Jump to content

TABan

Verified
  • Content Count

    471
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TABan

  1. When you shoot jpeg, you are shooting raw. You're just relying on the camera to do the conversion. And your camera manufacturer knows your camera's files best. Canon converted raws look better than Lightroom's. If you want to keep your options open, you can always shoot raw plus jpeg. Also, if you shoot a neutral profile, the jpegs you get stand up quite well to adjustments for highlights, saturation, etc. Most of the time, jpeg suffices. For those times that you need raw, shoot raw. But don't take my word for it. This guy is way more experienced than me: http://theonlinephotographer.typep
  2. A lot of good info here. But, I'm going to play devil's advocate when it comes to raw vs. jpeg. I used to shoot raw all the time. Then I noticed that most of the time, the final results I obtained from raw really weren't that much different from out of camera jpegs. The trick is to setup up your particular camera appropriately. I still shoot raw if the lighting is mixed, which is usually inside, or when shooting for a client, but outside for stock, it's jpeg 99% time and I've seen no difference in QC results. The older I get, the more I realize I don't want to spend a lot of time in front of a
  3. I use the RX100 I as well, although I've read the new Canon G7X handles better and has the same sensor as the RX100 III. If you want an EVF, the G5X has one and has the same lens and is just slightly bulkier. I actually tend to take my Canon Rebel SL1 (100D) when I want to go light. Put the 24mm EF-S pancake on it and it's pretty tiny. The kit 18-55 STM lens is as sharp on a crop and better in the corners than the 24-105L is on full-frame. Even with the zoom, the SL1 is light and unobtrusive Too bad Canon seems to have decided not to continue this line, probably because they want people to mov
  4. Got one yesterday. $44.99. It was a shot I knew would license fairly soon when I took it.
  5. I agree with what's been posted. Anything with a sensor smaller than 1/1.7" probably won't pass QC. Your profile doesn't say where you are but if you're in the States and don't want to spend a ton of money, Canon USA has a really good deal on a refurbished G16, which actually was on the old recommended camera list that Alamy took down: http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/powershot-g16-refurbished If you're not in the States, maybe you can find similar deals locally. I also use a Sony RX100, love the photo quality, don't really like the user experience. My old Canon G10 was
  6. Almost certainly a sugar maple, considering it's in New Hampshire. But, since they're very closely related to the Norway maple, and those are frequently planted as parkway trees in the States, there's a chance it's that instead. As mentioned before, a leaf closeup would settle it.
  7. I have two primes, the Canon 100 macro L and the 24mm f2.8 STM pancake. I also have the tiny Rebel SL1/100D. Put the pancake on it and you have as small and unobtrusive an SLR possible. Walking around with it reminds me of using my college graduation gift from my folks, a Canon AT-1 with the FD 50mm f1.8.
  8. An overzealous no logo policy would mean no sales like this: http://time.com/money/3994237/trader-joes-whole-foods-home-values/ I've had several photos of businesses and their logos used in the financial and business press, so I imagine this is probably a large amount of revenue overall for Alamy.
  9. Glad it's useful! You'll share the model with us when complete?
  10. Sheldon is on the spectrum. I'm closer to Leonard. I did photograph Martin Cooper once. And I was business acquaintances with Johnny Galecki's mother Lou a couple decades ago.
  11. Bingo. John's the smartest boy in class. Yes, B-DNA, which the form pictured, has a right-handed helix. In other words, if you look along the molecule, it twists to the right, or clockwise. The model in the photo has a left-handed helix. There is a left-handed form of DNA, called Z-DNA, but the two sugar-phosphate backbones have a zig-zag to them, they're not smooth like in the model. The front page image could still be used if flipped to a mirror image, although it's still not quite accurate as far as B-DNA's structure goes. Here's an illustration on Wikipedia of the three forms of DNA: htt
  12. Sure! Even a 5-year-old Belgian could see it:There's a mismatch in the DNA-dependent DNA polymerases which make copies of DNA polynucleotide chains. A 3′ to 5′ exonuclease activity is activated and the incorrect base removed which now functions in a large complex called the replisome that contains multiple accessory subunits, such as the DNA clamp or helicases. Another flaw are the Nucleases which are enzymes that cut DNA strands by catalyzing the hydrolysis of the phosphodiester bonds. And last but not least, the chemical modifications of these basic amino acid residues include methylation, p
