[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Mostly, I am not going to take RAW anyway. I'll set the camera to RAW+fine unless I expect to want to tinker. My unashamedly modest aspiration is simply to take the best snaps I can. But if a half-decent portrait comes out of some concert snaps (I've achieved a couple) or I get some nice cat pics... all the better.

I hear tell there's a place called the internet which has an infinite appetite for cat pics

Although the difference is much smaller these days, some would say non-existent, Mac’s are typically rated better at photo/video editing than Window based PC’s.

I wouldn't know, I never tried. At work I have to use a Windows based PC, but at home it’s a Mac. Switched in 2009 to a Mac, never looked back. It’s not perfect, but it’s so much more convenient then a Windows PC.

The most important part of photography (or any other hobby/interest) is that you enjoy what you are doing. There is no law that stipulates you have to use RAW. In fact, these days using JPEG you find yourself in very good company, including professional photographers.

Just as an afterthought, you can process those JPEGs as well of course! There is just less that you can do with a JPEG than a RAW file. But tweaking colours, levels etc works fine usually.

Jeroen

[Prowler]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I'd much rather remain Windows-free, quite apart from the cost of that software.

Gimp is obviously not photography centric. Perhaps the same thing can be achieved, but, as far as I know, there is no 1-stop-less slider anywhere. But it still does most of the things I need.

Mostly, I am not going to take RAW anyway. I'll set the camera to RAW+fine unless I expect to want to tinker. My unashamedly modest aspiration is simply to take the best snaps I can. But if a half-decent portrait comes out of some concert snaps (I've achieved a couple) or I get some nice cat pics... all the better.

I hear tell there's a place called the internet which has an infinite appetite for cat pics

As Jeroen said, apple has better tools for photo/video editing than Windows.

Apple always offered things – hardware as well as software which are intuitive to use. It is not complicated outwardly. But on the inside, under the hood, you have the finest technologies available. MacOS High Sierra’s Photos App appears simple enough. But click on the Edit button and it takes you to one of the most advanced image editors I have seen outside PhotoShop. You can adjust a whole gamut of options on the image.

That without spending a dime on any new software.

BTW, How about sharing a few cat pics here for reference, Thad ?

[Red Liner]

Originally Posted by Red Liner

Hi guys,

I have a dslr from canon, 5d mk 3. Shutter count of 10,xxx. 2015 model. Got it for an inhouse model shoot project, and we are done. How much can i expect when selling this camera? I dont want to get ripped off, as my knowledge of cameras are pretty poor.

Never been used outside our studio at the office.

Guys anyone? Or am i on the wrong thread?

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Prowler

As Jeroen said, apple has better tools for photo/video editing than Windows.

Actually, I meant something different. I don’t use any Apple editing software. Only Lightroom, a bit of Photoshop and a few other specialized programs

Initially the way Apple implemented colour management was far superior to anybody else. It was heavily patented so the first apple PCs had a real edge over any other PC. It was one of the reasons it ended up as the PC of choice for all the arty farty types doing editing for publishing video and photography editors.

Over time other vendors have found and implemented very good colour management software as well. So I don’t think the difference is that pronounced, although most of my friends that use Mac’s in a professional capacity for editing will beg to differ.

Personally, I have found one of the biggest differences is ensuring your screen is properly calibrated. Preferably a good external monitor, but even my MacBook Pro gets calibrated once a month. We are spending thousands of dollars on camera and lenses so $100 for a good monitor calibrator is money well spend and I find it makes a very noticeable difference.

This is what I use:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/X-Rite-CMUN...ite+colormunki

Jeroen

[Thad E Ginathom]

It's not entirely choice, but I have only spent a total of about half an hour of my life on an apple machine, and that was installing software to communicate with a Unix server. Just never went there, and I doubt I ever will. I won't be buying "flagship" phones of any make or flavour --- even though I am usually amazed at the quality of iPhone pics taken by my friends. Yes, Prowler, that software snap does look very nice.

I'm in my second childhood of photography. I guess I knew how to hold the thing steady when I was in my teens. Now I'm relearning. I got a new strap this week: a Peakdesign Slidelight. Easy to take on or off, easy to get out of the way completely, but also easy to adjust, and useful an extra restraint, especially when screen viewing rather than viewfindering. All the straps I ever had before, you set the length and, without fiddling at pulling stuff through buckles, that was it. This seems interestingly different.

I'm working up to a new lens. Camera came with two: 16-50, f2.5-5.6 and 55-210, f4.5-6.3. The camera is APS-C, Sony a-6000 (yes, I know, not exactly DSLR, but this thread is where most of the photo talk seems to happen) so times 1.5 for 35mm-equiv.

I'm tempted by Sony 18-105. It's f4 all the way, and the extra, I think, will give me better, faster-shutter/lower-ISO concert pics to crop a face out of than the longer zoom would give me directly. I'm pretty sure it would be on the camera 90% of the time... unless I just want to take something small out somewhere. But, then I wonder if it might not be better to get heaps more light in there with a fixed 50mm (75mm equiv) f1.8... with which I'd probably get a lot of sharp microphones against blurred faces! A problem which has already led me to use manual-tweak focus mode.

Singers don't keep their faces still! In fact I find it can be better to photograph them when they are doing something other than singing. Alternatively, I could get closer and use flash. I don't like to. Most of the musicians are not at all perturbed, but I don't like people with cameras prancing around between me and the artists, so I'd rather not do it myself. The pros have photographed a million concerts, can get in and out with what they want quickly, and, the better ones unobtrusively too, even with flash.

Cats, as Death said, according to Terry Pratchett: cats are nice. And so is my favourite carnatic singer...

The cats are just snaps, although I spent some time messing around with no flash or reduced flash. Smt Vedavalli, If I remember right (it was only a couple of weeks ago!) I cropped and tweaked from the raw.

[Prowler]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Actually, I meant something different. I don’t use any Apple editing software. Only Lightroom, a bit of Photoshop and a few other specialized programs

Initially the way Apple implemented colour management was far superior to anybody else. It was heavily patented so the first apple PCs had a real edge over any other PC. It was one of the reasons it ended up as the PC of choice for all the arty farty types doing editing for publishing video and photography editors.

Over time other vendors have found and implemented very good colour management software as well. So I don’t think the difference is that pronounced, although most of my friends that use Mac’s in a professional capacity for editing will beg to differ.

Personally, I have found one of the biggest differences is ensuring your screen is properly calibrated. Preferably a good external monitor, but even my MacBook Pro gets calibrated once a month. We are spending thousands of dollars on camera and lenses so $100 for a good monitor calibrator is money well spend and I find it makes a very noticeable difference.

Jeroen

Jeroen Sir - you always amaze me - truly a master of so many subjects - aircraft, automobiles, engineering, photography - the list seems endless. Thank you so much for sharing.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

It's not entirely choice, but I have only spent a total of about half an hour of my life on an apple machine, and that was installing software to communicate with a Unix server. Just never went there, and I doubt I ever will. I won't be buying "flagship" phones of any make or flavour --- even though I am usually amazed at the quality of iPhone pics taken by my friends. Yes, Prowler, that software snap does look very nice.

I'm in my second childhood of photography. I guess I knew how to hold the thing steady when I was in my teens. Now I'm relearning. I got a new strap this week: a Peakdesign Slidelight. Easy to take on or off, easy to get out of the way completely, but also easy to adjust, and useful an extra restraint, especially when screen viewing rather than viewfindering. All the straps I ever had before, you set the length and, without fiddling at pulling stuff through buckles, that was it. This seems interestingly different.

I'm working up to a new lens. Camera came with two: 16-50, f2.5-5.6 and 55-210, f4.5-6.3. The camera is APS-C, Sony a-6000 (yes, I know, not exactly DSLR, but this thread is where most of the photo talk seems to happen) so times 1.5 for 35mm-equiv.

I'm tempted by Sony 18-105. It's f4 all the way, and the extra, I think, will give me better, faster-shutter/lower-ISO concert pics to crop a face out of than the longer zoom would give me directly. I'm pretty sure it would be on the camera 90% of the time... unless I just want to take something small out somewhere. But, then I wonder if it might not be better to get heaps more light in there with a fixed 50mm (75mm equiv) f1.8... with which I'd probably get a lot of sharp microphones against blurred faces! A problem which has already led me to use manual-tweak focus mode.

Singers don't keep their faces still! In fact I find it can be better to photograph them when they are doing something other than singing. Alternatively, I could get closer and use flash. I don't like to. Most of the musicians are not at all perturbed, but I don't like people with cameras prancing around between me and the artists, so I'd rather not do it myself. The pros have photographed a million concerts, can get in and out with what they want quickly, and, the better ones unobtrusively too, even with flash.

The cats are just snaps, although I spent some time messing around with no flash or reduced flash. Smt Vedavalli, If I remember right (it was only a couple of weeks ago!) I cropped and tweaked from the raw.

Wow. Great snaps of cats and Mrs.Vedavalli. Your chinacat (Wonder why you named him/her a china cat) images have come out well. I can even see the tiny serrated tooth in the tongue. It is indeed a very difficult thing to keep the focus on the hair strands of the gracefully ageing artist as well as the microphone in the foreground- especially considering the lighting condition.

I have learnt Photoshop when it was version 4 - about 18 years ago. I use Windows as well as a Mac for our Publishing house. I could never get to work with Gimp as the learning curve was too steep. I tried my hand on a version which was supposed to mimic Photoshop.

Most of us face the issue - removing the background clutter of our photographs. It takes quite a bit of time in Photoshop to remove the clutter. They say the new iPhone x comes with dual camera setup which automatically removes the background. I am not so sure how their AI can differentiate a wanted element from the backdrop from the detritus that we would want to eliminate.

Sorry about the long post.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Thanks for the appreciation.

Photography at that Vedavalli concert was really difficult due to that bright yellow background. Of course, I didn't realise that until afterwards. I guess I should have been spot metering on the faces. I had to adjust in software.

I used to work in publishing pictures. Colour separation was outsourced and we world mark up proof sheets... So much more or less r, y, or b in this area or that. The corrections would be done by very highly skilled guys manipulating positives and negatives. The extent of my skill was to take out specs with a scalpel and glass, both of which I still have, 40 years later.

We had letterpress type department, but, for litho, I brought phototypesetting in house and learnt to do it.

There was lots of paste-up work with Cow gum and scalpel.

A couple of years after I left, even though manual typewriters still Sat on most desks, for the graphics work, they brought in... Apple.

Any comments on my lens choices? (whoops, I thought this was the DSLR thread)

I'm also thinking of getting one of those low-cost Chinese lenses, to force myself to cope with no stabilisation and manual most things. Just an exercise. I'm sure I'll get a lot of blurred pics, like I do with the phone!

The cat is named after a weird, psychedelic song by the Grateful Dead: Chinacat Sunflower!

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I used to work in publishing pictures.
I'm also thinking of getting one of those low-cost Chinese lenses, to force myself to cope with no stabilisation and manual most things. Just an exercise. I'm sure I'll get a lot of blurred pics, like I do with the phone!

!

interesting background. Of course, with digital processing some of this has become so much easier. But as with a lot of automation, it also wiped out certain professional skills/expertise. Everybody can learn to use Lightroom or similar in a matter of hours to at least get going and to do some basic level adjustments. It would take a lot more experience in the analogue world to get going. In the days of analogue photography I did a bit of my own printing and developping. Only B&W and that was difficult enough! Very few amateurs could do proper colour developping and printing. It's so hard and takes a lot of practice and experience.

Just a thought on your "cheap lenses". I assume you can turn off stabilisation and autofocus on all lensens and achieve the same.

Jeroen

[Thad E Ginathom]

Haha, yes... And I have tried!

The cheap lenses would not duplicate anything that I already have. They would be, eg, a fast prime.

I have on order an adapter for the standard lens on my ancient OM2. Just for the experiment.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Haha, yes... And I have tried!

The cheap lenses would not duplicate anything that I already have. They would be, eg, a fast prime.

I have on order an adapter for the standard lens on my ancient OM2. Just for the experiment.

Just bear in mind, when it comes to lenses, cheap is never fast. In fact, the faster the lens, the more expensive. Really really fast, really really expensive!

That said, these days there are plenty cheap, ‘plastic’ lenses, not particularly fast, but that do a really good job otherwise!

I have never bothered with prime lenses. I have two outstanding zooms that do just about all the jobs for me. At f2.8 across the whole range (30-300 equivalent) I’m good to go. Weight/how much to carry is an important factor for me. (I’m strictly EVIL, never having owned a DSLR. All of my kit, one body, two lenses, tripod, spare batteries, some filters and some bits and pieces all fit into one little bag/backpack.

Jeroen

[sukiwa]

Originally Posted by Red Liner

Guys anyone?

Have you checked classifieds on JJMehta for similar age DSLR? Don't be too surprised if you get a 30-35% hit on initial purchase price.

Or am i on the wrong thread?

should have posted in DSLR thread for early attention.

[Red Liner]

Originally Posted by sukiwa

Have you checked classifieds on JJMehta for similar age DSLR? Don't be too surprised if you get a 30-35% hit on initial purchase price.

should have posted in DSLR thread for early attention.

Thanks sukiwa. Will do that. Have also posted on the dslr thread now. Thought these threads were the same! Lol.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

... I have never bothered with prime lenses. I have two outstanding zooms that do just about all the jobs for me. At f2.8 across the whole range (30-300 equivalent) I’m good to go. Weight/how much to carry is an important factor for me. (I’m strictly EVIL, never having owned a DSLR. All of my kit, one body, two lenses, tripod, spare batteries, some filters and some bits and pieces all fit into one little bag/backpack.

That sounds good. And f2.8 from 30 to 300 sounds... expensive

I got a very little darkroom experience at school, but only a couple of sessions of enlarging and processing the prints. Like metalwork, it is something I wish I'd done more of.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

That sounds good. And f2.8 from 30 to 300 sounds... expensive

I got a very little darkroom experience at school, but only a couple of sessions of enlarging and processing the prints. Like metalwork, it is something I wish I'd done more of.

Well, these are EVIL lenses (love that acronym!)

So I have the M. Zuiko 12-40mm F2.8 Pro and the M.Zuiko 40-150mm F2.8 Pro

So that gives 24-300 mm DSLR equivalent roughly.

http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/prod...pro/index.html
http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/prod...pro/index.html

Next, I actually do have one prime, the M.Zuiko 17mmF1.8 as it came as standard on my Olympus Pen F. Excellent lens, very versatile.

http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/prod..._18/index.html

The Pro series, other then excellent optical quality is also splash and dust proof as is the OMD body. So that comes in handy as well.

I also have a very simple, very cheap fish eye. A so called Fish Eye body cap lens. it’s called this way as it is essentially as big/small as a body cap. So the optics aren’t that great, but as it is a fish eye that is not a big thing. It works remarkably well.

https://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Fishe.../dp/B00HWRHBUQ

Ok, enough with the EVIL stuff on a DSLR thread. Sorry for the indulgence.

Jeroen

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Ok, enough with the EVIL stuff on a DSLR thread. Sorry for the indulgence.

Well, as I realised, it is actually the Digital Camera thread, so neither mirrors nor their absence disqualify