[edg3]

September 11, 2014 at 10:27 am

I’d the exact same idea. Conns rents cameras and I spoke with them the other day about it, so I’d be looking at abut 50euro a day, however they didn’t get back to me about the lens adapter so I’m guessing they wont rent that to me as part of the rental.

I’ve been mulling over it in my head and one minute I’m all go for the new camera and next I’m back rethinking myself. I could always hold off and hope Canon bring out a better mirrorless camera at some stage, something that can match the Sony and Pentax mirrorless range but since the EOS M didn’t do so well for them I’m wondering how long it’ll be before they try again.

[edg3]

September 10, 2014 at 11:55 am

Only real event I did was a wedding and while I hated it I dressed up, shoes, shirt, dress pants, even had a jacket but it was 40 degrees out so that stayed in the car. If your working with models you can be more relaxed, long as your not sitting around with no pants on and a dirty tshirt. Long as you look respectable I guess thats all you need to do. Some people will feel less comfortable if your dressed better then them. Think job interview, but with a friend interviewing you :)

[edg3]

March 13, 2014 at 12:21 am

Isabella wrote:

what an amazing shot!
are you sure he was asleep? do they really just clap out in the open like that?

Oh yeah he was asleep, lay there for another 5-10 minutes before getting up and moving again. This was in a park I visited a few years back, they had 3 foxes, 2 black and this guy, he was way more photogenic then the other 2, also more relaxed around people.

[edg3]

March 12, 2014 at 6:34 pm

Love the husky shot. Just beautiful.

[edg3]

August 18, 2013 at 5:04 pm

shutterbug wrote:

Nice to have you back Dave, I love black and white personally, but rarely convert many of my
images, mostly because I am not very good at it! I think you are right with minimal, much more impact
I think, the bird shots are really interesting, if they were in colour I don’t think they would get a second
look! But the mono brings out the drama in them IMO, nice set I particularly like the cracked earth, such
texture in it.

Thanks :) i seen you comment on the odd one of my uploads on flickr which was much appreciated. I just havent had the time to post images here in so long, its good to be back.

I got really back into black and white when I got into college and ended up using black and white film more then my digital for the most part. Since then I’ve been trying to emulate that same feeling in digital by converting in RAW and then tweaking here and there to get them matching as closely as possible to the film I use (Kodak Tmax400).

Ive become weirdly obsessed with birds, especially in flight and in flocks. I’ll go out nearly every evening and wait for them to start headed home to roost trying to get a nice, clear and clean shot.

[edg3]

August 18, 2013 at 3:48 pm

Niallman wrote:

Very atmospheric shots. Nicely done :)

Thank you. Prefer minimal and atmospheric then complicated :)

[edg3]

August 16, 2013 at 9:51 pm

Isabella wrote:

some very striking images there, i like them a lot.

i have a similar fondness for black and white although i do think colour has its place also and im coming around to using it more… I am often bemused by many peoples response to monochrome. it seems in many cases that it carries a sense of ‘pastness’ and can often be perceived as being historical rather then contemporary.

I think your pretty much on the ball there. I shot a wedding a while back (worst thing I ever did) and I wanted to present all the images, edited, in black and white afterwards, as well as some shots I did in film, they wanted them outright in color, on the day, over a TV at the reception. I said “No way!” did not get much love there. But I did it their way and then I made copies of all the work black and white and when I did show them it, they LOVED the black and white more then the color. I think people turn their nose up at black and white as old school and colordigitalinyourfacenowfacebookupload is the way of the future, but I think black and white has more of a presence now then ever. If you can shoot well in black and white and get a mood in your image it can speak volumes more then a color image, I find color distracting, not all the time, but even when I use color I look dumbed down color, not muted but, faded, I just had bold colors, always have.

Thank you for the compliment to, I’m finally starting to love my own images, took a long time, and alot of deleting :)

[edg3]

August 6, 2013 at 9:44 pm

brendancullen wrote:

Hi – I just read this on the rumors site.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/08/canon-ef-100-400-f4-5-6l-is-update-cr2/

I have had this lens and swapped it for the 300mm f/4…which I’m very happy with.

The 100-400 is not a lens I’d recommend in it’s current form. If you didn’t want too wait – a 70-200 f/2.8 and a 1.4x would be a much better option.

bren

I just sold my 70-200mm f2.8 and I’m looking to sell the x2 because I found the hassle when shooting wildlife was a massive issue. I considered the 300mm f4, I really like the look and feel of it, and the prices are around the same, but I’m wondering about the focal length of a fixed 300mm. I dont do alot of fashion/portrait, but I’d like the option you know. I just didnt like the 70-200mm, I found it so limiting, even for shots like that. I had it nearly 2 years and I barely used it. Most of my work revolves around shorted lengths, I’ve a 17-40 and a 50mm and they do me for 99.9% of what I need most days, its the wildlife aspect I’m thinking of.

Is the 100-400 not a good lens? I heard its auto focus isnt great. From the information I’ve read about it it seems very good, but always first hand experience trumps what I read :)

[edg3]

June 12, 2013 at 8:40 pm

Considering the money involved, economy and fact that I still have it all this time later I have decided to drop the price down to around 700euro for both parts.

Hopefully this might get it to shift :)

[edg3]

May 14, 2013 at 9:51 pm

I love the 40mm but I prefer the 50mm. I replaced my fallen down stairs 50 1.8 a while back with the Sigma one and I wasnt disappointed. The Canon 50 1.4 is in and around the same price but the Sigma actually focuses faster in my experience. If you want a cheap handy lens go with the 40mm but if you want to invest in something more that you’ll probably get more use out of with better quality then pay the extra for the Sigma.
They are both great lenses and since you already have the 17-40 I’d say go 50.

[edg3]

December 6, 2012 at 11:00 pm

This ones from today. Muted colors from a filter I use to simulate old film :)

[edg3]

December 6, 2012 at 4:59 pm

Of course you have a good point, he is a very colorful bird and its a shame I didnt have my digital ready to go, but i think it works well.
You always see images like this where there is so much color, in and around them and sometimes it gets overwhelming, I think this way you look at the animal more then the color. But, I do have some color digital images from today :)

[edg3]

December 5, 2012 at 9:45 pm

Thanks :) its just the lens. I was using it with the x2 extender but the shots come out a little blurred when I used it, its fine if Im not zooming in on something small. At 200mm its perfect though, those were shot at f2.8 thats why you get the fall off at the corners, Ive always been told to shoot at f8+ for wildlife but for something like this I want him to stand out on his own.

[edg3]

October 6, 2012 at 5:09 pm

I could kill the background a little, bring the tone down so its not as dark, I see what you mean now :) so it stands out more.

[edg3]

October 4, 2012 at 6:17 pm

Isabella wrote:

nice image. though i wonder if you’d moved a little to the left to get the background from blending in so much would it have been better?

wet plates in a praktica?
collodion is something I’ve wanted to do for a long time but don’t have the money to do a course or buy any of the equipment or chemicals necessary…

Well its not exactly Wet Plate :D Im real interested in wet print but like you said its expensive. I know the theory behind it but Ive never gotten to do it partially.
Basically this is a scan taken from my film (developed it here) then loaded into Photoshop where I add the Wet Plate effect with Exposure. Yes, its cheating, but Photoshop is the digital darkroom so, only slightly cheating.
As for the background, it wasnt this blended originally but I burned in the background before scanning, this is print, 3 or 4. When I applied the program it burned it in even more, I wanted the single head to pop out more then the rest, and have some decent negative space to. I get what you mean though, but I think its the edging thats making it a little more noticeable.