Midnight Oil

Was a great band. I loved “Beds Are Burning.” …but that’s not what this post is about.

Just a quick note letting you know that Las Vegas pics are now up on my online photo gallery, as are about half of my Vancouver Christmas Vacation photos. Both Monday night and Tuesday night I found myself processing photos at one o’clock AM, in some sort of spontaneous rush to plow through my in-box. Though I’m now tired for the second straight day (and it’s only Wednesday), I can see light at the end of the tunnel. I’ve only about 50 photos left to do.

Tomorrow is the Ignatieff event. I’ll have a couple hundred more pictures to process following that event, but with real deadlines attached to them, I’m sure I’ll be sorted by the end of the weekend.

For our trip to Vancouver, I decided that I would shoot the entire trip in JPEG. Influenced by the fact that famed photographer Extrametrical shoots in JPEG, I wanted to see for myself if this quality of image provided any deference or benefit from RAW. I’ve found that besides being able to fit 740-odd images on a 8GB memory card, the benefits are negligible. The imported file sizes are only slightly smaller and the loss of computer assisted exposure settings on Aperture 2 I find to be quite a hinderance. And my computer’s performance with Aperture, which is poor, is not improved. I think it’s back to RAW for tomorrow’s shoot, though I will have to consider the write speeds on my memory cards… Perhaps it’s a wash.

On another note, I am thinking of adding the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS L USM lens to my arsenal in the near future. I’ve been considering for this beast for some time, and with several important events on the horizon (the least of which being a shoot in Chile in March) I think the timing is right. But now Canon has gone and announced a 70-200 F2.8 IS L USM mark II. Not released until April, and likely another $500-$600 more expensive, I am now unsure of what to do. Do I go with the stalwart original version for less money, or wait for the newer, easier to resell (God forbid), more expensive version? Hmmm…

Guh!! And what is up with the photo compression on this blog? Anyone have an idea? Look at this picture, and then click on it and look at what comes up. The colours, sharpness and overall quality is very much superior in the clicked version than what posts on the blog. Yikes!

About the author cdub

All posts by cdub →

One Comment

  1. Looks like wordpress is recompressing the jpeg, who knows what settings. Movable type will do this too if you let it. Turn off any possible resizing or thumbnailing, or better yet FTP up the image and then just manually link it so that WordPress cannot mess with it. More work but at one shot per post it’s not a big deal. I was doing this with 120 shots for some of my VEMF posts etc.

    Re EF 70-200MM F2.8L IS Mark II – the first version of this lens is notorious for not being very sharp compared to it’s F4 sibling. I would wait for the new one to come out and see what the reviewers are going to say. Anyone who reviews the new one without taking the main criticism of the old one into consideration would be doing the review process (and Canon) a disservice.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: