or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Post your photography skills! (self-gloss)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Post your photography skills! (self-gloss) - Page 160

post #2386 of 4186

Some pretty amazing photos in this recently discovered thread. Hoping to improve my photography game, so if anyone has any advice, have at it.

 

Here are some shots from a recent walk around Beacon Hill:

 

1.jpg

 

2.jpg

 

3.jpg

 

4.jpg

 

5.jpg

post #2387 of 4186

Beacon Hill, cont'd...

 

6.jpg

 

7.jpg

 

8.jpg

post #2388 of 4186
Very nice, KG. They remind me of the socks of your last WAYWT outfit... I don't like the B/W with the coloured flowers.


* * *


sunpiece.jpg
post #2389 of 4186

nice pics on this page

post #2390 of 4186
6540611935_8f52eb8ddb_o.jpg

6540611839_8aa4b1ef76_o.jpg

6540611717_d9fc983418_o.jpg

6540611583_cf8797f750_o.jpg

6540611519_64befeacf2_o.jpg
post #2391 of 4186
Really a fan of those photos il. Well... no offense but all except for the last.. although I know what that picture means hahaha!

6551840821_466bd9007c_z.jpg
Save the baby! by Jacob Skoglund, on Flickr

6545884107_cd9e591161_z.jpg
untitled 40/365 by Jacob Skoglund, on Flickr

6551186803_67e5e2210b_z.jpg
Only a few more feet... 41/365 by Jacob Skoglund, on Flickr
post #2392 of 4186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krp480 View Post

Really a fan of those photos il. Well... no offense but all except for the last.. although I know what that picture means hahaha!
You feel a picture of a child holding up his hand like "Stop!" is in bad taste (I guess you relate it to the 3rd Reich) but post a pic of people throwing a baby around? icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif

I shot the hill view from my office again. What a pity the light never got down to the meadow.

6556333497_443b9b1fc5_z.jpg
Edited by Szeph el raton - 12/22/11 at 3:10pm
post #2393 of 4186
I hope that isn't what you took from it! He HATES having his picture taken so now his tactic is holding up his hand so I can't see his face lol. Thanks, you've came a long way in your style Krp, really liking your candid portraits.

Szeph you have an amazing view!

this is my first toying with lightroom

6556818463_48e887866f_o.jpg
post #2394 of 4186
Okay here's my dilemma: When I get the MKII in a few weeks I have a grand to spend on lens, tripod, etc..I want a tripod. Now for lens would you get a Sigma 50mm 1.4, or Canon 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8? I've seen the IQ of the 1.8 is just as good as the 1.4 (Canon) so I figured having two lenses that are both good in quality (the 85 being superior to the 50) versus just one good lens.
post #2395 of 4186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Szeph el raton View Post

You feel a picture of a child holding up his hand like "Stop!" is in bad taste (I guess you relate it to the 3rd Reich) but post a pic of people throwing a baby around? icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif
I shot the hill view from my office again. What a pity the light never got down to the meadow.

Nonononono! I just realized what everyone's taking from it! I actually didn't even know it. I just didn't like how the hand wasn't in focus lol. I mean if the hand were in focus I would have liked to see that more so. Maybe it would be more interesting for me, idk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by il ciclista View Post

I hope that isn't what you took from it! He HATES having his picture taken so now his tactic is holding up his hand so I can't see his face lol. Thanks, you've came a long way in your style Krp, really liking your candid portraits.
Szeph you have an amazing view!
this is my first toying with lightroom
[/url]

No, I didn't even realize it until both you and szeph pointed it out lol! But no offense was intended I guess that It just isn't my traste of a photo. I do really like the other ones though. And thanks a ton man smile.gif I haven't been really liking my photos from the past few weeks though. I feel like there is just nothing interesting in them as well as they are rather bland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by il ciclista View Post

Okay here's my dilemma: When I get the MKII in a few weeks I have a grand to spend on lens, tripod, etc..I want a tripod. Now for lens would you get a Sigma 50mm 1.4, or Canon 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8? I've seen the IQ of the 1.8 is just as good as the 1.4 (Canon) so I figured having two lenses that are both good in quality (the 85 being superior to the 50) versus just one good lens.

Hmm... well if it were up to me and you are getting the mk II, I would actually recommend the Sigma. The 1.8 is great! But the sigma is also great plus it's probably the best focal length. If you go Canon though I know it's probably out of the price range but consider the 35L, it's one of the cheaper primes and can be had for ~$1100 right now (if Canon has the sale going on stil). Otherwise go for the Sigma. If you are used to the 85 focal length get the 85 then.
post #2396 of 4186
Quote:
Originally Posted by taxgenius View Post

I have tried backing up so that it all fits in the frame, however, the results aren't great. As an aside, I was told by a photographer that a macro lens can sometimes alter the color.
Well, basically every lens has some characteristics in how it renders the colors, contrast and so on but I wouldn't say it really has a big impact related to what you do with white balance and the effect of the camera settings (e.g. Picture Styles with Canon cameras)
Quote:
Originally Posted by il ciclista View Post

Okay here's my dilemma: When I get the MKII in a few weeks I have a grand to spend on lens, tripod, etc..I want a tripod. Now for lens would you get a Sigma 50mm 1.4, or Canon 85mm 1.8 and 50mm 1.8? I've seen the IQ of the 1.8 is just as good as the 1.4 (Canon) so I figured having two lenses that are both good in quality (the 85 being superior to the 50) versus just one good lens.
Tripod I went with Feisol, they are reasonably good quality for the price, couldn't bring myself to buy Gitzo even though they're even better. But that eats up already nearly half of your budget.
For the lens it's hard to say. I heard good stuff about the Sigma if it focuses correctly on your camera. It's closer to the EF 50L than the EF 50 1.4 in quality so if you can get a good copy (i.e. buy where you can return it as often as needed to get a good one or test in shop) that would be my choice.
The Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM is good quality for the price. It has good image quality (except for heavy chromatic aberration), is sharp, super fast and accurate auto focus, doesn't change size during focusing. For me the problem was that it is a length I just don't like, it was always too wide or too long for my style of shooting. I heard the 100 f/2 is slightly better in picture quality.
The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 is a quite sharp lens. That said, quality of the build is on the same level like a yoghurt cup. The mount is made of plastic. No focus distance window. While the lens is sharp, bokeh is quite bad as soon as you stop down due to the fact that it has very few aperture blades and those aren't rounded. Auto focus drive sounds like it's powered by a small swarm of bees. You really get good picture quality for the price but the lens is no fun to use, I opted for the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 which I was able to get quite cheap used in new condition.

Jacobs tip with the 35L is also quite good, it's a great lens on the 5D Mk II. I bought it last weekend after testing around in that focal length (16-35 f/2.8, 17-40 f/4, 28 f/1.8, 35 f/2). It's really the best option Canon offers here but you also pay for that. The only minus the lens has is that it isn't weather sealed but so what, the 5D Mk II isn't either.

I'd say it really comes down to what focal length you shoot the most. If you like to shoot at 50mm then 85mm will feel off. Do you want to only use primes or also zooms? I have the 25-105mm f/4 L IS USM and that is solid for the money even though I prefer primes. Personally I'd get a "walk around" prime first so I'd say your options are 35L (expensive), 35 f/2 (loud auto focus), 50 f/1.8 II (loud auto focus), 50 f/1.4 (halation wide open), 50L (expensive) or Sigma 50 (auto focus lottery if it doesn't fit).

My choice for lenses would currently be 35L, 100L/135L, 24-105L ... if you like tele, add 70-200 4L or 70-200 4L IS
85L and 70-200 2.8L IS are great lenses but I couldn't see myself lugging around so much weight (same with a 1-series body).

If I may ask: what is your reason to go for the 5D Mk II instead of a 7D?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krp480 View Post

Nonononono! I just realized what everyone's taking from it! I actually didn't even know it. I just didn't like how the hand wasn't in focus lol. I mean if the hand were in focus I would have liked to see that more so. Maybe it would be more interesting for me, idk.
In that case I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, somehow I understood it clearly in that direction.
post #2397 of 4186
Thanks for the long reply Szeph, I want to go MKII because I own the d7k right now. It's supposed to outperform the 7d in most everything, but I wanted a full frame and the d700 leaves a lot to be desired in the MP department. I wanted FF. Do you think the 24-105 is fast enough in low light? (I wanted FF for the low light clean noise and it seems to make sense more sensor = more detail)
post #2398 of 4186
Quote:
Originally Posted by il ciclista View Post

Thanks for the long reply Szeph, I want to go MKII because I own the d7k right now. It's supposed to outperform the 7d in most everything, but I wanted a full frame and the d700 leaves a lot to be desired in the MP department. I wanted FF. Do you think the 24-105 is fast enough in low light? (I wanted FF for the low light clean noise and it seems to make sense more sensor = more detail)
Ok I see. I can understand it. The 5D would be the perfect camera if the auto focus system wasn't so limited (it's the same like the 600D, etc. Only one cross-type sensor, but I guess you know all that). I'd really hope the Mk III will have at least the system of 60D but I won't buy a new camera in quite a while anyway.

Well, in low light it's always a trade off imho. I like fast primes but shooting at f/1.4 gives very shallow depth of field and there is no other option when it's dark. The 24-105L has a quite effective image stabilizer which I enjoyed quite a bit so far but obviously it won't help for subject motion. So I'd say depends what you want to shoot with it.
post #2399 of 4186
well I need to be able to shoot portraits for money, but I like shooting still life, available light, etc...I'm picking up a tripod for when the camera gets too long of a shutter speed. (my current one is only rated at like 5 lbs) Would the 24-105 be effective for sunset portraits and indoor shooting with the IS? I do have the d7k if I ever shoot sports, I believe it has 9 cross points. I'm mainly using it for portraits and still life, and stuff I run along when I'm out and about..street photos etc. I just hate all the noise of the d7k past 2500 when shooting indoors with the d7k
post #2400 of 4186
Quote:
Originally Posted by il ciclista View Post

well I need to be able to shoot portraits for money, but I like shooting still life, available light, etc...I'm picking up a tripod for when the camera gets too long of a shutter speed. (my current one is only rated at like 5 lbs) Would the 24-105 be effective for sunset portraits and indoor shooting with the IS? I do have the d7k if I ever shoot sports, I believe it has 9 cross points. I'm mainly using it for portraits and still life, and stuff I run along when I'm out and about..street photos etc. I just hate all the noise of the d7k past 2500 when shooting indoors with the d7k

Don't go for the 24-105. I don't know if you NEED the extra reach, but the 24-70 is a faster lens by I think 3 stops. It's also one of the best zooms out there with the exception to the 70-200 2.8. Actually have you considered the 70-200 2.8? Not the IS version, but I know you did say you only had $1k to blow. If it were me I would save up a little while longer and get the better lens cause it would be much more worth it. That being said I'm not saying the 24-105 is bad but if you want a better portrait lens go for the 24-70 or 70-200.

Obviously though if you don't need the zoom go for a prime lens, IQ is usually better and you get larger apertures. If I were you I would consider getting a 24, 50, and then a 70-200. But if you are doing portraits for money go the prime route IMO. As for NR the 5DMKII I believe is the best out there. The 7D is pretty good with handling noise, but I'm selling it to go with a wider FOV for my 85 (I don't think I'm getting the MK II, but the 1D3). The MKII (if you are already used to it) has slow FPS rate coming in about 3.9 which is about as fast as my t3i iirc. If you can maybe rent one of the lenses? Or try it out if possible.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Post your photography skills! (self-gloss)