Jump to content

The Professional Photography and Photoshop Thread


Recommended Posts

had a blast with my new camera during my recent holiday. my only regret was not having a wide angle lens so now i'm contemplating getting one.

the thing is, there are still very few lens choices for micro four thirds and the wide angle ones available (or soon to be) are f4-5.6

my limited knowledge tells me this should be okay since landscapes are supposed to be shot at small apertures anyway and ideally with a tripod. so when i read about people clamoring for fast, wide-angle lens, i'm a bit confused as to why such lenses would be desirable and in what instances/applications.

appreciate if someone can enlighten me. thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a fast wide angle lens is needed in low light conditions or when you need to freeze fast moving objects. I'll be using my 24-70 mm f2.8 in the pits at racing events.

had a blast with my new camera during my recent holiday. my only regret was not having a wide angle lens so now i'm contemplating getting one.

the thing is, there are still very few lens choices for micro four thirds and the wide angle ones available (or soon to be) are f4-5.6

my limited knowledge tells me this should be okay since landscapes are supposed to be shot at small apertures anyway and ideally with a tripod. so when i read about people clamoring for fast, wide-angle lens, i'm a bit confused as to why such lenses would be desirable and in what instances/applications.

appreciate if someone can enlighten me. thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
had a blast with my new camera during my recent holiday. my only regret was not having a wide angle lens so now i'm contemplating getting one.

the thing is, there are still very few lens choices for micro four thirds and the wide angle ones available (or soon to be) are f4-5.6

my limited knowledge tells me this should be okay since landscapes are supposed to be shot at small apertures anyway and ideally with a tripod. so when i read about people clamoring for fast, wide-angle lens, i'm a bit confused as to why such lenses would be desirable and in what instances/applications.

appreciate if someone can enlighten me. thanks.

Wide angle shots are the rage right now with wedding and group photography as well. And since the in style now is photojournalism/natural, you need a fast lens to capture the action

Link to post
Share on other sites
a fast wide angle lens is needed in low light conditions or when you need to freeze fast moving objects. I'll be using my 24-70 mm f2.8 in the pits at racing events.

Wide angle shots are the rage right now with wedding and group photography as well. And since the in style now is photojournalism/natural, you need a fast lens to capture the action

dante/eugimon, thanks for the guidance. if i got this right, when the composition dictates a wide-angle lens, the extra speed is useful if i want to either freeze very fast action, or not so fast movements but under low-light. i think the latter situation (indoor, hand-held) will probably be more relevant for me, since for outdoors i wouldn't mind using a tripod, and found i actually like to blur people movement in the foreground so they don't detract too much from the scene.

i guess this means i'll pick up the upcoming wide-angle fast prime and just zoom with my feet, not so critical indoors anyway. hopefully i can sell it later when a fast wide-angle zoom finally become available. boy, photography as a hobby certainly becomes expensive very quickly.

speaking of spending, i chanced upon an aliens dropship at a local store. been hunting one for years so immediately snapped it up for $150. i thought it was a good price considering i wouldn't have to pay shipping, which i imagine would not be cheap considering how heavy this bugger is.

haven't used my polarizing filter yet so decided to test it by shooting the dropship from underneath a glass table. pretty happy with how it reduced the glare and reflections, though not all. so i'm wondering, are there also different strengths of polarizing filters?

anyway, here's how it turned out:

post-6173-1270400902_thumb.jpg

also seems to be useful for softening flash harshness:

post-6173-1270400933_thumb.jpg

finally, my apc's got a mommy =)

Link to post
Share on other sites
nikon AFS 50mm f1.4G and sigma 50mm f1.4 HSM

which one is better? :huh:

if you get one that works, the sigma. Sharper at f1.4 and has a much creamier bokeh, especially when dealing with pin point lights like traffic lights or christmas lights. I've read lots of reviews on them and most people have had good luck with getting one that focuses consistently but Sigma as a brand is known inconsistent focusing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
if you get one that works, the sigma. Sharper at f1.4 and has a much creamier bokeh, especially when dealing with pin point lights like traffic lights or christmas lights. I've read lots of reviews on them and most people have had good luck with getting one that focuses consistently but Sigma as a brand is known inconsistent focusing.

thanks eugimon :) the inconsistent focusing issue is something that worries me...

Link to post
Share on other sites
thanks eugimon :) the inconsistent focusing issue is something that worries me...

Me too... :mellow: But if it makes you feel better, places like Amazon.com have high user reviews for so it looks like the chances of getting a good copy is pretty good.

Honestly, the nikon 50mm 1.4 is a pass for me due to the bokeh, it looks just nasty.

from photo.net http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Cfof

post-19-1270490244_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
dante/eugimon, thanks for the guidance. if i got this right, when the composition dictates a wide-angle lens, the extra speed is useful if i want to either freeze very fast action, or not so fast movements but under low-light. i think the latter situation (indoor, hand-held) will probably be more relevant for me, since for outdoors i wouldn't mind using a tripod, and found i actually like to blur people movement in the foreground so they don't detract too much from the scene.

All other performance being equal, having a faster lens is always useful. You can always elect not to use the faster speed (i.e., stop down one or two on the aperture). DoF is an issue with these fast lens, but not unworkable.

They cost more but generally brings more potential to the table. If you are doing planned shoots with good light control, you don't need the performance curve, but if you are going for unplanned, having that much more leeway is very useful -- you can't always plan for a tripod, that fleeting moment of art can disappear very quickly.

i guess this means i'll pick up the upcoming wide-angle fast prime and just zoom with my feet, not so critical indoors anyway. hopefully i can sell it later when a fast wide-angle zoom finally become available. boy, photography as a hobby certainly becomes expensive very quickly.

It need not be that expensive. It really depends on your taste in photography, you don't need every lens.

I have maybe 4 lens in my stable, 1 is a mistake (but I still like the lens), 1 is a kit lens (good when I didn't have options), and the other two are my primary use lens (35mm and 70-200mm). I got more support gear than lens: 2 flash, 1 flash commander, teleconvertor (which I don't use), batteries, tripods for the flash, bags, step rings up and down...

The important thing is to know what and how you like to shoot, and selectively buy the right lens. Then learn to maximize the lens -- you get more value out of it. Shoot the crap out of it. If you find yourself not comfortable with the lens, it's the wrong lens. Resell or trade for something.

To be honest though, I shoot on manual, so I'm fairly familiar with how to tweak settings to try to get what I want. In that sense I usually go through a lens more comprehensively than a P-mode or Auto shooter does. Admittedly though, the camera's usually smarter than I am... :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Any opinion on the Nikon - AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 or AF-S NIKKOR

16-35mm f/4G ED VR

Leaning on getting the first one. Slowly getting the hang of the a few things.. but need more practice.. and finally got a Kata bag .. awesomeness..

I have the 18-200 Kicker and I am loving it. It's my all purpose lens and does very well in natural light on the D90. I thought about getting rid of it, but now that spring is in full swing and I'm getting more outdoors shots with it I have a new appreciation for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is an issue with you guys in other areas of the country, but here in Arkansas pollen is a REAL problem this time of year. I was with my family this past Sunday taking shots of everything and didn't take the pollen into consideration. It wasn't long before I realized pollen was caking up all over my camera and lens and I'm afraid I might have "dust" now. I know this might be a dumb question, but is compressed air okay to use on the lens? I used it to blow the outside of the body and lens to remove all the pollen that had collected. I know for future shots this time of year to use some sort of barrier to keep the pollen at bay... :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure if this is an issue with you guys in other areas of the country, but here in Arkansas pollen is a REAL problem this time of year. I was with my family this past Sunday taking shots of everything and didn't take the pollen into consideration. It wasn't long before I realized pollen was caking up all over my camera and lens and I'm afraid I might have "dust" now. I know this might be a dumb question, but is compressed air okay to use on the lens? I used it to blow the outside of the body and lens to remove all the pollen that had collected. I know for future shots this time of year to use some sort of barrier to keep the pollen at bay... :unsure:

maybe its time to upgrade to a prosumer camera and lens :lol: . just kidding

i would go to my local camera dealer if they can clean the insides of your gear. ive used canned air on my camera's sensor but i would not recommend doing that though. as for the lens, you might want some expert to clean it for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure if this is an issue with you guys in other areas of the country, but here in Arkansas pollen is a REAL problem this time of year. I was with my family this past Sunday taking shots of everything and didn't take the pollen into consideration. It wasn't long before I realized pollen was caking up all over my camera and lens and I'm afraid I might have "dust" now. I know this might be a dumb question, but is compressed air okay to use on the lens? I used it to blow the outside of the body and lens to remove all the pollen that had collected. I know for future shots this time of year to use some sort of barrier to keep the pollen at bay... :unsure:

sensor cleaning

For the lenses, microfiber cloth and compressed air cans are fine for the front and rear lens element. There's not much you can do about dust INSIDE the lens though it takes BIG pieces of dust to show up in the picture if it's inside the lens.

And as for avoiding dust in the future, not much you can do besides buy more expensive lenses/bodied that have weather sealing. That and avoid changing lenses outside as much as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My camera's, flash, tripod and two of my lenses.

07042010094.jpg

My new backpack.

07042010096.jpg

The 17-85 mm on the left won't be used anymore, so there's still some left space for a 17-40 mm f4.0 (or a future 14-24 mm f2.8 Canon might be developing as we speak!) and a 50 mm f1.4 that are on my wishlist along with some RRS equipment for taking good pano's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My camera's, flash, tripod and two of my lenses.

My new backpack.

The 17-85 mm on the left won't be used anymore, so there's still some left space for a 17-40 mm f4.0 (or a future 14-24 mm f2.8 Canon might be developing as we speak!) and a 50 mm f1.4 that are on my wishlist along with some RRS equipment for taking good pano's.

Edited by anime52k8
Link to post
Share on other sites
wow! so how do you like your new 5d2 + 24-70?

I love the 5D2! I couldn't believe my eyes when I looked through the viewfinder for the first time. It's so large and clear compared to the 40D, you can literally look around in it. And the 24-70 is so sharp, I can't believe how crappy the 17-85 kitlens actually is. BTW. Anyone interested in buying a very sharp, good as new 17-85 mm kitlens? :rolleyes:

I'll post some Valk pics this weekend.

LOL!

damn!!!!

That's what she said. :lol::D

Edited by Dante74
Link to post
Share on other sites
I love the 5D2! I couldn't believe my eyes when I looked through the viewfinder for the first time. It's so large and clear compared to the 40D, you can literally look around in it. And the 24-70 is so sharp, I can't believe how crappy the 17-85 kitlens actually is. BTW. Anyone interested in buying a very sharp, good as new 17-85 mm kitlens? :rolleyes:

kind of tempting, although I'm totally broke right now :(

(I really could use more range on the wide end and less overlap with my 70-200mm than I have now with my 28-135mm :unsure: )

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm totally honest, I would recommend you save up for a lens with superiour optics. Now that I've seen what a 24-70 mm L can do, I regret ever spending any cash on a non L type lens.

Although a 24-70 mm would fit nicely with your 70-200 mm, it wouldn't give you significantly more wide angle coverage

BTW. The new 15-85 mm seems to be better than the 17-85 mm I own and lets not forget the excellent 17-55 f2.8.

kind of tempting, although I'm totally broke right now :(

(I really could use more range on the wide end and less overlap with my 70-200mm than I have now with my 28-135mm :unsure: )

Link to post
Share on other sites
If I'm totally honest, I would recommend you save up for a lens with superiour optics. Now that I've seen what a 24-70 mm L can do, I regret ever spending any cash on a non L type lens.

Although a 24-70 mm would fit nicely with your 70-200 mm, it wouldn't give you significantly more wide angle coverage

BTW. The new 15-85 mm seems to be better than the 17-85 mm I own and lets not forget the excellent 17-55 f2.8.

