|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Hoodie Ninja
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10
126
« on: March 02, 2009, 18:13 »
Hmmm...push the ignore button or respond? lol! Some models came with a unicorn-type horn on them to fight theives off with.  My original camera was only a 400D
 That one is expected by the summer, if not later. It's a mythical cam.
127
« on: March 02, 2009, 18:12 »
I normally hike with ALL my camera gear in a backpack, which is quite heavy so I am used to the weight. A lot of times I have books and magazines stuffed in there, too! lol! But perhaps it would be better for me to get something like I had before, which was a 17-40mm and a 70-300mm. I also had the 50mm 1.4 and the 18-55 kit lens, but those weren't used as much. Ooh, fire...my biggest fear. You lose irreplaceable things that theives don't want...like things your kid made for you or deceased parent left or family pictures, etc. That sucks.  The 28-300mm f/3.5-4.6L IS USM lens is a bad choice! Hire a strong person to carry it for you!
I personally love the 24-105 IS Lens as a carry everywhere lens.
Sorry for your loss as I had a house and a studio burn to the ground and lost everything both times. (five years apart)
-Larry
128
« on: March 02, 2009, 18:07 »
They won't let me just up the amount for my camera equipment....I need separate "business" insurance, which is more because it includes liability. $225/yr. Trust me, I am definitely focusing on the buying process.....no sense on focusing on anything else!  Sorry to hear that... 
When I renewed my insurances last fall, I did mention to them that I had some revenue from my photos. So yes, I had to insure my equipment... But the good thing is that it cost me 28$/year to insure all my equipment (5 000$). So it might worth to ask!
That said, try to focus on all the new stuff you HAVE to buy 
Claude
129
« on: March 02, 2009, 18:02 »
Most of my photography work is done on a tripod, so weight doesn't matter as much...besides, then I can count my photography work in with my weight training! lol! All seriousness, though, I had a wide angle and a zoom/macro that were my main lenses. Perhaps getting two separate lenses like I had before would be best. If only I had unlimited money to buy ALL the lenses! 
Awful! That lens is way too big & heavy for every day use __ in fact it's not much good for anything in my view.
I have 8 L glass lenses but use the 24-70 f2.8L for about 95% of all shots I take. Nothing comes close it as a 'general use' lens. If I had to have only one lens then that would be it.
130
« on: March 02, 2009, 16:59 »
Wow, sorry to here about that. I think the 5DII will take you a long ways however I'd get the kit lens,, 24-105. It's very good and the extra speed and
quality are better than the extra length.
I really wrestled with trying to decide on a body. My original camera was only a 400D, so the 5DII will be a big jump for me. But I think it will do me for a good long time so I won't have to upgrade so soon. I don't think the kit lens is really what I'm looking for. I need wide and I also need zoom. Previously I had the 17-40mm f/4L and the Sigma 70-300mm macro. I wasn't happy with the quality of the Sigma, so I'd definitely want better than that.
131
« on: March 02, 2009, 16:56 »
Yeah, getting robbed is never fun. Thanks for the link. I like Yuri's site. I've really been researching lenses, but you never know how you'll like them until you start using them. I'm really sorry about this. We got hit by burglars at the office last year and it totally sucks.
Thought this post might be of use:
http://www.arcurs.com/gear-i-regret-buying-and-things-i-really-love
Cheers,
Rahul
132
« on: March 02, 2009, 16:00 »
I am having to start all over getting my camera equipment. Our house was robbed last week and all of my gear was taken. ALL of it. How convenient of me to store it all in a easy-to-take backpack. Grrrrrrr!
I will get some money, but not all, for my camera equipment because they consider it "business property" and only cover up to $1000. Double grrrrr! Note to others...if you ever have your stuff stolen, NEVER tell them you make any money using it!
I also had some jewelry stolen, so I will be getting money from the insurance for that. Of course, I will not buy more jewelry with the money and just add it to my camera fund.
