Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 64

Thread: Fast lenses no more?

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    It really depends on what is the setup and other factors. We should move the discussion about RAW vs JPG to another thread as it has nothing to do with fast lenses. That said, oeyvind, seems to have deleted his post...
    I delete it because...I guess no point for me to say anything if one already made up their mind...

    RAW is nice.... idea, I think everyone will love to shoot in RAW! However, the fact is, no everyone has TIME like most weekend shooters.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oeyvind
    I have yet to see anyone that shoot RAW for any editorial works... RAW is nice, but frankly the problem here is not with the media nor writing speed but TIME to process.

    Time is money in real world.
    Yep, and the article *I* quoted was for Sports Illustrated digital workflow for the Superbowl. Literally the biggest sporting annual event in the US.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oeyvind
    I delete it because...I guess no point for me to say anything if one already made up their mind...

    RAW is nice.... idea, I think everyone will love to shoot in RAW! However, the fact is, no everyone has TIME like most weekend shooters.
    True, yet the people at Sports Illustrated made time to do it. Good for them.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    True, yet the people at Sports Illustrated made time to do it. Good for them.
    Well... SI has a few days in term of lead times!

    Wire agencies wise, the pix are available almost after the event!

    IF you have the TIME, raw is nice... if not, better learn your equipment well and try to get good exposure/WB and shoot JPEG!

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    For some reason, when I read the thread the first few times I never got the sports element of it. Now I can categorically state that fast lenses are not going out of fashion in the sports arena.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oeyvind
    Well... SI has a few days in term of lead times!

    Wire agencies wise, the pix are available almost after the event!

    IF you have the TIME, raw is nice... if not, better learn your equipment well and try to get good exposure/WB and shoot JPEG!
    If you had even bother to read, the decision to select which of the images was done about 4 hours after the games ended (page 3, "3:00am on Monday morning"). If not for the more than 16,000 shots from 11 staff photographers, they would have done it in much lesser time...

    The image for the cover was confirmed and sent for publishing
    "By the end of Tuesday, ... from camera to photo editor to Managing Editor to imaging department to printing plant"
    Hmmm, less than 48 hours

    If you think RAW is only for good exposure and WB, then I understand the issue.
    Last edited by Watcher; 5th July 2004 at 01:29 AM.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,252

    Default

    err, do note. SI has a whole ton of backroom staff to work the coms. Not so for most wire agencies. And for the record, 16000 shots is not a lot for an event as huge as superbowl. From 11 photogs, thats only about 1.5k per person. Look at the setup they have available for them. Most of us who shoot for wire and press media(i do sometimes) have a turnover of way less than 12hrs. Given they had 24hrs x 11-15 backroom ppl, thats a lot of man hrs and tells u alone how inefficient it is really. SI is a weekly thing, the rush is not as bad as a paper that is a daily thing.

    I end my gripe here. If u really think shooting raw will do, then by or means go one thinking so. It hasn't work for the ppl i know, i don't see how it will now or in the near future. As to where this is leading, i have no idea since the initial question was about fast lenses and i see no where in the article that says" dudes we use raw and slower lenses now" thread is getting lost.
    THE END!

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,464

    Default

    Hi

    i know the original intention of the poster was to talk about fast lenses, but i want to address the RAW vs JPG issue here.

    for me, since i've quit my job and gone back to school since the start of 2004 (not a conventional school, but that's another story for another time ), photography constitutes a major portion of my income. I've become more practical in my approach. I'll take digital jobs over film jobs if possible, among other changes I've adopted. Like someone said earlier, TIME is money and is of the essence. And with juggling between school, personal time, church and shooting assignments, I'm always in need of time and I don't want to spend too much time in front of the computer managing my pictures.

    That's why I shoot RAW!

    huh? u may ask. That's right. RAW is cool and RAW is faster! here's how it works.... i go to a shoot armed with 1 gig CFs that give me the liberty to do the entire assignment in RAW. A lot of the things i need to shoot is time sensitive, and many times i will have to send pics back the same night.

