so trying to contain it is futile, on the internet. That's a fact.
As for the exploitation of the poor photographer, I think it comes with the territory. Photographers can't help but think of their art in terms of what "value" it has.

jrista

People are so desperate that frequently enough FANTASTICALLY SKILLED artists are giving their work away week after week after week for free, with zero return most of the time.

@Instantkamera Like I said...its a matter of principal. So long as the contest holder maintains a modicum of principals, I have no problem submitting a work to the contest, assuming I think I have a decent chance of winning.

Problem with contests...to even have the most remote chance of winning, you HAVE to submit your ABSOLUTE BEST OF THE BEST works, the stuff you most think are capable of selling and making some money...perhaps not a lot, but enough to maybe offset the cost of your gear.

When your option is to work hard and sell the stuff yourself, or give it away forever, worldwide royalty-free and watch the winning spot be snatched up by some 12 year old artistic savant every time...well, its a tough sell.

The 12 year old could care less...their mamma and pappa pay for everything, they get all the fun and all the reward without any personal investment other than their own creative time.

Instantkamera

1:22 AM

Cory Doctorow:

"So there are plenty of people for whom fame has not worked. But there's one important thing to note about fame. Everyone who has attained commercial success had it. That is, it's a contradiction in terms to be both unknown and commercially successful. Creative fame might not make you rich, but you can't get rich without it. If people who might love your stuff don't know it exists, they can't pay you for it."

jrista

Its just a rigged system. And perhaps I'm a bit jaded, as I've watched thousands of budding young artists be squandered by DeviantArt and their big-money sponsors.

@Instantkamera hah! yeah, I know that quote. Its rather ironic, too. Some of the most well-known photographers who make a shitload of money off their work are complete phony hacks. There is one guy in particular I came across recently...lying douche...

Instantkamera

I guess I just don't dig the hostile environment that licences seem to carry with them, like the plague. I for one don't care. I slap a copyright notice on my shit for convenience, but I won't be one to enforce it to the nth degree.

rfusca

In all my reading about photography, from real, famous photographers or such - I've never once read 'Beware of submitting your work for a contest where the company may want to use it!'

jrista

Peter Lik

rfusca

its like the one day a year i'm the most popular guy on facebook. love it lol

jrista

1:28 AM

^-- douche

rfusca

thanks...

jrista

er, that was supposed to point to Peter Lik

It did at first, then your post popped up between them :P

Instantkamera

That's the thing about commercially successful art, it's still super subjective, so people start to think about their photos as lottery tickets. "what if..." and all that. I guess, because I make a wack of cash doing a job I love, I don't really care about the money. That, and Ive never shot anything worth a damn.

rfusca

suuuure ;)

jrista

The thing that ticked me off about him was this: facebook.com/…

He had this whole writeup on the official page for that, about how it was this career-topping shot done with some magical telephoto lens.

Instantkamera

1:30 AM

eww WTF is that

jrista

He talked about the moment, how it was a climax to his life, pressing the shutter button and "capturing the scene".

He never once indicated that it was a photomanip, and a really ugly, nasty, shitty, poorly done one at that.

A whole lot of people commented on it and raved over its supposed beauty...and its the biggest farce in the world.

Instantkamera

i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/024/183/…

jrista

Its a disgusting lie, a take, trumped up to be something more than it is by a FAMOUS guy who only makes money because he's FAMOUS.

@rfusca I don't think many truly famous photographers became famous by submitting their work to random little online photo contests. I think they got where they were by shmoozing and being frickin awesome photographers.

rfusca

there's plenty of amazing photographer's out there who never make it big - and its not for lack of art

jrista

@Instantkamera funny, but it was later confirmed that the Lik career-topping moon photo was indeed a manip. The guy got a LOT of flak from a LOT of people about it...its beyond obvious that its a raging fake. I did the math myself to calculate how many millimeters of focal length you would need to magnify the moon that much relative to the landscape. It was thousands of millimeters, and would have required something like an f/1.13 aperture. :P

rfusca

1:34 AM

famous photographers are nearly always great, but great photographers aren't always famous. You have to get exposure somehow.

jrista

@rfusca true, but its not just about being an awesome photographer. You still have to have that famous personality.

@rfusca yeah, not denying that at all.

Instantkamera

Ken rockwell is famous ...

jrista

I'm just not sure that online photo contests are the way to do it.