I was already planning on buying the Canon 5D Mark II when I get my tax refund back, so now I will have to buy all the rest. I know for stock, I don't need a battery grip, but I also do landscape photography and would like to do star trails so I need the battery grip for that...so I'll be getting one of those along with at least one extra battery and more when I can afford them.
After that, the 580EX II flash is on my list, since the camera doesn't come with a flash. I have 3 soft boxes for my studio, so I think I'll be okay with lighting.
And lastly.....a lens. I am thinking of the 28-300mm f/3.5-4.6L IS USM. It will have wide angle and good zoom. I hate to spend THAT much money on a lens. I wish it had wider aperature and that it didn't have push/pull zoom. Do you think it would be possible for them to someday make ONE perfect lens that fits every need? Probably not, but one can click their heels and pray to the camera gods in the hopes that it could come true.
So, how does that sound?
134
« on: February 18, 2009, 18:50 »
yes you do....
you can click on the image to make them bigger... they are side 1 and 2
Looks great! I see mine in there YAY!
135
« on: February 03, 2009, 10:47 »
And I'm not much for photographing people...
Shooting people is fun! The only problem is to get rid of the bodies. 
You bring the shovel and I'll bring the lye. ;P
136
« on: February 02, 2009, 20:55 »
As a microstocker I absolutely hammer my cameras both in terms of shutter operations and the way I treat them (like the tool that it is). I've had my 1Ds MkIII for exactly one year and had 65K-odd actuations. I think I'd rather buy an immaculate camera from a hobbyist which only gets used on high days and holidays __ and that's the vast majority of the cameras for sale.
I bought a camera on ebay once...but it was just a Canon S3 IS and I got it used from some guy that had hardly used it. It was a good deal. But it was also only a $200 purchase. I have a harder time buying on ebay when the price is much higher. My uncle and my bf both think I should get the Mk II because they both think that I won't be happy until I get it. Probably true. One of my bosses thinks I should pay off my credit card with the money. I hate it when people want me to be responsible! lol! My bf also asked if anyone had suggested that I just buy a gun and shoot myself since I take crappy pictures. He thinks he's sooooo funny!
137
« on: February 02, 2009, 17:02 »
Definitely the 5D I. I just posted in another thread, but as far as I can see from using the 5D I and II, the only significant differences beyond the megapixels are the movie mode/live view and the sensor cleaning.
Unless you really want the high megapixels, sensor cleaning or the movies you will be getting equal (amazing!) image quality with the the 5D I as with the II.
For the money I honestly don't think you could get a better camera than the 5D I. Even at the $3000+ that I paid for it in 2005 it was worth every dime. At current prices its a steal.
I don't care about the movie mode...I have a smaller camera that can do that and I don't care about HD since I don't have an HD tv. My 400D has a built-in sensor cleaner and it doesn't seem to help, since I had to buy a cleaner and do it myself to get rid of sensor dust. Mostly I wanted it for the noise (lack of) and the dynamic range. Do you think buying used from B&H is okay? What about ebay? I normally buy new and am a little hesitant about how to buy a good used model.
138
« on: February 02, 2009, 16:59 »
So, do you think I should get the 5D or the 5D Mark II? If I get the 5D, I would have some money left over for a battery grip, extra batteries, etc. If I get the 5D Mark II, I will only be able to get the body. Or should I just stick with the 400D for now. So many varying opinions....
Pretty much everybody is recommending getting a second-hand 5D. You should be able to pick one up for barely more than 1/3 of a new MkII. You don't need a battery grip, they just add weight and bulk. Extra batteries for a 5D cost pennies anyway.
B&H wants $1269 for a used 5D, which is more than 1/3, but close enough I guess. The battery grip is for star trails (I'm not just a stock photographer).
139
« on: February 02, 2009, 16:35 »
I have a 5D and a 40D. There is NO CONTEST! Everything about the 5D is better.
The 40D, like the 20D and the 10D before it (which I also owned) is a disappointment. It has an unacceptable level of noise if you shoot above ISO 200, and more noise than I would like even at low ISO's. It exposes and white balances very poorly when using flash. And it's focus is hit or miss. Quite often miss.
The 5D, by contrast, focuses perfectly every time, exposes well and consistently, and has gorgeous color and good white balance. Honestly, I can't over stress the differences is usability and image quality. It's night and day.
So, do you think I should get the 5D or the 5D Mark II? If I get the 5D, I would have some money left over for a battery grip, extra batteries, etc. If I get the 5D Mark II, I will only be able to get the body. Or should I just stick with the 400D for now. So many varying opinions....
140
« on: February 02, 2009, 16:21 »
Hi Paula,
Not to be critical, but one problem I see right off are the smudges. If you look at the middle pair of candycanes at the bottom where they criss-cross. There is a smudge tail coming off the bottom. Its looks like I can see more of the same in other parts of the image. Is this a 100% crop??? This might be cause for a rejection. Hope that helps.
Actually, that's the whole picture. The "smudge" is the indentation in the snow that the candy canes made when I was laying them down. Probably should've fixed that. Would SS reject a picture for "poor lighting" on that aspect?
141
« on: February 02, 2009, 15:58 »
So, what would you recommend? You already know what equipment I have (camera/lenses)....should I wait for the 5D Mark II and not have any money for anything else?
Actually I'm with Epixx on this one. Your cam is great, and I suspect it's your workflow that's to blame for your noise problem. Can you really justify for a top-notch cam from your stock income? I can't to be honest, and I'm not too shy to tell. I'm happy for now with my D200 and although I like to dream of a D3x, my name is not Sean Locke nor Avava nor Yuri Arcurs.
Before you spend any money, try to master your cam and workflow better first. Photoshop won't solve any noise problems if it's in the image. Raw is great for high-dynamic range shots, but for normal shots JPG is faster and it handles the sensor data well. Just make sure you turn off all the in-cam manipulations like sharpening and color-boost, and - of course - save JPG fine or top quality.
If you don't want to buy Photoshop, consider PS elements, which is cheap and can do most. Since you didn't use PS yet, consider using the Open Source (free) tool GIMP. It seems to be equivalent to Photoshop.
So, are you saying to put it on Standard and not allow any sharpening or saturation? I tend to get very dull images and have to boost the color when I use that setting. What if I just used some saturation but didn't do any in-camera sharpening? The problem is, my images never look very sharp without a little 'help'. I already use the best jpeg setting, so that is not a problem. I also seem to have some trouble with focus. I use auto focus, and even when I use the AF point on the part of the shot I want it to focus on, it doesn't come out tack sharp. I've tried doing manual focus, but that doesn't help...even though I have 20/20 vision. I just looked in my rejection folder from SS and it looks like most of my pictures that were rejected due to noise are either HDR images or pictures taken by an older camera of mine. I'm still in the process of submitting pictures from past years as well as current. Focus, however, seems to be a problem even with my current 400D. "Poor Lighting" seems to be my most common rejection. For a lot of my pictures, I can see where they would come up with. But this image I can't. 
142
« on: February 02, 2009, 14:55 »
[quote author=paulacobleigh link=topic=6969.msg82453#msg82453 * flying objects* Sadly, I have not been shooting RAW. The program I use to edit my photos does not support it. And frankly I don't even know how to edit RAW files. I don't have PS. Don't know how to use it. Yeah, I know....none of you will talk to me anymore after reading this. Hahaha - well that's why a forum is for. I was totally against RAW till half 2007 when somebody (a great stock photographer) forced me to do it. Now I can't miss it any more. RAW is not always superior since the cam software often corrects the sensor flaws. But for gradients, like clouds, or other high dynamic subjects (for instance a businessman in a black suit with a white shirt) you would like the much higher dynamic range of raw, and you can do two developments. That sounds complicated but a raw developer is just a screen with sliders where you can adjust exposure, brightness, saturation, etc... [/quote] So, what would you recommend? You already know what equipment I have (camera/lenses)....should I wait for the 5D Mark II and not have any money for anything else? Should I get a 5D and have a little money left over for either a new computer or CS4? Should I get a 40D and a new computer and CS4? Or should I not buy anything and just pay off my credit card (yeah, probably not going to happen!). I'm going to be getting about $2200 so I won't even have quite enough for the 5D Mark II but I could come up with the extra $600 or so somehow.... I really wanted a new camera because we will be touring Utah and Arizona in April or May and I wanted better images from that trip.
143
« on: February 02, 2009, 14:22 »
I always over expose 2/3rd a stop to try and reduce the sky or shadow noise. You can recover most or all of the blown highlights in Adobe Camera Raw.
I found that trick too. Overexpose slightly, and you can recover most that's blown out in the raw (second development till the right edge of the histogram is flat) since it has a larger pixel depth than the JPEG. For clouds it's not a disaster even if you blown out the sunny edges, since you can always clone over that area at 15% from an area that has structure.
I'm totally on manual lately, and I look at the histogram. Even if you have to do a couple of trials, it always takes less time than selectively de-noise a sky in Photoshop.
Another trick that works on other smooth gradients like on faces (under the chin and the eyebrows) or in the folds of black business suits - is to paint over the noisy area with a smooth brush 15-20% and with a color that is slightly brigther (sampled in the neighborhood). I found out it's much better than de-noise since the crispness stays while de-noising, especially in skies, produces ugly blobs that are very conspicuous, plus you lose sharpness.
Recovering blown highlights in RAW sounds like a good reason to use it. I do use the paint brush technique, but my program probably doesn't do it as well as PS could. Do you use CS4? I have a hard time wanting to chunk down $700 for a program.
144
« on: February 02, 2009, 14:19 »
But your problems won't end there: skies are notorious for producing banding, and getting a striking sky without banding requires plenty of practice.
Darn yes, and it doesn't help working at 16 bits. You get it especially in a deep blue sky with a gradient. At the moment, and if the sky looks great, I'm always taking some extra shots of the sky alone. It's not HDR but you can merge those skies in very handily. The OP didn't tell if she worked raw or not. In JPEG, even at highest quality, you get those obnoxious squares artifacts, especially in clouds with gradients.
Perhaps I should buy the 40D, get CS4 (and learn to use it), and get a faster computer. I do bracket my shots (redeeming myself yet??) for HDR use...but that causes more noise issues so I don't do a lot of HDR for stock.
145
« on: February 02, 2009, 13:01 »
I currently use a Canon Xti 400D. The noise on that camera is horrible, even at 100 ISO. I really want to upgrade BADLY!
I don't believe you. If you have bad noise at ISO 100 with the 400D, you should have a look at your exposure. I use a Nikon D80 for microstock, a camera that is supposed to make more noise than your 400D, and I haven't had a rejection for noise in ages.
There are many good reasons to upgrade to a 5D or 5DII, but noise at ISO100 is not one of them.
Agree. I had a 350D and now a 450D and there is no noticeable noise at ISO 100.
I can see the noise mostly in a plain blue sky. And since I'm a landscape photographer more than a stock photographer, it's a problem. I also get it with my infrared shots because of the longer exposures (sometimes 20 seconds). I would also like to do star trails, which are much longer exposures (30+ minutes) and the 400D would produce so much noise that the picture wouldn't look nice.
146
« on: February 02, 2009, 12:54 »
I agree with cdwheatley & gostwyck: getting a used 5D will easily give you the biggest bang for the buck. On the downside, you'll only be able to make XL images on IS with it. As far as a vendor goes, I highly recommend B&H - go here to check out their used camera inventory.
On a semi-related note, here's on old post showing my income from XL and XXL images on IS. Is it worth upgrading solely to make larger images? I made 26% more by using an XXL camera, and I would have made 13% more by using an XL one - if your sales volume is large enough you can reach payback within one year.
Do you think a 5D would be good with the lenses I listed? Another person said I don't have good enough lenses. I'm now leaning towards getting the 40D and then upgrading my computer and getting CS4. I am currently using Microsoft Digital Image Suite 2006, which has been discontinued.
147
« on: February 02, 2009, 12:20 »
I would get the old 5D. Its a great camera and very little noise. You can probably pick one up cheap these days. Comparing pictures from my 5d next to my 1D's mk III the difference is very little. Just the size is different. Just my opinion, hope that helps 
As much as I would like a 5D, I think I'll probably get the 40D for now. Even if I wait a bit and get the 5D Mark II, I won't have any money left over for a battery grip, extra batteries, or flash. If I get the 40D, I could also upgrade my computer and purchase CS4. I am currently using Microsoft Digital Image Suite 2006, which is a really easy program to use, but they've discontinued this line of software so I'm going to have to bite the bullet and learn PS.
148
« on: February 02, 2009, 12:17 »
Im not Canon fan, however I must admit that even 400D is excellent image quality and first you should check why you have "horrible noise" at iso100. 400D produces nearly no real noise up to iso400 and very low on iso800. In case you have high noise, then you probably do big mistakes in postprocess or have pics underexposed.
Im selling pics from my old Olympus E-300 and now using E-410 mostly, and both of them have much higher "noise" then 400D, however I had just one rejection for noise in the whole year!
Btw. upgrading to 5D or 5DII isnt the solution - at first you need high end lenses to feed such sensor. None of your lenses is capable to feed it, maybe we could argue about 17-40/4L on 5D but definitely not on 5DII. I would suggest going to Canon 40D (which is pretty cheap compared to 50D or both 5D versions), some reviewers and users say its even better then newer 50D (which has ridiculuous pixel density not suitable for most Canon lenses). Then you can go for lenses like Tamron 17-50/2,8 or Canon 17-55/2,8, C 24-70/2,8 and C 16-35/2,8 to get really stunning picture quality. With no limit on budget my set would be 40D + C10-22, C24-70/2,8 and C 70-200/4. In case I would somehow decide to go fullframe, then 5DII + 16-35/2,8 + 24-7,/2,8 + 70-200/4 and thats it.
Mostly I get noise in shots of the sky. I don't think my exposure is the problem and it shows up before I process them. I've learned to fix it to the point that I get very few rejections for that, except with iStock. They say I have artifacting in my pictures. Most of my rejections on SS are for "poor lighting". I'm still learning what they do and don't like. As much as I would like the 5D Mark II, I think my money would be better spent in other directions at this time. I think the 40D would be a good fit. That would also leave me money to purchase other things. I was thinking that I would finally purchase and learn Photoshop CS4 and get a faster computer. I am currently using Microsoft Digital Image Suite 2006, but that is the last version they are making. Not sure which computer to get. I currently have an eMachine that I haven't had any problems with. I really don't want Window's Vista, so I guess I'll have to find one that uses XP (don't suggest Apple/Mac....not interested in the slightest). Thanks for the lens suggestions.
149
« on: February 01, 2009, 22:46 »
I just went through the same decision, after not having the $ for a new 5DmkII. I bought an older model 5D for the same price as the 50D
I read the reviews on the 50D after I started this thread and found the 40D was better with noise at higher ISO's so I could save quite a bit if I got the 40D for now. Where did you buy your 5D?
150
« on: February 01, 2009, 17:39 »
I currently use a Canon Xti 400D. The noise on that camera is horrible, even at 100 ISO. I really want to upgrade BADLY!
My plan has been to get the Canon 5D Mark II (which would keep me from feeling like I need to upgrade for awhile). However, they seem to be backordered for who knows how long. If I have to wait 6 months to a year to get it, I feel like perhaps I should upgrade to something else for now until availability and price are better.
So, I'm considering getting the 50D now (with my tax return $) and then upgrading to the 5D 2 next year.
As a side note, I am more a landscape photographer than a microstock photographer....I only do this to make a little money to support my photography/travel costs.
What do you guys think?
Also, where is the best place to buy a camera from? Price/Quality/Returns, etc.
Oh, and if you want to know what lenses I already have.....
Canon 18-55mm EF-S f3/.5-5.6 kit lens
Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Macro
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 17-40mm f/4.0 L
Thanks,
Paula
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
