Marc MuenchRegistered UsersPosts: 1,420Major grins
edited January 9, 2008
Edward,
Some friends have told me not to even consider the new Canon 14mm. However, I have not tried one myself. I owned the old one for years and used it with film cameras for capturing skiing action shots when the subject was mere feet away. Once I began shooting with the 1ds M11 and viewing every file at 100 percent in photoshop I learned real soon it was just too soft. That is when I sold it and began working with the 17-40 for my sports imagery. However for landscapes what I enjoy is the 24 TS combined with the Really Right Stuff pano equipment. By combining these two elements I am able to pan in all directions thus creating any field of view I wish. Even better, when I stitch all the exposures together I eliminate most of the soft corners
If you are really concerned, buy yourself a Edmund Scientific lens test chart, mount it on foam core and test your lenses at all the apertures. I have learned many things about optics by doing so, things I wish I did not know Seams to me that optics have a ways to go to catch up with sensors:cry
Funny you should bring this up Schmoo, I've been mmming and ahhhing about whether to take my (not particularly good) filter system with me on the Scotland Trip.
I have to be honest I've hardly used them, I've tried a couple of times but after dropping them, getting finger prints on them and generally making a complete hash of it I've returned to bracketing and blending.
Having read Marc's comments above about his preference for bracketing I think I might continue down this route.
Charlie
rofl
I too donate finger smudge to all my filters, they seam to love it. In a studio it is different, but in the field things happen to fast and I am too clumsy to keep filters clean. However, I do carry several ND filters.
Some friends have told me not to even consider the new Canon 14mm. However, I have not tried one myself. I owned the old one for years and used it with film cameras for capturing skiing action shots when the subject was mere feet away. Once I began shooting with the 1ds M11 and viewing every file at 100 percent in photoshop I learned real soon it was just too soft. That is when I sold it and began working with the 17-40 for my sports imagery. However for landscapes what I enjoy is the 24 TS combined with the Really Right Stuff pano equipment. By combining these two elements I am able to pan in all directions thus creating any field of view I wish. Even better, when I stitch all the exposures together I eliminate most of the soft corners
If you are really concerned, buy yourself a Edmund Scientific lens test chart, mount it on foam core and test your lenses at all the apertures. I have learned many things about optics by doing so, things I wish I did not know Seams to me that optics have a ways to go to catch up with sensors:cry
Hi Marc,
thanks for the feedback
I have not done any stitching yet, but I have the 90TS and could experiment with that I guess
Funny you should bring this up Schmoo, I've been mmming and ahhhing about whether to take my (not particularly good) filter system with me on the Scotland Trip.
I have to be honest I've hardly used them, I've tried a couple of times but after dropping them, getting finger prints on them and generally making a complete hash of it I've returned to bracketing and blending.
Having read Marc's comments above about his preference for bracketing I think I might continue down this route.
Charlie
Thanks for your input, too, Charlie. I love your work and hearing experiences like that. I might stick with the regular ND filters for waterfalls and do the bracketing, too, since that is a technique I already am familiar with.
Marc what brand of ND filters do you use/recommend? I cannot even remember, although I borrowed one from you for an entire day.
Thanks for your input, too, Charlie. I love your work and hearing experiences like that. I might stick with the regular ND filters for waterfalls and do the bracketing, too, since that is a technique I already am familiar with.
Marc what brand of ND filters do you use/recommend? I cannot even remember, although I borrowed one from you for an entire day.
Here is what I use in 8 stop density. You may want to get the larger size with a stepup ring to avoid vignetting.
Thanks for your input, too, Charlie. I love your work and hearing experiences like that. I might stick with the regular ND filters for waterfalls and do the bracketing, too, since that is a technique I already am familiar with.
Wow, thanks Schmoo, coming from you I have to take that as a huge complement, your work's wonderful! And thanks for reminding me that even if I don't bring any grads I mustn't forget my ND's!
(exposures off a bit between the two frames, i tryed to heal it, but this photo is just being shown as an example of composition value advice.)
