فوتوشاپ وب

برچسب: still

Is the Canon EOS R5 still a good buy in 2024?
The R5 Mark II has arrived! It is a good camera but very similar to the old R5 which came out in 2020. I’ve had the original R5 since it came out in October 2020 and the question I want answered is should I buy the new R5 Mark II?

In this post I will strive to answer this question with an honest comparison of these two great cameras.
```
Taken with the R5.
```
The old R5 has already been marked down by $1,000 on most websites. Previous generations always get reduced in price prior to the next gen camera’s but it still seems like a bit of a low price for a high quality camera like the R5. It looks like market demand for the R5 has tailed off substantially, and that is true for the R3 and R5C as well. That is why Canon is going for a relatively quick refresh of the R5 after almost exactly 4 years they’re upping the ante with a new R5, the R5 Mark II.

The main thing I want to know is this, is the old R5 at it’s reduced price a good purchase? Below are some stats to help you make sense of this puzzle.

Click Here to read my original review on the EOS R5.

Canon R5 Mark II vs original R5 Mark I:

Sensor Technology

Canon claims that the R5 Mark II is using a stacked sensor with Sony’s BSI technology. Stacked sensors are supposed to be able to “read out” the sensor much faster than the “old technology”. However, when it comes to video rolling shutter, the R5 Mark II performs exactly the same as the original R5. Perhaps the original R5 had a stacked sensor even though it wasn’t marketed as such? Or, maybe Sony’s sensor technology just isn’t that great.

Resolution

The R5 Mark II has the exact same resolution as the current R5.

Readout Speed / Rolling Shutter

The R5 Mark II has faster read out speed when using electronic shutter for still photos only. When using the fully electronic shutter for stills, the new R5 Mark II is more than twice as fast as the original R5 which makes the new R5 a lot better if you like to use electronic shutter… but it still isn’t anywhere close to as fast as a mechanical shutter.

The R5 Mark II’s readout speed remains the same as the R5 for video with a maximum speed around 13 milliseconds. However, the R5 Mark II now adds in 8k 60fps shooting at 13 milliseconds readout speed. This results in a similar readout performance to the original R5 which shot 4k 120fps at its maximum. 4k 120 is equal to 8k 60 in terms of readout performance as 4k 120 is done line skipped in the original R5. Reading half the lines at 120fps is obviously the same speed as reading them all out at 60fps. This type of readout is called “line skipped” readout. The new R5 Mark II, unfortunately, also does 4k 120fps as line skipped, limiting its maximum readout speed to the same as the original R5 for video purposes.

Video Improvements

The R5 Mark II now has 8k 60fps resolution which goes above the original R5’s 8k 30fps video resolution.

The R5 Mark II has also improved upon the dreaded overheating issues the original R5 had, even without the new external cooling battery grip available only for the R5 Mark II.

AF improvements

The R5 Mark II has the same AF system as the original R5 just with more firmware updates. There are no new features other than supposedly better tracking AF. Despite initial reports, I doubt the R5 Mark II will be as good as the R1 when it comes to subject tracking.

Faster CPU

There is no indication that the R5 Mark II has a different CPU when compared to the current R5.

Dynamic Range

According to online review sites, the new R5 Mark II has no dynamic range improvements in stills from 100 ISO to 6400 ISO. In fact, it appears to have slightly less dynamic range than the original R5. It is not known if the new R5 Mark II uses a dual gain sensor like the R5 used, but if it does use a dual gain sensor, it no longer switches to another gain circuit at 400 ISO, instead, this appears to be done at a much higher ISO past 1600.
```
The R5 has no problem picking up all the details in this scene of a white building with a gigantic white dome. 
```
The 100% view crops below show that there are very few details missing in this shot taken in bright midday sun.

The basic point is, if the R5 isn’t adding more dynamic range then how is it going to make an image like this substantially better?

Well, for video at least, the R5 Mark II is going to add a couple features that some people will want to buy. It appears to have slightly more accurate colors out of camera which is great for people who want a faster workflow. I think the R5’s colors are close enough most of the time but it does require some color grading to look normal.

The R5 Mark II is also supposed to have a lot more dynamic range in video mode when shooting in LOG formats. Camera’s like the R5 C have a lot of dynamic range in LOG getting all the way up to 14 stops, but, the R5 Mark II is supposed to have 16+ stops when shooting LOG. That puts the R5 Mark II less than a stop below the latest and greatest cinema cameras… I know a lot of video people will be interested in that capability.

Ergonomics Updates

The R5 Mark II has slightly changed ergonomics and physical design. The power switch has been moved to the right side of the camera and there is now a fan included in the battery grip which modestly increases recording times for video. There is also a new flash hot shoe which allows the camera to work with Canon’s new lineup of super high-performance flashes.

Bottom Line

The new R5 Mark II is a great camera, which makes sense, since it is nearly the same as the original R5, but now with a few performance updates. Because of all the updates it is now $4,299. And at this price the fully electronic shutter is now competitive with the Nikon Z9, the Canon R3, and the Canon R1. In stills mode the electronic shutter can readout in about 6.3 milliseconds, whereas the original R5 is set to read out in about 16.8 milliseconds for a still photo. Unfortunately, the video readout speeds are just about the same between the two cameras. Because the new R5 Mark II still has overheating as an issue when shooting high resolution video, the sensor is intentionally slowed down to about the same speed as the original R5 to help increase shooting times. On a brighter note, the new R5 Mark II has 16+ stops of dynamic range when shooting in video LOG formats. Since there is no log format for stills, the dynamic range there is just about identical to the original R5. But, getting 16+ stops of dynamic range for 8k 60fps video means the R5 Mark II can definitely deliver some high quality video if called upon to do so.

If you shoot video the new R5 Mark II appears to be an upgrade over the original. However, if you shoot stills, the original R5 doesn’t give up a whole lot compared to the new one. True, you can shoot with the new electronic shutter, but, the good old mechanical shutter is still superior to every camera’s electronic shutter. Yes, the MECHANICAL SHUTTER IS STILL #1. Basically, there’s no point to an electronic shutter just yet, even though random dip shits will say ITS SOOO IMPORTANT. Well, it really isn’t GOOD ENOUGH. If electronic isn’t better than the mechanical shutter then it really isn’t a replacement for the mechanical shutter, is it?

If you really need maximum electronic shutter performance, the R5 Mark II still isn’t good enough in my opinion. It reads out in 6.3 milliseconds which is still quite slow. While it’s not exactly the same, it’s still only as fast to scan as a 1/160th shutter speed. And that means it’s more than 3 times slower than the R1 which reads out in 2 milliseconds. That disparity is partially explained by the lower resolution sensor (24mp vs 45mp), but it isn’t entirely explained by that. All things being equal the R5 should be able to read out in about 3-4 milliseconds.

Ok, the bottom line is this, the new R5 Mark II is a solid camera, but it’s more of a video-oriented camera. If you shoot video, it appears to be better than the original R5, but not really better than the R5 C which doesn’t overheat. For video, the R5 Mark II kind of makes sense if you want 8k 60fps right now, but it overheats even with the fancy battery grip. However, if you don’t need the highest resolution settings, you can enjoy 16+ stops of DR when shooting in LOG. Previously, the only Canon camera with that amount of dynamic range was the C300 Mark III.

For stills shooters the R5 and R5 Mark II are a little close for comfort. Aside from the electronic shutter being improved and the supposed AF improvements, there’s not a lot to get excited about. With the R5 now being about $1,500 cheaper it seems like the better option if you’re a landscape photographer or the like. It remains to be seen how much the R5 Mark II can really improve on its predecessor.

Click Here to read my original review on the EOS R5.
```
Taken with the R5.
```
Source link
18/06/2025
Free AI Photo Editing Comes to Google Gemini, but is it Still Photography?

AI images have been circulating the internet, more than ever for about a couple of years now and with AI being integrated into most editing programs, google has also been working on several models and one of the most recent is the Gemini 2.0 Flash experimental model. If you are looking to access the features of Google Gemini, you will need to have a google account and be signed in.

Image via Google

Google has already been working with many models in the past and their most capable one seems to be the Gemini 2.0. Gemini 2.0 Flash experimental model is built on the success of Gemini 1.5 flash and is available freely to all Gemini users. Gemini 2.0 Flash is faster and comes with new capabilities like natively generated images mixed with text.

Gemini 2.0 Flash requires the user to type in prompts that ask Gemini to create an image based on the description provided. You can further change elements or subjects in your images through further prompts. You also have the option to choose a desired aspect ratio for the final image through prompts. In the experimental version, you will get a resulting image that has a watermark on it.

Besides the above process of generating images, you can also upload your own image and make changes to it. For example, if you are using a portrait, you can make changes to the outfit, hair, etc., adding hair or try to get different poses/perspectives of the image. For example a side view, a lower perspective of an image and so on. This is applicable for all genre of photos.

Besides the above, Gemini 2.0 Flash can also be used to remove unwanted objects or replace objects from a photo, replace backgrounds or even colorise photos. The results achieved using Gemini 2.0 Flash and the capabilities are more similar to the jobs done using photoshop, where some tools in the program were used to perform these actions, whereas in Gemini 2.0 Flash the job is done using prompts.

With the Gemini 2.0 Flash Experimental already being tried by many users it looks like it could kill programs like Photoshop in the near future, but generating images using prompts, with the help of AI – is this still photography? All these advancements in the field of AI makes us question if we can trust photos anymore, especially when used as evidences. It also makes us check the credibility of the photographer presenting an image.

We think AI may change photography in some areas, but it can never replace genuine photography. What are your thoughts on this? Let us know in the comments section below. We would love to hear.

We have more news for you to read if you are interested at this link here.

Source link

15/05/2025
Portraits And Still Life Images For Cosmetics Brand – A Photo Editor

Concept: Portraiture and Still Life Images for Cosmetics Brand
Licensing: Unlimited use of all images captured for one year
Photographer: Beauty and Still Life specialist
Client: Cosmetics brand

Summary

I recently worked with a photographer to help them develop an estimate for a campaign promoting a cosmetic brand’s new product. The brand wanted still life images as well as images of the product in use by professional talent in a studio setting. The creative brief called for a mix of minimal setups against a white background, along with a few scenarios that involved prop styling and set design.

Fees

The client initially presented a shot list that included eight main shots. One of the shots was identified as a key visual while the others were considered supplemental. Although they requested unlimited use of all images, they were willing to limit the duration to one year.

I felt the key visual was worth $5,000, images 2-3 were worth $2,500 each, and the others worth $1,000, totaling $15,000. I had wanted to include an additional few thousand dollars as a creative fee. We understood, however, that we might be pushing the limits on the fee as it was. Ultimately, my goal was to keep the bottom line in check and stay under $50k total.

The agency, surprisingly, asked us to include a licensing option specifically for 110% of the one-year rate to include a pre-negotiated rate for a second year. In most cases, when pre-negotiating a duration extension, I’m accustomed to a request for a reduced rate compared to the original fee. I clarified this request on a call with the agency art producer. Sure enough, they explained that they’d be willing to pay 110% for an additional year, so I included that cost for the licensing and for the talent.

In addition, the client requested we present a firm bid, rather than an estimate. I noted this at the top of the document. In this scenario, the photographer keeps any unused funds if the cost of the production is less than anticipated. This also means, however, that they would need to cover any overages if expenses were higher than anticipated. Overall, we were very confident in these fees/expenses based on the working relationships with the specific crew members, styling team, casting director, talent agents, and locations we anticipated working with.

Crew

Although the production was rather straightforward, we included a strong team to help quickly execute the vision. To that end, we added a producer, first assistant, second assistant, digital tech, and production assistant, all at rates appropriate for the specific market.

Styling

The creative brief definitively called for a prop stylist to create a few background elements and manage the products. The photographer already had a local stylist they wanted to work with. We included rates we received from them, which included their prep, shoot and wrap time. There was a need for very minor wardrobe styling, and this prop stylist was able to take on both roles. Separately, we detailed the anticipated prop and wardrobe costs, along with their kit fees and miscellaneous expenses potentially incurred in the process of acquiring all of the necessary items. We included a hair/makeup stylist and, as there were a few shots that involved close-ups of the talent’s hands holding the products, we also included a manicurist.

Casting and Talent

I included a rate received from a casting agent to help us find one subject based on the talent specs provided by the agency. The agency planned to pay the talent directly, but I discussed an appropriate talent fee with the agency producer. I noted this in the line item without having that line item impact our bottom line since the billings would go through the agency.

Locations

We included $2,500, which would allow us to afford a generously sized studio in this particular market.

Equipment

We included appropriate rates for the rentals the photographer would need in order to execute the creative vision. In addition, we also included fees for the digitech’s workstation as well as production supplies to make everyone comfortable on set.

Meals

I based this on $80 per person for 19 people, which included breakfast and lunch.

Misc.

I added $500 to cover any unforeseen expenses. We also noted a fee for insurance, which the agency specifically asked that we include. I often calculate insurance fees based on 1-2% of the bottom line.

Post-production

We just included a fee for the photographer to perform an initial edit of the photos and help make selects because the agency would handle retouching. As a separate fee, we included a line for hard drives, delivery, and archiving.

