# Photography Thread



## Eddie_uv777

Got this idea from over at jemsite, but yeah anyone out there a photographer?

if so then post your pics (photoshoped or not!)



I'll start with one image of my Jem!


----------



## Buzz762

I do a lot of photography as well, although I don't have my camera bag with me right now which has several CDs of my work. 

I'll start off with my favorite shot of a man leaving the building I was at:





A shot experimenting with reflections off of glass:





Another shot from around the campus:





Both of these were taken from a moving vehicle so they aren't as clear as I would have liked, but I think the blur added effect to them:










Playing with photoshop and a picture of one of my mother's gardens:





A small part of the shoreline of a lake:





Water lily floating near our dock:





Found this little fella hanging out by the shed:





Doing some experimental work with people as the main focus, which is a new concept to me since most of my pictures deal with nature. These were taken in an alley near the old Tigers stadium:

















Sound card I had laying around on my work bench:





Some shots from Lake Michigan near Grand Haven:





















One of the parks near my house:

















These are from a set I took in my backyard for my mom who requested it:


----------



## The Dark Wolf

Beautiful work, Buzz.

I just started getting into it. I wanna upgrade my digital cam soon. Since I've always liked art and rawing, I guess it's a natural attraction to enjoy photography.


----------



## Rick

Man, you both took some really cool shots!


----------



## Steve

Took this at the Philadelphia Zoo last year.... I thought it was pretty cool.


----------



## Buzz762

Thanks for the kind words guys!


Steve, that is an awesome shot. How was that enclosure set up that you could get a shot like that without having some sort of barrier in it? Glass?


----------



## Steve

Buzz762 said:


> Thanks for the kind words guys!
> 
> 
> Steve, that is an awesome shot. How was that enclosure set up that you could get a shot like that without having some sort of barrier in it? Glass?



Thanks Buzz, 
Your shots are amazing as well. Nice use of filters and B&W.
I shot the Giraffe through the bars of a 10' high fence using my Canon EOS Digital Rebel - with stock lens. Nothing special, but the photo looks great in the original resolution of 3072 x 2048.


----------



## Eddie_uv777

Great pictures buzz, love the park pictures


----------



## D-EJ915

Cool pics you guys! Here's some I took...or are from my camera, lol.

My dad pointed out how the cloud was being reflected...I thought it was pretty nifty:





this one is giant, and some sweet rocks: http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/DEJ915/photos/coolrocks.jpg

this one disorients me...thanks to my mad camera leveling skill...





my mad horizon skillz again:





another giant pic...of a lighthouse...: http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/DEJ915/photos/nice.jpg

a cool tree:





mad colours (huge): http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/DEJ915/photos/whoacolours.jpg

I can turn the horizon into a black line! (or something like that anyway)





yep


----------



## Steve

Nice pics, Jeff.... Looks like Hawaii?


----------



## D-EJ915

Steve said:


> Nice pics, Jeff.... Looks like Hawaii?


most of it, yeah






BNP Paribas should thank me for taking such a SWEET picture of their building, or one of them...or something, lol.


----------



## nyck

Very nice pictures Buzz. You definitely have an eye for composition and color/contrast. I LOVE your work 


I'm still starting out, but here's some stuff I've been doing. These are my best shots. My area is sooooooo uninteresting and boring. Next time I go around the panhandle beach area, i'm gonna really load up on pretty pictures. DDD








































I really LOVE photography. I'm so glad I found another hobby I like :]


----------



## Eddie_uv777

nice pic's nyck!!

here are some pic's of my friend that I took after school.


----------



## nyck

Wow those are beautiful! 

I'm gonna go ahead and blame my camera!!  You sir, are a great photographer.


----------



## Buzz762

D-EJ915 said:


> BNP Paribas should thank me for taking such a SWEET picture of their building, or one of them...or something, lol.



I love that shot. I like nyck's shot of that hand and eddie_uv777's set a lot too.


----------



## Michael

I didn't take this picture, my Dad did. But I think it's a great shot.


----------



## D-EJ915

That is an awesome one.

Here's another of that same building, the sky was awesome and I like both colours so I have both online  http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/DEJ915/Paris/twone.jpg


----------



## nyck

D-EJ915 said:


> That is an awesome one.
> 
> Here's another of that same building, the sky was awesome and I like both colours so I have both online  http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/DEJ915/Paris/twone.jpg


Here's my edited version of that :]
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b373/icetitan/twone.jpg

(great pic btw)


----------



## D-EJ915

whoa bright sky, lol.


----------



## Eddie_uv777

took another one today


----------



## Chris

This would have been great if the camera I was using was nicer.







Middle of the Mojave desert.


----------



## Eddie_uv777

nice picture nonetheless


----------



## Buzz762

Eddie, excellent composition on that last one. It's awesome.

That's a cool shot, Chris.


----------



## Jason

too bad I didn't have a nice digi cam to take with me..for my trip to florida..


----------



## rummy

All taken with the 300D. Resized and compressed up the ass.


----------



## Buzz762

Rummy, do you have a higher res version of the bee on the woodchips? It'd make an awesome desktop wallpaper.


----------



## rummy

It doesn't look as sharp but here you go. 

http://www.jcyoo.com/IMG_3143.JPG


----------



## Buzz762

Thanks!


----------



## Eddie_uv777

Thanks guys 

Great pic's rummy, love the moon photo


----------



## Nipples

I have a love/hate with this place.




Mom's cat.


----------



## D-EJ915

*hugs the kitty* <3


----------



## Nipples

More


----------



## skinhead

Nice photographs, i see that people here know about photos.

Nipples that cheerleader it's sexy 

And Mawdyson the one in the beach it's beattyfull!


----------



## Nipples

I have like 5,000,000³ pics of cheerleaders 

More because I like to show off pics.






















The Jerry Rice. 







Even more


----------



## Michael

Them cheerleaders are so hot.


----------



## Nipples

I added more above. 

I know, they are gorgeous. I hope they wear their santa/christmas outfits next time. (I have season tickets so I can see them all often )


----------



## nyck

Hey Eddie Uv777, what camera do you use?


----------



## Eddie_uv777

nyck said:


> Hey Eddie Uv777, what camera do you use?



a 5.1 megapixel Sony DSC-W5



might be getting a nikon d50 tho


----------



## nyck

Eddie_uv777 said:


> a 5.1 megapixel Sony DSC-W5
> 
> 
> 
> might be getting a nikon d50 tho


How do you like it? I have a D330 right now and I want to upgrade to something better, I'm not happy with the picture quality I'm getting with This Cam. I'm an amatuer of course, but I really like the quality you're getting with those pics. What kind of editing are you doing?

(i'm looking at the Sony DSCP300)


----------



## Eddie_uv777

I like it, it's alright but I could do alot better, the camera you want isnt that bad I'd say go for it


----------



## playstopause

I'm not much a fan of "nature / exterior" pics... But with the first snow fall of the winter, i think it was kind of nice...
Took these on a last sunday walk with one of my friend.


----------



## nyck

New pix:


----------



## Michael

Those are awesome.


----------



## Eddie_uv777

yeah, Nice pic's


----------



## Eddie_uv777

here's one of mine with a added frame ( photoshop )


----------



## Mr. S

here is my deveiantart account, i havent updated it in a while but there are some good photos on there


----------



## Eddie_uv777

and another.....I just took this one of elizabeth (my jem)


----------



## nyck

Those are some cool pics Eddie. I'm not really a fan of the frame, but it fits the Jem pic well.


----------



## Eddie_uv777

here's some more I took today


----------



## leatherface2

go check out nikkisixx.net he does some cool pics


----------



## nyck

Those new ones kick ass Eddie : D


----------



## Ryan

lol nice


----------



## Eddie_uv777

there we go


----------



## leatherface2

cats rule


----------



## D-EJ915

After being blinded by looking outside I noticed there were a ton of clouds, so I took some pics.

Here are 2



























then before the crazy stormy weather we had a while ago I got these:









(then like the same thing, but flipped, it looks cool) 1280*960
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y168/DEJ915/photos/sky/before3.jpg

and a foggy one


----------



## Chris

Stickied


----------



## Makelele

Haha, observe my mad skills. Taken last autumn, for the "Take a picture out your bedroom window, v1.0" thread.


----------



## nyck

35mm with a macro lense(scanned from the print)
2nd one is photoshopped,
it was entered into an art show for high school students in my area and I won the "Emerging Artist" award! xD


----------



## TheReal7




----------



## D-EJ915

mmmm strawberries <3


----------



## D-EJ915

The sky tonight:












I wish I could have gone more to the left but oh well


----------



## D-EJ915

Here are some from today, getting progressively later


----------



## Michael

One I took of our kitten a while back.





One of the gnome in our front garden. \m/





A couple I took at the Shrine of Rememberence when I went with a mate last year.


----------



## Azyiu

How come I didn't know about this thread sooner? I suck!  Here are a few random samples. If any of you are interested, please check out my gallery at: http://azyiu.deviantart.com/gallery


----------



## nyck

Some recent pics I did. Some are from 35mm


----------



## playstopause

Azuiu + Nick : _really_ awesome pictures.


----------



## settite

Here are some pics I have taken around different places I have been to.

A butterfly on top of a mountain I decided to climb at 29 Palms, CA.





Some flowers





Some wild flowers in the desert





Evening Sky





Fountain in Vegas





Chinook at Camp Pendleton





A hawk at 29 Palms





The Venetian in Vegas


----------



## D-EJ915

I've been to Camp Pendleton, there's absolutly nothing there  Cool pic of the flowers btw, they look nice.


----------



## settite

Thanks, I love the camera I used using there.


----------



## Shawn

I am quite proud of these pics I took. It's from my Sony Cybershot~


----------



## B Lopez




----------



## Eddie_uv777

two pic's I took today while in the city


----------



## playstopause

^

Nice. I love graphic stuff like that.


----------



## Eddie_uv777




----------



## Michael




----------



## settite

Eddie_uv777 said:


>



I approve of this picture!


----------



## Shawn

I thought this pic I took came out really cool, how the BK has a cool reflection.


----------



## Eddie_uv777

New pic with the Nikon D40 I just got




Shot with NIKON D40 at 2007-07-03


----------



## Buzz762

Okay, it's been far too long since I have posted anything in here. It's also been far too long since I have been anywhere interesting enough to take some new shots. I think I posted these in a thread a while ago once I returned from my vacation, but I'll put them here as well.































Those shots should look familiar to you if you saw the pictures I posted on the front page. That's the same beach.


----------



## Azyiu

Pretty good stuff there, buddy. The second to the last though, it looks like you got some bad reflection on the left side. You probably shot those without a filter?


----------



## Zak1233

jus some random pics , i like to call #2 "flower in my crack" it has a good ring to it  lolol
















can you spot wats wrong in this pic lol?


----------



## -K4G-

thats some nices photo man.


----------



## Splees

i got a lomo fisheye camera for THE CHICK a while ago. 





it takes some nice... weird photos.





crotch shot





there is a bunch more but the came out kind of funky..


----------



## Splees

DIMARZIO FTW


----------



## KholdStare

Some awesome photographs there guys! 

I thought I'd post one here, it has quite a back-story...





This summer I went for a holiday to Cyprus, to meet up with my high-school friends,
it was one hell of a trip, I had a blast. So one night, we're all hanging out at
a friend's place, and one of us has to go home, we all come out to say goodbye (this was 3 am. btw lol),
and see the* thickest* fog ever... It was literally a white wall: things 20 meters in front were _invisible_.

As the friend drives off home (he got home safely hehe, he drove slowly), the rest
of us get a camera, and start walking around the neighbourhood taking pictures.
It was such a surreal experience- 3am- complete silence. Not a soul in sight,
not a car to be heard- we were all just surrounded by this wall of thick fog,
our footsteps reverberating of the walls of houses.
The air was so moist, that when we came back from our walk, our hair was
wet- really wet 

Most photos were extremely blurry, yet one somehow miraculously came out perfect,
the one above  If my band and I ever make an album, this photo will
surely be in it 

I'll post a few more photos from the night, but not much can be made out from them,
though some of the blurring makes it more artistic in a way, hehe.










Individual shafts of light could be distinguished, when a light source was blocked
by something like a tree: (not very vivid, I know )





This is a very peculiar shot. It's a close-up of the swing, and if you notice, it
seems to be casting a shadow... onto the fog  It's also wet...




(the white blobs are fog particles)

Hope you enjoyed my tales


----------



## Splees

I went to the Grand Canyon over the weekend. here are a few snaps.


----------



## Sebastian

Awesome shots man !


----------



## vampiregenocide

I'm a free lance photographer. Here are some of my shots:


----------



## Sebastian

Good work 

be sure post some more in the future


----------



## hufschmid

nice pics!


----------



## hufschmid

Shiancz said:


> The series' 11-season, 259 episode run makes it the longest lasting live-action sitcom on the Fox network. The show's theme song is "Love and Marriage" by Frank Sinatra from the 1955 television production Our Town. -- Married With Children


----------



## lefty robb

Here's some the GF and I took down at the West Boylston Reservoir yesterday, camera is a Nikon D-40.


----------



## Bungle

Just a few randoms that I took these earlier in the year while I was in Germany. All of them were taken on my phone, a Nokia N95. I think they turned out quite well considering.

War memorial cross at the top of the hill of the town we were in:





Just near the big cross:





In Burkheim, you can almost see the Rhein river below dividing Germany and France. The trees in the background are actually in Franceland. Mr. Snowman was only about 15cm tall...





St. Johanns church and the Donauquelle in Donaueschingen where the Donau (Danube) river begins.





Random wall/bike combo in Freiburg. Currently my wallpaper here on my work pc:


----------



## george galatis

wwwwwwwwwooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwww really goood


----------



## The Beard

Here's a few of my personal favorites that i've taken. 



















































 hahaha


----------



## Makkiss

Here is one shot that i took couple days ago from the lake just next to my house!


----------



## Azyiu

So here are what I did last week. My 30D is finally cleaned, and I had a day off, and surprisingly, the air pollution wasn't that bad on that day either. 



1. The still being built tall one is the International Commerce Centre tower, soon to be the third tallest building in the world.







2 & 3. 1881 Heritage. Part of an urban revitalize project in which, they turned this over a 100 years old former police HQ into a high end shopping / dinning area in the middle of the business district.













4. Hong "Commies Infested" Kong with a little less air pollution and still a ton of light pollution at night.


----------



## MF_Kitten

i have a Diana+ camera that i need to start using. haven´t used it ONCE since i bought it!

i gotta get myself a 35 mm adapter kit for it so i can use regular film.

my fiancé has a fisheye camera kinda like the LOMO one earlier in the thread. takes awesome pictures!


----------



## Goodspeed

...these aren't really in any particular order or anything. Just shots that I enjoyed taking/liked the outcome of.

If anybody has a flickr account, add me as a contact: Flickr: Mr. Goodspeed's Photostream

-Devon Goodspeed






Piece of a studebaker lark.






'84 les paul studio






four guitar-exposure. Taking using a hand-fired flash. Not photoshopped.






Same les paul again. 30sec. exposure using hand-fired flash to illuminate specific parts of the guitar.






Same lark...again.






Yes, that's real fire. No photoshopping (except to alter colors and such).






This much snow usually doesn't occur in East Tennessee (Jefferson City, to be exact) very often.

Couple shots of a statue on UTK campus...































World's Fair Park. Specifically the sunsphere. Knoxville, Tn.






I bought a DSLR because I always wanted a lightning shot.






...Toyota Supra






Another Studebaker. My dad's a bit of a fanatic.






You guessed it. A Studebaker.






I didn't put that there. I just took a photo of it.






Pretty self explanatory. Water coming out of the ground.






A chain....and vines.






More water exiting the ground.






I work at a ski resort (as a snowboard instructor) and it was a slow day...pulled out the camera.


----------



## The Beard

So one day I decided to take a walk through the wetlands while listening to Sigur Rós, and this is the result!


----------



## josh pelican

I didn't notice this thread until now. Oops!

There are some nice shots in here for sure. I'll have to post some later when I get home from work. I use both film and digital. I have many film cameras, but my digitial (and lover) is my Canon 20D. Love you.


----------



## Andrew_B

found this in the workshop one day, nice colours


----------



## tank




----------



## fitforanautopsy

Im digging both the posts above me. 
@ Andrew B,
What gear and modes/filters did you use to take those photos. 
thanks
-will


----------



## CrushingAnvil

A little hesitant to post here but I took this picture on my sister's 18th birthday and just thought it looked really surreal. 

I felt like the 'Double Rainbow!' guy


----------



## Azyiu

So I traded in my old Canon EF 2x Extender...










... for the new EF 2x II Extender. Now I get slightly faster focusing speed and slightly sharper images.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

yay! i can finally contribute to this thread. i just started shooting band photography and im really excited about it. here's some pics


----------



## josh pelican

Once again, I've completely forgotten about this thread. I'm at work and cannot post anything. 

I want another lens. Who wants to buy me a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM lens?!


----------



## vampiregenocide

Something I did the other day for uni.


----------



## ralphy1976

what was the theme Ross?


----------



## vampiregenocide

Had to take a shot for a postcard avdertising Hatfield. The place is an absolute shithole, but I found this little church that had some scarecrow fair thing with these outside. Thought they looked kinda cool. Got some photos of the church too yet to edit them though.


----------



## ralphy1976

@ross : WTF IS THAT NEW AVATAR YOU HAVE MAN!!!!

back on the subject : a scarecrow fair? that's sound disturbing as hell!!! i really like it now i know the background...

what i like even more is that (for me) this pictures is totally at the other end of the spectrum of your musical taste, in a kind of "IT" atmosphere!!!


----------



## vampiregenocide

ralphy1976 said:


> @ross : WTF IS THAT NEW AVATAR YOU HAVE MAN!!!!
> 
> back on the subject : a scarecrow fair? that's sound disturbing as hell!!! i really like it now i know the background...
> 
> what i like even more is that (for me) this pictures is totally at the other end of the spectrum of your musical taste, in a kind of "IT" atmosphere!!!


 
Ha ha blame the mods.  I needed a change, I was hoping for something less gay though, which was foolish.

Cheers man! They were kinda sweet, combined with the old church building it made quite a relaxing scene. Yeah it's a bit different lol but I am still developing who I am as a photographer. I have plans to photograph warfare and go freediving with great white sharks, so theres a lot of work to do.


----------



## Azyiu

Bought an imation 2.5" 1TB external HD yesterday, and I have all my photo files (over 230Gb worth) from way back in 2004 to present backed up. I feel so much better now.


----------



## Wretched

What's the difference between this thread and the other one?


----------



## Azyiu

Wretched said:


> What's the difference between this thread and the other one?



Title of the other thread seems to imply we can or should only post random pictures there, while this one sounds a bit more like anything photography related can be posted here. But you are right, we should just have one big photography related thread and let it as that.


----------



## ghostred7

I'm mainly a videographer....but this is a photo session at a fashion show I did a few yrs back:

















And my 1st attempt at HDR with the 3 multiexposure shots I took to comprise the final


----------



## manozi

Here are some of my photos. If you guys dig them, let me know, I can point you to my photography site(s) where I have more of my work posted  :





































-Manol


----------



## Azyiu

Just came back from my vacation in Japan. My wife and I visited Osaka, Kyoto, Hiroshima and Kobe over 8 days... enjoy a few random shots here.


Nothing screams Japan more so than Godzilla... or the Shinkansen







The A-bomb dome in Hiroshima







A praying Japanese girl in Kyoto







At the park of the world longest suspension bridge - The Akashi Kaiky&#333; Bridge near Kobe







A nice JR officer is showing this little kid his way home


----------



## soliloquy

manozi: some beatufiul HDR images you got there!


----------



## manozi

soliloquy said:


> manozi: some beatufiul HDR images you got there!



Thanks soliloquy! 


-M


----------



## Xiphos68

Some photo my Dad did at shows.
He gets some really, really, cool shots. These are not all of them but a few. 

This is the band. 
www.facebook.com/bloodlineseveredband


----------



## Norsemanusa

One for you metal heads. Saw this truck sitting behind the market on the other side of town and thought it was pretty cool.

(click on the thumbnails and then right click on that pic and hit "View Image" for a full-size photo)






This guy was on my truck tire one late afternoon,I actually watched it for almost two hours as it climbed out of it's shell.








Not real sure what's going on in this pic but this crazy lady next door moved out and left this critter behind when she was little and so I rescued her.
Seven years later she now lives on my bed and has been my companion at night when I'm watching Clint Eastwood shooting bad guys in the old Spaghetti Westerns.




This is my 3 year old female Akbash Sophia face to face with my neighbors little girl.
I couldn't pass up a shot like this.




Another close-up of Sophia.




Not that great of photography I know but the subjects are pretty cool.
This "Polar Beast" is my world.Never have I been around an animal that shows so much emotion as this dog. I love her more than my own life.



Look closely at these two photos.
I live about one hour East of Joplin,Missouri. The town that had the worst tornado in recent history of the U.S.
I had no idea at the time but the first pic was taken facing West.




The second pic was taken in the same direction from the same driveway only a few minutes after the first pic was taken.
The sky drastically changed colors in no time at all.
It was not until the next morning did I hear about the tornado ripping through Joplin.
It's kind of eerie to think these photos were the aftermath of that very storm.


----------



## movwills

These are really cool stuff you have created here.....


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I do some photography too (35mm - 4x5; I apologize for the number of images):






Film older than she is and a lens older than me:


----------



## tank




----------



## Azyiu

ThePhilosopher said:


> I do some photography too (35mm - 4x5; I apologize for the number of images):
> 
> Film older than she is and a lens older than me:



@ ThePhilosopher... you have some great stuff there! 

Here is part 1 of 2 of some pictures I took when I was on my vacation in Tokyo in late August, enjoy. 


A brand new PS3 for only a 100 yens? Really?







Main hall of the National Arts Museum






Where is Godzilla?






Chicks... 






Festival goers in Harajuku






A scene from a traditional wedding ceremony


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Some nice photos from Japan; I wish I could see more detail in the bride of the last shot.


----------



## Azyiu

ThePhilosopher said:


> Some nice photos from Japan; I wish I could see more detail in the bride of the last shot.



You asked for it, and you got it... unfortunately, I was standing in quite far away from the couple, and I didn't really wanted to 'interrupt' their ceremony, so I think this might be one of the 'cleaner' shots. As for the earlier one I posted, strangely I loved how the bride was over-exposed by like 2 stops.


----------



## tank




----------



## mikemueller2112

Some really awesome pictures here. I'm thinking of getting my first DSLR soon. I've wanted one for years, but they are so expensive, and it's scared me away. I'm considering getting a Canon Rebel T2i. It's looking like it makes the most sense for my first. I also want to use it to shoot some guitar videos and such.

I've never really manually shot pictures, aside from a couple weeks in Grade 9. Anyone have any good sites to teach some basic technique, or can provide me with some useful pointers? It's always fascinated me, and I think I may bite the bullet and grab my first kit this weekend.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I use these with photo I students at my school: Pixtus Photography Cheat Sheet

A good idea may be to hold 1 of the 3 items (Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO) constant and change the other two (while in manual mode of course) and take a picture of the same image with the same exposure so you can see the different effects of DOF, camera/photographer shake, etc.

Feel free to shoot me a pm anytime as well.


----------



## mikemueller2112

ThePhilosopher said:


> I use these with photo I students at my school: Pixtus Photography Cheat Sheet
> 
> A good idea may be to hold 1 of the 3 items (Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO) constant and change the other two (while in manual mode of course) and take a picture of the same image with the same exposure so you can see the different effects of DOF, camera/photographer shake, etc.
> 
> Feel free to shoot me a pm anytime as well.



Thanks dude. Picked up a Canon 550D/Rebel T2i with the kit lens. I got it last night, was up playing with it this morning. Basically doing that (keeping one of those constant, adjusting the other 2). Definitely helping me understand the effects they have on the picture. That should be a handle little sheet to throw on my phone. Pretty excited to have finally got a DSLR, now just have to learn to use it.


----------



## tank

some pics of my girlfriend


----------



## mikemueller2112

Took a few pics with the camera:


----------



## tank




----------



## Wretched

Nice work! Although I'm still grappling with the difference - or lack of - between this and the other photography thread...


----------



## tank




----------



## JeffFromMtl

Sorry for the amount of images, but I recently finally got my first DSLR after shooting with film for about 6 or 7 years. These are some of the pictures I've really liked that I've gotten with my new camera.















































































This one's out-of-focus, but I love it anyway. I messed with the colour enough for it to almost be passed off as intentional, in a lo-fi sort of way.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Today, I made my first attempt at self-portraiture.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I think you'd get more out it in manual mode.


----------



## tian

ThePhilosopher said:


> I think you'd get more out it in manual mode.


Agreed.

Using that cheat sheet that was posted earlier and just forcing yourself to shoot in manual will cause the process to become pretty intuitive a lot quicker than you think.

Plus it's really the only way to get the most out of your camera and lenses and consistently get the shots you want from your setup.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

ThePhilosopher said:


> I think you'd get more out it in manual mode.



I definitely agree that I would. I've been using the camera on program mode for the most part, and learning slowly that way by adjusting things here and there, but from what you guys are saying, it's easiest to learn your way around the camera in Av or Tv mode with one fixed value and adjusting the others?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

JeffFromMtl said:


> I definitely agree that I would. I've been using the camera on program mode for the most part, and learning slowly that way by adjusting things here and there, but from what you guys are saying, it's easiest to learn your way around the camera in Av or Tv mode with one fixed value and adjusting the others?



Put that camera in M and leave it there.


----------



## Azyiu

I was invited to the Canon EOS 5D Mark III Pre-launch Conference earlier this morning. I actually took many shots on one of the 5D Mark III prototypes in RAW format. Only until near the end one of the staff "reminded" me that the commercial firmware for RAW display isn't out yet, meaning whatever I shot in RAW was only viewable on either my 5D Mark II or the Mark III itself... oh well...   I still managed to have a few other shots here to share though. 















The GPS Receiver prototype:






The brand new EX600 Speedlite + transmitters prototypes:






HDR mode trial in 3 shots @ +3EV (natural style):






HDR mode trial in 3 shots @ +3EV (oil painting style):


----------



## ThePhilosopher

My favorite picks - HTC Inspire:


----------



## tian

Azyiu said:


> snip


Mark iii files can actually be opened with the newest beta version of Adobe Camera Raw just fyi.

Here are some favorites from the past couple months:


























still pissed at that ref...


----------



## Azyiu

tian said:


> Mark iii files can actually be opened with the newest beta version of Adobe Camera Raw just fyi.



Thanks tian for the info, and did you mean the Lr4 beta? I haven't tried those files there though.


----------



## tian

This will allow you to open the files in Photoshop: Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 6.7 Release Candidate | digital camera raw file support - Adobe Labs


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The blooming lime tree attracts bees:









Twofer:


----------



## Herayan

I am really enjoying reading your well written articles. I think you spend numerous effort and time updating your post. I have bookmarked it and I am taking a look ahead to reading new articles. Please keep up the good articles!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

It was the first gorgeous day of the year in Montreal today, so we spent some time out on the fire escape.

A couple of random snapshots that I like:


























And a shot of the idiot cat cuz it cracks me up. Classic expression:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The last of our flowers:





Before turning into:





PS: Damn I need to get my sensor cleaned


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A little food coloring:


----------



## flexkill

Shot of the Biltmore House in Ashville NC that I took .





Shot of a flower that I took from the Garden at Biltmore.




The back/side view of the House.




View from one of the terraces.


----------



## Azyiu

Just a few random shots from a few nights ago:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I like that last shot a lot, I just wish there was slightly more DOF.


----------



## Azyiu

ThePhilosopher said:


> I like that last shot a lot, I just wish there was slightly more DOF.



Many thanks for your kind words!


----------



## Ayo7e

So many pros in this thread, so any advice is welcome, .


----------



## Azyiu

Ayo7e said:


> So many pros in this thread, so any advice is welcome, .



Well, I am no pro, but I like all 3 of your photos here. I thought the colors are vivid in the first one, but I would probably tilt down a little and have a little less head room. As for the next two shots, they are great, really!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I think the last would look better with some kind of ND (or different aperture/ISO - only 2 or 3 stops needed) to get some movement in the clouds.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Just a few shots from this morning with the ol' gold n' blue:


----------



## Azyiu

Some of you might have seen her works, but I really love this Japanese photographer, Natsumi Hayashi, and her levitating self-portraits series. It is very creative, refreshing and lovely at the same time, and NO photoshop editing at all, just great setups and great timing. 

ããããã«ã¡ã©ã¦ã¼ãã³æ¥è¨


----------



## mikemueller2112




----------



## cataclysm_child




----------



## cataclysm_child

Makro of a really small spider


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I wish we had clouds like that down here.
The rain subsided some mid-afternoon yesterday so here is a shot with the 300mm f/4 + PK13 extension tube.





And a bonus shot without the extension:


----------



## rgaRyan

500px / Photo "Dragon Landing" by Ryan Derish

Hey guys, mind checking out this picture and the rest of my portfolio? Thanks!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Your astro is ok, but you need either a wider lens or a shorter exposure time as you're starting to get motion blur from the rotation of Earth.

The barbed wire was my favorite shot.


----------



## rgaRyan

ThePhilosopher said:


> Your astro is ok, but you need either a wider lens or a shorter exposure time as you're starting to get motion blur from the rotation of Earth.
> 
> The barbed wire was my favorite shot.


Thanks man! Yeah that was my first time shooting the Milky Way. I chose my 35mm prime because it can go down to 1.8.

Next time I'm just going to use my 18-55 kit lens (yeah, I know  ) at 18mm and it's widest aperture. Hopefully get similar results.


----------



## cataclysm_child

> Feels good man


----------



## ThePhilosopher

rgaRyan said:


> Thanks man! Yeah that was my first time shooting the Milky Way. I chose my 35mm prime because it can go down to 1.8.
> 
> Next time I'm just going to use my 18-55 kit lens (yeah, I know  ) at 18mm and it's widest aperture. Hopefully get similar results.



Don't forget that your camera is cropped so it's not as wide as you think. This 24mm on a full-frame camera: Time Lapse #3. It's fairly close to what you'd get on your camera with your 18mm.


----------



## rgaRyan

ThePhilosopher said:


> Don't forget that your camera is cropped so it's not as wide as you think. This 24mm on a full-frame camera: Time Lapse #3. It's fairly close to what you'd get on your camera with your 18mm.


Yeah, I think it's like 1.6x "magnified" or something like that. So a 35mm DX lens (Nikon) with my sensor is really like a 50. Which is kinda stupid, they should label it as a 50mm lens, not a 35. My camera doesn't have a full frame sensor.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The lens IS a 35mm lens, not a 50mm lens. The focal length of a lens isn't dependent on the sensor. Nikon is 1.5x for DX. If you stuck your lens on any FF camera it'd show the full 35mm FOV (provided the image circle is large enough).
Field of View


----------



## Ayo7e

I love how the clouds are always random.










Anything special but I like them.


----------



## mikemueller2112

Took a few shots of a buddy's Volkswagen R32 today. Just got back and did a quick edit from one of them. Never done anything with cars so it was kinda fun/tough dealing with reflections. I fucked up on the framing, shouldn't have cut off the side mirror. Lessons learned I guess....






http://500px.com/photo/10511725


----------



## mikemueller2112

Just finished another edit from yesterday






500px / Photo "Volkswagen R32" by Mike Mueller


----------



## -Nolly-

Woke up inexplicably early in Birmingham today so decided to wander around with my 50mm prime:



























More here: Flickr: -Nolly-'s Photostream


----------



## mikemueller2112

^ I need to just grab a lens and walk around. Sort of did that last week for the first time with a couple buddies, but had my whole bag. Think it would be a good learning experience to force myself to try some different things instead of just swapping lenses.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm going on a little mini-vacation starting this Tuesday; I plan to take only my 24mm and my 300mm.


----------



## Azyiu

^ can't wait to check out some of your photos soon. I was just walking around the downtown area with only my 17-40mm L f/4 lens yesterday. I would love to also bring along my heavy 70-200mm lens, but it was just way too hot to bring it along though.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm only going to take my 24mm - try to truly push myself to get the shots I want with just one lens. We're just going to stay at a resort 3 hours away, but it may be far enough from the city lights I can shoot some astro too.


----------



## rgaRyan

I'm hoping next week I can shoot some shots of the Milky Way, this time with a foreground. I just hope the setting sun won't disturb the view too much, I've seen many pictures of the galaxy with the sun setting and massive amounts of light pollution, and they still get a good shot of it.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Had a friend over last night. She wanted to play with my snake.

The lighting was poor, but I made do with what I had, and did the best amateur editing I know how  I still like a few of them though.


----------



## Azyiu

JeffFromMtl said:


> Had a friend over last night. She wanted to play with my snake.
> 
> The lighting was poor, but I made do with what I had, and did the best amateur editing I know how  I still like a few of them though.



Love this shot, thanks for sharing!


----------



## rgaRyan

Is that the only snake she played with? xD


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Azyiu said:


> Love this shot, thanks for sharing!


Thanks, that's quite encouraging coming from who knows their way around a camera like you do!


rgaRyan said:


> Is that the only snake she played with? xD


----------



## -Nolly-

Yeah really like those shots Jeff, lovely warmth. The first one is my favourite :thu:

I just snagged myself a 28mm f/1.8, should be a nice counterpart to the 50mm. The more I use zooms the more I think I'm always going to be mainly a prime lens guy.





















On a different note, do you guys normally use noise reduction processing in post? If so, what do you find works well for you?


----------



## Azyiu

-Nolly- said:


> I just snagged myself a 28mm f/1.8, should be a nice counterpart to the 50mm. The more I use zooms the more I think I'm always going to be mainly a prime lens guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On a different note, do you guys normally use noise reduction processing in post? If so, what do you find works well for you?



That 28mm is a pretty decent lens. 

To answer your question, sure, I use noise reduction sometimes, but it really depends on the shot. Also, by "noise reduction", did you mean it in general? Or specific tools within, says, Adobe Lr4? Still, it all depends on the shot, and sometimes I use it sometimes I don't.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Noise, what's that . I used to use Noiseware by Imagenomic (apparently my license went poof when I moved machines), but I don't shoot a lot of high ISO shots that require reduction so no huge loss.


----------



## -Nolly-

Cool, I'm just interested to see if it's something you guys consider as standard practice or if it's purely a corrective thing to salvage an otherwise unusable shot. At the moment I'm just using the built-in noise reduction in Aperture, but after buying Nik's Color Efex 4 and finding it indispensable I'm wondering if it's worth getting their Dfine noise reduction plugin too.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

If I have a keeper shot that's got some noise in it I'll try to make it look more like film grain instead of trying to combat the noise. Proper exposure becomes more critical at higher ISOs to fight noise - SNR at whatnot. Here's my ugliest shot in "recent" shooting without NR, it was almost as dark as my darkroom in this shot:




Camera Maker: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D3
Lens: 50.0 mm f/1.4
Image Date: 2010-11-26
Focal Length: 50mm (35mm equivalent: 50mm)
Aperture: f/1.4
Exposure Time: 0.050 s (1/20)
ISO equiv: 25600
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Spot
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Manual
Light Source: Incandescent
Flash Fired: No
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB​


----------



## Azyiu

A few random shots I took around town, enjoy.  Feel free to comment and critique.


----------



## jbard

From one of the fests here:


----------



## -Nolly-

Nice stuff jbard! The one on the left in the second shot is seriously trippy looking!

I did my first proper portrait shoot with a good friend of mine earlier today, we took a _lot_ of shots on several locations but this one is probably my favourite out of the bunch:


----------



## rgaRyan

Great shot Nolly, loving the lighting!


----------



## Azyiu

jbard said:


> From one of the fests here:



I love this one, good stuff!


----------



## Fiction

Azyiu said:


>



Wow, great shot, man.


----------



## mikemueller2112

jbard, those are some awesome shots


----------



## -Nolly-

rgaRyan said:


> Great shot Nolly, loving the lighting!



Cheers! These ones came out pretty cool too, I think:


----------



## rgaRyan

Those are great too, very vintage feel to them!

Do you have an account at 500px.com? You should definitely sign up.

My account is 500px / Ryan Derish / Photos.


----------



## -Nolly-

I don't, no. What is it you like about 500px out of interest?

EDIT: Looked into it more, 500px seems pretty awesome so I've signed up. My account is here: http://500px.com/-Nolly-


----------



## Azyiu

rgaRyan said:


> Those are great too, very vintage feel to them!
> 
> Do you have an account at 500px.com? You should definitely sign up.
> 
> My account is 500px / Ryan Derish / Photos.



Interesting stuff you have there.

Correct me if I am wrong, but 500px.com appears to be like deviantart.com without the profile page?


----------



## satriani08

My dad is a professional photographer unfortunately I don't have the eye for it. but I love taking pictures capturing special moments.. I am currently having troubles posting my pics but I'll post some soon


----------



## Azyiu

satriani08 said:


> My dad is a professional photographer unfortunately I don't have the eye for it. but I love taking pictures capturing special moments.. I am currently having troubles posting my pics but I'll post some soon



Have you tried any photo hosting site? I use Photobucket, and it works for me. Image hosting, free photo sharing & video sharing at Photobucket


----------



## mikemueller2112

Azyiu said:


> Interesting stuff you have there.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but 500px.com appears to be like deviantart.com without the profile page?



It's more like Flickr I would say. Love the interface on 500px and there is a lot of high calibre images on there.

Might as well post mine here too:
500px / Mike Mueller / Photos


----------



## rgaRyan

DeviantArt is crap. I had an account there, but haven't touched it for years. Full of whiny hipsters who don't appreciate true art.

500px is dedicated to photography only, no photoshop illustrations, drawings, etc. And the pictures there are phenomenal, some of the best professional/amateur photography I have ever seen (just look at the popular pages and the Editors' Choice photos)


----------



## jbard

Here is off one of the mountains a couple hours from me:







Here is my avatar. I took this at a monastery in the Czech Republic.






I have more bone pictures if anyone is interested.


----------



## Azyiu

jbard said:


> Here is off one of the mountains a couple hours from me:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my avatar. I took this at a monastery in the Czech Republic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have more bone pictures if anyone is interested.



Awesome shots! I am really love the blue! Good job! So you just live a couple hours away from that location? 

More bone pictures? Why not? As long as they are artistic and cool looking.


----------



## Fiction

Hey guys, I just bought a cheap SLR, are there any good sources to start reading about photography.

Its just a Canon EOS 400D + 18-55mm & a 75-300mm for $200


----------



## jbard

There are tons of tutorials out there. The most important to start with is any tutorial going over ISO, shutterspeed, and aperture and how they all relate. Then you can start with some simple framing concepts like the 2/3 rule and then continue on to things like lighting and filters (can start with ND and Circular Polarizer) and just keep digging and reading.

Aperture, shutter speed, and ISO is step one.

EDIT: Step one should even be to read the manual! Canon and Nikon make great manuals for their cameras, so start there!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

_Light, Science, Magic_ is quite a good book. 

I once did a series of shots of the same object with the same exposure by adjusting 2 of the 3 components: ISO, Shutter Speed, and F-stop. Doing this can really help you get a grasp of how the 3 play together. Put your camera in M-mode and leave it there, sell the kit lenses and kit a 50mm f/1.8 and whatever Canon 35mm is available-on a crop body you'd only need a 135 or 150 to have a kit that took a huge majority of the images from the early-mid 20th century.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Chair from a forum assignment:





My big camera:





False-color IR (the D3 isn't particularly good at IR):


----------



## jbard

Azyiu said:


> More bone pictures? Why not? As long as they are artistic and cool looking.



I think they are.
















Here is some IR:






Charles Bridge in Prague:






Got a new ND filter recently:






A couple miles from my house:






That's about all I have in my photobucket for quick link, lol.


----------



## Azyiu

@ jbard

Yes, those bone shots are great, man! Just curious (sorry for if I am the only one who didn't know the answer), why are there so many skull remains at that monastery? Is there any history behind it?


----------



## jbard

From my understanding, the monastery was a popular place for people to send their dead in the area. After the black plague hit, they got a huge influx of bodies to be buried and had nowhere to bury them, so they just had piles and piles of bones and lost track of whose remains were whose.


----------



## Azyiu

jbard said:


> From my understanding, the monastery was a popular place for people to send their dead in the area. After the black plague hit, they got a huge influx of bodies to be buried and had nowhere to bury them, so they just had piles and piles of bones and lost track of whose remains were whose.



Thanks. Got the full name of the place? I'd like to read more on wiki or some place. I love reading about historical places, or history in general.


----------



## ChronicConsumer

Azyiu said:


> Thanks. Got the full name of the place? I'd like to read more on wiki or some place. I love reading about historical places, or history in general.



Afaik, the Sedlec Ossuary.


----------



## jbard

That's the one.


----------



## jbard

Here are a couple more I dug up. (Terrible pun)


----------



## -Nolly-

Nice pics JBard, some really ghostly stuff in there! I assume you were shooting with flash for the skull shots?

I've been messing with more post-processing stuff. I love the faded, filmy look wedding photographers like Jonas Peterson and Ed Peers get, so I'm going for something similar without ripping them off too hard:








I also bought one of these:






Fun times ahead


----------



## Azyiu

-Nolly- said:


> I also bought one of these:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fun times ahead



Congrats, and welcome to the club.


----------



## jbard

-Nolly- said:


> Nice pics JBard, some really ghostly stuff in there! I assume you were shooting with flash for the skull shots?



Actually, they were just longer exposures. I did go a bit cold with the white balance, since I think it worked for it. Most of them were tripod shot with a Canon 5dm3 and a 70-200 2.8L IS. A couple are with a 16-35 2.8L.

That portrait looks great! Grats on the Mark III, it's a great camera.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Took some pictures of my limited ed. Baroness yellow vinyl when it came in.


----------



## Wretched

-Nolly- said:


> On a different note, do you guys normally use noise reduction processing in post? If so, what do you find works well for you?



Nope, no noise reduction. Not even on the 3200iso concert stuff and they've always printed fine. Some of my car stuff has been printed up to A1 and it holds together nicely.


----------



## -Nolly-

Wretched said:


> Nope, no noise reduction. Not even on the 3200iso concert stuff and they've always printed fine. Some of my car stuff has been printed up to A1 and it holds together nicely.



You know what, since moving to a full frame I can totally understand why. The noise performance and general picture quality has improved exponentially!

Here are my first proper shots with the 5D:


----------



## rgaRyan

Damn, fucking nice guitars.

I never use noise reduction in post-processing, only when I'm doing astrophotography (ie. the milky way)

Here's a pretty doctored up image. The original was quite crappy, so I sharpened it and noise-reduced it. I don't mind some noise in astro shots, but when there is a ton of color noise, it frustrates me all to hell, haha!

It's a composite of two images: one was the foreground and the second was the sky.

500px / Photo "The Road" by Ryan Derish


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Astro is a PITA, nicely done.

Scans of these will be coming after they dry for a day:




Sinar Alpina w/Schneider Xenar 150mm f/5.6
Expired Ektachrome E100VS 4x5 and Expired Chemicals​


----------



## JeffFromMtl

A couple of shots from a little bit of urban exploration today.

As usual, all of the editing is very basic. I really need to get a computer capable of running legitimate editing software and learn ho to use that stuff. I do all my editing on my shitty netbook  I also really need to get a wide angle lens. I think I could have gotten much more interesting shots in this particular setting with one.


----------



## rgaRyan

500px / Photo "Dragon Stance" by Ryan Derish





500px / Photo "Tattered & Torn" by Ryan Derish


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A couple of scans from those slides:


----------



## Felvin

Two of my sunsets:











Wallpaper size at felvin.deviantart.com


----------



## -Nolly-

ThePhilosopher said:


>



This shot is incredible!!

I really dig the graffiti shots JeffFromMtl, and great sunsets there, Felvin!


----------



## Ayo7e

Felvin said:


> Two of my sunsets:
> 
> Wallpaper size at felvin.deviantart.com




 Awesome.


----------



## Felvin

Ayo7e said:


> Awesome.



Thaaank you. I think landscapes are much easier to shoot than portrais, macros or other things. Most of the magic comes from Adobe Lightroom. And I just love to mess around with that.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Thanks Nolly, I love shooting the 4x5, especially when I get fantastic models from Europe who happen to be stopping by to visit family. The expired film and chemicals are really showing through in these scans (you'll see what I mean when I post the digital files I took).


----------



## JeffFromMtl

This page is so full of awesome.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Digitals from the same shoot:


----------



## mikemueller2112

Took a trip out to Lake Louise over the last week, pretty hard not to get some nice shots. I'll always have a soft spot for the mountains being a geologist and all (especially considering I live in the prairies)





http://500px.com/photo/13041163


----------



## mikemueller2112

Few more:









http://500px.com/photo/13106641




http://500px.com/photo/13093721


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That second shot is a keeper - send me a print.


----------



## mikemueller2112

ThePhilosopher said:


> That second shot is a keeper - send me a print.



Thanks man, appreciate it, you have some incredible work yourself.

Few more from the past week:





500px / Photo "Ink Pots" by Mike Mueller










500px / Photo "Road to Lake Louise" by Mike Mueller


----------



## Ayo7e

^ After all those awesome pics I'm not sure about showing my photos.

Sorry they are not centered.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Rule of Thirds > Centered Subject


----------



## lobee

mikemueller2112 said:


> 500px / Photo "Moraine Lake" by Mike Mueller



Is it just me or is this the same location as the scene in The Grey where


Spoiler



Liam Neeson's human antagonist(was No Mas his name?) decides to give up


?

Regardless, that's a ridiculous shot.


----------



## mikemueller2112

lobee said:


> Is it just me or is this the same location as the scene in The Grey where
> 
> Regardless, that's a ridiculous shot.



Haha thanks. I have no idea if its the same spot as I've never seen the movie. Could be, location is at Moraine Lake. Highly photographed spot, so I wouldn't be surprised to see it in some movies.


----------



## lobee

mikemueller2112 said:


> Haha thanks. I have no idea if its the same spot as I've never seen the movie. Could be, location is at Moraine Lake. Highly photographed spot, so I wouldn't be surprised to see it in some movies.



Here's a screencap: 






It could be any forest stream with some mountains in the background, but it's funny how all the elements of your picture made me flash to that exact scene in the movie.


----------



## mikemueller2112

lobee said:


> Here's a screencap:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could be any forest stream with some mountains in the background, but it's funny how all the elements of your picture made me flash to that exact scene in the movie.



Definitely not it. I checked IMDB and it looks like it was shot in BC somewhere. Similar terrain obviously haha.

Here's one I had shot about a month ago:
500px / Photo "Chevrolet Corvette" by Mike Mueller





I'm really itching to go full frame and snag a 5DII. Kind of bites since my Tokina 11-16mm and Canon 60mm EF-S will be useless. I'm looking towards getting the body and the 17-40mm. I want a wide angle for landscape shots, and that seems to be a decent lens at that price point. Any opinions?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I have a 24mm and 20mm and they're plenty wide on FF. I'd love to get the Nikkor 14mm f/2.8 so I'd have one of the widest rectilinear lenses on the planet, but that's a lot of $$$ on a specialty lens.


----------



## -Nolly-

I've been tending towards a lower-key style recently, how do you guys set about discerning how bright to make your exposures? Not talking about exposure meters or looking at the distribution charts, just on an aesthetic level.


----------



## morgasm7

Look at you guys, all digital and stuff. 
I'm going to stay in my little impractical corner and shoot film like a hipster.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

You missed the 4x5 slides, eh?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

@Nolly - I typically decide prior to shooting (especially if it's a planned shoot). Other times I'll make several different version in photoshop before deciding which version will be the final.

For instance with my shoot from yesterday I knew I wanted to go for that Gucci-glazed golden color-graded look (even if she's wearing Prada here ):


----------



## Wretched

A couple from a recent shoot on a cool little Honda-powered custom bobber:
















See more here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/benhosking/sets/72157631313260434/


----------



## Fiction

Second time going for a walk around with this camera, still figuring out things but started to get a hang of things today, Not many that are worth sharing, but they were all a lot better then my first lot.

This was probably my favourite from the day.






I also chased a couple seagulls around for about 5 minutes but none came out that good, had the shutter speed too slow and got too much blur


----------



## jbard

I just picked up a 24mm TS-E 3.5L II and my god is that lens sharp! I don't have anything serious done with it yet, but it should be a blast to use.


----------



## mikemueller2112

Wretched and ThePhilospher, some awesome shots there as usual.

I made the switch to full frame. Got a 5Dii. Sucks some of my lenses don't work, but I've got my 50 1.8, picked up an 85 1.8 and the 17-40 4.0.

Looking forward to getting some landscape shots with the 17-40, haven't been able to use it yet as I've been gone for work.

Couple shots with the 5Dii:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Would anyone be interested in doing a print swap?


----------



## j_m_s

Been awhile since I touched my camera because the shutter on my D80 died and I'm way caught up in school! Looking to pick up a D7000 at the end of the year. Most of my shots have little or no post-processing.. 





This was my first attempt on multiple exposure..






Some other stuff..


----------



## Wretched

Lovely landscape, Mike.


----------



## wilch

Some amazing shots in here guys!

Here's a couple of mine from the weekend:




Gazing at her beloved toy by wilch, on Flickr




Porsche Boxster 986 2002 - Hen &amp; Chicken Bay by wilch, on Flickr


----------



## -Nolly-

I've been keeping a photo journal while my band is out on tour in Europe. I recently changed over to Lightroom, really happy with the look it's helping me get from my processing . The photoblog is here:Nolly


----------



## TheDuatAwaits

Bump.











Forgot I took these.


----------



## xfilth

Got my first camera today! WOOT, can't wait to get started for real! Here are some preliminary shots - completely untouched because I'm not home so I don't have access to PS:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm off to shoot a wedding this weekend, but I'll also be stopping by Aaron's shop on Saturday so I'll try to get some shots then.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Did some work with an amateur hour lighting set-up today, and snapped a few on a cigarette break.


----------



## xfilth




----------



## Wretched

Love the eyeball treatment.


----------



## Wretched

Here are some of my latest published works:


























See more here: HoskingIndustries' photosets on Flickr


----------



## -Nolly-

I've been recording a friend's EP (non-metal) over the last couple of days and taking some snaps at the same time. Very low lighting most of the time so it's pretty tricky work!


----------



## xfilth

Great shots, both of you!

Nolly, I've been wondering about your shots - your darks and blacks always seem to be very bright. Why do you post process like that? I'm just a photo-noob, but I'm genuinely interested


----------



## -Nolly-

xfilth said:


> Great shots, both of you!
> 
> Nolly, I've been wondering about your shots - your darks and blacks always seem to be very bright. Why do you post process like that? I'm just a photo-noob, but I'm genuinely interested



Cheers! The raised blacks give pictures a matte look that I find pleasing for some reason. One thing is I usually like my shots to be against a white background, which makes it less obvious than on a dark background like this forum (same shots are on my Flickr if you want to see what I mean: Flickr: -Nolly-'s Photostream)


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Finally got a wide(r) angle lens. I didn't have much money to spend, so I just picked up the 18-55mm kit lens for $180. It's nothing special, but the added range will give me a lot more to experiment with, since my only other lens was a 50mm prime.

Anyway, I haven't had a chance to get out of the apartment with it yet, but I took a self-portrait. I can already tell I'm going to have a lot of fun with something a little wider.

I've also found myself upping the brightness more and more when editing much like Nolly does. I have to agree, there's definitely something really nice about it. It adds a little extra "warmth", for lack of a better term.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I got a wider lens too, it's not the greatest quality but it's great to have the option to go super wide. Sigma 15-30mm shots:


----------



## Fiction

I really dig the middle shot.

Great job!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The Sigma 15mm again, this time trying out some handheld HDR:


----------



## Ayo7e

^ wow I really like it.





Gran Canaria


----------



## -Nolly-

Really digging the colour wide-angle snaps ThePhilosopher! Very cool toning, and it's always fun composing wide shots.

I just got my dream lens today - Canon's 50/1.2L. I use my 50/1.4 almost all the time so I figured it's worth upgrading to the big daddy 







I was quite happy with this shot of a friend's custom Wirebird Contour tele (taken with the old f/1.4)


----------



## xfilth

Dat bokeh


----------



## rgaRyan

I don't see much bokeh...

Dat spalted maple.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Did someone say the b word?










Got Macro?




Link to full size: http://www.bartkophoto.com/Film/TMAX45/Maple_Leaf_002.jpg


----------



## xfilth

First one is too soft for my taste, even though it has that ethereal look. Love the middle one, although it's a bit noisy


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Grain, it was grain structure; film doesn't have noise, lol. 

Those were all shot with 4x5 film, the first shot was shot with a 4" single meniscus lens (a cheap way to get a soft focus lens - I wish I could afford a Petzval for 4x5 for teh swirls) and T-Max 100 4x5, the second is shot on Plus-X 125 4x5 from the late 80s, the last is T-Max 100 4x5 again.