I like this one better than the others The first thing is to keep from placing the horizon in the center of the frame. Then try situating yourself so something breaks the horizon, tree or bush for example. If you like try doing these two methods and post another I do like the light and your LR technique is fine for now:ivar
Out in the extreme corner of the frame at a distance of approximately 15m, the Nikon zoom delivers a truly astonishing rendition. Though it can't quite match the sheer resolution of the Canon L prime,"
+
"the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G appears to be as good as the Canon 24mm f1.4 L."
A gushing review but a bit tenuous in someof his observations
I'd need to see another reviwers opinion before being convinced that it is better than the 14mk2 or the 24L but I can imagine it's as good, so on price alone it may , as you say, be the way to go ( for some)
It also says it will discuss the 14mk2 later but doesn't yet
INteresting that the review considers it as good as the 24L, I would like to asee a 14mk2 comparison
Marc, do you use a fisheye much? ive seen the DXO conversions to make a fisheye look normal but really wide, im afraid that if i get into doing that type of photog i wont be happy with a large print from a conversion...in-otherwords i wonder if quality is not as good as say using a wideangle with photomerge.
the reason im thinking about trying fisheye & dxo is because most of the photomerge projects ive done look bad due to the sky exposures they are off one from another....ive even done bracketing exposures but i cant line up any exposures that match very well once in PP...
Impressive review.. but .. are we 100% confident that as the reviwer has a vested interest in selling his adaptor , that this is repeatable test?
I'm interested
I have been experimenting with the beta of Photoshop 3 and must admit that the new "photomerge" works like a charm. In fact it is so accurate I believe it will save me hours and hours of time when performing large multi image panoramas.
im always digging up the past since im always three steps behind....
will cs3 better handle a photomerge like what i posted (above)?
or is my highly developed photography skills just need to step up?
im always digging up the past since im always three steps behind....
will cs3 better handle a photomerge like what i posted (above)?
or is my highly developed photography skills just need to step up?
I think it's heaps better than previous versions. Just be sure to give it enough
overlap.
I shoot raw then open the files in Camera Raw. Select all of them then sync.
Once you're happy with the Camera Raw images, open them in PS and merge
away.
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
im always digging up the past since im always three steps behind....
will cs3 better handle a photomerge like what i posted (above)?
or is my highly developed photography skills just need to step up?
Yes, basically autopilot panos. You just click File -> Automate -> Photomerge, select the photos, and sit back until it is done. As stated you need to give it a bit of overlap but it really seems to work well.
im always digging up the past since im always three steps behind....
will cs3 better handle a photomerge like what i posted (above)?
or is my highly developed photography skills just need to step up?
CS3 is much much better, in fact it really is much better
There is a check box at the bottom of the photomerge dialog box called "blend" which, if checked, will blend your skys together I have only had little trouble with CS3 photomerge, because I will scroll though the entire file at 100% looking for misplaced sticks. They do show up and bother me but not as much as the hours it would have taken to manually stitch the images. I will use this auto merged file up until someone orders a very large print, then I will spend the hours, if need be to manually fix any errors.
I use a fisheye on occasion. Maybe when nothing else is working or when the deformed subject makes a cool composition, or when the horrizon looks cool bent.
I also use a fisheye for my split over/under water scenes.
Or sports
It is a very handy tool, and it comes in a small package
Marc, i would like to hear/read more about your IPMM, where can i find this info?
myself, i usually shoot with bracketing.
sometimes i like only two shots out of the group,,, the sky @ x number shutter speed and then one of the wall of a canyon @ x number shutter speed...
ive tried hdr'g those but its not working great for me, (hdr does funky things with all these red rock canyon shots)
so then i find myself trying magic wand or lasso to piece together the great sky w/ the great canyon wall shot....and well,,, again another swing and miss......
I agree with Ian, Devbobo has got it workin
My adaptation to the high dynamic range imagery has been slow. My two excuses are - first, my way of seeing, that originated from film. Second, I never liked the artifacts created when combining multiple exposures of moving subjects. For over 15 years I adapted my vision through the window of 4 stops, maybe 5 of latitude. That is to say I was never happy with images until the brightest point in the scene was no further away from the darkest point I wanted detail in than 5 stops. Slide film just did not have the dynamic range. Then along came many new digital ways to obtain detail in a scene that far surpasses 5 stops of latitude. However, intriguing as these techniques are, they don’t make for better images always For example, many times during workshops folks are shootin HDRs (bracketing 7 stops) on a scene where the scene brightness ratio is only 3.5 stops So my first recommendation to anyone wanting to shoot HDRs, make sure the scene brightness ratio is at least 6 stops. And don’t forget, the darkest stop measured is not black, but rather the first area you want detail in which is usually brighter than black There are two ways to measure this, spot meter or histogram in the digital camera. Once determined that the range is too large for one exposure (greater than 5 stops) then I usually make another decision regarding what type of method I will use to obtain all the info. First, Is the photo worthy if yes then, is there too much detail to mask out later. If the answer to this question is yes, then I must use software to obtain all the detail. I have used CS3 for this and find it handy. I have also demoed the Photomatix and found it useful as well. Either way can be tweaked for marvelous results. The alternative, which I usually choose, is a 2 image HDR technique. Image below. I just emailed TO the other day mentioning that I will be doing a Tutorial on this very soon However, there are so many neuonces that can not be addressed in a tutorial, one needs to learn all they can about masking in Photoshop to really get the full benefit. I recommend the book on masking by the real expert and friend Katrin Eismann.
HDR is usually a shot in the dark, but when you get your hands around it can be one of the more exciting tools available, especially for landscapers. I am always intrigued to see that which my eyes could not:wow
that is exactly what im talking about.
only using two exposures.
(btw, thanks for all that info, i never thought about the high to low issue)
if i understand that work was done with cs3 HDR? my cs2 HDR work never works out that good...and if i use more than two files to do a hdr with red rock canyons it seem to get worse...
as for masking, i do believe i should make it a goal this summer to get better at masking landscapes!
at this time ive almost giving up on it....thanks Marc, i'z try harder!
i look forword to the TUTe
that is exactly what im talking about.
only using two exposures.
if i understand that work was done with cs3 HDR? my cs2 HDR work never works out that good...and if i use more than two files to do a hdr with red rock canyons it seem to get worse...
as for masking, i do believe i should make it a goal this summer to get better at masking landscapes!
at this time ive almost giving up on it....thanks Marc, i'z try harder! maybe pick me up that book & upgrade to a better HDR workhorse
i look forword to the TUT
Comments
Some friends have told me not to even consider the new Canon 14mm. However, I have not tried one myself. I owned the old one for years and used it with film cameras for capturing skiing action shots when the subject was mere feet away. Once I began shooting with the 1ds M11 and viewing every file at 100 percent in photoshop I learned real soon it was just too soft. That is when I sold it and began working with the 17-40 for my sports imagery. However for landscapes what I enjoy is the 24 TS combined with the Really Right Stuff pano equipment. By combining these two elements I am able to pan in all directions thus creating any field of view I wish. Even better, when I stitch all the exposures together I eliminate most of the soft corners
If you are really concerned, buy yourself a Edmund Scientific lens test chart, mount it on foam core and test your lenses at all the apertures. I have learned many things about optics by doing so, things I wish I did not know
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
I too donate finger smudge to all my filters, they seam to love it. In a studio it is different, but in the field things happen to fast and I am too clumsy to keep filters clean. However, I do carry several ND filters.
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Hi Marc,
thanks for the feedback
I have not done any stitching yet, but I have the 90TS and could experiment with that I guess
Wouldn't it be great if they upgraded the 24TS?
...pics..
Thanks for your input, too, Charlie. I love your work and hearing experiences like that. I might stick with the regular ND filters for waterfalls and do the bracketing, too, since that is a technique I already am familiar with.
Marc what brand of ND filters do you use/recommend? I cannot even remember, although I borrowed one from you for an entire day.
Photos that don't suck / 365 / Film & Lomography
Here is what I use in 8 stop density. You may want to get the larger size with a stepup ring to avoid vignetting.