I'd love to get a 17-55 f/2.8. Fast, L-quality glass and IS in a decently priced package is great but It's going to be a LONG time before I've saved up enough to get one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, i wouldn't exactly call this professional, but i like it...

DSC_1177.jpg

ShaorinShichiriasLynnMinmay.jpg

(taken with a NIKON D5000 DSLR)

MACGYVERNIKOND50002.jpg

oh, and MAJOR FOCKER; that drop ship and APC set is AWESOME...

Edited by Shaorin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the D5000 have a moveable LCD display? I'd love to have that feature on my camera. I might have to get an angle finder for my Urban Exploration work. I mostly take pics from a low point of view and a a feature like that would really come in handy.

well, i wouldn't exactly call this professional, but i like it...

(taken with a NIKON D5000 DSLR)

oh, and MAJOR FOCKER; that drop ship and APC set is AWESOME...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know these are photos we are not used to looking at, but I wanted you guys to critique them. I took these at a wedding last Saturday for a co-worker who was getting married. There was one photo of her where I thought the bokeh was really nice so I thought I would share it and a few others. One of our staff photographers at work looked at the pictures and told me that I was making good use of the rule of thirds and that I had an eye; that made me feel good. Anywho, here are a few shots. Feel free to chime in on the good, bad, and ugly of it all. B))

gallery_7126_36_386405.jpg

gallery_7126_36_775899.jpg

gallery_7126_36_559586.jpg

gallery_7126_36_2475411.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking good but the focus is a bit soft. Try playing around with the composition a little, like not centering the subject so squarely in the middle of the frame.

And the bride looks like she could be my real estate agent's younger sister!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I like.. I have yet to play around the settings completely..but i like

I actually happed upon the settings while messing around with the camera at the wedding. Even learned how to give light reflections a little bling. PM for more info if you haven't looked into that yet.

Looking good but the focus is a bit soft. Try playing around with the composition a little, like not centering the subject so squarely in the middle of the frame.

And the bride looks like she could be my real estate agent's younger sister!

Would you say the focus would have been better if I was able to hold the camera steady? I bet a tripod or monpod would remedy this. I'm still too new at all this so I can't wait until my DSLR class starts on May 20th where I will learn about all this stuff like composition. Really enjoying the hobby and can't wait to get out there again. I appreciate you guys chiming in. ^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites
I actually happed upon the settings while messing around with the camera at the wedding. Even learned how to give light reflections a little bling. PM for more info if you haven't looked into that yet.

Would you say the focus would have been better if I was able to hold the camera steady? I bet a tripod or monpod would remedy this. I'm still too new at all this so I can't wait until my DSLR class starts on May 20th where I will learn about all this stuff like composition. Really enjoying the hobby and can't wait to get out there again. I appreciate you guys chiming in. ^_^

Well, steadying technique will help some but if your shutter speed is slow and your subjects are in motion (like at a wedding) then you're still going to get a soft focus. A fast lens will help and so will a flash.

That's not to to say soft focus or even blur is bad. You can use them to great effect, like to create a painterly effect, or to capture motion and energy.

Edited by eugimon
Link to post
Share on other sites

The first and last pics have the most potential IMO. Very nice.

Here's my two cents.

The first pic is a little too soft.

The last pic can be improved in several ways.

  1. Use a larger aperture (lower F number) to isolate the two subjects from the background.
  2. Move to the left to make the lady's face visible
  3. Move closer or use a tele lens to make the shot a little more intimate.

I know these are photos we are not used to looking at, but I wanted you guys to critique them. I took these at a wedding last Saturday for a co-worker who was getting married. There was one photo of her where I thought the bokeh was really nice so I thought I would share it and a few others. One of our staff photographers at work looked at the pictures and told me that I was making good use of the rule of thirds and that I had an eye; that made me feel good. Anywho, here are a few shots. Feel free to chime in on the good, bad, and ugly of it all. B))
Edited by Dante74
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...