----------



## xfilth

ThePhilosopher said:


> Grain, it was grain structure; film doesn't have noise, lol.
> 
> Those were all shot with 4x5 film, the first shot was shot with a 4" single meniscus lens (a cheap way to get a soft focus lens - I wish I could afford a Petzval for 4x5 for teh swirls) and T-Max 100 4x5, the second is shot on Plus-X 125 4x5 from the late 80s, the last is T-Max 100 4x5 again.



Haha, my bad. I'm a digital kid, so I know no better


----------



## Fiction

Loved the second one!


----------



## -Nolly-

Took my new 50/1.2L for a walk about town today.. gatdamn this lens is sharp! Amazing colour rendering and bokeh too


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That last one is the winner for me; I'll have to play with my 4x5 some more and raise "teh ultimate bokeh" @ f/5.6. I love my tack sharp German lenses with ridiculous amounts of falloff.

Too bad it's a bitch to handle 4x5 negatives from loading to scanning/printing without scratching them.
The Sinar:


----------



## xfilth




----------



## -Nolly-

ThePhilosopher said:


> That last one is the winner for me; I'll have to play with my 4x5 some more and raise "teh ultimate bokeh" @ f/5.6. I love my tack sharp German lenses with ridiculous amounts of falloff.
> 
> Too bad it's a bitch to handle 4x5 negatives from loading to scanning/printing without scratching them.
> The Sinar:



Damn, yeah I wouldn't like to have to worry about that! I've just started shooting with my Dad's '77 Minolta XD-7 and that's stressful enough as is!


Very quickly got a shot of my old band Red Seas Fire this evening. Surprisingly nice quality of light from the strip lighting in the tunnel!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

My first camera was a Minolta XE-7, good durable cameras those old Minoltaa were.


----------



## Tang

-Nolly- said:


>



Love how it renders the OOF lights in the background. My eye was drawn to that almost immediately.


----------



## mikemueller2112

Haven't taken too many photos lately. Having a hard time getting some inspiration during winter in the prairies. Lots of white and that's about it. Heading out today with a buddy to go drive around and find some stuff outside of the city. Fingers are too sore to play anymore guitar today so I'm hoping to get a good shot or two. 

Took a pic of me and my whispy stache I grew out for Movember haha:


----------



## Wretched

Latest feature to be published. Picked up some other new mags this morning, so I'll post some more stuff up later.

This is a 127ci Kraftech chopper. Built custom by the owner to his specs. very nice machine, faultlessly finished.


----------



## mikemueller2112

Managed to grab a few shots today, took a bit of driving around with a buddy to find something worthwhile...


----------



## Wretched

Wish we had some more extreme weather in our area. Always loved the stark beauty of icy conditions. Nice shots, man


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I don't think I ever posted these, but they're from a shoot a few weeks ago. It was mostly just an exercise in lighting cuz I still suck with artificial sources, although I don't exactly have anything legitimate, just a couple of desk lamps. Hopefully I'll be comfortable enough with artificial lighting to justify buying something a little more useable soon.










And some that I liked in colour:


----------



## Wretched

Just takes practice, and watching how the light falls on the subject, Jeff. You'll get it. The desk lamps, like the sun, are going to be pretty direct and harsh as far as lighting models go, though. It'll reduce the already meagre power output of the desk lamps... but you could try diffusing the light from them with some tissue paper or baking paper, held somehow about a foot or more from the bulb.


----------



## Wretched

Stoked one of my shoots made the cover of the latest issue of a magazine!






See more here: Jason Davidson's 1935 Ford Pickup - a set on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Wretched said:


> Just takes practice, and watching how the light falls on the subject, Jeff. You'll get it. The desk lamps, like the sun, are going to be pretty direct and harsh as far as lighting models go, though. It'll reduce the already meagre power output of the desk lamps... but you could try diffusing the light from them with some tissue paper or baking paper, held somehow about a foot or more from the bulb.



I tried diffusing it with a tissue paper, but didn't have anything to hold it up any distance from the lamp, so I just draped it up from the of the light, which didn't work particularly well  Thanks for the words of encouragement!

Also, ThePhilosopher offered to touch-up some photos from a set I shot a little while ago, and sent me a compilation of step-by-step photos and little explanations about what he did at each stage. Once I get a better computer and I can run a more in-depth editing program, I'll definitely need some practice, and this'll be a big help. Anyway, here's how it turned out:

This is the original JPEG






This was my first edit






and this is what ThePhilosopher was able to do with it:






So while there's plenty of room for me to improve with the camera, it's pretty evident that my limited knowledge and resources in image editing are also really holding me back from becoming a better photographer. So big thanks for ThePhilosopher for the tips, and the great touch-up. It looks incredible!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Well, a bad image into photoshop will only come out a polished turd of a photo or digital art.


----------



## Azyiu

A few shots from my recent trip to Osaka and Kyoto in mid-Nov, enjoy.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Just some toying around with the 15-30mm:


----------



## Tang

I just received in the mail a $25 70's/80's Tokina 135mm f/2.8 manual focus lens. I'm having a blast with it, since the K30 has catch-in focus which makes manual focus an absolute breeze. I have the feeling I'm gonna have lots of fun with this guy.


----------



## -Nolly-

I saw this while walking around my neighbourhood - the sun hadn't set but the floodlight had come on already, it gave a strange quality of light that looked quite eerie to me (it made me think of Gregory Crewdson's surreal staged twilight shots):






I've also been enjoying shooting some grimy B&W:


----------



## Tang

Nice pics, Nolly. Especially the playground. Cool vibe.

Here're some pics I took with that old manual-focus 135mm. Pain in the ass  I'm just learning how to use Lightroom 4 to it's fullest potential, but I still feel like I have a TON of work to do yet. Getting the picture is only half the battle, these days.











And for something a bit more modern.. the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.






I'll get out of the bokeh phase eventually  Rainy car trip..


----------



## Berti_smb

This was shot with Canon 550d and 18-55 3.5-5.6.
The lighting wasnt good so i think ISO was at about 1600 so there is a little bit of noise. Other than that the dog was pretty active so his leg is a little blurry


----------



## Wretched

Another newish one from the same issue as the previous image I uploaded...






See more here: Stuart Dunbar's 1929 Model-A Ford - a set on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

One quick shot from today's session, I'll be working on the flyaways later.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Tang said:


> And for something a bit more modern.. the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.



I too have this lens and love it! granted i love it because it is the only lens i own... but regardless it is a good little workhorse i think. 

because of my lens limitation i also tend gravitate towards the bookeh <-- didn't know that was the actual term for it until today


----------



## Tang

Ibanezsam4 said:


> I too have this lens and love it! granted i love it because it is the only lens i own... but regardless it is a good little workhorse i think.
> 
> because of my lens limitation i also tend gravitate towards the bookeh <-- didn't know that was the actual term for it until today



Thanks! I feel exactly the same.. it's like the kit lens on steroids, and the constant f/2.8 is great when you need it. Of course, the lens is at it's best around f/5.6 but 2.8 has great bokeh.

Also, I feel like I've become serious enough photographer that I purchased Lightroom 4. I'd been using a version from the pirate bay, but I was starting to feel a little bad, so.. at least I know I'll use it!


----------



## johnny_ace




----------



## ThePhilosopher

SOOC; this 300mm f/4 is ungodly:


----------



## Wretched

A shot from my latest shoot on a rare and historic drag car from the early '60s called the Streamliner. It's just been resurrected and is in incredible condition, but alas, due to the damage of an accident and the fibreglassing technologies of the time, most of the body has been rebuilt from scratch, but as accurately as possible. For the car fans, if runs a nitro-burning blown Hemi...






Download a free wallpaper of the image here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/benhosking/8290017024/sizes/o/in/photostream/


----------



## Tang

Neighbors chimney moon. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## pinky7

I started experimenting with some food dye and water today


----------



## Wretched

Cool effect, Pinky7.


----------



## Manurack

Norther Lights/Aurora Bearealis from Kugluktuk, Nunavut, Canada!
ENJOY!!


----------



## Whammy

Oooh never seen this thread until now 

Here are some photos I took for my portfolio to get into college for a BA in Photography. It's one set of three that I submitted.
Got accepted onto the course but couldn't do it due to other reasons...

It's just set of photos exploring the space of a bridge around where I live.


----------



## Ayo7e

Random parachute guy...


----------



## Tang

Those are some great pics Whammy..

On a photography related note, I just discovered the Lens Correction module in Lightroom.. I never noticed the vignetting on my Tamron until I saw it corrected and now I can't not see it! Lightroom spoils me.


----------



## Whammy

Cheers Tang 

Keep the vignetting. I love vignetting haha


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> Cheers Tang
> 
> Keep the vignetting. I love vignetting haha



It's not quite so bad, but very noticeable.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

An image from 2011 I never bothered to retouch until last night:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

From way back in 2009:


----------



## Whammy

Got some friends in the film industry who bring me in to document their filming process for certain projects. They normally give me free reign so I'm not stuck shooting standard documentary style photography.

Pretty sure the lens I used for all these shots was a manual lens Olympus Zuiko 55mm f1.2


----------



## xfilth

Great set!


----------



## Ibanezsam4

i posted more in the other thread which seems to have disappeared... this is something i did today 




Seawall by Sam Wro Photography, on Flickr 

not proud of it, but it is what it is 

These are more or less what i like to do: 




All the Necessities by Sam Wro Photography, on Flickr 

and this is from a wedding a few years ago: 




7/09/11 by Sam Wro Photography, on Flickr 




7/09/11 by Sam Wro Photography, on Flickr


----------



## mikemueller2112

The bride took a big load in the face in the last one


----------



## xfilth




----------



## Ayo7e

^woo I really like it.

Guys I want to buy my first SLR and I have 2 options, the nikon d5100 and the canon eos 600d, any advice? thanks!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Used Nikon D90 or D300s.


----------



## tank




----------



## Tang

Ayo7e said:


> ^woo I really like it.
> 
> Guys I want to buy my first SLR and I have 2 options, the nikon d5100 and the canon eos 600d, any advice? thanks!



out of those two, the d5100 definitely.

I tried to take some pictures of fireworks last night, but they were too far down the skyline and I didn't even think about bringing my telephoto lens. Oh well. I did get a coolish long exposure though!


----------



## -Nolly-

I've been working on a cleaner post-processing workflow, very happy with the results so far:







Also got some side-stage shots of Killswitch Engage at a couple of shows when we played with them last week:



























Full set here: Killswitch Engage @ Baltimore, MD and Stroudsburg, PA - a set on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

The low contrast B&W shots are beautifully exposed Nolly.


----------



## -Nolly-

Thanks, I was really satisfied with how they came out. I was shooting wide open with my 50/1.2 and 85/1.4, which helped deal with the low lighting on stage.
Really dig your shots too by the way Whammy


----------



## Tang

Nolly, was that Stop sign picture taken with the 50 1.2? So fucking sharp. Love it!


----------



## -Nolly-

Thanks, if you mean the exit sign then yes it was the 50/1.2, shot at f/2 though 
I love this lens so much, shots come out looking amazing SOOC - here's a before/after I posted on FB to show my processing, you can see the RAW image on the left:


----------



## Whammy

Old photo.
Was going to do a theme on a local graveyard then got lazy.

I need to get back into taking personal photos again.
Got into the habit of leaving the camera at home when out and about.


----------



## Tang

-Nolly- said:


> Thanks, if you mean the exit sign then yes it was the 50/1.2, shot at f/2 though
> I love this lens so much, shots come out looking amazing SOOC - here's a before/after I posted on FB to show my processing, you can see the RAW image on the left:



f/2 is right in that lens sweet spot. 2 stops from wide open is the rule of thumb, iirc.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

-Nolly- said:


> Thanks, if you mean the exit sign then yes it was the 50/1.2, shot at f/2 though
> I love this lens so much, shots come out looking amazing SOOC - here's a before/after I posted on FB to show my processing, you can see the RAW image on the left:



I like the adjustment to the image, but have you played with luminosity masks or maybe making it more localized? I think the sign would pop even more if the background stayed more muted and lower in contrast vs a more contrasty sign.


----------



## -Nolly-

ThePhilosopher said:


> I like the adjustment to the image, but have you played with luminosity masks or maybe making it more localized? I think the sign would pop even more if the background stayed more muted and lower in contrast vs a more contrasty sign.



Thanks dude, that would certainly be a good edit, though I felt that with the light source directly in front of the sign (out of picture)m natural vignetting from the lens and vivid red of the sign the eye was drawn appropriately with just the basic batch edit.


----------



## -Nolly-

At the other end of the scale I've been tweaking my grainy B&W look a bit today too:


----------



## Watty

Nolly, those look killer. The one with Adam running around was a pretty interesting angle too.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

It's A Good Day to be my D3: Dual Lexar UMDA 64GB CF cards
2.4K Clicks Remaining on Each Card​


----------



## mikemueller2112

Digging the processing on your B&W Nolly.

Went out with a buddy and took some photos around the city today. Was really nice day out so it was nice being able to be outside for more than 20 minutes without freezing or your equipment freezing.


----------



## Hollowway

Wow, you guys are really good! I'm just now getting into it, so I have a lot to learn. Did you guys take any classes, read books, or just read stuff online and experiment? I'm doing the latter, but I'm wondering if I should do something a little more organized.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I took two courses in high school (all film). Since then, I've had private retouching lessons and attended a couple of workshops. I watch some youtube videos every now and then; really I just look through magazines and online trying to find inspiration when I shoot.


----------



## ghostred7

I need to get a new battery for my DSLR...been out of the photo scene way too long (been doing video). Great work all.


----------



## Ayo7e

Thanks for the advices guys, I'll go for the d5100, I'm not sure about getting a second hand camera as my first slr.





This guy has some kind of anti-gravity super powers.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> It's A Good Day to be my D3: Dual Lexar UMDA 64GB CF cards
> 2.4K Clicks Remaining on Each Card​



I thought you D3 was measuring radiation there for a second.. lol..

REMS!


----------



## Ibanezsam4

mikemueller2112 said:


> The bride took a big load in the face in the last one



isnt that what being a bride is all about? you stress and you plan and you get mad at relatives, stress before the ceremony, cry during the ceremony, laugh during the reception and then take a big load in the face...


----------



## -Nolly-

Snapped this while my band has been shooting a music video. I've taken 100s of frames but can't share most of them until later:


----------



## Tang

-Nolly- said:


> Snapped this while my band has been shooting a music video. I've taken 100s of frames but can't share most of them until later:



link's fucked up nolly. Not sure if you took it down or if flickr is messing up.


----------



## -Nolly-

Tang said:


> link's fucked up nolly. Not sure if you took it down or if flickr is messing up.



Huh, weird. Here it is linked from my Tumblr instead:


----------



## Wretched

One of my latest published works for an Australian magazine called Heavy Duty... awesome bike!


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> One of my latest published works for an Australian magazine called Heavy Duty... awesome bike!



I enjoy your work! How much experience did it take to get as good as you are with strobes? I really dig the lighting on everything you've posted so far.


----------



## Wretched

Thanks Tang! I jumped in at the deep end, to be honest. Shortly after I bought three Speedlites, I did a trial shoot in my driveway on a mate's car to see that I could actually get something usable, then booked my first shoot for publication.

Granted, I did quite a bit of reading online about the process from other strobist guys and had a bit of guidance from a couple of other pros that I work with from time to time.

It's really not something to be scared of and with the YN-brand gear being so cheap, it doesn't have to cost the earth to get into it, either. Feel free to follow my lighting setup info on my Flickr page and give it a go.


----------



## -Nolly-

Few more portraits using lighting from our video shoot:
















And some more grainy B&W stuff:


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> Thanks Tang! I jumped in at the deep end, to be honest. Shortly after I bought three Speedlites, I did a trial shoot in my driveway on a mate's car to see that I could actually get something usable, then booked my first shoot for publication.
> 
> Granted, I did quite a bit of reading online about the process from other strobist guys and had a bit of guidance from a couple of other pros that I work with from time to time.
> 
> It's really not something to be scared of and with the YN-brand gear being so cheap, it doesn't have to cost the earth to get into it, either. Feel free to follow my lighting setup info on my Flickr page and give it a go.



Back when I had my T3 I used one of the E-TTL Yungnao speedlights and I loved it. I'm currently researching speedlights for my Pentax because while I love bumping up the ISO to get useable shutter speeds, a flash would really help out my photography.


----------



## Tang

will you look at this shit? it's a teeny-tiny L lens!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Nolly, leave EXIF intact - I dig those photos.


----------



## -Nolly-

ThePhilosopher said:


> Nolly, leave EXIF intact - I dig those photos.



Thanks dude, the exif should be there! It comes up on Flickr anyway - Flickr: -Nolly-'s Photostream


----------



## ThePhilosopher

It's on Flickr, just not on your photos themselves - I guess Flickr strips the metadata, and builds the information for viewing that data from the Flickr site only. That's kind of crappy that they do that.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> It's on Flickr, just not on your photos themselves - I guess Flickr strips the metadata, and builds the information for viewing that data from the Flickr site only. That's kind of crappy that they do that.



imgur does the same thing. I imagine it's for safety issues/geotagging. It'll only show your geotagged info if you elect to show it.
`
`


----------



## ThePhilosopher

They could probably choose to just strip that part...I don't include Geotag in my metadata.


----------



## -Nolly-

Yeah, that is weird, I'm surprised they bother doing that instead of just hosting the picture as it was uploaded.


----------



## Ayo7e

Hey! I 've just opened a new thread about my Nc(camera)d.


----------



## -Nolly-

Some night-time street shots with my 85mm:


----------



## Wretched

Another shoot recently published... nice '32 3-window coupe:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Nice Nolly, I'm trying to find someone who might trade their 85mm f/1.4 or 105mm (or 135mm) f/2 DC for my 300mm f/4 AF-S.


----------



## -Nolly-

Dig that first shot Wretched, I'd like to start messing around with strobist work soon, your notes are useful starting points!



ThePhilosopher said:


> Nice Nolly, I'm trying to find someone who might trade their 85mm f/1.4 or 105mm (or 135mm) f/2 DC for my 300mm f/4 AF-S.



Cheers, yeah I find the 85mm length really usable when out and about. Mine's the Sigma 85/1.4 - insanely sharp even wide open.


----------



## Ayo7e

From my ncd thread, I think that I should post some of the pics here too.



Ayo7e said:


>



As always any critique/advice is welcome.


----------



## Wretched

Taking good street photography isn't as easy as some might suggest... well done!


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> Taking good street photography isn't as easy as some might suggest... well done!



I think getting the balls to actually go out and shoot street is the hardest part. I'm a goddamned chicken, so I take pictures of my dogs. I'd love to do street though. Get a 35mm prime and just enjoy the art.

Ayo: Still love the train tracks.


----------



## Berti_smb

iPod shoot with 550d and 50mm 1.8 (my friends lens) which i had for 2 minutes only, this was my first shot, not very good but ok


----------



## Tang

Berti_smb said:


> iPod shoot with 550d and 50mm 1.8 (my friends lens) which i had for 2 minutes only, this was my first shot, not very good but ok



I just went and found the first pic I found when I got my 50mm when I had a Canon. I loved that lens, but I wish it had image stabilization.


----------



## Berti_smb

And too bad for the build quality, it is all plastic, even mount is plastic  i think i am gonna save for some canon/sigma 30mm 1.4, focal distance od crop cameras with 50mm is huge (80mm in real)


----------



## Murmel

Tang said:


> I think getting the balls to actually go out and shoot street is the hardest part. I'm a goddamned chicken, so I take pictures of my dogs. I'd love to do street though. Get a 35mm prime and just enjoy the art.



I'm not a photographer, but I'm always amazed how some of them can just go around taking pictures in the middle of a crowded area without giving a single fuck. I can barely bring up my phone to snap a shot of something because I think it's embarrassing 

I'd love to get into photography sometime. But right now, I neither have time nor money. Hopefully I can try it out sometime in the future.


----------



## Tang

Berti_smb said:


> And too bad for the build quality, it is all plastic, even mount is plastic  i think i am gonna save for some canon/sigma 30mm 1.4, focal distance od crop cameras with 50mm is huge (80mm in real)



The Sigma 30 1.4 is an amazing little lens. Center sharpness is incredible but I read it does have a very pronounced distortion when photographing certain scenes. I almost bought a copy for my Pentax but I chose to get Pentax's 35 2.4 which I adore. 50's on a crop body are great for portraits. I'd choose the 1.4 over the 1.8 because of build quality and because of the quality of the bokeh. 

Tldr: every beginner should have a 35mm or 50mm prime.


----------



## Wretched

Another new one... a 1976 Holden Torana. The exteriors are all available light for a change. The interior is using Speedlites.


----------



## soliloquy




----------



## Wretched

Like the car park shot. Looks noisy though, what did you shoot it on?


----------



## soliloquy

/\ wish i could remember the settings.
but i was using my Pentax K-x dslr

its weird, this camera used to take far better night pictures. something happened recently where its just lacking...


----------



## Tang

soliloquy said:


> /\ wish i could remember the settings.
> but i was using my Pentax K-x dslr
> 
> its weird, this camera used to take far better night pictures. something happened recently where its just lacking...



Hello fellow Pentax user! I'm currently using a K30 and I LOVE it. Which settings were you using for the night shots, or do you have the EXIF data available?? For science, I'll show you various ISO levels on my Pentax so we can see how the noise has changed from generation to generation. Also, do you use a tripod when taking nightshots? I'm trying to diagnose why your pics would get worse over time.




Christmas Jenn Bokeh! ISO2000. by nrrfed, on Flickr




Hershey and Mona ISO4000. by nrrfed, on Flickr




Sid and Mona ISO6400. by nrrfed, on Flickr

not great shots but any means (well, I really love the hershey and mona pic cuz they're my babies.) but I enjoy the way the K30 handles high-iso noise. Light sharpening in Lightroom and no noise reduction, and I believe I had high-iso noise reduction turned off in-camera.


----------



## soliloquy

/\ wish i could remember
what settings do you use yours on?


----------



## Tang

I usually have mine set on TAv mode which is basically manual mode with auto-ISO. I have mine set to use anything from ISO100-6400. If the situation is dire and I don't have my tripod or something to rest the camera on I'll bump it up to 12800 but it's only useable if I'll be putting the pictures online. I'd hate to see how it'd look printed!

This one was taken with my Pentax 35mm f/2.4. I wanted to see what a scene would like with a long-exposure and a good deal of bokeh. David the Gnome is my go to model when it comes to testing out bokeh 




David the Bokeh Gnome. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Antenna long-exposure. by nrrfed, on Flickr

Love how this turned out in the end. I started off the night trying to do star trails but it got cloudy pretty damn fast. So.. ANTENNA TIME!


----------



## Wretched

Cool shot, but it looks like you've got some dust on your sensor, Tang.


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> Cool shot, but it looks like you've got some dust on your sensor, Tang.



I think you're exactly right. I believe it's dust that's falling from the rear of the lens onto the sensor when normally the mirror would block it. This normally wouldn't be a problem, but with the lens pointing straight up.. Would an air blower work for the lens? Once I noticed it on the LCD a quick sensor clean did the trick.

Thanks for the kind words. I'm trying to take more than just snapshots and incorporating post processing to the artistic flow.


----------



## -Nolly-

Pretty stoked with how this came out!


----------



## Wretched

Tang said:


> I think you're exactly right. I believe it's dust that's falling from the rear of the lens onto the sensor when normally the mirror would block it. This normally wouldn't be a problem, but with the lens pointing straight up.. Would an air blower work for the lens? Once I noticed it on the LCD a quick sensor clean did the trick.
> 
> Thanks for the kind words. I'm trying to take more than just snapshots and incorporating post processing to the artistic flow.



I use a simple air blower on my lenses every time I swap them over and usually blow any dust from the front of the lens periodically during a shoot to be sure and potentially save time later. I only ever blow out the inside of the camera body rarely, but often blow dust away from around the area before removing a lens to try and prevent any dust from entering when the lens is off. The built-in sensor cleaner seems to do a good job of keeping mine clean, despite often working in dusty areas.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I have my sensor cleaned about every 4-6 months (depending on frequency of use) just because the D3 slings whatever lubrication is inside about like no one's business. I don't trust myself to clean it like the local place does.


----------



## Ayo7e

Hey fellas!

















Some of the photos I took yesterday.


----------



## Wretched

A nice 1966 Triumph Bonneville. Shot another Trumpy on the same day at the same location that I'll post some other time.


----------



## -Nolly-

Still in love with the 50/1.2, it renders colours so beautifully


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I almost want a DSLR that can shoot video, then I remember I suck at guitar.


----------



## Wretched

My 7D shoots 1080p and I've only used that function once... for about 10 seconds. Never did bother to take it off the camera before formatting the CF card


----------



## JEngelking

Hey all! Really nice looking at all your great photos. I've always liked photography and would like to get into it more, starting with a nice camera (thinking a Rebel T3i, friend has one and it seems really nice), sometime in the near future. For now though, I wanted to post this here. It's not anything amazing and wasn't taken with that great a camera, but I like this picture a lot and thought it turned out well.


----------



## Azyiu

Wretched said:


> My 7D shoots 1080p and I've only used that function once... for about 10 seconds. Never did bother to take it off the camera before formatting the CF card



I actually have shot quite alot of clips, but you know what? I actually don't have any software to edit them!


----------



## Wretched

Well, there's no shortage of options, but like most things, there's a learning curve to the pro stuff. Plenty of tutorial stuff about, though.


----------



## Wretched

I liked how this shoot came out. I used different processing methods in Lightroom than I usually do which created some more dramatic results. I was happy to see that they also printed nicely when blown up to double-page spreads...







I also took a few of his partner, who had rocked up in her retro gear for the occasion:


----------



## Azyiu

Wretched said:


> I liked how this shoot came out. *I used different processing methods in Lightroom than I usually do* which created some more dramatic results. I was happy to see that they also printed nicely when blown up to double-page spreads...



I am a Lr4.2 user myself. Care to elaborate a bit more? Thanks.


----------



## Wretched

Sure man. Wish I could remember the settings I used on this one though... it was done before I started properly cataloging and making collections in LR4.


----------



## Azyiu

Wretched said:


> Sure man. Wish I could remember the settings I used on this one though... it was done before I started properly cataloging and making collections in LR4.



Sure. As for me, I use this user setting when I import photos, before I do any further editing. And it goes something like:

Basic
Black level: -10
Vibrance: 20
Saturation: 10

Color
Red: 10
Orange: 5

Lens Correction: On

Or something like that.


----------



## pinky7

Whats the best way to post pictures on this thread? I have some id like to share, but dont know how.


----------



## bannyd

go to imgur.com 
upload pics there
then use the


----------



## Wretched

Azyiu said:


> Sure. As for me, I use this user setting when I import photos, before I do any further editing. And it goes something like:
> 
> Basic
> Black level: -10
> Vibrance: 20
> Saturation: 10
> 
> Color
> Red: 10
> Orange: 5
> 
> Lens Correction: On
> 
> Or something like that.