    I do the shoot in RAW, bring home the CFs, download it via firewire reader(essential!) to my pc, duplicate a set onto another external HDD, and burn CDs of the orignal RAWs. Then I fire up the secret weapon of the DSLR shooter - Capture ONE DSLR. This is to me the ultimate workflow software, designed for fast processing of RAW files. I gleefully load up the program, browse to the dir of RAW files, and start making an initial edit (selection) of the pictures i think are good enough to be delivered. Next, I tweak all of the selected pictures - by toggling exposure compensation sliders, contrast control sliders, white balance sliders (this is easier than it sounds, believe me ), throwing each picture into the processing cache as i go. That means i'm processing RAW files as i'm tweaking them! How can I do that? When I tweak, there's a live preview of the changes (unlike breezebrowser) so I see exactly what i change before i even convert the RAW files. After i'm happy, i throw it for processing and proceed to tweak the next file. Also, I can tweak for 1 photo, and select multiple photos taken in the same situation, and Viola!! - apply all of the RAW conversion settings to these photos. ANd i can throw all of them into the processing cache in one go.

    the process of tweaking takes maybe 1 hr, maybe longer depending on the length of the shoot. And all this while the images are being converted to high resolution JPGs or TIFFs as we go along tweaking. so no time is lost!

    If I know there are time sensitive photos, i process them first and send them via email to whoever needs them etc. Otherwise, after tweaking everything and sending them to the processing cache, i leave the PC overnight to process and go to bed, or i launch IE to visit clubsnap or photo.net

    Notice I haven't even launched photoshop! That's not needed anymore! If i need to crop (i dun crop my photos actually), or resize, or watever i can do it from within Capture ONE DSLR during the tweaking process. C1DSLR also provides excellent sharpening algorithms and noise reduction routines, so the processed JPGs are already sharpened and optimised. So i manage everything from one program alone!

    If i had shot JPGs, i would have needed to edit each and every JPG in Photoshop. Worse, it would be much harder to correct color balance, or even exposure problems (especially overexposure) in photoshop. I would have to work at each individual image. Granted I could use photoshop actions to do mass sharpening and noise reduction (read: Fred Miranda routines) but that takes a far longer time than Capture ONE DSLR, and takes up far greater system resources than Capture ONE.

    it is entirely possible to deliver images 4 hours after the shoot. I don't use a laptop, but if i had, i would think i can do all the above on the spot at some nice cafe after the shoot and burn CDs of the final JPGs or email essential shots to pple before I even get home.

    So, to sum up, don't dismiss RAW until u've discovered all its possibilities! Quality is much better, and workflow is more streamlined. i know it sounds ironic, but RAW for me is faster than JPGs
    Last edited by Red Dawn; 5th July 2004 at 02:48 AM.
    David Teo
    View my work and blog at http://www.5stonesphoto.com/blog

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Somewhere Out There
    Posts
    2,568

    Default

    OT.....

    I like Red Dawn's new Avatar....

    Real Cute

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by agape01
    OT.....

    I like Red Dawn's new Avatar....

    Real Cute
    Similarly OT, it's also copyright infringement. Sad that as photographers we're not more aware of stuff like this.

  11. #31
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by behyx
    now what is this high precision cross sensors thingy?
    http://www.pbase.com/image/18921414

    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher
    True, yet the people at Sports Illustrated made time to do it. Good for them.
    uh... you forgot one thing - the SI folks have dedicated staff covering the postprocessing of the photos...

    Red Dawn, do you shoot sports in RAW?

  12. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    CCK
    Posts
    1,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Dawn

    huh? u may ask. That's right. RAW is cool and RAW is faster!
    I was about to write this , but was waiting for a more experienced person to say it first. I don't have C1, but even with the new Canon EVU, I dare say RAW processing is faster than JPG in Photoshop. Exposure/colour correction/sharpening on multiple images, all at one go, just brilliant!

  13. #33

    Default

    With twice as fast a lens, you can have double the ISO for a given lighting condition. Simple as that. But do you need it? Some do.

  14. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The heart of the Abyss
    Posts
    2,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sehsuan
    http://www.pbase.com/image/18921414



    uh... you forgot one thing - the SI folks have dedicated staff covering the postprocessing of the photos...

    Red Dawn, do you shoot sports in RAW?
    True... but the original intent was that RAW is too slow; no condition attached. With Red Dawn's posting, RAW workflow can be easily adapted for both end of the spectrum.

  15. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed
    Similarly OT, it's also copyright infringement. Sad that as photographers we're not more aware of stuff like this.
    oops the same pic is also on my handphone and my pocketpc. if the 10D can display a startup picture (like the Ixus can) i would probably place it there too :P

    if it is any consolation, i watched the movie and bought the soundtrack
    David Teo
    View my work and blog at http://www.5stonesphoto.com/blog

  16. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,252

    Default

    i guess it boils down to individuals i guess. I do not have RD's flexibility of a few hrs some times. I need my sleep too. Try shooting sports more often and u will know what i mean. Tiring....
    ARgH, what am i doing here...
    *bish*


  17. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sehsuan
    http://www.pbase.com/image/18921414

    uh... you forgot one thing - the SI folks have dedicated staff covering the postprocessing of the photos...

