Post your photography skills! (self-gloss) - Page 144

I've read about that but have mixed feelings. On one hand it's cool because of less miss-focused pictures, on the other hand it takes out even more fun because you don't need to practice your technique, it's just always in focus.

Another thing is the price. They talk about consumer price, but I don't see how this could be a 500 $ camera and even if it's unbelievably good, consumers are not going to blow 2 grand on a camera system.

whodini If you do it yourself on say an Epson printer get Epson 5 star paper. I'd try to stay to the manufacturer's paper. If you send it out, I've had good results out of mpix. However they run off of sRGB so make sure to keep your color profile to that. Also before having them printed click on image size and make sure your sitting at at least 240 pixels\inch if not click off of resample image and enter at least 240 then reclick the resample image. Also make sure in your curves layer to set a black and white point..especially white because if an area is higher than say 243 it won't put any ink on that part of the paper. If you need help just PM me and I can give you the run down.

Szeph, yeah the price point is what I'm concerned with. I'd like to have it for taking quick shots though.

Thanks, il. I think I'll run a test batch with mpix and maybe one or two others.

Any thoughts on paper? Maybe I can see what kind of photo labs are by me here in CR because I'm curious about the metallic.

One of the Canon shooters here tried the 135 f2 or 200 f2.8 for portrait (head, half body, full body)? I'm not really 100% happy with my 85 f1.8 and consider to change for one of these. Will try a friend's 200 f2.8 later this or next week.

Is there a particular thing you're unhappy with on the 85/1.8? I've used some of these lenses (85 both 1.2 and 1.8, 200 2.8, slower 135) mainly for action stuff, not portraiture, but maybe I can help. Also what size sensor are you using?

--Andre

Generally the image quality of the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM is top so I'm not disappointed in sharpness and I've neither had any cases where I had a problem with the purple fringing that the forums talk about, it's just that 85 1.8 is not really that different from 50 1.4 that I'd change the lens for it normally (realistically seen there's barely a difference between a headshot with 50 f/2 and 85 f/2.2 when stopping down a bit, you only see it when comparing directly side by side). So what I "feel" is that it's not long enough as it's too close to my EF 50mm f/1.4 USM in most regards. I want at least 100mm focal length to feel more of a difference. I already get the "Do something so my skin is less detailed" (which will force me to get more involved with photoshop) so I'm not looking to get a lens that is even sharper plus it's not like you really see big differences when printing smaller than damn huge.

Basically what I look for is a longer lens than 85mm that is at least equal in image quality, has the same or better bokeh (as creamy and smooth as possible) and focuses well and accurately (no manual focus Zeiss for me).

The lenses I've considered are:

Canon EF 100mm f2 USM
I heard it's exactly like the 85 1.8 but longer focal length

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM
I like to shoot Macro and the IS is better for hand holding than 1 stop more aperture. On the other hand I have a dedicated macro lens and IS doesn't stop subject motion. Should be the weakest for bokeh, too

Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM
Heard only good things about it, am favoring this lens so far

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L USM II
A colleague suggested this lens as it performs appr. like the 135 2 but is cheaper. I wonder if it's perhaps too long ( --> need to get too far away from subject and holdable shutter times suffering)

The 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms are nice but I already know I wouldn't carry something that heavy and they are too in-your-face for my tastes when out in the city.

I'd use the lens on a Canon EOS 5D Mk II and an analog EOS 3.

so. photos from the weekend up to today. I reiterate that they are not very good. I like some of them and I think they objectively meet some of the hallmarks of good photography but I can not articulate why. I think if I knew why that that may help me. Of course I could be way off base. I don't know.

At any rate... I think these are my favorites/best.

Files at work Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Fountain at NC Arboretum Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Votives at the Basilica in Asheville Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Holy water. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Hallway to my office. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I am... meh... about these. I think they are OK but not sure.

Motorbike and helmet. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I liked the way the light from the door hit the cathedra.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
They are all special flowers Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
More plants (an engrossing title, yes I know). Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
It was neat to think of roses as being black and white, not their vibrant pink/red etc.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Sanctuary at the Basilica. I really wanted to get the inlaid cross on the ground to pick up but I couldn't. Any tips?
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
These were kinda cool. And I thought they looked neat in BW. Not sure, really.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The church. Should I crop out the building on the right?
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Don't know what to think about the rest of these. They probably are just bad.

My building in the AM.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
This really old Benz parks near where I do.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Rainy day. I think I should have gotten in tighter on the pegs. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
This tunnel is really cool in Atlanta. It is covered with graffiti. Folks are always taking photos of it. This is essentially what it looks like. Any ideas for creating a more interesting photo? I really kind of want a nice shot of it that is my own. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I live in this part of the city that has the last intown vestiges of redneck-ism/country. This church is near where I live. I thought it looked cool but I couldn't figure out a way to get a good shot of it.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The way the fence fell down in front of a boarded up building was neat. But I didn't get a good shot.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Just some graffiti before the rain started to pour.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Anyway if you didn't like those, I did warn that they may not be good.

mpix has metallic papers..if you sign up they usually give you like 2 free samples of your printed work.

some side shots from this session for model shots.

It sounds like the 135/2 is your choice. I'm not sure about your shooting style, but you'd have to step way far back with the 200/2.8 for a portrait. That may make it difficult to interact with your subject to get the best possible expression out of them. You can rent the various lenses from places like lensrental.com to see if they fit your style, and it's not too expensive before dropping $800-$1000 for a lens.

Ed, I want to say a few things about the shots you've posted but I've got to find time.

--Andre

Have you tried printing on metallic before? I've got some prints in mind but it's just that I don't have a "normal" installation in mind and am looking for some pop.

Thanks for the help, dude.

That's ominous!

No but I signed up for mpix pro and they sent me swatches with examples of what it look like. The B/W looks really nice the color isn't as vibrant but still nice looking. What're the prints of? (places,people etc) A good all arounder is lustre.

I own both those lenses and I did a comparison of the bokeh and they looked very similar to me. I never really use the 100L for portraits. I find it's a bit... sterile. Plus you'll have to do some skin softening cause girls won't like it. Now the 135L, that's my favorite canon lens. It should cost more than it does really. There's just a certain feel and quality to the pictures when shot wide open that's pleasing and the background separation is quite nice, almost zeiss-like. At 2.0 the natural vignetting on it with a FF camera is nice and the bokeh is creamy. It's also a really versatile lens. Amazing for any kind of portraits, street photography, landscapes. And put on a set of extension tubes and you can get 1:2 macro magnification (it's half of the 100L's 1:1). I highly recommend.

The 200 2.8 is really nice too but you'll have to be pretty far away from your subject.

Edit: Whoops, had posted a pic taken with 85 zeiss lol. Here's a recent shot I did on vacation with my 135L.


Edited by trader - 10/12/11 at 8:21pm