Results

The photographer won the project. Shortly after, however, the shoot was postponed, and then quickly brought back to life with an increased scope that included two talent. This increased the shot list in addition to production expenses. As a result, we increased the creative/licensing fees by 50%, added a producer pre-production day to handle the changes, increased wardrobe, added another manicurist, added a hair/makeup stylist assistant, and increased casting and talent. We also were asked to include some extra equipment to help facilitate remote viewing by a few clients who would be unable to attend the shoot in person. Here is the final estimate, which was approved:

Follow our Consultants @wonderful_at_work.

Source link

13/05/2025
Are old used digital cameras still good?

Digital cameras are just like any electronic device. They can last a really long time, but they don’t last forever. How long they last is usually determined by how well they’re treated, but, there is more to it than that.

Issues with old digital cameras

Batteries

One possible issue with older digital cameras is the batteries they use. Most old cameras use proprietary batteries that may not be in production anymore. If you can’t power your camera it doesn’t matter if it is in good condition or not, you’ll have to figure how to get it to turn on before you can use it.

Media

Some older cameras used obsolete media, such as Sony Memory Sticks, Mini Disks, Floppy Disks, VHS tape, Digital VHS tape, or even CD-ROMS. It might seem absurd to us today, but prior to the creation of SD cards, there were a number of cameras that used weird and potentially unavailable media. While a camera that uses a Floppy Disk is more of a collector’s item than a real camera these days, the point remains, there are some unusual old technologies that won’t be supported by a modern laptop or desktop computer without some effort on your part.

If you can verify that the used camera you’re interested in uses a media type that you are able to work with, and you can verify that it has new batteries available for it so you can turn it on, then you can start looking at the condition and functionality of the camera.

Condition

Condition and functionality is the most complex part of assessing a used camera. People often sell cameras that have sat in a basement unused for 20 or more years and nobody remembers if it was ever a working camera. Even if you know that you can get batteries and media for it, you may not be able to test it out right then and there.

Usually when something is brand new we can tell that it’s basically brand new because it has that “new car smell” so to speak. And that’s not just a fancy turn of phrase, smelling a camera or lens can give you a good idea of how nicely or poorly it has been treated. If a camera smells clean and fresh, it’s probably been kept in a clean and dry area for most of it’s life. If it has a strong, sharp plastic or glue smell, it could mean that the rubber or plastics are breaking down. And finally, if it has a strong musty or dusty smell that generally means it’s been sitting in a damp and dark place for a long time.

The problem with dampness and electronics should be pretty obvious. Over time, the dampness will ruin the camera or lens if it is left sitting in those conditions long enough. Dampness and musty basements can eventually lead to mold growth inside the lens, damaging lens element coatings, and usually forming a thin film of fog or haze on the lens. It takes a lot to ruin these old lenses, but some people seem to be working hard on figuring out how to do that.

I have quite a few lenses with small amounts of haze in the lens and they work great. As long as the haze isn’t too bad, it’s usually not noticeable, but when it does get bad, it can cause low contrast in bright light, or blooming around light sources. A professional might be able to clean them but they can be hard to locate.

Manual Lenses – The Panacea of Used Gear

If you’re buying manual focus lenses the truth is there isn’t much that can go wrong that you wouldn’t be able to figure out in the first 15 minutes of having it to look at and test.

Manual lenses can be easily adapted to just about any mirrorless camera, and once you get the hang of it, focusing with manual lenses is actually pretty easy, even for video work.

Aside from looking inside the lens to make sure it is clean and clear, there’s honestly very little that can go substantially wrong with a manual lens over its lifetime. The biggest danger is going to be mishandling the lens by dropping it.

As long as the lens is cared for and stored properly there’s no reason it won’t last for a lifetime or much longer.

AF Lenses – Some Companies Still Support Old Gear

Autofocus lenses are another story entirely. Technically speaking, just about any AF lens could be adapted to work on just about any other camera, but that requires lots of technical skill and reprogramming of computer chips. It’s not an easy task but it’s doable. The thing is, it’s a lot easier to just buy a new lens that works with the camera you’ve got.

A few companies like Canon make it easier to adapt old EF lenses to their new RF camera platform. Simply by using an EF to RF adapter, just about any EF lens can be used with no issues on an RF camera. If all you’re really after is a lens with good AF performance then many EF lenses are great options if you’re on a budget or just want a lens with a different look. I have some old EF lenses and I like all of them.

Source link

19/04/2025