  13. Sure! Even a 5-year-old Belgian could see it: There's a mismatch in the DNA-dependent DNA polymerases which make copies of DNA polynucleotide chains. A 3′ to 5′ exonuclease activity is activated and the incorrect base removed which now functions in a large complex called the replisome that contains multiple accessory subunits, such as the DNA clamp or helicases. Another flaw are the Nucleases which are enzymes that cut DNA strands by catalyzing the hydrolysis of the phosphodiester bonds. And last but not least, the chemical modifications of these basic amino acid residues include methylation,
  14. There's something scientifically inaccurate on the Alamy front page image featuring the two scientists and DNA molecule. Can anyone guess what it is?
  15. Years ago PETA wrote a letter to Yasser Arafat. The reason? Evidently, the PLO used a donkey to carry a bomb to an Israeli checkpoint, the result being the donkey and several Israeli soldiers were blown up. In the letter, PETA beseeched Afafat to please leave animals out of it when the PLO intended to blow up people. It led one journalist to write that PETA stands for "People Embarrassing the Tidewater Area," based as they are in Norfolk, Virginia.
  16. If only it worked for overly photographed in-laws.
  17. My understanding is the G7X lens' image circle does not cover the entire imaging chip at 24mm equivalent, so there's a lot of distortion correction going on to stretch things into the corners. The result is soft corners so if you want landscapes sharp across the frame, this may not be the camera for you. I'll have to see if my aunt will let me shoot a few images with her's so I can see for myself. There's something to be said for this size camera with such a fast 24-100 lens (f1.8-2.8) and, as I said before, more robust build than the Sonys.
  18. If the OP finds a G16 too bulky, it's not likely he'll find any Fuji X100 iteration acceptable. That pretty much leaves one of the Sony RX100s, or maybe the Canon G7X which isn't on the unsuitable list but isn't on the recommended list either. I have the original RX100 and while I seem to have a good one, with no lens issues, etc., I will say that the build quality just isn't up to where Canon is. I have an aunt who recently bought a G7X and the difference in build quality from the Sonys is night and day. The G7X is way better built. As for size, there aren't any Alamy worthy cameras small
  19. Canon has a list of their lenses recommended for use with the 5DS and Sr: http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/06/canon-releases-recommended-lenses-for-eos-5ds-eos-5ds-r/ 50 megapixels will tax lenses and technique and unless you're in the business of producing ultra large reproductions, unnecessary. It's overkill for stock.
  20. I imagine that by the time the price starts to come down, there will be plenty of reviews. So far the only camera with a 1 inch sensor on the unsuitable list is the Panansonic FZ1000 and I think that's probably a lens issue as it also uses a Sony 1 inch sensor. Time will tell.
  21. The G3X has a Sony 1 inch sensor. The same one that the RX10 has.
  22. As an all in one solution, it looks promising: https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-g3x-review/ http://www.techradar.com/us/reviews/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/compact-cameras/canon-g3-x-1297064/review If you search for it on flickr, there are quite a few images most look quite good. Not too thrilled about the lack of a built in viewfinder, but it seems to be a sacrifice for compactness and there is an add on EVF available. When the price drops, if it doesn't somehow end up on the unsuitable list (with the small sensored G15 and 16 on the recommended list, how likely is this?),
  23. I remember a late September evening in the mid '90s, back in the days of film. My wife and I stood atop a cliff overlooking Lake Superior at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. This is a place with about as stunning scenery as you're apt to fine in the midwestern United States. I had my Canon EOS A2E (EOS 5 elsewhere) on a tripod and as the golden hour gave way to blue, I decided to change lenses. A few seconds after removing the lens I had been using, a big honking moth flew into the mirror box. I had to shoo it out with a blower brush. Then I had to blow out
  24. I used to shoot raw, but now I just shoot jpeg using a neutral profile that allows for enough adjustment when necessary. If you don't want to do that much, just use a punched up jpeg profile in camera. Remember, stock photography used to be shot on transparency film and one just chose a film stock that gave desired results. If you wanted really punchy colors, you shot with Velvia. As for any pro photoresearcher seeing the potential in a flat looking photo, hardly. Most of them are millennials or younger and they want quick and easy. If it's a choice between a flat photo and a punchy photo,
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.