I must confess that I am yet to create any user presets for importing or processing. I just let it do its normal importing sharpening and I add my copyright metadata.

Withing LR4 I use the histogram to govern a lot of my lightening and highlight reduction etc (if applicable) these days. I didn't always, simply using my eyes to govern what alterations I made. Interestingly, despite looking back now to find blocked out blacks in most of my old work, they still printed very well.

Until recently I'd always vignette the exterior shots of the cars by about -20 with a radius of 70. I still do for the most part. Lens correction and abberation correction as well. I used to use the curves panel in LR3 to reduce shadows by 10, but now using the histogram and LR4's better sliders in the main panel, I don't bother.

I also used to use saturation (+20 in many cases) a lot. I haven't touched it since getting LR4, but do add about +30 of Clarity for non-portrait stuff, sometimes more. For portraits of dudes I'll still add 10 to 20 of Clarity. For women I'm not sure I'd add any as it tends to exaggerate the wrinkles etc. I also usually add some Vibrance in the region of +20.

I admit that I'm in the habit of allowing some highlights to blow out if I feel the image is looking alive and has impact (to a degree, of course). I Don't think it pertinent to pull back everything to appease the histogram if the image LOOKS good.

I regularly make use of the WB function in LR, normally letting the camera take care of it on Auto during the shoot. That is, unless I'm shooting under artificial light or pointing my camera at things like red leather interiors of cars where the camera often starts trying to adjust to a very blue WB setting and putting me off as a result. I'll then set the WB manually to around 5000k. I've found messing with the WB in LR can have a more marked effect on images than simply making them look warmer or cooler - particularly in black and white conversions.

I don't usually use any noise reduction, except in extreme cases for live photography. Even then, I rarely use it. I do use sharpening, but you need to keep in mind that LR4 will add some level of sharpening in import AND in export, unless you tell it not to. Often that can be enough, but I usually add around +20-+30 for car stuff. Live music stuff often cops some extreme sharpening - sometimes maxed out.


----------



## Khoi

hey guys

I'm new to this photography thread, but I've been shooting for a couple years now (mostly as a videographer)

I aspire to go to film school, and recently got a Canon 5D Mark III, but I figured I might as well improve in my photography as well.

all of these were shot with a 5D Mark III with a 24-105mm f/4, except the alligator, which was shot with my Canon T2i + Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8

more from my Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

Here are some of my shots: sorry, I got a little picture happy


----------



## Azyiu

Wretched said:


> I must confess that I am yet to create any user presets for importing or processing. I just let it do its normal importing sharpening and I add my copyright metadata.



I just started using the user preset tool very recently only. So far it helps saving my time in most case.




Wretched said:


> Withing LR4 I use the histogram to govern a lot of my lightening and highlight reduction etc (if applicable) these days. I didn't always, simply using my eyes to govern what alterations I made. Interestingly, despite looking back now to find blocked out blacks in most of my old work, they still printed very well.



I think I do a bit of both, depending on the shot I think. Sometimes the histogram would tell me the shot is under-exposed or something, yet visually that seems to be the look I aim for. In those cases I just use my eyes to judge... or I should say 9 out of 10 times that's what I do. 




Wretched said:


> Until recently I'd always vignette the exterior shots of the cars by about -20 with a radius of 70. I still do for the most part. Lens correction and abberation correction as well. I used to use the curves panel in LR3 to reduce shadows by 10, but now using the histogram and LR4's better sliders in the main panel, I don't bother.
> 
> I also used to use saturation (+20 in many cases) a lot. I haven't touched it since getting LR4, but do add about +30 of Clarity for non-portrait stuff, sometimes more. For portraits of dudes I'll still add 10 to 20 of Clarity. For women I'm not sure I'd add any as it tends to exaggerate the wrinkles etc. I also usually add some Vibrance in the region of +20.



Interestingly, I never really vignette much of my shots, and believe it or not, I guess I am old school, or simply I am just OLD  I tend to go for that "realistic" look in my shots. By that I mean (can't think of a better way to describe it) I try to capture the scene the way I see it, with minimal processing.




Wretched said:


> I admit that I'm in the habit of allowing some highlights to blow out if I feel the image is looking alive and has impact (to a degree, of course). I Don't think it pertinent to pull back everything to appease the histogram if the image LOOKS good.
> 
> I regularly make use of the WB function in LR, normally letting the camera take care of it on Auto during the shoot. That is, unless I'm shooting under artificial light or pointing my camera at things like red leather interiors of cars where the camera often starts trying to adjust to a very blue WB setting and putting me off as a result. I'll then set the WB manually to around 5000k. I've found messing with the WB in LR can have a more marked effect on images than simply making them look warmer or cooler - particularly in black and white conversions.
> 
> I don't usually use any noise reduction, except in extreme cases for live photography. Even then, I rarely use it. I do use sharpening, but you need to keep in mind that LR4 will add some level of sharpening in import AND in export, unless you tell it not to. Often that can be enough, but I usually add around +20-+30 for car stuff. Live music stuff often cops some extreme sharpening - sometimes maxed out.



At one time I was picky about WB, but no more. Like you do, I usually just let my camera's auto WB does the job, unless I am shooting indoor or with a flash or something. I do mostly general photography outdoor, so typically I don't need to make any special WB setting on my camera. Of course, something tells me I really should use manual WB when I am shooting a model.

And I also typically won't do anything for noise reduction and sharpening either. Unless, again, it is an outdoor night shot or long exposure type of shot.


----------



## Azyiu

Ok, I finally moved my lazy butt and looked up to my Adobe Lr4.2 user's preset settings. Here we go and feel free to comments:

*Basic*
WB: Auto
Blacks: -10
Clarity: +5
Vibrance: +20
Saturation: +10

*Color*
Red - Saturation: +10
Orange - Saturation: +5
Blue - Saturation: +5

*Split Toning*
Highlights - Saturation: +3

*Lens Corrections*
Enable Profile Corrections

*Camera Calibration*
Process: 2012
Profile: Camera Standard


----------



## Khoi

I've just purchased a new 50mm, to finally replace my Canon 50mm f/1.8. I felt a little silly using that lens on my 5D Mark III. I know most people with a Mark III would probably opt for the Canon 50mm f/1.2L, but that's a little out of my budget, and some reviews have shown that the Sigma actually produces some sharper images and better bokeh than the 1.2L.

if anyone is looking for a pretty good deal, I got the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 for $359 (no tax, free shipping) here: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Autofocus Lens for Canon SLR $359 - Slickdeals.net


----------



## ThePhilosopher

1900+ images and 3 hours of shooting this time lapse test; feel free to watch in full 1080 on youtube:


----------



## Wretched

Nice man, what did you use to stitch it together?


----------



## Azyiu

Got me a new tripod on Saturday.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Wretched said:


> Nice man, what did you use to stitch it together?



VirtualDub.


----------



## pinky7

Im studying a semester in Thailand, here are some pictures iv taken so far...


----------



## jbard

I just got back from Tokyo and am just starting to go through all the pictures. Here's a straight from camera shot example of some of the fun:


----------



## Wretched

Azyiu said:


> Got me a new tripod on Saturday.



Mmm, Gitzo...

I use a Manfrotto set of legs with a matching 3-axis geared head.


----------



## Azyiu

Wretched said:


> Mmm, Gitzo...
> 
> I use a Manfrotto set of legs with a matching 3-axis geared head.



Actually I like and use both brands! 

For this tripod, it is really LIGHT, and it weights at around just under 3lbs, I think; yet its load limit is a whopping 12lbs!! The only downside (for some it is) is that, it only reaches eye level or at around 5'5" when fully extended. I have zero problem with it, since I only going to use it for some general stuff; but I am sure some photographers need their tripods much longer or taller for their needs.


----------



## -Nolly-

Khoi said:


> hey guys
> 
> I'm new to this photography thread, but I've been shooting for a couple years now (mostly as a videographer)
> 
> I aspire to go to film school, and recently got a Canon 5D Mark III, but I figured I might as well improve in my photography as well.
> 
> all of these were shot with a 5D Mark III with a 24-105mm f/4, except the alligator, which was shot with my Canon T2i + Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8
> 
> more from my Flickr: Flickr: bnguyen227's Photostream
> 
> Here are some of my shots: sorry, I got a little picture happy
> 
> ......



Awesome work dude, I love your processing, exactly the look I dig


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I feel overly prepared with my 66lb load capacity tripod but I hope to get an 8x10 camera eventually.


----------



## Khoi

-Nolly- said:


> Awesome work dude, I love your processing, exactly the look I dig



thanks man, that really means a lot coming from you! I love your photography, really dig the way you frame and compose your shots, and your B&W processing is some of the best I've seen.

I'm still trying to develop my own style and process, right now I process each picture individually in Photoshop RAW Editor so there's a large variance in the way my pictures look.. which is good and bad, mostly bad.

I took some shots tonight at a local gig with my friend's band, and really like how this shot came out, especially the colors. If I could process the colors like this every time, I'd be happy


----------



## Tang

I was out this morning trying to get pictures of my dogs, but the direct sunlight made for shitty pictures. Out of the corner of my eye I saw a squirrel running along my fence so I turned the focus ring as quickly as I could (7ft to almost 30ft) and held down the shutter. Xenu bless 6fps. Trying to get shots like that without autofocus is more difficult than I could've imagined. The sad reality is that modern, stock DSLR's aren't designed for manual focus.




Flying Squirrel. 135mm f/5.6. by nrrfed, on Flickr



-Nolly- said:


> Awesome work dude, I love your processing, exactly the look I dig



Nolly, I thought they WERE your pics due to the look of the processing.


----------



## Khoi

Tang said:


> Nolly, I thought they WERE your pics due to the look of the processing.




Great minds think alike 

I ran across this particular photographer when I began my quest for that muted look, but still can't quite nail what he does! 

his name is Kyle Thompson

Here are some of his albums: 

http://www.kylethompsonphotography.com/
Surreal Self Portraits - Imgur
Surreal Self Portraits Update - Imgur


----------



## Ayo7e

Nice photos Khoi!





My yorky. 





My moss.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I finally got a good computer (using a MacBook Pro now) and photoshop! To say I'm even scratching the surface of its capabilities would be a stretch, but I've been experimenting and I'm already seeing results miles and miles better than what I was working with before!

A couple from a trip down to Vermont this weekend:






This one of me was taken by someone else. It didn't come out very sharp, but I messed around with it in photoshop and really like the grainy texture I got out of it. Gives it a sort of oldschool vibe.


----------



## Khoi

my notion has always been... 

"when in grain, black and white!"


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Khoi said:


> my notion has always been...
> 
> "when in grain, black and white!"



Funny you should say that, because I processed a B&W version also!






I'm not sure which I prefer, but the super-muted tones in the colour version really do it for me.


----------



## Khoi

in this case, I actually prefer the color one. It has a very cinematic feel to it, like it was a screen cap taken straight from a movie


----------



## -Nolly-

Khoi said:


> thanks man, that really means a lot coming from you! I love your photography, really dig the way you frame and compose your shots, and your B&W processing is some of the best I've seen.
> 
> I'm still trying to develop my own style and process, right now I process each picture individually in Photoshop RAW Editor so there's a large variance in the way my pictures look.. which is good and bad, mostly bad.



Oh wow, that's really flattering, thank you so much 

I think the constant changing of approach is part and parcel of any creative work, it was interesting to me to talk with some of my favourite photographers and find that they do exactly that, yet to me their work always has a distinctive look/style. I think that reinforces that the common thread is always yourself, no matter the approach you have attributes in mind that you strive for with your work and ultimately it's that that creates the consistency throughout a body of work. It also helps when you have a large set of images from the same shoot, rather than just single unrelated frames, where the processing tends to be a lot more in depth.

Anyway, I'm sure you've come across them already but check out Nirrimi, Andria Lindquist, Sara K Byrne, Ed Peers and Sean Flanigan if you want inspiration.


----------



## Fiction

JeffFromMtl said:


>



This shot is awesome, really love the whole thing.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Went back to the factory again recently. I like how these ones turned out.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Fiction said:


> This shot is awesome, really love the whole thing.



Thanks, dude!


----------



## Wretched

A few shots of a Ferrari FF and Maserati GranCabrio Sport for PGA Australia Escapes magazine... First time I've shot anything not modified or restored. Was a nice experience.


----------



## -Nolly-

It's funny, I went to NAMM expecting to take 1000's of pictures but when I was there felt little or no desire to. The only pictures of guitars I took were of Keith Merrow's new Mayones 7, out on the hotel balcony:

















I also quite like this candid portrait of Wes Hauch at a diner:


----------



## Khoi

again your black and white shots prove to be amazing!

what mode do you typically shoot in?

full manual? I find myself shooting in Av most of the time


----------



## -Nolly-

Cheers dude! I shoot manual the vast majority of the time, but I do really like aperture priority for street shooting or any environment with rapidly changing scenes where you can only get one or two shots. I do find myself using the exposure compensation a lot when I do that though.


----------



## Khoi

ah I see I see

well I just got my Sigma 50mm 1.4 in... and in the famous words of Kai, Bokehlicious!

super quick shot from my desk:


----------



## Azyiu

@ Wretched

Love your car shots as always! I believe I asked how many lights or basic setting for those kind of shots many moons ago. If it is quite ok with you, I'd also like to know more specificially how would you lit the scene both indoor and outdoor respectively? 

Also, which light meter do you use (if any)? What about shutter speed and aperture settings on your camera? Exposure on your shots always look right on the money, man. I am just an enthusiast, but would love to get better. Thanks in advance!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I believe most of his exterior shots are natural light (and I'll go out on a limb and say possibly spot metering in the camera).


----------



## Wretched

Azyiu said:


> @ Wretched
> 
> Love your car shots as always! I believe I asked how many lights or basic setting for those kind of shots many moons ago. If it is quite ok with you, I'd also like to know more specificially how would you lit the scene both indoor and outdoor respectively?
> 
> Also, which light meter do you use (if any)? What about shutter speed and aperture settings on your camera? Exposure on your shots always look right on the money, man. I am just an enthusiast, but would love to get better. Thanks in advance!



Hey Azyiu,

Until recently I was using three flashes for most of the 'lit' exterior shots, with two lighting the side of the and one for the front/rear (whichever was facing). Except for white cars, which often require a 1/2 power setting, I'm always firing the flashes at full power and bare (no umbrellas or anything) for the exterior shots, set to their widest zoom setting (generally 24mm). I also almost always have the flashes up on light stands at around head height. Some guys use them at floor level on their little plastic stands, which I too started with, but prefer the look they give when lighting from above. 

lighting for bikes is often similar in terms of positioning the lighting, however I'll usually use white umbrellas for the flashes lighting the long side of the bike to really light up the chrome work. On the facing end of the bike (front or rear tyre), I'll usually use a bare flash that is shooting through a snoot, to only focus light onto the tyre and headlight area. However, I find you just have to take each scenario as it comes. Now I have five flashes, I find myself adding some more rim lighting to the bike shoots by firing bare flashes from the opposite side of the bike to get more separation from the background - particularly in darker locations.

For engine bay shots and trunk shots, I'll usually just use two flashes on full power through white umbrellas, with one to the left and one to the right. I've found I can get some great dimensionality and depth in the look of the image by mixing that up a little on open-engine cars like hot rods by having one provide back lighting from behind the engine and one from the front. Occasionally I'll throw in a third flash on 1/16 power and bare, putting some rim lighting up from underneath the engine at ground level.

For the wide interior shots, I usually use my 10-22mm EF-S lens at 10mm. I have two flashes firing in through white umbrellas on full power, one through either open door and have the owner or owner's friend holding a third flash that's firing in through the windscreen on 1/2 to 1/4 power. This third flash helps get some light onto the upright sections of the front seats. Detail shots inside the cars are usually taken with just the two main flashes through white umbrellas on full power (close up shots of shifters, gauges etc).

As for camera settings, I tend to shoot at 160iso, which is considered a 'native' Canon iso ('native' iso's for Canon are multiples of 160 and some believe they offer less noise. I don't know if I prescribe to that, but I've found no difference between 100 and 160, so make use of the extra latitude). I also tend to stick to 1/160th sec for my flash work where the light permits it. Fastest sync speed for the flashes is 1/250th, but I find the tail end of the shot usually starts to vignette, so open up to 160th to avoid that. If I'm trying to shoot with the flashes in bright daylight, I use an ND filter over the lens to allow me to shoot at 160th (it varies between an ND4 and ND8).

For f-stops, I hover around f7.1 for my flash work. It provides sharpness from the front of the car to the back and keeps the light hitting the car from the flashes nice and even. Open up more and it tends to create hot spots from the flashes - stop down and the impact of the flashes is incrementally reduced. It's just the setting I've found most comfortable and certain situations call for higher settings, like silver cars, white cars etc. Naturally, you also make a big impact on the intensity of light by moving the flashes further or closer from the subject.

For most of my exterior shots, I love getting really far back with my 70-200mm f2.8L for a very natural perspective... and the lens' incredible sharpness. I've often joked with owners that if this lens had sex organs, I'd diddle it. I LOVE this lens. Also perfect for panning shots thanks to its IS system.

Anyway, I hope this offers some insight. You can find lighting info and EXIF data on all my pics on my Flickr page... HoskingIndustries' photosets on Flickr. Don't hesitate to go check them out. I found reading the settings from guys already doing this kind of thing very helpful when I started out and have made an effort to try and give the same level of info back to anyone else who wants to learn.

Edit: Oh, and I just use the camera's light meter. I've found no need for a fancy one and don't have an assistant to hold it for me, anyway.

Cheers,


----------



## Ayo7e

^


Some photos I took yesterday.

Pine Bark.











Those 2 hills at the horizon belong to a neighboring island called La Palma (teorical catastrofic tsunami related)


----------



## Wretched

This insane rat rod was supposedly built for a mere $42 using parts from around the owner's workshop! The body is actually a phantom, built around a tube framework. powered by a high-comp' 327ci SBC.


----------



## -Nolly-

^ Wow that thing looks nuts haha. Great work as always Wretched


----------



## Wretched

Thanks Nolly! Nice of you to say.


----------



## Azyiu

@ Wretched

Thanks so so much for sharing your settings, and insight with us! Now I feel like getting a pair of ND filters (ND4 and ND8) after reading your detailed info. Please correct me if I am wrong on this, but if your car shots look nice using the ND filter, they too can be used on portriats? They shouldn't have any negative impact on skin tone or anything like that, right? Or would you recommend using something different (like gel on lights) when shooting a model instead?


----------



## Wretched

Nd filters are simply dark tinted glass, intended to limit the light entering the lens. Most often, they're used by landscape photographers to allow them to get that fairy floss water effect in streams and waterfalls during the day or when enough of them are used, to even get streaking clouds in the middle of the day. Some portrait shooters use them for daylight portraits where they want to obtain a shallow depth of field, despite the amount of light in the scene.

For me shooting cars with strobes, it is similar to the portrait shooter trying to get to the point where they NEED to shoot at a larger f-stop (for me, f7.1 for example) despite the 'normal' f-stop requirement of, say, f13 at 1/160th in bright daylight etc. It might not make sense at first, but using the little Speedlite flashes, you need to try and use a larger f-stop to get enough light from the flashes onto your subject. Stop down too much and their effect will be next to nothing - and of course, you're limited to a maximum of 1/250th sec with the flash sync, otherwise you'll see no flash effect at all.

So, to directly answer your question about portraits and skin tones, an ND should have NO effect on anything like that. It's job is simply to let less light hit the sensor.


----------



## Khoi




----------



## ThePhilosopher

Unless you get the B+W warming ND filter . I love using NDs; and I've used them on portraits before but I don't have time to go find them. I have a 10-stop and 2-stop ND.





NIKON D3 w/24.0mm f/2.8 Shot at 9:08am
Aperture: f/8.0, Exposure Time: 32.000s, ISO equiv: 200





NIKON D3 w/24.0mm f/2.8 Shot at 9:28am
Aperture: f/2.8, Exposure Time: 13.000s, ISO equiv: 400





NIKON D3 w/28.0-70mm f/2.8 Shot at 12:11pm
Aperture: f/11, Exposure Time: 20.000s, ISO equiv: 100​


----------



## Tang

Nolly and Khoi: How exactly do you guys achieve that muted tone with your processing? I'm trying to improvise it here with Lightroom 4, but having next to no luck. I have a shot I took at a mall (of all places) that I think would look really cool in that style.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A horizontally stretched gentle S curve in the curves adjustment layer can do that some (especially if you bring up the black point and bring down the white point). It'll decrease contrast at the ends of the dynamic range and still keep some contrast in the midtones.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> A horizontally stretched gentle S curve in the curves adjustment layer can do that some (especially if you bring up the black point and bring down the white point). It'll decrease contrast at the ends of the dynamic range and still keep some contrast in the midtones.



Thanks sir. Giving it a shot right now.

EDIT: Curves are INCREDIBLY powerful. I had no idea.


----------



## Khoi

Tang said:


> Nolly and Khoi: How exactly do you guys achieve that muted tone with your processing? I'm trying to improvise it here with Lightroom 4, but having next to no luck. I have a shot I took at a mall (of all places) that I think would look really cool in that style.



it's all in the curves! 

I also do a lot of the coloring with the curves of the RBG values. Very fun to use when you get the hang of it


----------



## Tang

Attempt #1. I added a bit of juice from DXO Filmpack, but only for grain. Almost all of the edits were done with curves. 




Symmetry. by nrrfed, on Flickr

EDIT: here's the original version, which I took as almost a quick snapshot. I love how the processing gave it an all new character.

http://i.imgur.com/A9D955ul.jpg


----------



## Khoi

pull the very bottom left point on the curve up vertically to get the matte over it. It helps to put some points on the line to keep the rest of it straight though


----------



## Tang

Khoi said:


> pull the very bottom left point on the curve up vertically to get the matte over it. It helps to put some points on the line to keep the rest of it straight though



Eureka! I can see how this could abused, but I adore the look it gives photos. 

Thanks guys! Here's my attempt at the 'matte' version.




Symmetry (matte version) by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

I'm very jealous of the gear (and photos) many of you guys are using, even though I don't know camera gear well enough to fully appreciate it. 
I'm trying to get into a bit of amateur photography and hope to get skilled enough to justify a better camera than my Sony a350. Pointers and tips are greatly appreciated. 


























And then there's the photoshop skills to develop.
My mate from Matsu Photography did a bit of sesh with my capoeira master and I a few weeks back. Dude can sure capture a moment.






cheers!


----------



## Decreate

Long time no post.


----------



## Khoi

sick shot, but something about the balance is throwing it off for me


----------



## Wretched

Yeah, the mood is great, but the lines need to be straightened. Unless the building actually WAS slanted!

capoeiraesp, your shots look good. You seem to have the gist of using light and depth of field to tell the story. Most folks don't find that to come naturally.


----------



## Azyiu

@ Decreate

Almost forgot you live in Macau. I will be visiting there in a week to see my mom.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Wretched said:


> Yeah, the mood is great, but the lines need to be straightened. Unless the building actually WAS slanted!
> 
> capoeiraesp, your shots look good. You seem to have the gist of using light and depth of field to tell the story. Most folks don't find that to come naturally.



Thanks dude! That means a lot.


----------



## Berti_smb

My drummers dog with Canon 550d + 50mm 1.8 II


----------



## Tang

Berti_smb said:


> My drummers dog with Canon 550d + 50mm 1.8 II



Looks great! Your gsd just seems to jump out of the picture, lovely.


----------



## wilch

Dillon Optics Logan and Greasewood Sunglasses by wilch, on Flickr




Dillon Optics Logan and Greasewood Sunglasses by wilch, on Flickr


----------



## Khoi

hahah that's sick man


----------



## bulb

wow some amazing photographers in this thread!


----------



## bulb

Here are some random picks (no pun intended) from recent photography that I am at least decently happy with, still got a long way to go, especially when looking at some of the immense talent in this thread! (wretched, absolutely LOVE your car photos!!)


----------



## Khoi

Nice Misha, cool of you to join us!


here are a couple newer shots of mine.

I'm currently in the process of making a new water mark as well, so that'll be coming in the future..


----------



## Wretched

Thanks for the props, bulb! Always nice to get some nice feedback. Glad to see you guys posting stuff and sharing your other passions/skills.

Was hoping to shoot you guys at the Annandale again this time around (see last pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/benhosking/sets/72157627249747627/). The Annandale is less than ideal for shooting gigs, but you guys put on a good show last time, despite the cramped conditions. They've been doing some renovating there since you last visited, so you should be more comfortable this time around.


----------



## Ayo7e

Welcome Misha! This thread is getting better and better.


----------



## Khoi

most definitely digging that mountain shot!

what do you guys think of my new watermark? 

I designed it with my roommate, and he was able to make it in Rhino/Adobe Illustrator

I'm most definitely digging it so far!


----------



## Tang

Ayo7e said:


> Welcome Misha! This thread is getting better and better.



goddamn, you've got an eye.


----------



## -Nolly-

Got a few shots of my drummer Matt at rehearsal today, they're the first pictures I've taken in a while that I actually like.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Personally I think he watermark is too busy and would distract from thephotos.


----------



## -Nolly-

I dislike watermarking my photos but inevitably things related to Periphery tend to get reposted around a lot so I like to make sure they get credited correctly.


----------



## Khoi

here's a better idea of how the watermark looks with a picture, I don't think it's too obtrusive. The idea is also to use it for my personal video production as well, so I can relate both my photography and videography.


----------



## -Nolly-

My bad, totally thought you were referring to the watermarks in my pictures Philosopher!
FWIW I think the watermark is suitable subtle in that shot, though the detail isn't particularly apparent.


----------



## bulb

I am so pro watermarks that I managed to convince Nolly to start using them again even though he doesn't like em haha.


----------



## bulb

Also that one looks really nice Khoi, as do your pics hehe!


----------



## Wretched

Love the white faux fur interior!


----------



## Ayo7e

More photos! I went to a botanic garden today. As always any advice/critique is welcome.





















Btw any healthy forum about photography?


----------



## Wretched

I like the second and last images, Ayo7e. The other two are a little soft for my liking. I especially like the meaning I took from the last image, of the girl in the background at a beautiful garden, still preferring her smart phone to the wonders of nature. An indictment on modern society.


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> I like the second and last images, Ayo7e. The other two are a little soft for my liking. I especially like the meaning I took from the last image, of the girl in the background at a beautiful garden, still preferring her smart phone to the wonders of nature. An indictment on modern society.



Agreed, to a T. 

Were the first two 'soft' images a design choice?

ayo7e, I personally frequent http://www.reddit.com/r/photography/ and http://www.pentaxforums.com. It's mainly focused on Pentax gear, but I find a lot of great discussions happen there. And please don't take my words about 'softness' as a slam against your work, because I love almost all of it! Definitely inspires me.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The first is the only one the has bothersome softness to me. I quite like the second image, it's reminiscent of an abstract large format shot I saw once.


----------



## Tang

Took this earlier this evening. His name is Thedore and he's the brother to my puppy, Ramona. Too many damn chihuahuas. I really wish I hadn't blown out the highlights 




Theodore. by nrrfed, on Flickr

And another with the brother and sister.




Mona and Theodore. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Azyiu

Wishing Everyone a Happy Valentine's Day.


----------



## Wretched

Ahh I love it when cats do stuff like that... yours is particularly symmetrical...


----------



## -Nolly-

Really dig the first chihuahua shot Tang!


----------



## spattergrind

K5 + 35mm f/2.4 (Not bad for a $175 prime) still would like to save for a wider aperture prime and a good zoom. Kinda sucks that Pentax doesn't offer a lot of lenses, but I don't really see me having tons of lenses.











Just messing around. My friend took this one of me.






Ok, maybe I might have sharpened the eyes a little bit.


----------



## Tang

-Nolly- said:


> Really dig the first chihuahua shot Tang!



Takk! You have no idea how much that means to me. 

I must say I really enjoy watching all the photographers progress in this thread. Fucking awesome


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

I'm absolutely horrible at photography, and I don't own an impressive camera. These shots were taken with my Canon PowerShot S2 i5. 











EDIT: Went and started screwing around with the settings on that thing, here's the result:




EDIT2: I should note that all these photos are unedited, I shot in B&W.


----------



## Wretched

A nice Triumph Thunderbird I shot late last year. Very happy with how it came out.


----------



## Khoi

I think I'm going to try to find where I can get one of these.

War Journalist: A 1/6-Scale Action Figure of a Conflict Photographer


----------



## Khoi

one of my favorite shots of a night of event shooting

trying some Nolly-inspired B&W processing


----------



## Tang

I am continually astounded at how much information you can pull out of a raw file. Just as an example I found a picture I took where I severely fucked-up my exposure and tried to see if I could recover anything. Say what you will about Pentax, but their RAW files are extremely malleable. It's noisy as fuck, but everything is there! Color and all! Goddamn.




Severely underexposed Theodore and the magic of RAW. by nrrfed, on Flickr

I just had an idea that I think some of you guys might be into. Posting before and after shots, if you do alot of post-processing. I'd love to see how big the editing process plays in your overall style.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Here's a pic I took of my dad's DT50. It kinda sucks, but that's ok.


----------



## Azyiu

Ok, I took Wretched's idea and got myself a few cheap ND filters (ND4 and ND16) as mentioned earlier, here are a few test shots I took the other night in downtown Hong Kong. I used only the ND4 filter for these shots. Enjoy.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

A car exploded in the alleyway behind my house today.

My 7D's battery was shot, so I plugged it in and ran outside with my phone. Unfortunately I wasn't able to get decent shots of the car on fire.

These two were taken with my phone and filtered with instagram.










And after a while, I ran in to get my camera. The fire had been extinguished by that point, but I got a couple of pretty cool shots of the aftermath before it was towed away. I just wish I had had more time and space with it. The firefighters and towtruck drivers were doing their thing and pretty adamant about people keeping their distance.


----------



## Azyiu

@ Wretched, or whoever is familiar with shooting video on a DSLR

While there is no "right" frame rate to shoot at, I heard the rule is you should make sure the shutter speed is double the fps. For example, if I am shooting @ 30fps, my shutter speed should be set at 1/60 sec., or if I am shooting @ 24fps, ideally I should set my shutter to 1/48 (or more like 1/50) sec. Ok, fine, but TWO questions:

1) Why should I set up my shutter speed this way?
2) What happens if you don't go by that rule and why?

Many thanks in advance!


----------



## Khoi

Azyiu said:


> @ Wretched, or whoever is familiar with shooting video on a DSLR
> 
> While there is no "right" frame rate to shoot at, I heard the rule is you should make sure the shutter speed is double the fps. For example, if I am shooting @ 30fps, my shutter speed should be set at 1/60 sec., or if I am shooting @ 24fps, ideally I should set my shutter to 1/48 (or more like 1/50) sec. Ok, fine, but TWO questions:
> 
> 1) Why should I set up my shutter speed this way?
> 2) What happens if you don't go by that rule and why?
> 
> Many thanks in advance!



you should shoot this way because if your shutter speed is too fast, then it looks very rigid and the movements look unnatural. If it's too slow, you get too much motion blur.

it also depends on your application - if you want to do slowmotion, then we could for example use:

720p @ 60 FPS, with 1/120 shutter speed

You can successfully slow down by 60% if you're outputting to 24 fps while maintaining that 24p film look


for an example, see: http://vimeo.com/19603537


btw, here are some of my videos I've done.. like I said, I actually consider myself more of a videographer

here's one for Red Bull:




and a dance video for my friend


----------



## Azyiu

Khoi said:


> you should shoot this way because if your shutter speed is too fast, then it looks very rigid and the movements look unnatural. If it's too slow, you get too much motion blur.
> 
> it also depends on your application - if you want to do slowmotion, then we could for example use:
> 
> 720p @ 60 FPS, with 1/120 shutter speed
> 
> You can successfully slow down by 60% if you're outputting to 24 fps while maintaining that 24p film look
> 
> 
> for an example, see: Part 6: Shutter Speed & FPS on Vimeo
> 
> 
> btw, here are some of my videos I've done.. like I said, I actually consider myself more of a videographer
> 
> here's one for Red Bull:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and a dance video for my friend




Many many thanks, Khoi! You sir pretty much answered most, if not all my immediately questions! And I think I pretty much got everything you showed me in those 3 videos.   

I am just now beginning using the Windows Movie Maker to edit some basic, simple stuff. Hopefully you do not mind I come back a little later for more questions. Or, if you do not mind sharing your experience in video shooting with the rest of us, please do!


----------



## Wretched

I have to admit, I know very little of DSLR video, so your post was helpful, Khoi. Cheers.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

My first attempt at a still life type photo. I'll be giving it a go with my LF camera soon.


----------



## Khoi

Azyiu said:


> Many many thanks, Khoi! You sir pretty much answered most, if not all my immediately questions! And I think I pretty much got everything you showed me in those 3 videos.
> 
> I am just now beginning using the Windows Movie Maker to edit some basic, simple stuff. Hopefully you do not mind I come back a little later for more questions. Or, if you do not mind sharing your experience in video shooting with the rest of us, please do!




No problem, I'm always happy to talk about video stuff! I know there's no dedicated thread for it, but I hope it doesn't intrude too much on the Photography thread, if people don't mind reading it 



Wretched said:


> I have to admit, I know very little of DSLR video, so your post was helpful, Khoi. Cheers.



and thank you for sharing your professional knowledge! I've learned a lot from your posts


----------



## -Nolly-

Khoi said:


> one of my favorite shots of a night of event shooting
> 
> trying some Nolly-inspired B&W processing



Awesome, crushing dem shadows


----------



## Azyiu

@ Khoi and Wretched

Seriously, thanks BOTH of you for your advice and tips thus far!

Ok, a somewhat remotely related question for you or anyone with the knowledge. So I put together a little video for fun via WMM (around 2:30 in duration), and used a song by a Japanese band as background music for it. If I ever put it on, say, fb or youtube, would that video be considered a violation of copyrighted material or anything like that? If so, how I do go by future projects that I may have for personal uses? Thanks in advance!


----------



## Khoi

Azyiu said:


> @ Khoi and Wretched
> 
> Seriously, thanks BOTH of you for your advice and tips thus far!
> 
> Ok, a somewhat remotely related question for you or anyone with the knowledge. So I put together a little video for fun via WMM (around 2:30 in duration), and used a song by a Japanese band as background music for it. If I ever put it on, say, fb or youtube, would that video be considered a violation of copyrighted material or anything like that? If so, how I do go by future projects that I may have for personal uses? Thanks in advance!



The only issue I've ever had is that a song I wanted to use was only available in certain countries on Youtube. Other than that, I've never run into any copyright issue.

Things start to get more serious when you're actually using the video for commercial purposes and receiving money for it, or by monetizing your video on Youtube. If you do that, you might be asked to replace the audio, or you simply can't monetize it.

If it's for your own personal use, don't worry about it


----------



## Azyiu

Khoi said:


> The only issue I've ever had is that a song I wanted to use was only available in certain countries on Youtube. Other than that, I've never run into any copyright issue.
> 
> Things start to get more serious when you're actually using the video for commercial purposes and receiving money for it, or by monetizing your video on Youtube. If you do that, you might be asked to replace the audio, or you simply can't monetize it.
> 
> If it's for your own personal use, don't worry about it



Sounds good to me.


----------



## Berti_smb

I found an old facility that was used for butchering animals so i took some pictures...
Canon 550D + 50mm 1.8 II


----------



## Murmel

^
That picture makes my head hurt, because it wants the stuff behind the door to be in focus too


----------



## -Nolly-

In Australia at the moment, the 40mm pancake is earning its keep again


----------



## Azyiu

@ -Nolly-

Very nice stuff you've got there, but you didn't shoot with the 40mm pancake lens on all of those shots, did you?


----------



## Wretched

Nice stuff, Nolly. Hoping to shoot the band again at the Annandale in Sydney next week. Just awaiting confirmation.

Here's a sneak peek from a shoot I did this week for a magazine over here:


----------



## JeffFromMtl

@ Nolly

Damn dude, your processing is nuts. It never ceases to amaze me, I love the feel so much.


----------



## -Nolly-

Cheers dudes! Yep, pancake for all except the koala and last picture, which were with the 50/1.2. The pancake is just so convenient, and with the brightness out in the sun there's no way I could make the most of the 50's fast aperture without serious ND filter action (which I don't have)


----------



## Khoi

Nolly. Your blues are beautiful.


----------



## -Nolly-

Awesome, cheers man 
Wretched, hope to see you at the Annandale, we (only) just got in to Sydney - what terrible weather!!

Got some shots of Memphis May Fire before we went on at Soundwave today, I like how they came out with my usual B&W processing:


----------



## Tang

Khoi said:


> Nolly. Your blues are beautiful.





A regular SRV. 

Nolly, do you take care not to crush your blacks when creating the matte'ish look?

As I suggested earlier in the thread the following is a RAW/finished image comparison. And to think when i first started using raw i just applied some sharpening and that was it. I find myself going through my old pictures and re-lightrooming them  




Theodore. by nrrfed, on Flickr

P.s. I adore Lightroom


----------



## -Nolly-

When it comes to B&W I don't really care - I specifically want to reduce the shadow detail substantially so it becomes flat grey, since that's a big part of the look I go for. For colour I don't push it anywhere near as far - for reference here's a RAW/Edited comparison, as you can see the adjustment is pretty subtle:


----------



## Azyiu

@ Wretched

I recalled you told me ND filters are like tinted glasses, and they shouldn't change the color a bit. Anyway, that is true with my ND4 filter, but I noticed things do look a bit pinkish when I am using my ND16 filter. Any idea as to why that happens?  Thanks.


----------



## Tang

Found this picture from when I used to have a Canon T3. Lens was the Tokina 12-24 f/4.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Azyiu said:


> @ Wretched
> 
> I recalled you told me ND filters are like tinted glasses, and they shouldn't change the color a bit. Anyway, that is true with my ND4 filter, but I noticed things do look a bit pinkish when I am using my ND16 filter. Any idea as to why that happens?  Thanks.



It depends on your filter and its construction; as my B+W 10-stop filter has a slight warming effect (it's well documented among all B+W3.0 to do so).


----------



## Wretched

Azyiu said:


> @ Wretched
> 
> I recalled you told me ND filters are like tinted glasses, and they shouldn't change the color a bit. Anyway, that is true with my ND4 filter, but I noticed things do look a bit pinkish when I am using my ND16 filter. Any idea as to why that happens?  Thanks.



Mmm, no, the filter 'shouldn't' colour your work. However, as ThePhilosopher points out, it must be to do with the filter's construction. Removing any colour caste will be relatively easy in Lightroom or PS, though. So don't be too concerned.


----------



## Khoi

@Tang - the chihuahua colors look so much better in that second picture, very nice! and with that cathedral shot - is the horizon crooked or is that just me? 


had another gig with Red Bull, really love how this shot turned out


----------



## Tang

Khoi said:


> @Tang - the chihuahua colors look so much better in that second picture, very nice! and with that cathedral shot - is the horizon crooked or is that just me?
> 
> 
> had another gig with Red Bull, really love how this shot turned out



I pulled it up in Lightroom and it does look a bit crooked. At that time, I truly had no conception for lines or horizons. Plus there was a bit of distortion with the 12mm lens with zero correction.

Thanks for the compliment, btw.


----------



## Wretched

Bummer... didn't get a shoot and review pass for the Periphery show at the Annandale on Thursday .

Will post up some of my Slayer pics in a week or so. Always impressive, even at half power!


----------



## Tang

I wanted to try some long-exposure portraits but once again the only subjects I have are my dogs. Well shit, lemonaide and lemons and all that. Mr. Dexter managed to sit still for 10 seconds and I got this out of him.




Dexter (10 seconds) by nrrfed, on Flickr

EDIT: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8507756539/in/photostream

left is how the camera would've processed the raw file, right is the raw+lightroom version. quite a difference!


----------



## -Nolly-

A couple more shots from Soundwave, I've been lazy the last few days and haven't taken many pictures at all. Again, all with the 40mm pancake:














Wretched said:


> Bummer... didn't get a shoot and review pass for the Periphery show at the Annandale on Thursday .
> 
> Will post up some of my Slayer pics in a week or so. Always impressive, even at half power!



Damn, if we had any say in the matter I would have ensured you got one! That sucks..


----------



## Wretched

No sweat, man. Thanks for the thoughts, though. I think once I've shot and edited Bullet for My Valentine tomorrow night, plus written reviews for the Slayer and Bullet gigs, I'll be screwed anyway... in amongst my regular work.


----------



## BIG ND SWEATY

-Nolly- said:


>



this is probably my favorite picture that you've taken but i wish that building wasn't in the way!


----------



## Lirtle

I think the building makes it a much more interesting photo.


----------



## -Nolly-

Glad you dig the shot, I definitely prefer with the building but it's pretty funny how if you google image search "Melbourne Central" you'll see a whole load of basically the same picture haha.

A couple more I uploaded yesterday, I've been refining my colour processing again:


----------



## Tang

Nolly, digging the second pic with the signs. Has a very filmy look. 

I love being apart of a relatively small photograhy community. I've picked up way more knowledge than I expected!


----------



## Azyiu

@ -Nolly-

I love the mood in most of your shots. Well, just out of curiosity you don't mess with the contrast and/or black level when processing your photos, do you? Or, correct me if I am wrong, you might actually turn the black level up a touch to get that look in most of your shots?


----------



## Tang

Azyiu said:


> @ -Nolly-
> 
> I love the mood in most of your shots. Well, just out of curiosity you don't mess with the contrast and/or black level when processing your photos, do you? Or, correct me if I am wrong, you might actually turn the black level up a touch to get that look in most of your shots?



I think I asked a pretty similar question a few pages ago:

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/3429408-post521.html

Some of Nolly's pictures put me in straight full-frame fever, but then I remember how awesome the dynamic range is on my Pentax. 

Please Pentax come out with a full-frame please. Kthx.


----------



## Wretched

Another natural light shot (like the yellow Mazda from last week). This is one of my favourite locations in Sydney. I've shot there three times now and have been able to get a different look every time just by facing a different direction.


----------



## Azyiu

Tang said:


> I think I asked a pretty similar question a few pages ago:
> 
> http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/3429408-post521.html
> 
> Some of Nolly's pictures put me in straight full-frame fever, but then I remember how awesome the dynamic range is on my Pentax.
> 
> Please Pentax come out with a full-frame please. Kthx.



Well, sure, seems like we asked a pretty similar question there. Yet I just wanted to be more certain it was the contrast and/or black level he messes with in his shots.

Having a full frame body is nice!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang said:


> I think I asked a pretty similar question a few pages ago:
> 
> http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/3429408-post521.html
> 
> Some of Nolly's pictures put me in straight full-frame fever, but then I remember how awesome the dynamic range is on my Pentax.
> 
> Please Pentax come out with a full-frame please. Kthx.



Pentax Full Frame

I want an 8x10, full 8x10 contact prints.


----------



## -Nolly-

Azyiu said:


> @ -Nolly-
> 
> I love the mood in most of your shots. Well, just out of curiosity you don't mess with the contrast and/or black level when processing your photos, do you? Or, correct me if I am wrong, you might actually turn the black level up a touch to get that look in most of your shots?



Thanks, the look I think you're referring to comes from the curve adjustments I do, which basically give me a lot more control over contrast and black point etc than the sliders usually do. With that curve in place I'll often make adjustments on the sliders (including contrast and black level) to refine the processing on a picture-by-picture basis.


----------



## Azyiu

-Nolly- said:


> Thanks, the look I think you're referring to comes from the curve adjustments I do, which basically give me a lot more control over contrast and black point etc than the sliders usually do. With that curve in place I'll often make adjustments on the sliders (including contrast and black level) to refine the processing on a picture-by-picture basis.



Thanks for your explanation, and I must play around with the curve control a bit more in the future. For the stuff I shoot I normally would only go for that rather simple, basic touch up with the contrast, black level and color adjustment.


----------



## -Nolly-

Yeah, to be clear, applying the presets I've made for myself usually gets me 90% of the way there, with rarely anything further other than white balancing/exposure compensation needed other than that.
Again, another before and after (throwaway picture but shows the difference fairly well):


----------



## themike

-Nolly- said:


> Yeah, to be clear, applying the presets I've made for myself usually gets me 90% of the way there, with rarely anything further other than white balancing/exposure compensation needed other than that.
> Again, another before and after (throwaway picture but shows the difference fairly well):



That's killer - there is something very calming about your style


----------



## Khoi

Here's my latest video if anyone wants to check out

Unfortunately, I didn't film it, as I couldn't film myself, but I had my roommate do it and just tell him what shots and angles to do. He did an alright job for just trying to mimic what I saw in my head!

I still edited it and everything else though.


----------



## stem

Here is two photos of my friends  also yo can visit my website for more pictures Burlaka Nikolai Photography


----------



## Wretched

Lovely lighting, stem.


----------



## Azyiu

stem said:


> Here is two photos of my friends  also yo can visit my website for more pictures Burlaka Nikolai Photography



I LOVE the lighting in this shot.


----------



## Tang

Azyiu said:


> I LOVE the lighting in this shot.



Indeed!

Stem: how did you achieve the lighting in this? A strobe to the right of your mode with a quick shutter speed? I tried checking his eyes and it looks like a flash is going off. Regardless, excellent shot!


----------



## Ayo7e

Azyiu said:


> I LOVE the lighting in this shot.



Agree.


One mine.


----------



## -Nolly-

Jake, one of the guitarists in my band needed a promotional picture with his new Ibanez guitar and asked me if I could do the honours. I had him set up next to a window backstage at the Annandale in Sydney, against a wall papered with Asian newspapers. Pretty happy with the results given the ghetto setup!


----------



## Wretched

Ghetto is surely the word for the Annandale!


----------



## Tang

Nolly, just found out you guys are playing a sideshow here in Jacksonville on the 18th. How would one go about getting in as a photographer. I'll be there regardless, but i'd love to snap some pics.


----------



## Wretched

If it's anything like Australia, Tang, you'll go through a publication (magazine/newspaper etc) or website who get you the access on your behalf, then you shoot/review for them.


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> If it's anything like Australia, Tang, you'll go through a publication (magazine/newspaper etc) or website who get you the access on your behalf, then you shoot/review for them.



Thanks! I figured it was something like that. I need to try to work my way in somewhere.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Here's a pic I took of the headstock on my RG8. Check it out.


----------



## -Nolly-

Had a lot of fun wandering around Perth today, got some pictures I liked:


----------



## jbard

Shinto shrine in Hakone, Japan.


----------



## Azyiu

jbard said:


> Shinto shrine in Hakone, Japan.



Very nice, natural looking shot there *jbard*. I think you've successfully captured both the peacefulness of the environment, as well as the beauty and history of this solemn shrine in one single shot!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Back at TA again.






But this time, I went with a band who wanted me to shoot some promo stuff for them. I think I'm going to go with this one. They weren't the most cooperative subjects, but at least there aren't any retarded faces in this one.


----------



## stem

Tang said:


> Indeed!
> 
> Stem: how did you achieve the lighting in this? A strobe to the right of your mode with a quick shutter speed? I tried checking his eyes and it looks like a flash is going off. Regardless, excellent shot!


 

Sorry for long wait man! thanks for your words 
Yes! It was shoot with one flash through white umbrella from the left side of me.


----------



## Azyiu

So I did a shoot last night, and here are a few from it. Enjoy.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Nice shots, but I have some details that are distracting: jewelry in the first photo is minimally shown and look odd, stray hair across the eyebrow in photo 2, and the green ink as well as the hairs in the 3rd photo. The spots on the back of her hand in the third photo is also a small distraction. Great lighting, it's spot on.


----------



## Azyiu

ThePhilosopher said:


> Nice shots, but I have some details that are distracting: jewelry in the first photo is minimally shown and look odd, stray hair across the eyebrow in photo 2, and the green ink as well as the hairs in the 3rd photo. The spots on the back of her hand in the third photo is also a small distraction. Great lighting, it's spot on.



Thanks for your comment, and I agreed the green ink in the 3rd shot shoot just doesn't look as nice. I thought about removing it on PS, but at the end I decided not to, and I wanted to show these photos with as little editing as possible instead.


----------



## Tang

My gf and I went to Islands of Adventure Sunday and I went in with the idea of trying to capture some artsier shots ala Nolly  I'm not sure if I succeeded but I really love what post-processing brought out in this shot. My raw files love to be manipulated, and for that reason I'd never be a great photojournalist. Processing is half the fun of photography, imo.




Nolly'ish. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Decreate

I really need to come by more often, there are some really great pics here. Anyway here's another one from me.


----------



## -Nolly-

JeffFromMtl said:


> Back at TA again.



That is fucking awesome!


----------



## Tang

-Nolly- said:


> That is fucking awesome!



Agreed, definitely.


----------



## MontaraMike

Recently did a collaboration with a photographer.


----------



## Tang

Nolly, I checked most of the thread but I didn't see any mention of the software you use besides Aperture and Color Efex Pro. Is that it?

I just got done processing another Nolly inspired picture. I don't want to completely rip you off, but it's just so damn fun.




Strings. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## -Nolly-

Awesome Tang, really like that shot and also extremely humbled you've been inspired by my stuff 
I edit in Lightroom, haven't used Aperture or Nik Color Efex in a long while now. I don't use any plugins, but the VSCO Film Presets were extremely useful for figuring out how to get the look I was after, though recently for the most part I made the presets I use now from scratch. My B&W is based on a very heavily modified VSCO Tri-X 400 preset though


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

What do you guys think of the T3i for doing nothing but taking pictures of gear and doing playthru videos.


----------



## Azyiu

Stealthdjentstic said:


> What do you guys think of the T3i for doing nothing but taking pictures of gear and doing playthru videos.



I think that would be good enough, but you will need a faster card for video; like at least the SanDisk Ultra series or above.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

-Nolly- said:


> That is fucking awesome!





Tang said:


> Agreed, definitely.



Thanks, guys!

I also re-processed the band promo shot, doing my best impression of Nolly's shadow-crushing aesthetic, although I may have really pushed it  Really digging the style.






Also took a couple portraits of my dog over the weekend.


----------



## Ayo7e

Awesome shots as always guys.


----------



## Decreate

Here's another from me


----------



## Tang

Ayo7e said:


> Awesome shots as always guys.



Love this! Looks like something I'd compose. Great shot. 

Lightpole shadow makes it


----------



## mikemueller2112

A few recent ones:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I really like the first one.


----------



## Ayo7e

^idd, those clouds fit perfectly in the composition.

This is one of those shots I forgot, but here it is. I'm really glad how it turned out.


----------



## Tang

Ayo7e said:


> Awesome shots as always guys.





Ayo7e said:


> ^idd, those clouds fit perfectly in the composition.
> 
> This is one of those shots I forgot, but here it is. I'm really glad how it turned out.



Silohuette is perfect. Great picture!


----------



## TheFashel12

Here are some photos I've taken recently with my Canon sx40 . Just got into post processing a few days ago and I'm happy with the results!


























Any feedback is greatly appreciated !


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

You haveong eye lashes bro


----------



## -Nolly-

We're on tour with Deftones at the moment so took some shots at tonight's show:


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

wow.. amazing shots and photographers in this thread, a bit intimidating coming in here with questions, but here goes.

1. I've recently acquiring my first dslr; a 650D. I've quickly grown tired of the kit lens, and I was wondering if any of you had experience with the Canon 40mm 2.8 pancake, 85mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 17-40 F/4L, 24-105mm f/4L IS, and lastly Sigma 30mm 1.4 on a crop body? i'm mainly looking to do street photography, light concert/low-light work, some work with action sports / skateboarding subjects (wide angle), and little portrait/candid indoor stuff. lots of glass I know, but I trust some of you have used at least a few of these, even if on a FF body. 

2. for any of you who are further along in their camera experience, did you make the jump to full frame from an entry level crop body, or did you step up to something like a 7D first? I'm looking down the road and wondering if I should stick with FF compatible lenses so I don't have to burden any more financial atrocities upon my wallet when that time comes.


----------



## -Nolly-

Paul Reed Shred said:


> wow.. amazing shots and photographers in this thread, a bit intimidating coming in here with questions, but here goes.
> 
> 1. I've recently acquiring my first dslr; a 650D. I've quickly grown tired of the kit lens, and I was wondering if any of you had experience with the Canon 40mm 2.8 pancake, 85mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 17-40 F/4L, 24-105mm f/4L IS, and lastly Sigma 30mm 1.4 on a crop body? i'm mainly looking to do street photography, light concert/low-light work, some work with action sports / skateboarding subjects (wide angle), and little portrait/candid indoor stuff. lots of glass I know, but I trust some of you have used at least a few of these, even if on a FF body.
> 
> 2. for any of you who are further along in their camera experience, did you make the jump to full frame from an entry level crop body, or did you step up to something like a 7D first? I'm looking down the road and wondering if I should stick with FF compatible lenses so I don't have to burden any more financial atrocities upon my wallet when that time comes.