    Red Dawn, do you shoot sports in RAW?
    the most extreme sports i've shot so far with the 10D are Amazing Race, a triathlon, street soccer and the race car section of DreamCarAsia. for these i didn't have much problem with RAW but for other sports the problem might be one of the camera's 9 frame buffer choking up during continous shooting rather than RAW processing woes. a 1D mkII would be preferable

    the 10D handles jpg and raw similarly within the 9 frame buffer so I wun have gained any advantage usng JPG. but of course, with jpgs one can shoot a lot more, which is essential for some of the faster moving sports.
    Last edited by Red Dawn; 5th July 2004 at 01:35 PM.
    David Teo
    View my work and blog at http://www.5stonesphoto.com/blog

  18. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    2,464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by szekiat
    i guess it boils down to individuals i guess. I do not have RD's flexibility of a few hrs some times. I need my sleep too. Try shooting sports more often and u will know what i mean. Tiring....
    ARgH, what am i doing here...
    *bish*
    wat kind of sports? how can it be more demanding than shooting a highly charged concert, with no fixed place to settle down, having to fight for space with 20 other photographers while hanging on to one's dear camera bag with all its associated weight and following the performers from on stage to offstage to backstage, sometimes running, going in and out of the barriade to cover both stage AND crowd, stage + crowd etc, and having to duck screaming teen fans and avoid stage pyrotechnics and confetti guns?

    oh, i know why. you got to carry all the big fast lenses which brings us nicely back to the topic. For me, to make things simpler and more convenient, i've streamlined my digital gear to just 2 fast f2.8 lenses - an ultra wide angle zoom and a medium telephoto zoom. Which actually validates canturn's original point i suppose - if i need more speed i simply bump up the ISO. and if that doesn't work, out comes the strobe. I no longer worry about having fast f2, f1.4 lenses. Partly because of economics, partly because ISO 800 and 1600 is very very usable even for publication.

    I do have a film backup body in the form of rangefinders + a couple of f2 lenses but i haven't found a need to pull it out yet in a paid job. (they are used mostly for personal stuff :P) So for me and my kind of shooting, yes digital has eliminated the need for faster lenses.

    Of course this is not to say a fast lens would make no difference. there are many times a faster f2 or f1.4 lens attached to the 10D would probably produce a different (and possibly better) photo, especially in extremely low light. i have pictures that illustrate that from fast lenses I've owned before (EF35 f2, EF50 f1.4).

    What I am saying is that in the absence of fast lenses, ISO 800 and 1600 on DSLRs today do a very capable job of acquiring the shot. you make do with what you have, and fortunately, what we have today (high ISO in DSLRs) is much better than before!
    Last edited by Red Dawn; 5th July 2004 at 01:36 PM.
    David Teo
    View my work and blog at http://www.5stonesphoto.com/blog

  19. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    5,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Dawn
    ...Then I fire up the secret weapon of the DSLR shooter - Capture ONE DSLR. This is to me the ultimate workflow software, designed for fast processing of RAW files.
    oeiiii... RD, stop giving away trade secrets....

    just kidding. but i support RD in his view. i hardly shoot jpeg any more, only in RAW. and before anyone assumes i have cushy jobs that can submit one week later, yes i do have assignments that require a CD of the final images to be burnt within the hour. unless you're talking turnaround time of minutes, then that's a different issue altogether. IMHO the software/processing power is avail to make RAW shooting a real viability.

    main reason why i prefer RAW - EV + WB can be fine-tuned (esp WB in mixed lighting conditions). and also something to do with the cam i use but that's a singular reason...

  20. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    5,499

    Default

    oops just realized i went OT too. so here's my 2 cents worth on the 'faster lens vs. higher ISO' issue. personally i think it boils down to a matter of shooting style and workflow preferences. yes i think the technology is improving whereby cleaner images @ high ISO can be gotten as compared to before, so where the priority is on nailing down the images to be used, it's prob suitable to use slower lenses.

    but when it comes to aperture-specific effects, like shallower DoF or faster AF, you can't really get away with slower lenses. also, for sports, some photogs would prefer as much speed as possible, esp when shooting with super-teles when an extra f-stop of shutter speed means the difference between soft and sharp images. ultimately - it comes down to what you shoot and how you shoot it.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •