Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the perfect glass existed, we would have plenty of perfect lens at hand before we had the perfect glass on TCs.
A totally off topic and meaningless bunch of drivel that adds nothing at all to the discussion other than distraction.
Quote:
As we discussed earlier, usually due to cost. I have a 2X TC and a 300mm zoom, for an effective 600mm (900mm on APS-C). I would GLADLY take a 600mm prime over the set up.
So clearly the TC has an advantage for you.
There is an advantage that you seem to not realize either. If you need a 300mm lens and a 600mm lens, but have size or weight restrictions that allow only one or the other... A 300mm lens and a 2x TC will get the job done perfectly. A 600mm lens simply won't do the job.
Quote:
Would you take a a 2X TC plus 300mm prime lens over 600mm prime for quality reasons to shoot super tele?
See above for one instance where that is exactly the situation.
As I've noted before, my field kit for photomacrography is a 105mm f.2.8 lens plus a Vivitar 2x Macro Focusing TC. (That is usually though not always augmented with a Gitzo Series 5 tripod, a Majestic Gearhead, and possibly other equipment depending on circumstances.) It would simply be counter productive to exchange the small lightweight $40 TC for any equivalent macro lens at approximately 210mm... unless I needed a 400mm macro lens, and even then item that it would replace would not be the TC, but the 105mm lens.
The fact is that no matter how long you want to continue with meaningless drivel and worthless generalities, the specifics of how TC's can be used still show why they are popular (even amongst those with very critical needs for high end photography).
A totally off topic and meaningless bunch of drivel that adds nothing at all to the discussion other than distraction.
Well, it will be off topic and a bunch of drivel if image quality is a non-issue and not the subject at hand. But then, seeing your over processed photographs, I'm not surprised you couldn't care less.
Quote:
So clearly the TC has an advantage for you.
Only because of cost, a compromise between quality and cost.
Quote:
There is an advantage that you seem to not realize either. If you need a 300mm lens and a 600mm lens, but have size or weight restrictions that allow only one or the other... A 300mm lens and a 2x TC will get the job done perfectly. A 600mm lens simply won't do the job.
Thank you for helping make my point. You're willing to compromise the strengths of a 600mm prime on the grounds of "convenience" (although, it I wanted a 600mm focal length to begin with, the 2X will have to be dedicated to the 300mm at all times anyway), and a part of the convenience includes... price. It ain't about getting same image quality.
Quote:
The fact is that no matter how long you want to continue with meaningless drivel and worthless generalities, the specifics of how TC's can be used still show why they are popular (even amongst those with very critical needs for high end photography).
Which clearly demonstrates the illogic of your arguments.
Some one might just suspect you are trolling... :-)
Claims aside, trolling shows up in argument one presents. "Accusations" out of bitterness, unnecessary. Logic, or lack of (as you prefer to call... "illogic") does too. When it comes to photography, you have neither presented an argument that speaks highly of image quality nor have you presented pictures that demonstrate it. When you do, I would gladly give you a rep the moment I see one.
I like to give credit where it is due. I never thought about using TC on a macro setting and multiplying the magnification, your point helped and I just posted a result albeit using a wide angle lens in the bokeh thread, picture of a salvia and here it is again...
But when you go about such rhetoric, you're going to get an appropriate response, right along the lines as well. I would rather have your critique of my photographs (or how you would improve the above shot with editing tools like Photoshop since that picture is virtually straight out of the camera, except for a minor cropping) than listen to your babble about how great your ideas are.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 09-14-2011 at 01:26 PM..
I would rather have your critique of my photographs (or how you would improve the above shot with editing tools like Photoshop since that picture is virtually straight out of the camera, except for a minor cropping) than listen to your babble about how great your ideas are.
I would suggest you cull that particular image. You can't correct mistakes with post processing.
Learn more about basic composition. And then try reading "Entropy and Art", 1971, by Rudolph Arnheim, Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 9780520026179.
Here is a short synopsis from the introduction:
"When nothing superfluous is included and nothing indispensable
left out, one can understand the interrelation of the whole and
its parts, as well as the hierarchic scale of importance and
power by which some structural features are dominant, others
subordinate."
I don't normally agree to critique other people's photographs at all, and will almost never say a word about one that is has no value. You specifically requested it though...
Below is an example for you, since you've disparaged my photography a few times now. This is a picture that you simply cannot argue with (well, you can and probably will try, but).
I was tempted to just post that and let you try swallowing your foot again. Instead I'll tell you up front that the above picture made it into a very significant percentage of all homes here in Barrow last year, so you probably don't want to claim it has no value. It is currently featured on the homepage of a local business:
I would suggest you cull that particular image. You can't correct mistakes with post processing.
I've just noticed that while the picture provided is perhaps less than optimal, EinsteinsGhost posted another flower shot in a different thread that is a wonderful example to work with!
EG, if you give permission I will post before and after pictures next to each other for your
DSC00159.jpg image posted in the "Flowers anyone?" thread. It's a beautiful image!
I would suggest you cull that particular image. You can't correct mistakes with post processing.
Don't give a reference to a whole book rather explain "the mistake" in that particular picture taken to test a macro performance using 2X TC. I'm assuming that it somehow doesn't fit the "rules" set in a book that you read? What exactly would you have done differently? Tell me and I just might deliver the "fix" via post processing.
But it also highlights a problem with using TC as a "fix". The 24mm lens used there has a max aperture of 2.8, and with the 2X TC, you get limited to 5.6 (with which the picture was taken). Would I prefer a 50mm/f2.8 macro lens over that set up? You bet!
BTW, if I were to apply a critical eye to your pictures, while it is good, it reeks over-sharpening (grainy in the stems even at ISO100 that you used). But that could also be the bokeh characteristic of the lens. Greater would be the highlights issue on petals.
Quote:
I don't normally agree to critique other people's photographs at all, and will almost never say a word about one that is has no value. You specifically requested it though...
I do, and any photographer should be into it if they want to keep building their skills. There was a thread here just for that, and I liked the idea, however, it never caught up for the same reasons that you do about it. Personally, I would rather critique pictures and have mine critiqued, than critique people and their personalities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson
EG, if you give permission I will post before and after pictures next to each other for your
DSC00159.jpg image posted in the "Flowers anyone?" thread. It's a beautiful image!
Thanks. And you have it. But comparing the above test shot to the other image (pink flower), you must also consider that the above picture was taken when the sun was almost below the horizon, whereas the other photograph has all the afternoon sun on its face (even with the wind blowing, chances of freezing the action was pretty good). Different lighting will produce different results. The above picture has softer colors, which has certain appeal for people (the bokeh almost has a paint brush feel to it), whereas the other shot is under much harsh lighting conditions (like your yellow flower above).
Here's an old picture taken in brighter light (late evening), with a "point and shoot" post processed in Photoshop CS3 when I was learning it:
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 09-15-2011 at 10:27 AM..
Don't give a reference to a whole book rather explain "the mistake" in that particular picture taken to test a macro performance using 2X TC. I'm assuming that it somehow doesn't fit the "rules" set in a book that you read? What exactly would you have done differently? Tell me and I just might deliver the "fix" via post processing.
I thought the short answer was obvious: poor composition.
Perhaps you didn't notice that the referenced book was written by a perceptual psychologist. He also authored "Art and Visual Perception" (originally published in 1954 and with a revised edition in 1974).
Quote:
But it also highlights a problem with using TC as a "fix". The 24mm lens used there has a max aperture of 2.8, and with the 2X TC, you get limited to 5.6 (with which the picture was taken). Would I prefer a 50mm/f2.8 macro lens over that set up? You bet!
It has consistently been pointed out that TC's are of little use with shorter focal length lenses. Nobody recommends using a 2X TC on a 24mm lens. You can buy a fairly sharp 50mm f/1.8 for $100, which is far less expensive than a good TC.
Quote:
BTW, if I were to apply a critical eye to your pictures, while it is good, it reeks over-sharpening (grainy in the stems even at ISO100 that you used). But that could also be the bokeh characteristic of the lens. Greater would be the highlights issue on petals.
Wonderful. But your analysis of photographs is incompetent, and therefore without value.
Quote:
Quote:
I don't normally agree to critique other people's photographs at all, and will almost never say a word about one that is has no value. You specifically requested it though...
I do, and any photographer should be into it if they want to keep building their skills. There was a thread here just for that, and I liked the idea, however, it never caught up for the same reasons that you do about it. Personally, I would rather critique pictures and have mine critiqued, than critique people and their personalities.
Then you should stick to critiquing photographs, but only when a critique is requested, and avoid people/personalities.
Incidentally, for people who are past the beginner stages there is very little value in reading critiques from those who are not past the beginner stages. Virtually all of the critical analysis that can be obtained in a forum like this is of value only to beginners. That is for the simple reason that even for semi-advanced students (and never mind experienced photographers) the key is always known only to the photographer. That is, "What do you want the image to be?" Without knowing what is in the mind of the creator, there is no way to analyze the image in any way that is useful as a learning tool for the photographer that created it. (A perfect example is your less than astute comments on the buttercup picture!)
Quote:
Quote:
if you give permission I will post before and after pictures [...]
EinsteinsGhost has very graciously consented to my request to use a really nice flower picture that he posted in the thread "Flowers anyone?" as an example for showing what post processing does. Here is a before/after image one on top of the other. Comments on which one people like best, or just specific things about each that you might feel are better in one than the other, would be interesting to read!
I thought the short answer was obvious: poor composition.
Perhaps you didn't notice that the referenced book was written by a perceptual psychologist. He also authored "Art and Visual Perception" (originally published in 1954 and with a revised edition in 1974).
And you didn't get my point about asking you to explain without referring to a book. But since you went that way again, I take it that composition is entirely about what you read in a book and put it to practice. Anything different... well its poor composition. You don't have an explanation, just a belief. And if it about composition, why do you believe it can't be fixed in post processing in that particular picture? When you say something is wrong, never shy away from sharing what is wrong. And composition is something a whole book can be written about. No?
Quote:
It has consistently been pointed out that TC's are of little use with shorter focal length lenses. Nobody recommends using a 2X TC on a 24mm lens. You can buy a fairly sharp 50mm f/1.8 for $100, which is far less expensive than a good TC.
No, there is no rule when TCs are of more or little use. And you didn't mention that anywhere to begin with. In fact, TC to you has been a substitute for a lens, without compromises and only advantages (price).
I do have other lenses, but you might recall, I promised to test macro magnification using TC, hence the test shot above. Although due to conditions and having to hurry in the evening, I wasn't able to have a with and without TC shot of the same subject, to be more scientific about it.
Quote:
Wonderful. But your analysis of photographs is incompetent, and therefore without value.
Incompetent it might be, but it has an actual analysis that you clearly can't handle. I could have said... poor quality, and that would be the kind of critique right up your alley!
Quote:
Then you should stick to critiquing photographs, but only when a critique is requested, and avoid people/personalities.
Avoid, is correct. Everybody should. Now check the first post I responded to in this thread. You bickering was unwarranted. In fact, most of your posts are about other people, and chest thumping out your "expertise" (that clearly leaves a lot to be desired).
I would prefer to stick to critiquing photographs in photography threads, just as would critiquing political opinions in political threads, scientific in Science thread and religious opinions in religion threads. That is a part of the point of these forums!
Quote:
Incidentally, for people who are past the beginner stages there is very little value in reading critiques from those who are not past the beginner stages. Virtually all of the critical analysis that can be obtained in a forum like this is of value only to beginners.
I beg to differ. Arrogance is end of the road for anything, and any kind of art is not immune from it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before and After example of Post Processing