Hi,

As you've identified with the 2nd part, it really comes down to whether you are planning to move to a full frame or not. Starting with that part, I think you can get a LOT of use out of your 650D for the time being. I started with a 600D and got to use a friend's 7D a lot - I realised that really you don't get much extra with the 7D at all, save the fast continuous shooting and a more rugged/bigger body with twin dial controls. For that reason I waited and upgraded to a 5D further down the line instead. However, if photography is something you plan on taking seriously I'd advise sticking to FF-compatible lenses unless you get a great deal on something APS-c specific.

Of the lenses you've mentioned, considering the subject matter you want to shoot I'd rule out the 85 for now. With the crop sensor you're looking at an equivalent of 135mm or so, which is going to be rather long for street/live/action stuff, and without IS you're going to need to be shooting well above 1/100th to get sharp shots which may not be ideal in low light. 

I have the 40/2.8 pancake and use it a LOT for street photography or as a general lightweight walkaround lens. It's very sharp, and has generally excellent image quality. I use it on a full frame but it's still going to be a very usable length on a cropped sensor.
The 50/1.4 is an awesome, awesome lens. I had one up until recently when I upgraded to the 1.2L. It was my only lens for the longest time, when I still had the 600D. It is on the long side for some of the scenarios you've listed when used on a crop-sensor, but a fast 50mm prime is an indispensable lens for almost any photographer to have. It'll only get better if/when you upgrade to a full-frame.
The 30/1.4 is a sweet lens. It's equivalent to 50mm on a full frame, but you do get some distortion as it is on the wider side. Since it's APS-c I'd only recommend it if you're set on sticking to the 650D for a while yet.
The two L lenses are worth considering, but bear in mind the focal lengths are really designed with FF cameras in mind - 17 isn't crazy wide on an APS-c, 24 is basically a standard equivalent. The IS of the 24-105 could be useful, but if I were you I'd be looking for a faster aperture, which will be a lot of fun for you especially coming from the limitations of the kit lens.


----------



## JeffFromMtl




----------



## Tang

Loved the pics of Chino! Excellent


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

-Nolly- said:


> Hi,
> 
> As you've identified with the 2nd part, it really comes down to whether you are planning to move to a full frame or not. Starting with that part, I think you can get a LOT of use out of your 650D for the time being. I started with a 600D and got to use a friend's 7D a lot - I realised that really you don't get much extra with the 7D at all, save the fast continuous shooting and a more rugged/bigger body with twin dial controls. For that reason I waited and upgraded to a 5D further down the line instead. However, if photography is something you plan on taking seriously I'd advise sticking to FF-compatible lenses unless you get a great deal on something APS-c specific.
> 
> Of the lenses you've mentioned, considering the subject matter you want to shoot I'd rule out the 85 for now. With the crop sensor you're looking at an equivalent of 135mm or so, which is going to be rather long for street/live/action stuff, and without IS you're going to need to be shooting well above 1/100th to get sharp shots which may not be ideal in low light.
> 
> I have the 40/2.8 pancake and use it a LOT for street photography or as a general lightweight walkaround lens. It's very sharp, and has generally excellent image quality. I use it on a full frame but it's still going to be a very usable length on a cropped sensor.
> The 50/1.4 is an awesome, awesome lens. I had one up until recently when I upgraded to the 1.2L. It was my only lens for the longest time, when I still had the 600D. It is on the long side for some of the scenarios you've listed when used on a crop-sensor, but a fast 50mm prime is an indispensable lens for almost any photographer to have. It'll only get better if/when you upgrade to a full-frame.
> The 30/1.4 is a sweet lens. It's equivalent to 50mm on a full frame, but you do get some distortion as it is on the wider side. Since it's APS-c I'd only recommend it if you're set on sticking to the 650D for a while yet.
> The two L lenses are worth considering, but bear in mind the focal lengths are really designed with FF cameras in mind - 17 isn't crazy wide on an APS-c, 24 is basically a standard equivalent. The IS of the 24-105 could be useful, but if I were you I'd be looking for a faster aperture, which will be a lot of fun for you especially coming from the limitations of the kit lens.



wow, i'm floored by the detailed response, it's much appreciated. 

I think i'm for sure going to go with the 50mm 1.4 then, and skip the 30mm and the 85. would the 50 be a little long on the crop sensor? the 40 is a little cheaper and just that little bit wider. although the 50 is faster, would it be worth getting both, or skipping the 40 regardless of the price differential? Also i was considering the two Ls because they'd offer me a fairly normal to telephoto length on the T4i as a sort of upgrade to the kit zoom, and when i upgrade to FF, a nice wide lens as well. I figured if I had a fast prime or two, the relatively pedestrian apertures of the zooms wouldn't be too terribly important.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

On a Canon crop body multiply by 1.6 to get EFL. A 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 is invaluable - it's neat and compact, but it's hard to be discrete with a giant D3 body ;(.


----------



## Tang

Paul Reed Shred said:


> wow, i'm floored by the detailed response, it's much appreciated.
> 
> I think i'm for sure going to go with the 50mm 1.4 then, and skip the 30mm and the 85. would the 50 be a little long on the crop sensor? the 40 is a little cheaper and just that little bit wider. although the 50 is faster, would it be worth getting both, or skipping the 40 regardless of the price differential? Also i was considering the two Ls because they'd offer me a fairly normal to telephoto length on the T4i as a sort of upgrade to the kit zoom, and when i upgrade to FF, a nice wide lens as well. I figured if I had a fast prime or two, the relatively pedestrian apertures of the zooms wouldn't be too terribly important.



IMO, a 50 on a crop body is a LOT tighter than you might think it is. If I were starting out again (with primes), I'd definitely consider a 35mm over a 50mm. Just imo, of course. 

Another option would be to pick up a Tamron or Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. Both are INCREDIBLY sharp for the price.



ThePhilosopher said:


> On a Canon crop body multiply by 1.6 to get EFL. A 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 is invaluable - it's neat and compact, but it's hard to be discrete with a giant D3 body ;(.



On a budget -- http://www.amazon.com/Canon-35mm-Wide-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00009XVCU

If I had all the money in the world -- http://www.amazon.com/Canon-35mm-1-4L-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00009R6WY


----------



## -Nolly-

Another live shot of Chino, in colour for once:








Paul Reed Shred said:


> wow, i'm floored by the detailed response, it's much appreciated.
> 
> I think i'm for sure going to go with the 50mm 1.4 then, and skip the 30mm and the 85. would the 50 be a little long on the crop sensor? the 40 is a little cheaper and just that little bit wider. although the 50 is faster, would it be worth getting both, or skipping the 40 regardless of the price differential? Also i was considering the two Ls because they'd offer me a fairly normal to telephoto length on the T4i as a sort of upgrade to the kit zoom, and when i upgrade to FF, a nice wide lens as well. I figured if I had a fast prime or two, the relatively pedestrian apertures of the zooms wouldn't be too terribly important.



As people have said, 50 on a crop sensor is pretty tight (75 equivalent), but I still found mine really useful. It's a tough call though. The 40 is a great lens though, really sharp even wide open and has great colour rendering. It does vignette a lot when used at wide apertures, but I actually like that. 
I would recommend a 35mm as the perfect length to invest in, but there isn't a good fast 35 at anything like the price of the 50/1.4. If you can stretch to it, the new Sigma 35/1.4 is an absolutely killer lens, and would be ideal on both crop sensor and full frame.


----------



## Khoi

-Nolly- said:


> Another live shot of Chino, in colour for once:




Hopefully I'll get some shots like that for you and the other Periphery guys next Monday when I shoot you guys in St. Augustine!! 

How wide open do you usually shoot for these night/concert shots? I've been experimenting, and getting down to 1.4 is just way too soft for what I'd like


----------



## -Nolly-

Awesome, I look forward to seeing them!
I usually shoot between f/2 and 3.5 depending on the lighting. With bright lights you can get away with 1/200th or so at ISO1000


----------



## Wretched

Some shots from Slayer's recent show here in Sydney; supported by Anthrax and Kingdom of Sorrow...


----------



## Azyiu

Wretched said:


> Some shots from Slayer's recent show here in Sydney; supported by Anthrax and Kingdom of Sorrow...



This is my fav one, GREAT capture!


----------



## Wretched

Thanks man. Was actually taken with my girlfriend's old 450D and my 10-22mm. I took it as a second camera so I could grab some other perspectives within the short 3-song window. Shows that you can get decent pics on cheap gear when the light is there.


----------



## Khoi

Wow, those are some incredible shots!!!

What lens were you shooting with?


----------



## Wretched

Most were with the trusty 24-70mm f2.8L, but that wide angle one was with the EF-S 10-22mm.


----------



## Wretched

See the rest of the gallery here, including set lists: Slayer, Anthrax and Kingdom of Sorrow @ Big Top Sydney - 25.02.13 - a set on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

-Nolly- said:


> Another live shot of Chino, in colour for once:



Great pics of deftones, Nolly. I haven't seen them live since around 2000 when they played two sold out nights back to back in a small pub in Sydney called the Iron Duke. Mayhem. Stage to back wall mosh pit! Amazing live band.


----------



## Azyiu

Wretched said:


> Thanks man. Was actually taken with my girlfriend's old 450D and my 10-22mm. I took it as a second camera so I could grab some other perspectives within the short 3-song window. Shows that you can get decent pics on cheap gear when the light is there.



Seriously, I never doubted what those so-called cheap gears can do under the right lighting conditions.


----------



## -Nolly-

Wretched said:


> Great pics of deftones, Nolly. I haven't seen them live since around 2000 when they played two sold out nights back to back in a small pub in Sydney called the Iron Duke. Mayhem. Stage to back wall mosh pit! Amazing live band.



Thanks man, dig your Slayer pics too! Yeah, Deftones are insane live, total trip for me having been a huge fan from my early teens


----------



## Forrest_H




----------



## Paul Reed Shred

thoughts?


Canon 35mm f/2 IS

 Sigma 35mm f/1.4


----------



## Khoi

Sigma


----------



## Wretched

A rare natural light shot... post in Lightroom 4.


----------



## Azyiu

Wretched said:


> A rare natural light shot... post in Lightroom 4.



A different look from you with natural lighting this time. 

By the way, I thought with all the lighting setup and stuff on your regular shots, those cars almost always appear to have this "spaceship" look in them in a good way.


----------



## Wretched

Thanks Azyiu! I think... heheh

Here's a little behind the scenes from a shoot I did on Friday afternoon...

It's using four flashes:
-The two on stands firing through umbrellas you can see, on full power.
-One on the wall to camera left, bare, on 1/4 power
-Another on a stand firing in through the window to the left, through a white umbrella, on full power
-All triggered by YN triggers
(The ceiling lights are not providing any visible ambient light in this image. The shutter speed is 1/125 @ f6.3, ISO160. Kinda shows how scattershot the light from an umbrella is, versus a softbox.)


----------



## Azyiu

Wretched said:


> Thanks Azyiu! I think... heheh
> 
> Here's a little behind the scenes from a shoot I did on Friday afternoon...
> 
> It's using four flashes:
> -The two on stands firing through umbrellas you can see, on full power.
> -One on the wall to camera left, bare, on 1/4 power
> -Another on a stand firing in through the window to the left, through a white umbrella, on full power
> -All triggered by YN triggers
> (The ceiling lights are not providing any visible ambient list in this image. The shutter speed is 1/125. Kinda shows how scattershot the light from an umbrella is, versus a softbox.)



This is how you create that "spaceship" look I love so much! 

Question. What's the difference between using umbrellas and softboxes in this case? Or in another other case? Do they have different purposes? Or when do I use which and for what?


----------



## Wretched

Well the exact lighting setup changes a little from shot to shot, but for this side shot, yep!

An umbrella doesn't control the light very much beyond merely diffusing it. A softbox points the diffused light in a forward direction without all the spill at the sides and back that you can see the softboxes have here, resulting in the entire garage being lit up.

You can generally use one or the other for shooting whatever you like - portraits, products, cars etc - but's just that the way the light hits and wraps around the subject will be different (and the spill, as I've mentioned). If I'd used soft boxes in this shot, the rest of the scene would have been darker than it is here, which probably would have looked nice. Also, if you look closely at the highlights on the paintwork, you'll often see the spines of the umbrella's structure. With a softbox, there is no internal structure like this to show up in the reflections; just a white box. So they're a bit cleaner in that regard (but have a higher cost and time to set up).

Again, the differences between the two types of modifier really come down to control of the light, with the softboxes offering greater control.


----------



## Tang

I just spent 40 minutes post-processing a photo to perfection and in the middle of the save process, my laptop overheated and shut off.

Goddamnit.

EDIT: here's the closest I could get it to how I originally wanted. Oh well! I loved the texture of the bricks, and I felt B&W would help bring that out. If any of you photographers can make it to Savannah, Georgia you'll have the time of your life. So many things to photograph, and so much culture. Not to mention the parties 




Bricks in Lafayette Square. by nrrfed, on Flickr




Black and white bike. by nrrfed, on Flickr

EDIT: looks like there's some dust or oil on the sensor in the bike picture. Guess it's time to clean it, again.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I really dig those bricks. Here's some from my Bronica on Portra 120NC


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> I really dig those bricks. Here's some from my Bronica on Portra 120NC



If I had colors like that I wouldn't need b&w!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

It's a tad overexposed (or overdeveloped-stupid me losing track of time). I wish my AE-III metering prism wasn't fux0red so I'd shoot more 120. I'll just stick to my trusty 4x5 Sinar for now.


----------



## Wretched

I took some portraits of my partner, Tess, last weekend in preparation for a musician promo shoot I was meant to do Monday afternoon. While the promo shoot got canned at the last minute, I like the results I got with Tess. She HATES posing, but was kind enough to let me test on her.

Lighting was a new 60in Softlighter II I bought a few months ago but have been slow to make use of as I don't shoot a lot of portraits. I'm using three 580EXIIs (or equivalent) in this thing, triggering one flash with a Yongnuo trigger and controlling the other two on their slave setting. In all shots, the three flashes were set to full power.

Where rim lighting is visible, that was provided by a single 430EXII with a 1/2 CTO gel and triggered by another Yongnuo trigger. Also on full power. The orange gel helps make the rim lighting look more like the setting sun.

Settings for most shots were ISO 100, 1/200th sec, f7.1 (or close to). I could have opened wider and used less flash power, but was just reminding myself how to shoot with or against the sun (it was only 3 or 4pm and still very bright - a later time would have required even less flash power).

All post done in Lightroom 4.

Hope you like.





















Same in BW


----------



## Khoi

your lighting is ridiculous, I guess that's what separates us from the pros

very nice


----------



## Wretched

Thanks Khoi... but I am adamant it's all about practice. I'm not 'schooled', so to speak... just kept trying things and reading magazines and reading lighting diagrams on photography sites and forums until I started getting results I was happy with. I'm still never really satisfied and there's always someone out there better to aspire to!


----------



## Khoi

here are the rest of the shots from the headlining show in St. Augustine. Be sure to Like the page, and please share them!

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.479045938816534.1073741837.476013825786412&type=1



Here are some of the highlights:


----------



## JeffFromMtl




----------



## Wretched

Not sure if this link will work as I have the image set to private on Flickr (it's not due to be published for months).

This is an iconic 1950s/'60s kustom from Australia that has just enjoyed a 4-year rebuild. Shot it yesterday and am happy with how it has come out. I think my Lightroom editing skills are improving lately as I learn more control of colour levels etc. There really isn't anything in the way of image manipulation in this one, beyond colour, contrast, brightness etc. No cloning or anything. No lights either, just natural light.


----------



## Azyiu

Very cool story. A digital camera was lost in 2007 in Hawaii, traveled 6,200 across the Pacific ocean, was found in Taiwan six years later, and reconnected with its owner! 

Story here: Camera Finds Way Back to Owner After Drifting 6,200 Miles from Hawaii to Taiwan


----------



## metal_sam14

So I finally caved and entered the DSLR world. Just ordered a Canon 650D with the 18-135mm IS STM kit lens to start off with.


----------



## MrYakob

metal_sam14 said:


> So I finally caved and entered the DSLR world. Just ordered a Canon 650D with the 18-135mm IS STM kit lens to start off with.



I ordered the same thing last night, I'm a little intimidated but also very excited to jump in to this world despite having no clue what I'm doing!


----------



## Ayo7e

Beautiful shots khoi.


----------



## JeffFromMtl




----------



## Khoi

not a bad shot! I would actually bring the fade down in the blacks, it's a little distracting from the main subject in the shot


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm whoring these out, but have some optical illusions:


----------



## wilch

2002 Porsche Boxster 986 2.7L by wilch, on Flickr

and some old ones




Ducati Monster 796 by wilch, on Flickr




Polo GTI by wilch, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

Some cool composites, wilch.


----------



## Bevo

Took some pics of my bike today with the D40 and this one came out nice. The seat is all carbon fiber with thin gel coating which gave it the shine.




[/IMG]


----------



## Azyiu

Not exactly photography related, but well, still related... 

I've just upgraded my PC to a i7 3770 CPU, ASUS Z77-VLX2 motherboard, as well as 16Gb of RAM (not an online gamer, so this is good enough for what I do)! So when I opened up Lr4 and kind of played around there afterward, everything now runs sooooo FAST and SMOOTH! I was like, WOW!


----------



## Wretched

A fresh, new PC is a wonderful thing, no! I had mine fitted out with an SSD main drive, too... so fast.


----------



## Azyiu

Wretched said:


> A fresh, new PC is a wonderful thing, no! I had mine fitted out with an SSD main drive, too... so fast.



I thought about using a SSD as my main / system drive, yet in am in no hurry for that upgrade.


----------



## Azyiu

This is what Hong Kong might look like at night if there was no damn light pollution






For other Thierry Cohen works, see here: Thierry Cohen - Exhibitions - Danziger Gallery


----------



## soliloquy

i need to figure out a way to take less grainy pictures. boost iso and i have grains. reduce iso and i have grains. :S


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

40mm (Color) by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr

*edit:* 


feelin' around by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr 

This lens rules.


----------



## Musza

Paul Reed Shred said:


> 40mm (Color) by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr
> 
> *edit:*
> 
> 
> feelin' around by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr
> 
> This lens rules.



Bought same a month ago and love it:


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Musza said:


> Bought same a month ago and love it:




the IQ is ridiculous for the price. 149 to my door feels like a steal.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Oh also, any Leica M3 owners out there? Got a chance to fiddle with one this past weekend and i'm thoroughly intrigued.


----------



## Bevo

soliloquy said:


> i need to figure out a way to take less grainy pictures. boost iso and i have grains. reduce iso and i have grains. :S



Is it not your focus point?
Looks like your area of focus is very short like your too close to the bird, stepping back will open it a bit, right now your clear band of focus looks like a few inches. I don't think ISO is the problem.

I had the same problem and took a few steps back then cropped the picture back to what I wanted to see.

Experiment so you see what I mean, I took a bunch of pictures of a ruler and you can really see the clear focus area.


----------



## soliloquy

Bevo said:


> Is it not your focus point?
> Looks like your area of focus is very short like your too close to the bird, stepping back will open it a bit, right now your clear band of focus looks like a few inches. I don't think ISO is the problem.
> 
> I had the same problem and took a few steps back then cropped the picture back to what I wanted to see.
> 
> Experiment so you see what I mean, I took a bunch of pictures of a ruler and you can really see the clear focus area.



its not that. its that though my camera, the pentax K-x was designed for lower light with less grain, but recently a lot of my pictures are turning out grainy. 

such as:





notice the background, even the forground? its not as smooth as i would like it to be.


----------



## -Nolly-

Really haven't felt motivated to take photos recently but dragged myself out to see what was around the venue we're playing tonight in Knoxville, TN. I took the 50/1.2, and out of spite decided to shoot entirely at 1.2:


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Just saw your pics a few minutes ago on FB. Awesome work, Nolly, keep it up.


----------



## JeffFromMtl




----------



## -Nolly-

JeffFromMtl said:


>



Really nice pics dude


----------



## -Nolly-

Pretty happy with how these pics of my new bass came out, especially for a quick job


----------



## metal_sam14

Aside from being an incredible looking instrument, I dig those pics! great work as always


----------



## Tang

I was going to take pics of my new Ibanez today but the rain interfered. Maybe tomorrow!


----------



## explosivo

Thought I'd share some pics from a little walk around town:


----------



## MrYakob

Just got my t4i less than a week ago, it's my first venture in to photography (not counting horrible point-and-shoot pictures and whatnot). Here's a couple pictures that I snapped over the weekend, any criticisms or advice would be most welcomed as I have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to this stuff


----------



## ThePhilosopher

You'll really get more out of the camera if you take it off of program mode.

Here's a quick shot from my trip with the wife to Castroville; it's a strange town with Alsatian influence. This 15mm is a huge reflective dome out in front of your camera if you're not careful you'll get ghosting and all kinds of fun unpredictable glare.




Nikon D3 w/Sigma 15-30mm f/[email protected]
ISO 200 1/[email protected]/8​


----------



## Wretched

A few pics from Bullet for My Valentine's show in Sydney in late February. See them all here: Bullet for My Valentine @ Sydney HiFi - February 27, 2013 - a set on Flickr


----------



## Khoi

SICK pictures!

Do you ever use flash when working with concerts? or do they generally not like that?


----------



## Wretched

No, flash is generally a big no-no; despite the crowd being able to do it with their smart phones. 

I was pretty happy with these, as the lighting at the HiFi is some of the worst in Sydney. Mainly red and green and very dim. The headliner will usually be a little better, depending on if they've got someone on the board fiddling with the controls. Seeing that most bands are touring here in a very DIY manner, if there's no local enthusiast controlling the lights they sometimes don't change much. Only the much larger bands tend to bother hiring additional lighting in terms of metal bands.

That's why many of these are black and white or two-toned: you can control the results much better by stripping out the ugly red and green and by the same token, also avoid a lot of the colour grain.


----------



## Bevo

What lens do you like to shoot with, looks like your close to the action..

Nice pictures!


----------



## Wretched

For the most part, it's a 24-70mm f2.8L. But also some wide angle stuff on a second body, which is a 10-22mm EF-S


----------



## Wretched

Had to take some new self portraits today for a head shot for my editorial column for a new magazine I've become editor of. It's called InFocus and is free on the iPad every month. Check it out here:

This was one of the non-smiling shots I just took for myself (the whole reason I had to shoot some fresh ones was because all my existing shots were too frowny!)...

It's a two light setup with one flash for the main source to camera left through a white umbrella and a rim light from behind through a home made snoot. Power levels were low at around 1/16 for the front light and 1/32 for the rim light. 

The smoke is all photoshop brush work.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

This New Camera Stabilizer Could Change Cinematography Forever this is really cool, although that rig with a 1D could get ridiculously expensive. Check out the short film here.. M&#333;VI


----------



## Khoi

Just got my Canon 135mm f/2L in from LensRentals.com, hailed as the sharpest and fastest focusing Canon L lens out there.

Can't wait to try it out, and I shall report back with my findings!


----------



## Khoi

Here's a quick comparison shot.

I know it doesn't mean much, but I tried to simulate the same lighting conditions to keep the settings similar, minus the aperture.

On the left is the shot using the 135mm f/2L, and on the right is using my 24-105mm f/4L, both shot with my Canon 5D Mark III

The result: wow. The 135mm is even sharper than the 24-105mm at _f/2.0_, and it only gets sharper the more you stop it down!


these are both 100% cropped


----------



## Azyiu

Khoi said:


> Here's a quick comparison shot.
> 
> I know it doesn't mean much, but I tried to simulate the same lighting conditions to keep the settings similar, minus the aperture.
> 
> On the left is the shot using the 135mm f/2L, and on the right is using my 24-105mm f/4L, both shot with my Canon 5D Mark III
> 
> The result: wow. The 135mm is even sharper than the 24-105mm at _f/2.0_, and it only gets sharper the more you stop it down!
> 
> 
> these are both 100% cropped



It is cool to see the comparison, but I am not very surprised by the result. From what I've heard, the 24-105mm L f/4 is more or less the least sharp L series lens. Besides, fixed focal length lenses are usually sharper than zoom lenses anyway.


----------



## Wretched

Just picked up a second hand 5D Mark II cheap here in Sydney. 30,000 shutter count, so tonnes of life left in it. Looks perfect. Will get my first chance to use it on Monday when I shoot a Harley 'bagger' for a magazine here. Can't wait to see the difference in files and output over the crop 7D I've been using the last three years.

The 7D will now become my second body, which I'll still use for the 10-22mm EF-S lens, which I use for car interior shots and live music...


----------



## Azyiu

Wretched said:


> Just picked up a second hand 5D Mark II cheap here in Sydney. *30,000 shutter count*, so tonnes of life left in it. Looks perfect. Will get my first chance to use it on Monday when I shoot a Harley 'bagger' for a magazine here. Can't wait to see the difference in files and output over the crop 7D I've been using the last three years.
> 
> The 7D will now become my second body, which I'll still use for the 10-22mm EF-S lens, which I use for car interior shots and live music...



Glad you brought up shutter count. How do I check the total shutter count on my camera? Where is that option located under? Thanks.


----------



## Wretched

I can't do it myself, I don't believe. As far as I know, you need a Mac and some form of app. Many claim it's impossible unless you're a Canon tech and others say you can...

Google found me this: gPhoto - gPhoto Home

...and Canon Shutter Count - EOSCount

Thinking the guy I bought mine from merely made an assumption on his.


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> Just picked up a second hand 5D Mark II cheap here in Sydney. 30,000 shutter count, so tonnes of life left in it. Looks perfect. Will get my first chance to use it on Monday when I shoot a Harley 'bagger' for a magazine here. Can't wait to see the difference in files and output over the crop 7D I've been using the last three years.
> 
> The 7D will now become my second body, which I'll still use for the 10-22mm EF-S lens, which I use for car interior shots and live music...



I can't wait to see your 5D files. I almost went for a 5D classic that was $600 body-only, but went with my Pentax instead. Can't help but feel I made the right choice, but for good-light shots the 5Dc still holds up.


----------



## Wretched

Well, the original 5D was only an APS-C crop camera anyway, I believe. So I reckon you did the right thing, too. I got the 5D MkII with a battery grip for $1200AUS.


----------



## Bevo

To get your shutter count get an account with Flicker and when you post a picture open details of the shot, I can't think of the name but its a huge list. As you scroll down you will see the shutter count listed.


----------



## Wretched

Not sure that's necessarily true. I'm just looking at the EXIF data for one of the latest images I uploaded to Flickr and while there's a huuuuuuuge list of information in there, none of it is related to the shutter count.


----------



## Azyiu

Wretched said:


> I can't do it myself, I don't believe. As far as I know, you need a Mac and some form of app. Many claim it's impossible unless you're a Canon tech and others say you can...
> 
> Google found me this: gPhoto - gPhoto Home
> 
> ...and Canon Shutter Count - EOSCount
> 
> Thinking the guy I bought mine from merely made an assumption on his.



Thanks, Wretched. 

I checked them both out. The first site doesn't seem to get me what I was aiming for, while the latter one seems to "work", but I would need to pay to get the accurate count. Well, guess I will just leave it for now, or I check with my local Canon repair center.


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> Well, the original 5D was only an APS-C crop camera anyway, I believe. So I reckon you did the right thing, too. I got the 5D MkII with a battery grip for $1200AUS.



Actually, the 5Dc was Canon's 3rd full-frame DSLR, after the first two iterations of the 1D. To put it in perspective, when the 5Dc came out, it retailed for $3299 which was half the price of their flagship 1Ds II.


----------



## Azyiu

Wretched said:


> *Well, the original 5D was only an APS-C crop camera anyway, I believe.* So I reckon you did the right thing, too. I got the 5D MkII with a battery grip for $1200AUS.



No sir, the original 5D (aka 5D Mk1) is a full frame D-SLR.


----------



## Wretched

Azyiu said:


> No sir, the original 5D (aka 5D Mk1) is a full frame D-SLR.



Huh, I guess the low 13mp sensor count threw me. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Bevo

Wretched said:


> Not sure that's necessarily true. I'm just looking at the EXIF data for one of the latest images I uploaded to Flickr and while there's a huuuuuuuge list of information in there, none of it is related to the shutter count.




Its hard to see but this is from my D40, maybe that will help. I wonder if its also camera related and if you camera will provide that detail.


Shot Info Version	0209
*Shutter Count	22647*
Hue Adjustment	0

I just loaded some pics from the Canon and the info is not there but.. FILE Index appears to keep track of my picture counts. It may or may not be the shutter count...sorry


----------



## Bevo

Just a random shot with the 7D while I was hunting birds..




[/url]
IMG_0155 by [email protected], on Flickr[/IMG]


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I don't know if this works for Canon, but with my D3 you can open up the last raw file in photoshop and then go to the file info. Go to the advanced tab>schema(auxinfo) folder has the aux:image count entry.


----------



## ESPImperium

May not be of the standard for this thread, but heres something from a demolition of an old Odeon cinema in Glasgow, a cinema i have seen many a good movie in and also stood at the bus stop outside awaiting on my bus as a teenager!


----------



## MrYakob

Took the advice and took it out of Program mode and went shooting yesterday, some of them turned out not so great as I expected but I also got a couple good ones


----------



## Azyiu

ESPImperium said:


> May not be of the standard for this thread, but heres something from a demolition of an old Odeon cinema in Glasgow, a cinema i have seen many a good movie in and also stood at the bus stop outside awaiting on my bus as a teenager!



No, I think it is perfectly fine to post this type of pictures. In fact, I propose we should also start posting pictures with historical value here as well. Like, for example, this very demolition shot along side a shot of it during its glory days (if you happen to own one of those shots). OR, photojournalistic photography. How's that?


----------



## Tang

Azyiu said:


> No, I think it is perfectly fine to post this type of pictures. In fact, I propose we should also start posting pictures with historical value here as well. Like, for example, this very demolition shot along side a shot of it during its glory days (if you happen to own one of those shots). OR, photojournalistic photography. How's that?



Agreed, I think anything goes as long as it doesn't go against ss.org's TOS.


----------



## metal_sam14

I had a great mail day today:


----------



## TheFashel12

I've been quiet fond of pigeons lately


----------



## Khoi

great pigeon shots - not sure how I'm feeling composition wise though, I think the shots could use some extra room and space. The resolution is throwing it off for me, a big too "square" for my tastes


----------



## Tang

I don't think I've posted this one yet. This was one of those right-place-right-time pics. Pretty heavily cropped to get rid of potentially distracting composition. Also, not a chihuahua!

My favorite part of the pic is the shadow that almost cuts the boat neatly in half. Lens was my trusty 14mm f/2.8. Pentax knows how to make awesome primes. 




Savannah River. Boat. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ESPImperium

Azyiu said:


> No, I think it is perfectly fine to post this type of pictures. In fact, I propose we should also start posting pictures with historical value here as well. Like, for example, this very demolition shot along side a shot of it during its glory days (if you happen to own one of those shots). OR, photojournalistic photography. How's that?





Tang said:


> Agreed, I think anything goes as long as it doesn't go against ss.org's TOS.



Thanks for the input, i have a few more pics that i took in Glasgow last week, one of a building next to it.

Just have to get some skills on Photoshop Elements 11 or Lightroom 3 as those are the only 2 programs i have. Id like to know how to change the sky colour purple and take out clouds and still have the building the the same colour and exposure.


----------



## Azyiu

ESPImperium said:


> Thanks for the input, i have a few more pics that i took in Glasgow last week, one of a building next to it.
> 
> Just have to get some skills on Photoshop Elements 11 or Lightroom 3 as those are the only 2 programs i have. Id like to know how to change the sky colour purple and take out clouds and still have the building the the same colour and exposure.



If you are using Lightroom 3 (I am currently using Lr4.4), try playing around with the Hue under Split Toning for what you are aiming for, unless you have time to single the sky out and mess with it on PS.


----------



## Wretched

You can still mess with the sky by singling it out with the masking brush tool in Lightroom. However the controls are limited to around 11 adjustment sliders and none, except for white balance and tint, are colour related as directly as those found in PS.


----------



## TheFashel12

Khoi said:


> great pigeon shots - not sure how I'm feeling composition wise though, I think the shots could use some extra room and space. The resolution is throwing it off for me, a big too "square" for my tastes


Thanks for your feedback


----------



## Tang

Finally got around to taking a decent picture of my new guitar, but only a tease  Also, a quick question about my previous boat picture, do you think I should've cropped the left side more to emphasize the shadow the runs down the middle of the picture? It feels like there's a bit too much space on the left side.




Artcore. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Khoi

Tang said:


> Finally got around to taking a decent picture of my new guitar, but only a tease  Also, a quick question about my previous boat picture, do you think I should've cropped the left side more to emphasize the shadow the runs down the middle of the picture? It feels like there's a bit too much space on the left side.



yeah, I'm a sucker for symmetry and that was throwing it off. But what would've been even better is if you left that space on the left side and added more space on the right side rather than crop it, and also extend the sky higher just a little bit


----------



## Tang

Khoi said:


> yeah, I'm a sucker for symmetry and that was throwing it off. But what would've been even better is if you left that space on the left side and added more space on the right side rather than crop it, and also extend the sky higher just a little bit



Done and done, I think! I love what adding more sky did for the picture. Really shows how fucking huge those boats are!




Savannah Riverboat (Khoi edit) by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Khoi

that looks a lot better to my eyes, very nice!

You could also photoshop that small thing out in the sky, and maybe bump up the shadows a bit, but overall, a very nice improvement


----------



## Tang

Yeehaw! That small dot was actually a bird, but I liked it better without!




Riverboat. edit 34. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Azyiu

Tang said:


> Yeehaw! That small dot was actually a bird, but I liked it better without!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riverboat. edit 34. by nrrfed, on Flickr



Might as well, could you change the name *MSC* to *777*?


----------



## Tang

Azyiu said:


> Might as well, could you change the name *MSC* to *777*?



I have no idea how to properly photoshop, well.. anything! To get rid of the bird I just used the clone tool in Lightroom.

Here's one of my insane cat, Smokeycat. Black and white suits her. Taken with my pain in the ass manual 135mm f/2.8.




Smokey. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Test of the continuous video AF on the t4i and 40mm f/2.8 again. 

apologies for sloppy playing, tendinitis and time away have dulled my cleanliness a bit!


----------



## Wretched

As promised, a shot from my 5D MkII. First shoot with the full frame body and learned a few things:

- I think I'll continue to shoot with the 7D for the close up detail shots, as the smaller sensor provides a deeper field of view at the same f-stop, which I need and like.

- I'm not in awe of the results, to be honest. It hasn't provided me with any huge benefit that I was kind of expecting to be honest. I'll wait to pass full judgement until I've shot a few more cars, shot some live music and portraits with it.

Here's the shot!






Image was shot with three Canon Speedlites (two firing on the long side through white umbrellas and one lighting the front, bare. All on full power and triggered with Yongnuo triggers).

The light painting was done using a custom made light wand with two cold cathode tubes.


----------



## metal_sam14

Incredible!


----------



## Wretched

What was more incredible was the house behind the bike... apparently cost $6mil to build, on a $2mil block of land!


----------



## Tang

Wretched, i don't think you're going to get the 'full-frame experience' until you start cranking the ISO up and just having next to no noise. Have any concert gigs lined up?


----------



## Wretched

Supposed to be shooting Coheed and Cambria next Saturday night.


----------



## Azyiu

Wretched said:


> As promised, a shot from my 5D MkII. First shoot with the full frame body and learned a few things:
> 
> - I think I'll continue to shoot with the 7D for the close up detail shots, as the smaller sensor provides a deeper field of view at the same f-stop, which I need and like.
> 
> - I'm not in awe of the results, to be honest. It hasn't provided me with any huge benefit that I was kind of expecting to be honest. I'll wait to pass full judgement until I've shot a few more cars, shot some live music and portraits with it.
> 
> Here's the shot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Image was shot with three Canon Speedlites (two firing on the long side through white umbrellas and one lighting the front, bare. All on full power and triggered with Yongnuo triggers).
> 
> The light painting was done using a custom made light wand with two cold cathode tubes.



First of all, awesome shot there as always! 

Just wanted to quickly respond to your first FF experience.

I can be wrong, but your point #1 can also be done by the 5D2. After all with a FF body, you can always choose to crop the images if you like. IMO, that gives you more options.

As for your second point, if car shots ain't impressive enough; try shooting a model and/or landscape with your new 5D2. Hopefully you will see the benefit of its FF sensor then.


----------



## Wretched

Thanks for the advice, Azyiu. Always appreciated. Same goes for the kind feedback!

Didn't think of looking for a crop option and realistically happy enough to continue using the 7D for those shots anyway (they both have their own padded sections in my big Pelican case anyway).

Supposedly shooting a folk singer next Wed for some promo shots. Looking forward to trying the 5D on those.


----------



## Azyiu

Wretched said:


> Thanks for the advice, Azyiu. Always appreciated. Same goes for the kind feedback!
> 
> Didn't think of looking for a crop option and realistically happy enough to continue using the 7D for those shots anyway (they both have their own padded sections in my big Pelican case anyway).
> 
> *Supposedly shooting a folk singer next Wed for some promo shots. Looking forward to trying the 5D on those*.



Yeah, that should be fun, especially shooting a fellow musician (regardless of genre) Good luck and have fun! 

As for me, I don't shoot or don't have enough chances to shoot cool things like you do; yet should the weather holds up this weekend, I intend to planes taking off and landing at the Hong Kong International Airport. We will see if 400mm is "good enough" for approaching planes. A fellow photographer told me a spot that is close enough to the runway. We will see.


----------



## Wretched

Sounds like an interesting challenge! Try some different styles, like typical frozen motion fast shutter stuff and some shutter drag for some sense of movement.

I don't do nearly enough portrait stuff and am keen as hell to start doing more musician/band promo work. But I'm not prepared to do it for free. 

Took receipt of a car rig last week. Just trying to find some time to go do a few test runs before using it in an actual shoot. Can't wait! Love rig shots.


----------



## soliloquy

there are tons of different variety of hoods out there...do they matter? as in, what is the difference between a flower, vs a rubber collapsible, vs a bayonette/tube, vs a square/rectangular etc?

does one offer greater benefits over the other?


----------



## Wretched

As long as it stops the light spill from the sides, without causing vignetting of your image at any focal length, then it's all good! I'd probably suggest that if you're considering a cheap knock off, check out what the factory one looks like and buy a cheap copy that mimics it. Because is the factory hood is a flower-type, it probably means that they tried designing a simple circular one for it but got vignetting in the corners, for instance...


----------



## Tang

In New York City for a few days and there's so much to photograph!




Burnside, New York City. by nrrfed, on Flickr

Edit: how do you know if a picture is taken with an iPhone? The photographer will tell you


----------



## Wretched

I do realise this may go against a rule or two in the ss.org conventions, but it IS a free publication and not in competition with SS.org in any way... if you're into photography, please check out this new iPad-only monthly magazine called InFocus... I'm the editor.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/infocus-australasia/id627335324?mt=8

The FB page is here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Infocus-Australasia/173933419425960 Please Like it, if you like the mag.

It'll remain free, so enjoy!


----------



## soliloquy

Wretched said:


> As long as it stops the light spill from the sides, without causing vignetting of your image at any focal length, then it's all good! I'd probably suggest that if you're considering a cheap knock off, check out what the factory one looks like and buy a cheap copy that mimics it. Because is the factory hood is a flower-type, it probably means that they tried designing a simple circular one for it but got vignetting in the corners, for instance...



yup, retail stores had my hood for 50 dollars. looked online, it ranged from 15 to 30 dollars. a knock off was for 12. might as well get the one that is original and spend just a bit more on. 

as much as i love pentax, i kinda hate how some of their stuff is hard to find, or fairly rare to come by.


----------



## Decreate

Wretched said:


> I do realise this may go against a rule or two in the ss.org conventions, but it IS a free publication and not in competition with SS.org in any way... if you're into photography, please check out this new iPad-only monthly magazine called InFocus... I'm the editor.
> 
> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/infocus-australasia/id627335324?mt=8
> 
> The FB page is here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Infocus-Australasia/173933419425960 Please Like it, if you like the mag.
> 
> It'll remain free, so enjoy!



Anything for us non-apple users?


----------



## Wretched

No, not as yet, Decreate. They're working on some back end software that will allow them to create an Apple and Android version at once, but it isn't done yet.


----------



## Tang

NYC is the perfect photography city. Really perfecting my Nolly. 




77th Street. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

More NYC. i'm working on a color version of this, but for now I'll leave you with the slight sepia toned version. 




Subway antics. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## -Nolly-

Tang said:


> NYC is the perfect photography city. Really perfecting my Nolly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 77th Street. by nrrfed, on Flickr



Hahah, that made me laugh to read. Really dig the shot


----------



## Tang

-Nolly- said:


> Hahah, that made me laugh to read. Really dig the shot



Thanks, that means alot to me! I'm continually amazed at how sharp the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is. If you get a good copy, that is.


----------



## Decreate

Wretched said:


> No, not as yet, Decreate. They're working on some back end software that will allow them to create an Apple and Android version at once, but it isn't done yet.


Looking forward to the android version.


----------



## Khoi

I've been crazy busy shooting lately, really trying to get my photography page off the ground and start to actually do more events and shoots on the side. Starting to realllly like my colors after countless hours of tweaking!

Here are some highlights..


----------



## metal_sam14

Here are some of my very first shots, all with the 650d & 18-135 STM lens. 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockey14/8642363626/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockey14/8646395833/


----------



## bulb

My girlfriend and I went back to the Udvar-Hazy Air and Space Museum near Dulles Airport and I shot a bunch of pics with my 5DMk3 and 24-70IIL/50mm 1.2L/Sigma 35mm 1.4/Sigma 85mm 1.4.

Here is the link to all of the shots on fb:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151580785614533.1073741827.506719532&type=1
and imgur:Udvar Hazy II - Imgur

And here are some of my faves from the bunch:


----------



## Azyiu

bulb said:


> My girlfriend and I went back to the Udvar-Hazy Air and Space Museum near Dulles Airport and I shot a bunch of pics with my 5DMk3 and 24-70IIL/50mm 1.2L/Sigma 35mm 1.4/Sigma 85mm 1.4.
> 
> Here is the link to all of the shots on fb:
> https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151580785614533.1073741827.506719532&type=1
> and imgur:Udvar Hazy II - Imgur
> 
> And here are some of my faves from the bunch:



Love the look and feel of your shots there!

For your editing, did you basically went for the high contrast tone curve? Lens vignetting, and brighten the highlights a little?


----------



## Tang

Quick question ya'll.. what settings do you usually prefer? I mostly stick to Aperture Priority..


----------



## bulb

Azyiu said:


> Love the look and feel of your shots there!
> 
> For your editing, did you basically went for the high contrast tone curve? Lens vignetting, and brighten the highlights a little?



Thanks dude.
I actually had about 4-5 different looks that I decided to use depending on the source material. Things like the shuttle and blackbird I would ride the clarity and kill highlights bump shadows, then I would also desat the background a bit to make the plane "pop" a bit more.

Another look that some of the pics have is that high clarity kind of look, but with an s-curve (suited to each picture).

Then there are some straight up faded shots as well as faded/matte B&W shots.

And finally I was just going for some pics of the girl with really warm and bright colors, trying to replicate some of the tones of the wedding photography that Nolly has showed me.


----------



## bulb

Wretched said:


> As promised, a shot from my 5D MkII. First shoot with the full frame body and learned a few things:
> 
> - I think I'll continue to shoot with the 7D for the close up detail shots, as the smaller sensor provides a deeper field of view at the same f-stop, which I need and like.
> 
> - I'm not in awe of the results, to be honest. It hasn't provided me with any huge benefit that I was kind of expecting to be honest. I'll wait to pass full judgement until I've shot a few more cars, shot some live music and portraits with it.
> 
> Here's the shot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Image was shot with three Canon Speedlites (two firing on the long side through white umbrellas and one lighting the front, bare. All on full power and triggered with Yongnuo triggers).
> 
> The light painting was done using a custom made light wand with two cold cathode tubes.



2 things:

1: That picture is just incredible!

2: As said earlier, the body won't make that much of a difference if you aren't lacking light. Being able to crank my mk3 to ISO 6400 without having it ruin my pics is such a big deal for me because I just have my camera and lenses. For me, switching from the 60D to the Mk3 meant that editing became more of a "changing the look" kind of thing instead of "fixing everything that is wrong with this picture" kinda thing haha.

If light isn't a big deal and you are used to shooting on a cropped sensor, you would just be better off spending that money on lenses (if you haven't already)


----------



## Tang

moved some shit around. please ignore.


----------



## Tang

bulb said:


> \As said earlier, the body won't make that much of a difference if you aren't lacking light. Being able to crank my mk3 to ISO 6400 without having it ruin my pics is such a big deal for me because I just have my camera and lenses. For me, switching from the 60D to the Mk3 meant that editing became more of a "changing the look" kind of thing instead of "fixing everything that is wrong with this picture" kinda thing haha.



Misha, I wouldn't say super high ISO's ruin a picture if you're just posting then on the web.. larger prints are a different story, but I really don't mind going up to 6400 on my Pentax. There is noise (my K30 at 6400 looks like your 5dIII at 800 or so), but nothing that I'd say ruins a photo. Oh yeah, that SR71/Space Shuttle picture is fucking killer.

Here're are more edits from NYC!




42nd color by nrrfed, on Flickr




Jennhatten. by nrrfed, on Flickr




Smoking Jenn. by nrrfed, on Flickr

Here's a random sewer raccoon I found in Central Park. He knew I was taking his picture and was pissed about ISO6400, but there was nothing to be done for it. Oh yeah, crushing dem shadows, ya'll.




NYC Sewer Raccoon. by nrrfed, on Flickr





Central Park Tree. by nrrfed, on Flickr




Moonhatten. by nrrfed, on Flickr




Jennhatten 2. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Khoi

it was my first time shooting wakeboarding and doing action shot sequences.

I think they turned out pretty sick, just incredibly tedious to do!


----------



## Azyiu

Thanks for bulb's advice and inspiration, if you will, I re-edited some of my crappy plane shots from over the weekend. Well, they still look crappy but I thought the colors look better, haha.


----------



## metal_sam14

First edit attempt | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

re-upped this one as I finally got around to doing a few edits on it.

EDIT: how do I get flickr images to embed?


----------



## Azyiu

metal_sam14 said:


> EDIT: how do I get flickr images to embed?



Choose a size and then just copy the url that ends with .jpg like below


----------



## metal_sam14

Azyiu said:


> Choose a size and then just copy the url that ends with .jpg like below



You are a star, thanks mate!


----------



## Wretched

bulb said:


> 2 things:
> 
> 1: That picture is just incredible!
> 
> 2: As said earlier, the body won't make that much of a difference if you aren't lacking light. Being able to crank my mk3 to ISO 6400 without having it ruin my pics is such a big deal for me because I just have my camera and lenses. For me, switching from the 60D to the Mk3 meant that editing became more of a "changing the look" kind of thing instead of "fixing everything that is wrong with this picture" kinda thing haha.
> 
> If light isn't a big deal and you are used to shooting on a cropped sensor, you would just be better off spending that money on lenses (if you haven't already)



Thanks for the kind words, once again! 

I was hoping to shoot Coheed and Cambria this Saturday, but it wasn't approved, so I guess no testing of the high ISO there... as for lenses, yeah, except for the super wide angle I want to get (and maybe a macro) for the full-frame, I've already got a 24-70mm 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L, so glass is no issue! heh

Loves that symmetrical shot from the rear of the stealth bomber, too. Very nice. Moody.


----------



## Tang

Azyiu said:


> Thanks for bulb's advice and inspiration, if you will, I re-edited some of my crappy plane shots from over the weekend. Well, they still look crappy but I thought the colors look better, haha.



I'm normally a fan of vignetting, but I feel it really brings those two pictures down a notch. Are you using Lightroom? There's a good change your lens has a profile which can tone that down. 

Unless you like it in which case I will gladly fuck off


----------



## Wretched

I always use vignetting, too, but agree it is perhaps a touch too obvious on these two due to the clear skies. There also seem to be a slight halo effect around the plane in the second shot.


----------



## Azyiu

Tang said:


> I'm normally a fan of vignetting, but I feel it really brings those two pictures down a notch. Are you using Lightroom? There's a good change your lens has a profile which can tone that down.
> 
> Unless you like it in which case I will gladly fuck off





Wretched said:


> I always use vignetting, too, but agree it is perhaps a touch too obvious on these two due to the clear skies. There also seem to be a slight halo effect around the plane in the second shot.



You two are right, that vignetting might have been a bit too much. It all seems like excuses now, but my instinct told me to tune it DOWN during my editing; yet the other side of me wanted to "experiment" a bit and just go crazy with these shots. 

And yes, I am a user of Lr4.4, and I just LOVE that program!


----------



## Wretched

Lightroom 5 has been announced now, including a series of new features and modified existing features that should being smiles to a few dials.

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5 | photo management software beta - Adobe Labs


----------



## Azyiu

Already announced? I still haven't used / experimented all features on Lr4 as it. 

Looking at the list of new features, these 2 are very promising:

&#8226;Advanced Healing Brush &#8211; Easily remove objects and fix defects&#8212;even those with irregular shapes such as threads or lint&#8212;with a single brush stroke. Take precise control over what's being removed as you make unwanted objects just disappear.
&#8226;Upright &#8211; Straighten tilted images with a single click. Upright analyzes images and detects skewed horizontal or vertical lines. You choose one of four correction methods, and Upright can even straighten images where the horizon is hidden.

And this new video sharing feature, and its functions remind me of the Windows Movie Maker. I just hope it is at least as good as the WMM, and offer slightly more options than the WMM like white balance, better brightness adjustment etc.

&#8226;Video slideshow sharing &#8211; Easily share your work in elegant video slideshows. Combine still images, video clips, and music in creative HD videos that can be viewed on almost any computer or device.


----------



## Wretched

I like the sound of the revised vignette tool that lets you easily place a radial filter over any point of interest, not simply centrally.


----------



## Azyiu

Not exactly much of a re-editing, but I pretty much remove all of the vignetting effect.


----------



## Tang

-Nolly- said:


> Awesome Tang, really like that shot and also extremely humbled you've been inspired by my stuff
> I edit in Lightroom, haven't used Aperture or Nik Color Efex in a long while now. I don't use any plugins, but the VSCO Film Presets were extremely useful for figuring out how to get the look I was after, though recently for the most part I made the presets I use now from scratch. My B&W is based on a very heavily modified VSCO Tri-X 400 preset though



I just got VSCO 2 and it's freaking awesome. It's truly amazing what you can with Lightroom 4 with no external programs. Just move the sliders and make the magic happen.


----------



## Khoi

Azyiu said:


> Not exactly much of a re-editing, but I pretty much remove all of the vignetting effect.




I kind of liked the vignette in that shot, it made it a little interesting, but overall, I'm not sure how I feel about this shot; it doesn't say much to me


----------



## Tang

Khoi said:


> I kind of liked the vignette in that shot, it made it a little interesting, but overall, I'm not sure how I feel about this shot; it doesn't say much to me



I love airplanes way too much, so I appreciate this picture on it's own. I don't think there's anything more you can do to get more composition in the picture unless you caught it taking off or landing.


----------



## Azyiu

Khoi said:


> I kind of liked the vignette in that shot, it made it a little interesting, but overall, I'm not sure how I feel about this shot; it doesn't say much to me



No, it doesn't say much or I wasn't intended to say anything there. Like I said the other time I was just experimenting with different things, and this time I decided to shoot planes. That's all.

Maybe it is just ME, but I feel kind of uninspired lately. So instead of sitting around and do nothing, I decided to go pick random things to shoot. Play around with whatever I got on Lr, and go from there.


----------



## Khoi

Azyiu said:


> No, it doesn't say much or I wasn't intended to say anything there. Like I said the other time I was just experimenting with different things, and this time I decided to shoot planes. That's all.
> 
> Maybe it is just ME, but I feel kind of uninspired lately. So instead of sitting around and do nothing, I decided to go pick random things to shoot. Play around with whatever I got on Lr, and go from there.



totally, I feel you, I didn't mean to come off harsh in any way, I've just been into analyzing photos lately to try to get better myself


----------



## Azyiu

Khoi said:


> totally, I feel you, I didn't mean to come off harsh in any way, I've just been into analyzing photos lately to try to get better myself



No worries there, no harms done. I too wanted to get better. So if you spot something that I don't, say it and show me the light, it is fine!


----------



## Tang

Happy family! 

Some more NYC.




Times Square Light. by nrrfed, on Flickr




Post Brunch Walking Adventure v.2 by nrrfed, on 

I redid the Smoking picture from above in colour, but I'm not sure which I like better. With the B&W the compositional elements are very clearly defined. The left side is lit by the hotdog stand which lights the smoke and the right side is mostly hidden in the shadows. I'm still getting used to the colour version. I do enjoy the colour of the bokeh.




Smoking Jenn (color) by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

Finally got to do another promo shoot yesterday (I've been hanging to do another since shooting Gojira at the start of 2010). This was with a local Sydney singer/songwriter named Lily Fisher. She wanted nature to be a theme, so we met at a local nature reserve and went from there. I shot about half natural light and half using flashes.