@Instantkamera don't EVEN get me started... -.-

Instantkamera

lol

jrista

Peter Lik is bad, but Rockwell...

rfusca

1:36 AM

lol, ken.. lol

jrista

Peter Lik says: " I was white-knuckled as I set up the mammoth lens, filling the viewfinder with this balanced scene, the tree framed amongst the rocks and the low lying clouds added to the tension… this had to work. The desert silence was stunning, my pulse raced, I could hear the blood running through my veins.

Then, I saw the horizon starting to glow. The golden sphere slowly rose in front of me. I was totally stunned. I couldn't believe it. So connected to this lunar giant that I was trembling. Such an impact on my life. I pressed the shutter, a feeling I'll never forget. The moon, tree, and earth."

rfusca

he called the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 'the perfect portrait lens'

Instantkamera

WTF x 2

jrista

^--- (skip rfusca) -- LIK IS A LIAR!!!

I despise that kind of bullshit.

rfusca

hahah

jrista

1:38 AM

Lik has been caught "leeching" other famous photographers work as well.

Instantkamera

@jrista Meh, he's just trying to justify his big ego

jrista

He's use other photographers photos, without license, on his own site and flickr page, without attribution. LOTS of people initially thought the photographs were his (and they were FAR higher quality than anything Lik has ever done), until someone recognized the works and ousted him.

He's a bastard. People like him don't deserve fame (nor the money that goes with it).

Instantkamera

This LIK guy obviously doesnt understand jog compression and artifacts

his page is full of over-compressed garbage

jrista

yeah

oversaturated garbage

but he's not about good photography...he's about his own fame

so it all kind of fits...shitty work for a shitty guy

Instantkamera

lol

breath

jrista

1:43 AM

lol

well, thats me...principled. :\ I'll never have fame.

Instantkamera

Ill never have fame or principles

jrista

lol

Instantkamera

lol

jrista

Well, without principles you could very well have fame...maintaining a nation or world-renown ego often requires a lack of principles.

Instantkamera

google "peter lik is a"

jrista

1:46 AM

yeah, you see the stuck in customs blog? That was one of the photos Lik effectively stole, and gained fame for, because he posted it without permission on his facebook page and never attributed it, so a lot of people proclaimed how great the photo was, thinking it was Lik's.

Instantkamera

yeah, context for theft.

the context is everything, and this is clearly malicious.

naturelandscapephotographyblog.com/…

first comment it great

The sun sets in the west and is why the sky is brighter on the right hand side at the horizon. Yet the shadow on the moon is on the same side as the setting sun. Not physically possible. Ergo – FAKE 1000%

*Which other overtly FAKE Peter Lik shots would you like to talk about next?* Perhaps the red maple tree in the Portland Japanese gardens?

The issues isn’t that he is faking stuff, it’s that he says he isn’t. Kind of makes him an outright liar. So what else is he lying about? Kinda makes you wonder about that $1M sale eh?

rfusca

@jrista actually, reading all that. a member of his staff used it on the page, didn't claim it was his, but it was a pic of times square and it was like 'Lik will be <here>'

jrista

yeah'

that was it

rfusca

it doesn't sound malicious, just a poorly informed staff member

jrista

he never claimed it was his, but he never disclaimed it either

which they should have done once there were a bunch of comments "wowing" the photo and proclaiming Lik's undying talent

I don't think that was the first time Lik or his staff have done something liek that, though. There was a thread on CR forums that linked a few cases.

The moon photo is also NOT the first case of him lying about a blatant photomanip either.

(And I doubt it will be his last...)

Instantkamera

1:52 AM

what a twat

jrista

well, anyways. NOT all famous pros are like that, for sure. Most have bigger egos, which is largely why they are famous, but few are blatant liars.

Instantkamera

amazon.com/Mountain-Three-Wolf-Short-Sleeve/dp/B002HJ377A

found that linked in a discussion re: Lik, thought it fitting.

it's exactly what made me say EW

rfusca

review - Dual Function Design, November 10, 2008
By B. Govern "Bee-Dot-Govern" (New Jersey, USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: The Mountain Three Wolf Moon Short Sleeve Tee (Apparel)
This item has wolves on it which makes it intrinsically sweet and worth 5 stars by itself, but once I tried it on, that's when the magic happened. After checking to ensure that the shirt would properly cover my girth, I walked from my trailer to Wal-mart with the shirt on and was immediately approached by women. The women knew from the wolves on my shirt that I, like a wolf, am a mysteri…

dpollitt

2:11 AM

@rfusca - What are you doing! i can't talk bad about SM in that chat!

rfusca

@dpollitt lol

dpollitt

That chat history isnt going anywhere, no one uses that chat

rfusca

@dpollitt ya, the odds of them actually seeing it anyway are 'eh' ;)

dpollitt

So the site is about to hit 90 days in beta

i think that is when they reevaluate

but on the area 51 stats page.. outlook is not good

rfusca

@dpollitt ya, i'm not thinking we need the stats page to notice that

dpollitt

2:14 AM

So.. I'm toying with a terrible idea for my photography future

rfusca

?

selling all your gear to me for under 10 dollars?

dpollitt

lol, close

rfusca

11$!$ ? ;)

dpollitt

selling all my slr gear for a new setup

rfusca

mirrorless?

dpollitt

2:16 AM

yea

not necessarily this generation

rfusca

i think it makes perfect sense for landscape guys

but maybe the next

@dpollitt what site?

aah

wow, only 500 users??

rfusca

2:17 AM

@dpollitt ya, in a generation or two, I really don't think there will be any mirrors

jrista

@rfusca ah, I highly doubt that

dpollitt

@rfusca The sony NEX has really caught my attention.. not perfect... but i dunno

rfusca

@jrista i think EVFs are gonna start to really move fast

jrista

I think mirrorless will have thoroughly entrenched itself in a couple generations, but DSLR's aren't going anywhere

rfusca

@dpollitt ya, aps-c sized sensor, big deal

dpollitt

2:18 AM

yea

EVFs already are moving fast

the viewfinders are so freaking awesome

rfusca

@jrista shrug i'm sure they said that about film when digital was coming out

jrista

There are far too many people far too heavily invested in DSLR type cameras and more importantly, DSLR lenses, for big names like Canon, Nikon, and Sony to completely do away with mirrored cameras.

@rfusca heh, yeah, and it took a solid decade for film to be replaced by digital

dpollitt

@jrista The key is to exit early :) then we wont lose our pants selling lenses

rfusca

@jrista you're confusing what i'm saying....imagine the same camera you have and works with all your lens, but just doesn't use a mirror

dpollitt

The biggest thing keeping me away from the mirrorless is that i haven't seen any great shallow depth of field options. and i dont know if that will happen anytime soon either

jrista

2:20 AM

Well, how do you do phase-detection AF without a mirror?

I've discussed this on other forums.

Mirrorless is cool and faddish right now.

dpollitt

I don't want cool or a fad..

jrista

Its REALLY picked up in the trendy steriotypes, and as a better alternative for bride cameras.

But there are some serious things that mirrorless hasn't even touched yet.

One of the BIG ones is AF.

dpollitt

I want to get rid of an entire bag of gear in favor of a small setup for a non pro that still takes excellent images

jrista

Mirrorless cameras don't have a mirror, which means they can't redirect light to a proper metering sensor or an AF sensor.

CMOS image sensors don't double as GOOD metering sensors well, although with good software they can be decent.

dpollitt

Wait, mirrorless cameras dont have a mirror?

rfusca

2:22 AM

see, i'm seeing the software catching up to a lot of that

jrista

But the only way to do any kind of autofocus with a CMOS image sensor is with contrast detection, which NECESSITATES shifting focus back and forth to find the point of highest contrast.

That will never compete with phase-shift detection AF, which identifies the discrepancy in focus instantly and can adjust in a single move.

Phase-shift AF also requires a special lens in front of the AF sensor that is capable of splitting light in the right way, such that it can be focused on the appropriate AF phase-detect sensor strips.

Which isn't practical in a mirrorless camera.

dpollitt

I think at least for my uses, the fact that mirrorless can have such high FPS, probably is more useful then the faster AF would be. In most all cases i can lock in focus and just burst mode it

I'm not shooting birds

jrista

There is also the issue of ergonomics. At least so far, mirrorless cameras have been slammed by a lot of pros for their lackluster ergonomics. The much larger size of mirrored DSLR's is something a lot of photographers, including myself, GREATLY appreciate.

dpollitt

Well, that can be altered, even more so then any mirrored camera

jrista

@dpollitt That sounds like a bit of a contradiction. Generally speaking, if you need a high FPS, your photographing a moving subject of some kind...which also necessitates a functional high-speed AF system. Its tough enough to make a DSLR AF system work at 10-12 fps, let alone say 60fps.

dpollitt

2:26 AM

I was thinking more like, a baseball player swinging at the plate

jrista

I'm not saying Mirrorless have their place...they certainly do. But I find it a bit naive when people say that mirrorless will have completely replaced DSLR's in 5-10 years.

dpollitt

But i see your point

I think smartphones will completely replace everything but professional cameras in a few years :)

jrista

@dpollitt ...hitting a ball way out into left field, running to first, dodging the baseman as he catches the ball and narrowly misses tagging the runner, nailing second base, and sliding into third just before the third baseman catches the ball.

You don't just photograph the swing. ;)

dpollitt

Yea but even if i had a DSLR with a 400mm on it, i would prefocus on my point on interest and not follow a player around the bags

Maybe I'm just a bad sports photographer

jrista

?

The point of interest is the batter who then becomes the runner. You miss half the action if you just tripod your camera and point it at home base, only taking photographs when there is a batter standing there.

You also miss all the amazing outfield catches, the home runs, the awesome pitches, etc.

dpollitt

2:29 AM

ha

jrista

Sure, if your intent is JUST to photograph the batters at bat, then a small form factor mirrorless will serve you SUPERBLY!

dpollitt

amazing catches? home runs? You must follow a lot better team then the minnesota twins

jrista

well, ironically, I follow more photographers who photograph that stuff than the sport itself. ;)

dpollitt

yea

im out, later gentlemen

jrista

When you see some really good sports photography, it really makes you want to be a sports photographer. ;)

night

Instantkamera

2:33 AM

OM looks sick, I actually thought about the same thing.

@jrista but CDAF already DOES compete, for single AF

jrista

3:00 AM

Its becoming competitive in good light, but it still doesn't really hold a stick to phase-shift AF, particularly in low light.

Modern mid to higher end DSLR's are capable of AF in 0EV or less. Top-end pro cameras can AF at -2 EV.

rfusca

@jrista sure, but that stuff will get better

jrista

CDAF doesn't even come close to touching that, and by its very nature, it will never really compete that well in lower light.

@rfusca sure, but that still doesn't spell the demise of DSLR in 5 years

rfusca

@jrista shrug say what you will. I think in 5 years or so, the mirror will be heading out

jrista

If someone comes up with an ingenious way to PSAF with a mirrorless camera, then I'll start gaining some interest. But there is no way in hell action photographers will move to mirrorless until they have serious, equally performing AF systems with multiple selectable points (preferably reticular, as thats what really put the Nikon D3s and Canon 1D X AF systems on the map). Frame rate is only a small part of the story.

There also need to be significant gains in EVF performance and quality (they are decent today, but nothing like an optical viewfinder). All of the mirrorless cams I've tried out in stores have what appears to be either "grainy" or "color-shifting" EVF's. They tired out my eyes pretty quickly.

Constantly looking at a rapidly refreshing screen rather than an optical image without any "refresh" at all will wreak havoc on people who spend 8 hours strait looking through a viewfinder at fast-moving subjects.

rfusca

3:20 AM

@jrista such a negative nancy ;)

jrista

heh...just not a believer in the all-dooming mirrorless.

I'll believe it when I see it, but there are some significant hurdles for mirrorless cameras to overcome.

rfusca

sure

well i've officially got a 85mm f/1.8G on preorder

jrista

nice

rfusca

you can get one now if you want to pay a premium

or in Asia their sitting in boxes on shelves in retail stores already

jrista

now as in "not a preorder, but an actual order"?

rfusca

3:23 AM

like i've got a preorder with amazon that gets automatically processed when its my turn

jrista

man, I botched something bad on almost all the photographs on this CF card :\

rfusca

?

jrista

almost all of them are just blurry enough to wipe out all the crisp detail I thought I'd captured

rfusca

ouch, what happened?

jrista

I guess the IS on my 100-400 is not quite as good as its been advertised....

rfusca

3:24 AM

ah

jrista

the metadata shows my shutter speeds around 1/125th to 1/250th

rfusca

at 400?

jrista

that is within and up to the edge of the "advertised" IS range

but...I don't think its actually that good, looking at these shots :(

wow...thats like...600 pictures

rfusca

that sucks

example?

jrista

That cormorants eye should be crystal clear, as it was more than close enough. You should be able to see the dotted ring around its eye.

But its rather soft, and you can sort of see the ring around its eye, but there isn't any detail there.

The birds whole body is a bit soft, and there is much too much motion blur in the wings (I wanted a little, but thats far more than I was going for.)

Thats one of the BEST ones out of the whole shoot.

rfusca

3:28 AM

good gracious the noise on the shot

jrista

Well, I haven't done a scrap of correction yet. :P

the noise cleans up easy

rfusca

what iso is that, 120000000000

jrista

heh

rfusca

seriously what iso is that

jrista

that was taken in near-dark conditions under a heavily clouded sky that was sleeting a few minutes before these shots

rfusca

3:29 AM

its freaking horrid

i don't get that unless i'm at around 6400

jrista

its not that bad...wow

rfusca

which is 'expanded' for me

jrista

plus, thats a 100% crop

ISO 3200

oh, I did add a 1-stop over-exposure in post

and a +50 boost to shadows

rfusca

i mean here's an old shot at 3200, with pretty much no NR applied

jrista

This one shows camera shake and way too much motion blur:

rfusca

3:32 AM

jrista

@rfusca well, yeah! Dude, you have far better lighting there. :P

rfusca

@jrista still...

jrista

Seriously, these pictures don't demonstrate how dark it was...the sky was BLACK

rfusca

i hope so

jrista

Plus, thats not a 100% crop

rfusca

3:33 AM

@jrista very true

jrista

I bet there is a lot more noise in that shot at 100% than when it is downscaled by like 15x

lol

rfusca

@jrista ya, there's a ton of blur there

jrista

yeah

rfusca

@jrista perhaps, but my 3200 at 100% isn't as bad as that up there

a bit surprised is all

jrista

higher density sensor as well

rfusca

3:34 AM

oh, i know

jrista

18.1mp 1.6x APS-C vs., what 15mp 1.5x APS-C?

lot of differences

you can't compare the two apples to apples like that with those two pics

rfusca

ya, i know :P

jrista

you also said you added a little bit of NR

the shot I posted has zero NR, a +1EV exposure boost and a +50 shadow boost in LR

so yeah, its pretty sucky, but not bad at all considering the conditions :P

rfusca

brb

jrista

let me find one that is a better example of ISO 3200...

1/320 @ f/8, ISO 3200

zero exposure adjustment, +90 sharpening and +25 NR

-20 highlighs, -20 shadows, +15 highlight tone curve, +20 lights tone curve

same shot, so same exposure

the only reason noise existed in the other image is because it was way under exposed...not enough light down the lens

ShutterBug

3:49 AM

@jrista did you leave your job? lol... i see you're spending way too much time shooting birds recently :D

jrista

heh, no

I just get up at 3am to beat the robins out of bed, so I start work way earlier, get home way earlier, and actually have time on my hands to spend shooting birds ;)

Of course, I'm past my bedtime now too...

I am pretty bummed though

I botched way too many shots...

I didn't wear my contacts during this shoot. My glasses are transitions, so they were probably darkened...maybe I just wasn't seeing my in-camera previews well.

but outside of a few pelican shots, thats pretty much the whole cormorant shoot...totally botched :'(

well, gotta go to bed. Sorry we couldn't chat, @ShutterBug! Catch ya tomorrow.

night @rfusca

ShutterBug

night john

rfusca

4:11 AM

@jrista ok, MUCH better

@jrista night

hey @shutter

any good photos recently?

ShutterBug

4:44 AM

Hey chris! (its your name, right?)

how do you like this one?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fahad-faria/7087440935/

fluf

hey @ShutterBug

ShutterBug

hello @fluf

fluf

nice phot :)

@rfusca GAH! little pwinces she's a cutie pie

rfusca

@ShutterBug yes, thats my name

@fluf thanks

@ShutterBug i like it

fluf

5:02 AM

ok now to drink my coffee :)

fluf

5:19 AM

petapixel.com/2012/04/17/…

can't find the lily :/

I can't look at the blue uv lights(black lights) long my eyes starts to tear up and it messes with my head :/. so I try to avoid UV light as much as possible

ElendilTheTall

7:35 AM

@rfusca links to a couple of bird-related questions added

rfusca

@ElendilTheTall thanks

fluf

8:41 AM

@shutter you've got the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM Lens right?

ElendilTheTall

9:19 AM

@rfusca images added

Transcript for