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
Wow, thanks Schmoo, coming from you I have to take that as a huge complement, your work's wonderful! And thanks for reminding me that even if I don't bring any grads I mustn't forget my ND's!
Charlie
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
I hear the new Nikon 14-28 with a Canon adapter might be the way to go.
is that a joke or serious?
...pics..
Adapter and lens reviews.
From the review:
A gushing review but a bit tenuous in someof his observations
I'd need to see another reviwers opinion before being convinced that it is better than the 14mk2 or the 24L but I can imagine it's as good, so on price alone it may , as you say, be the way to go ( for some)
It also says it will discuss the 14mk2 later but doesn't yet
INteresting that the review considers it as good as the 24L, I would like to asee a 14mk2 comparison
...pics..
the reason im thinking about trying fisheye & dxo is because most of the photomerge projects ive done look bad due to the sky exposures they are off one from another....ive even done bracketing exposures but i cant line up any exposures that match very well once in PP...
for example....:
Impressive review.. but .. are we 100% confident that as the reviwer has a vested interest in selling his adaptor , that this is repeatable test?
I'm interested
...pics..
im always digging up the past since im always three steps behind....
will cs3 better handle a photomerge like what i posted (above)?
or is my highly developed photography skills just need to step up?
I think it's heaps better than previous versions. Just be sure to give it enough
overlap.
I shoot raw then open the files in Camera Raw. Select all of them then sync.
Once you're happy with the Camera Raw images, open them in PS and merge
away.
Yes, basically autopilot panos. You just click File -> Automate -> Photomerge, select the photos, and sit back until it is done. As stated you need to give it a bit of overlap but it really seems to work well.
Mike Mattix
Tulsa, OK
"There are always three sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth" - Unknown
CS3 is much much better, in fact it really is much better
There is a check box at the bottom of the photomerge dialog box called "blend" which, if checked, will blend your skys together
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
I also use a fisheye for my split over/under water scenes.
Or sports
It is a very handy tool, and it comes in a small package
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
i think cs3 may help me do better panos, well atleast my photography exposure skills...:D
myself, i usually shoot with bracketing.
sometimes i like only two shots out of the group,,, the sky @ x number shutter speed and then one of the wall of a canyon @ x number shutter speed...
ive tried hdr'g those but its not working great for me, (hdr does funky things with all these red rock canyon shots)
so then i find myself trying magic wand or lasso to piece together the great sky w/ the great canyon wall shot....and well,,, again another swing and miss......
to HDR images.
I haven't done too much with it but it seems much easier than PS.
Thanks Ian, I keep hearing that. maybe i will look into it after the print workshop in april....i dont know how much more i can fit into my cranium.:D
learned about the product from.
oh, ive seen them. simply outstanding!
I agree with Ian, Devbobo has got it workin
My adaptation to the high dynamic range imagery has been slow. My two excuses are - first, my way of seeing, that originated from film. Second, I never liked the artifacts created when combining multiple exposures of moving subjects. For over 15 years I adapted my vision through the window of 4 stops, maybe 5 of latitude. That is to say I was never happy with images until the brightest point in the scene was no further away from the darkest point I wanted detail in than 5 stops. Slide film just did not have the dynamic range. Then along came many new digital ways to obtain detail in a scene that far surpasses 5 stops of latitude. However, intriguing as these techniques are, they don’t make for better images always
HDR is usually a shot in the dark, but when you get your hands around it can be one of the more exciting tools available, especially for landscapers. I am always intrigued to see that which my eyes could not:wow
#1 exp for sky
#2 exp for rocks
blended
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
only using two exposures.
(btw, thanks for all that info, i never thought about the high to low issue)
if i understand that work was done with cs3 HDR? my cs2 HDR work never works out that good...and if i use more than two files to do a hdr with red rock canyons it seem to get worse...
as for masking, i do believe i should make it a goal this summer to get better at masking landscapes!
at this time ive almost giving up on it....thanks Marc, i'z try harder!
i look forword to the TUTe
See if this tute helps.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Hope to see you there
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
What a great year it is, the hills are truly ALIVE
Muench Workshops
MW on Facebook
GreyLeaf PhotoGraphy