I really like how they came out. I processed everything looking natural first off (albeit as nice as I thought I could get it), then created virtual copies in Lightroom and tried out a few different looks, like crossed processing, split toning etc.

What do you think?


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> I really like how they came out. I processed everything looking natural first off (albeit as nice as I thought I could get it), then created virtual copies in Lightroom and tried out a few different looks, like crossed processing, split toning etc.
> 
> What do you think?



The virtual copy method is EXACTLY how I process my images.

The image I quoted was my favorite. Dat rule of thirds and that SUPER SWIRLY BOKEH on the pine needles! Love it.

EDIT: actually, there're bokeh balls almost exactly on top of her head and one a little to side of her head that could possibly be distracting if the picture is blown up. Maybe.

EDIT2: I've been going through my old RAW files, and recurving them.




Fire. by nrrfed, on Flickr




Buddy Holly Hershey. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

Was that the shot of your pooch that started off practically black? Looks like a great save! The fire looks natural, too. Digicams often seem to lose their minds when shooting fire.


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> Was that the shot of your pooch that started off practically black? Looks like a great save! The fire looks natural, too. Digicams often seem to lose their minds when shooting fire.



I wish! 

This is the picture that I recovered and that was pushing Lightroom as far it would go. +5EV!




Theodore +5 stops. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

ISO6400 and 1/10s and f/2.8. The only way to get this candlelit scene to work. Love my camera  It was inspired by the candlelight scene in Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, but since I don't have a full-frame and 50mm f/0.7 lens, high ISO it is!




Candlelit Jenn. by nrrfed, on Flickr

EDIT: sorry, I'm sleep deprived and have been editing photos for 12 hours and accidently created a new response instead of editing my previous comment.

EDIT2: 500 posts.

EDIT3: Here's the top of the new WTC and the Moon.




IMGP8352 by nrrfed, on Flickr

EDIT4: random buildings in b&w!




IMGP8129 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Try this if you have photoshop Wretched:
Copy the Blue Channel to a new layer set to multiply (you'll have to make the new layer first).

Go back to channels>click on the blue channel then click the box next to RGB (this should activate blue channel for editing, but show the image in full color)>Shadows/Highlights>Play with the sliders (I use the advanced/show more options dialog for more play).

Adjust the opacity to taste (I usually stay between 50-80%). Add a curves adjustment, bring up the black point>go to the red channel and do the same (but much higher, I usually go about 1/3 of the way up on RGB and 1/2 way up on Red)>Go to the blue channel and give the image a nice golden hue>blend mode to color and adjust opacity to taste (I'm usually in the 15-35% range).

If this makes no sense I can do a screen capture of this.


----------



## Wretched

Hey Philosopher. Sorry man, not really sure what effect you're describing, or which image you had in mind...


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Any of the natural ones would work - I'll try to make a screen cap when I get home from work and class. If it's ok, I'd like to use one of your images to show what I mean.


----------



## Khoi

Tang said:


> EDIT4: random buildings in b&w!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMGP8129 by nrrfed, on Flickr



damn, I really LOVE this shot, nice work!


----------



## Wretched

Sure man, I'm intrigued to see what you do with it.


----------



## Tang

Khoi said:


> damn, I really LOVE this shot, nice work!





Thanks so much! Means alot coming from one of my favorite photographers on the board!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Here's the completed effect:




Here's the video:


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Here's the completed effect:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the video:




Oo, I see. I was emulating this look by manipulating the blue channel curves. I believe by making a small dip at the very left end of the curve.


----------



## Azyiu

Hate the rainy / cloudy weather, but still decided to take a few shots around my home. So what do you guys think about these shots?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That first one is quite nice and the last has almost a Bresson feel.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A little preview of a shoot from earlier today:


----------



## Wretched

Interesting look and technique, Philosopher. I just find myself still preferring a richer palette, but it was cool seeing someone elses take on it and appreciate the effort. How did you go about capturing the screen activity in video format?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I use Snagit from Techsmith.


----------



## Wretched

Thanks man. Appreciated. Been thinking I might need to do a few things like this for InFocus magazine.


----------



## Azyiu

Looking forward to seeing your set, Philosopher.


----------



## Khoi

Azyiu said:


>





such a sick shot, really liking it!


----------



## Tang

I've got moar. I think this is the closest I've come to emulating a true-film look. Maybe.




NYC. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Murmel

Thinking about picking up a film/analog camera. I can't really afford getting a decent DSLR+lens right now, and film intrigues me a bit in that you have to really think before you shoot.

The Nikon FE2 and Olympus OM2 seem to be excellent for the price, and they aren't very hard to come by either from what I can see on ebay.


----------



## wilch

Wretched said:


> Finally got to do another promo shoot yesterday (I've been hanging to do another since shooting Gojira at the start of 2010). This was with a local Sydney singer/songwriter named Lily Fisher. She wanted nature to be a theme, so we met at a local nature reserve and went from there. I shot about half natural light and half using flashes.
> 
> I really like how they came out. I processed everything looking natural first off (albeit as nice as I thought I could get it), then created virtual copies in Lightroom and tried out a few different looks, like crossed processing, split toning etc.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8107/8659010719_4610a6a16b_c.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8108/8659013773_d26790b123_c.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8113/8659015335_f7c9a9cb1a_c.jpg[/IMG]
> 
> http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8117/8660119402_2ab15558bd_c.jpg[/IMG]



I like the framing, lighting, and processing. But she seems so tense, and uneasy. Bring bottle of whiskey to next shoot or something? lol j/k'ing. 

But yeah, shots are great, it's just a pity that she feels really tense.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Murmel said:


> Thinking about picking up a film/analog camera. I can't really afford getting a decent DSLR+lens right now, and film intrigues me a bit in that you have to really think before you shoot.
> 
> The Nikon FE2 and Olympus OM2 seem to be excellent for the price, and they aren't very hard to come by either from what I can see on ebay.



If you shoot b&w film exclusively you can easily develop at home as well.

Color is a bit more difficult, but can be done at home as well.


----------



## Whammy

A friend wanted me to take some photos of his horses. Photographing animals is something I'm not comfortable with 'cause they do what they want, when they want


----------



## Decreate

Here's a few I took today.


----------



## Wretched

ThePhilosopher said:


> If you shoot b&w film exclusively you can easily develop at home as well.
> 
> Color is a bit more difficult, but can be done at home as well.



I'm not saying don't do it, but the chemicals used to process colour film are even more toxic than used for black and white and some of them are known carcinogens.

Definitely do your homework before getting started.


----------



## Wretched

wilch said:


> I like the framing, lighting, and processing. But she seems so tense, and uneasy. Bring bottle of whiskey to next shoot or something? lol j/k'ing.
> 
> But yeah, shots are great, it's just a pity that she feels really tense.



Thanks wilch. She was a bit tense, but we got some smiling ones, too. I personally didn't get tension out of these as much as mood and a bit of attitude, which I usually prefer to smiling. Her work apparently often includes environmental and political themes, so the more terse ones seemed appropriate to me.


----------



## Azyiu

@ Decreate 

Nice shots! And the best part is, I actually know the exact locations in which those shots were taken!


----------



## Decreate

Azyiu said:


> @ Decreate
> 
> Nice shots! And the best part is, I actually know the exact locations in which those shots were taken!



Macau is a small place.


----------



## Bevo

Great shots guys!!!

So much to learn......


----------



## Khoi

I brought my camera to campus for the first time today and snapped a couple shots.

To be honest, I don't know how I feel about these. I don't feel they are particularly inspiring, but here they are.


----------



## Wretched

Probably like the silhouette of the tree better, but still can't get my head around the grey blacks thing.


----------



## Khoi

Wretched said:


> Probably like the silhouette of the tree better, but still can't get my head around the grey blacks thing.



it's just an aesthetic thing to me, it gives a much softer feel to the photo. I didn't like how harsh the contrast was between a solid black and solid whites whenever I rendered them in B&W. Mine are more like G&W


----------



## Wretched

Been thinking I should get my act together and hit the streets with a single lens and shoot random shit. Haven't done that in years.


----------



## Azyiu

Wretched said:


> Been thinking I should get my act together and hit the streets with a single lens and shoot random shit. Haven't done that in years.



Speaking of which, what is your usual, or favorite "walk around" lens?


----------



## Fiction

I really like the "G&W" Shot


----------



## Wretched

It's literally been so long since I did a 'walkaround' anything that I don't even own any of the gear I used to use anymore!


----------



## Decreate

Here's another one I took in Hong Kong.


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> It's literally been so long since I did a 'walkaround' anything that I don't even own any of the gear I used to use anymore!



If I'm in the mood for a true-walkaround experience, I'll grab my 35mm 2.4 and be done with it. Realistically, however, I'm almost always using my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It's more than sharp enough wide open, and the corners are sharp by f/4.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

When I do photowalks I'll take my 24mm f/2.8 or my 4x5.


----------



## Wretched

Are these outings with a full frame or crop camera?

I figured I'd take the 24-70 2.8, but feel it may not be restrictive enough to test myself. Only prime I own is the venerable 50mm 1.8


----------



## Azyiu

Wretched said:


> Are these outings with a full frame or crop camera?
> 
> I figured I'd take the 24-70 2.8, but feel it may not be restrictive enough to test myself. Only prime I own is the venerable 50mm 1.8



I typically go with my 17-40mm L f/4 on a full frame body. And when I am shooting, I tend go with either zooming all the way out at 17mm, or zooming all the way in at 40mm; seldom I would go with any focal length in between, but that's just me.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Sadly my only digital is a D3, so 24 on FF.


----------



## Decreate

When I'm just going out with 1 lens, I would normally take my 50mm 1.4 with me.


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> Are these outings with a full frame or crop camera?
> 
> I figured I'd take the 24-70 2.8, but feel it may not be restrictive enough to test myself. Only prime I own is the venerable 50mm 1.8



I'm using a 35mm f/2.4 on a 1.5 crop so that's the full-frame equivalent of a 52mm f/3.5

Just found this from Christmas.




Christmas Bokes. by nrrfed, on Flickr




Christmas Bokes. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## m3ta1head

High resolution: http://i3.minus.com/ibvp8qMiJrCtdY.JPG






High resolution: http://i7.minus.com/iVs2iPoA3iTdk.jpg






High resolution: http://i7.minus.com/ibs5teApl8GWDM.jpg






High resolution: http://i1.minus.com/iba6XrJI8dRbhO.jpg


----------



## Tang

m3ta1head said:


> CATS CATS CATS



Love the first one!


----------



## Bevo

ThePhilosopher said:


> Sadly my only digital is a D3, so 24 on FF.



Thats too bad that you have to take your pro camera, I feel sorry that your arms are going to be sore from carrying it 

Just kidding!!

I think I will do the same using my 50mm 1.8 which as I am finding is an incredible lens for not much money.
To bad they don't have a 30 ish lens of the same price and quality, the 50 is a bit long on the 7D.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

It is quite difficult to be discrete with it though, it's massive and has a loud shutter. If the shutter were quieter it wouldn't be an issue. The Sinar is far more fun to use on the street, getting stared at is part of the process.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> It is quite difficult to be discrete with it though, it's massive and has a loud shutter. If the shutter were quieter it wouldn't be an issue. The Sinar is far more fun to use on the street, getting stared at is part of the process.



Is there a Quiet Shutter option somewhere in your custom functions? Could be a lifesaver.


----------



## Tang

Bevo said:


> Thats too bad that you have to take your pro camera, I feel sorry that your arms are going to be sore from carrying it
> 
> Just kidding!!
> 
> I think I will do the same using my 50mm 1.8 which as I am finding is an incredible lens for not much money.
> To bad they don't have a 30 ish lens of the same price and quality, the 50 is a bit long on the 7D.



Have you looked into the Sigma 30mm f/1.4? They've a new version coming out and it supposedly has better quality control than Sigma's of years past. On the old version, corners were noticeably soft until f/4 or so., but the center is super sharp through the whole range.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang said:


> Is there a Quiet Shutter option somewhere in your custom functions? Could be a lifesaver.



Only if you use the off switch.


----------



## Tang

I just found this fucker on my SD card from my NYC trip.. I totally forgot about it! It was a pain in the ass using such a long'ish lens in a crowded place, but I love how this turned out.




Times Square Flower Action. by nrrfed, on Flickr

I don't know why I like this one so much.




Tell a Cop. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Decreate

ThePhilosopher said:


> It is quite difficult to be discrete with it though, it's massive and has a loud shutter. If the shutter were quieter it wouldn't be an issue. The Sinar is far more fun to use on the street, getting stared at is part of the process.


That's why I haven't been using my D3s for a very long time...


----------



## Tang

I think this is the last one from my NYC set. Should've stopped to f/8 to get everything in focus.. Oh well!




Buildings and sky and such. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

Nice composition. The juxtaposition between the two is nice, also.


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> Nice composition. The juxtaposition between the two is nice, also.



Thanks sir


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

anyone here own or used a 6D kit? Especially anyone who has used a 5D II. looking ahead to black friday.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang, if I ever get back to NYC that's what I'd love to photograph most - the juxtaposition of new and old. Good job with that shot.

Another pair from my set:


----------



## Azyiu

Paul Reed Shred said:


> anyone here own or used a 6D kit? Especially anyone who has used a 5D II. looking ahead to black friday.



Yeah, I used to own a 5D Mark II. It is a GREAT D-SLR.


----------



## Tang

I love, love, love how the color turned out in this one.




The Power. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Went walking along the beach where I live


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> Went walking along the beach where I live



I like the muted tones you've got going on.


----------



## Wretched

A few previously unreleased shots from some features I did for a magazine called Performance Garage that provides a sneak peek inside some of the coolest workshops and garages in the country:


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> I like the muted tones you've got going on.



Thanks man  I've always preferred muted tones but I would find it hard to maintain them when I also want a certain amount of contrast in the photo. I'm getting there


----------



## Whammy

Another photo. This time of a field haha


----------



## Khoi

so I've been doing A LOT of graduation shoots for the last week, it's nice to get paid for your work for once!

It's certainly a change shooting pictures in more of a photoshoot setting, it's been fun learning along the way and adapting my style to suit it. I also got myself a Canon 430 EXII flash, and I realized, I have absolutely NO idea how to use flash effectively. I think I want to get a softbox for it as well, as all my shots with flash turned out super harsh and it just wasn't as soft as I like.


Anyways, I really how this shot turned out


----------



## Wretched

I love shots with patterns and this is great. Well done Khoi!


----------



## Khoi

thanks man, I've been trying to capture patterns better and I think this was a start! I think the rotation is still a bit off, but it's not too terrible.


Here's a little before and after of my editing. A lot of post-production goes into my photos, but I think it's worth it!


----------



## Wretched

Wow, that's a lot of trouble to go to! Was it possible to turn him around in a direction with less people?


----------



## Khoi

This shot was actually a candid shot, I wasn't doing a shoot do him but his sister, but he's a good friend of mine and just happen to be looking good at the time

Instead of trashing the shot I tried to save it and see what I could make of it


----------



## Tang

Khoi said:


> so I've been doing A LOT of graduation shoots for the last week, it's nice to get paid for your work for once!
> 
> It's certainly a change shooting pictures in more of a photoshoot setting, it's been fun learning along the way and adapting my style to suit it. I also got myself a Canon 430 EXII flash, and I realized, I have absolutely NO idea how to use flash effectively. I think I want to get a softbox for it as well, as all my shots with flash turned out super harsh and it just wasn't as soft as I like.
> 
> 
> Anyways, I really how this shot turned out



Looks like The Swamp! 

Go Gators!


----------



## Wretched

Here's one of my shots on the cover. Seeing your work in this kind of format NEVER gets old!


----------



## Berti_smb

Shot my friends first flowers in his garden due to really long winter in Croatia 




First spring flowers by -berti-, on Flickr


----------



## Murmel

Got my SLR about 2 weeks ago, a Pentax Spotmatic with a 50mm lens. Haven't had much time to shoot, but I went out today and I think I would prefer a 35 over the 50, but it was fun nonetheless. The weather has also been very cloudy or rainy.

I'm going to Stockholm next week, so hopefully I can get more familiar with the camera there and get more shots.


----------



## -Nolly-

I'm enjoying having a smaller camera (Fuji X100) on our current tour, also going for a more traditional "film" look:


----------



## mikemueller2112

Just got back from a trip to Peru. Tons of epic views there. Have > 1000 photos to sort through, so I'll be busy. This is one of my favourites:

500px / Photo "Peruvian Sunset" by Mike Mueller


----------



## Wretched

What an amazing looking place!


----------



## Whammy

Just took this yesterday. The lighting was prefect so I snapped away.


----------



## Murmel

-Nolly- said:


> I'm enjoying having a smaller camera (Fuji X100) on our current tour, also going for a more traditional "film" look:



How do you like the X100? I heard it's super silent so you barely notice taking pictures at all.


----------



## Azyiu

So I did a walk around in the busy Mong Kok shopping district in Hong Kong.


----------



## Tang

Azyiu said:


> So I did a walk around in the busy Mong Kok shopping district in Hong Kong.



Love the colors in all of these. Damn..


----------



## Wretched

Some great shots from Azyiu and Whammy!


----------



## -Nolly-

Murmel said:


> How do you like the X100? I heard it's super silent so you barely notice taking pictures at all.



It's great! Took a little bit to get used to the slow auto-focus but overall it's lovely to have such a compact camera that gets great image quality, and yeah it's basically silent in operation


----------



## Whammy

Some photos I took today. The nicer weather makes it easier to motivate yourself to take photos


----------



## Winspear

I love those photos Whammy!

I am a right noob, got my first camera the other week - a Canon 600D  Having good fun!


----------



## Berti_smb

I have been wondering, how do you get those muted tones? I tried with curve and didnt get any good results, also i tried with backing off a great deal of contrast but than i lose colors :/ help me out, i am noob in lightroom 4 editing


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Curves in the top image; the bottom image has a group with a very light color (or white) set to screen and a layer filled with black set to hue; play with the opacity of each layer.


----------



## Berti_smb

Oh now i see  i was just playing the wrong way with the curve. Tnx a lot!!!


----------



## Bevo

Just got the demo version trail of Lightroom 4, pretty cool but lots of learning to come!
Not sure what you did above but I like the results and will try to duplicate that.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Look to the right and the text somewhat explains it. (The curves adjustment and the layers for the bottom image - though I don't know if LR does layers).


----------



## Whammy

Lightroom doesn't do layers and getting the muted tones isn't that straight forward if you don't know the curve function fully.

Normally in Lightroom you can't by default change the curve with points. You have to use the sliders as shown below...





If you click the bottom right symbol it hides the sliders and allows you to add and move points on curve.
It should look like this after you click the button. Notice it added a point at the top and bottom of the curve line...





All you need to do now is click the bottom left point on the line and drag it up.





Your darkest point is now set slightly higher.
If you want the sliders back click the bottom right symbol again and you can control you curve with them but while keeping the new default curve line.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Ah, that explains it - LR's functionality is significantly different. I tried LR and just couldn't get into it.


----------



## Whammy

ThePhilosopher said:


> Ah, that explains it - LR's functionality is significantly different. I tried LR and just couldn't get into it.



It took me so long to figure this out in LR


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Crushed Self:


----------



## Wretched

An unusual edit to a photo I took this past weekend while visiting my grandmother... I like the light streaming through the trees.


----------



## Khoi

I love the colors in that shot, esp the complementary orange and teal-ish blue


----------



## Wretched

I humbly admit to using an LR preset for this. It's called SURREAL COLOR 1 PWK. Can't recall where I got it from.


----------



## Winspear

I am really enjoying my new camera but I haven't really had a chance to go anywhere useful to try it out yet. Very confident with the workings now though so looking forward to it!

I urge everybody to look around their local cash converter shops or whatever you call them. I found a 75-250mm Tamron macro telephoto lens in there for just £20. Beaten up exterior but perfect working condition - just got the mount adapter for it through today!


----------



## Decreate

Here's a few more.


----------



## Azyiu

Decreate said:


> Here's a few more.



I too took some shots of the Rubber Duck last week, but I want to re-shoot it when the weather gets better before posting anything.


----------



## Decreate

Azyiu said:


> I too took some shots of the Rubber Duck last week, but I want to re-shoot it when the weather gets better before posting anything.



I would have loved to take pictures of it in better weather but since I'm not in HK most of the time, I don't really have a choice.


----------



## Winspear

Went out very early this morning with a friend, some beers and some herb to take a few shots and film the sunrise. Went pretty well!












I also accidently blurred a shot which, put into black and white, could serve as a perfect cover for a very dark EP I am putting together...


----------



## Winspear

As with anything I do, I always get way ahead of myself and set ambitious plans. That sunrise photo was actually shot quickly between part of a 30 min video shoot timelapse test. I've learned now that I should rather shoot photos on a timer instead of speed up video for stuff like that.

Now I have this crazy plan...
Find a hill from which I can view both the sunrise and the sunset (which I believe is roughly 230 degrees). Get a 180 degree fisheye which will be able to view pretty much the entire 15 hour sequence, with a little very subtle panning. Battery pack, many spare AA's, timer control..
One shot per 25 seconds for 15.75 hours = 2268 shots
At 25 fps that's 90 seconds which is a great duration for this kind of video. It will also fit perfectly onto my 64GB card in RAW format.
I also tested too, 25 seconds is quite an ok increment in normal windspeed to allow clouds to travel smoothly.

Am I crazy or should I invest about £350 into achieving this? What should I do to ensure a setting has good exposure for the entire sequence? I did find today at least, that I was able to run a very fast shutter speed, slow ISO and large aperture even just before the sun rose, so it seems like the camera was getting plenty of light and that all exposure would be coming from the sun itself, not to mention awesome image quality. But it's still pretty crazy bright when the sun is fully out...Would the exposure control on RAW editing actually be any use for such a bright image?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

You'd probably want to look into bramping (bulb-ramping) for the exposure. I've done some timelapse stuff, but nothing of a sunset:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue4d5iR8ros


----------



## Winspear

Good stuff. Thanks for that! I guess I'll be needing an ND filter too as a longer exposure time will make the clouds much smoother with only one shot every 25 secs (not to mention I have read that the camera can be damaged otherwise). I don't think you can get those for a fisheye, though...


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Typically they use internal gel filters.


----------



## Winspear

Yeah, been finding that - seems hard to find relevant results and sources etc. though. Perhaps lucky as I'm thinking 18mm might be better anyway..An epic fisheye landscape would be cool but the sun might get too small.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Just look up the lens on BH's site and see what kind of filters it takes; search for filters.


----------



## Azyiu

Decreate said:


> I would have loved to take pictures of it in better weather but since I'm not in HK most of the time, I don't really have a choice.



FYI, the Rubber Duck is gone for the time being! 

Per the news report, leakings were discovered since last week perhaps due to the heat at the harbor, or due to the heavy wave. Regardless, they temporarily let all the air out of the duck, and are attempting an emergency repair. No timetable of its return just yet, stay tuned.


----------



## Winspear

Had some fun and got myself locked in a graveyard tonight


----------



## Khoi

Some more of my live concert shots. These were actually taken a while ago when the band opened up for Periphery a few months back in St. Augustine, but I finally got around to editing them.


----------



## Experimorph

I've been stalking this thread for quite some time as I really admire you guys' works, and here's my first entry! I'm really an amateur photographer - got my first DSLR, a Canon EOS 650D with the kit 18-55IS II lens, in February - but I'm slowly getting the hang of it.

There's actually a story to this photo, which makes it all the more remarkable for me. I walked past this cherry tree on my way home this morning, and I only noticed it because of a bee that was hovering about the blossom. I was completely stunned by the tree's beauty, so I swapped my camera and started chasing after the bee. I lost all sense of time and space at that very moment.

When I stopped shooting and came to, I noticed an elderly man monitoring my doings - I have no idea how long he had stayed there. As I stood up, he inquired what I was doing. I didn't really understand the question; I was clearly holding a camera. He quickly excused himself and asked: "What I mean is, what did you see in the picture?"

I got caught in this conversation for quite some time and learned a lot about his past. But what made this event so special to me that I'm still overwhelmed by it was the man's last question:

"Where does one find peace of mind?"

I know mine was in the last photograph I took.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Shooting a dance studio this weekend - equipment check:


----------



## MythicSquirrel

I don't take photography nearly as seriously as some of you guys, but I went out with the DSLR last night and snapped a few pics. Here's my favorite of the bunch:


----------



## Wretched

Just about to do a test assembly of my new Rig Pro camera rig for my very first rig shoot tonight. It's not a commissioned shoot, which is weird for me, but I want to make sure I can do them right and get decent results before doing any for money. Wish me luck!


----------



## Khoi

pictures of the rig??


----------



## Wretched

Not sure if this will work... 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...82862282.66384.151361221578193&type=1&theater

This only shows two sections of the six sections of pipe that make up the rig. It ends up being 18ft long.

Check out their page for setup shots and finished shots from some of their other customers... https://www.facebook.com/AutomotiveRigPro


----------



## Tugberk

Hi eveyrbody, I am an amateur photographer. I use a Canon 450D + 18-55 IS. This setup is very simple and answers all my needs. Here are few shots, please enjoy.


----------



## Khoi

Wretched said:


> Not sure if this will work...
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...82862282.66384.151361221578193&type=1&theater
> 
> This only shows two sections of the six sections of pipe that make up the rig. It ends up being 18ft long.
> 
> Check out their page for setup shots and finished shots from some of their other customers... https://www.facebook.com/AutomotiveRigPro



that's sick, I would be so scared to do that but it looks so fun


----------



## Wretched

It all went off without a hitch! Pretty user friendly to work with. Will post my first result/s later today.


----------



## Khoi

I tried to take pictures of lightning last night. It went okay, but I think it could have gone a little better!

I tried 2 methods, one using a long exposure, and the other just trying to reflexively shoot.

Both methods yielded some cool shots!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I always use bulb and a cable release when I shoot lightning.


----------



## Khoi

I need to get me one of those  

I just had it on my tripod and clicked it with my finger, which is prob why it's not as sharp


----------



## Wretched

Yeah, the cable release systems are pretty cheap and worth the spend. I think you'll find most guys and girls who get awesome storm shots have the shutter open for a long time to get as many lightning strikes into the frame as possible. However, the TYPE of storm can also effect the result. Some lightning storms just light up all the clouds and rarely show themselves, whereas some constantly have the branches visible.


----------



## Wretched

OK, so here are a few shots from my first go at using a camera rig. The system is a Rig Pro unit from over in the USA. Find 'em easy on Facebook if you're interested.

I found the unit quite user-friendly and not at all hard to figure out. Although, I HAD been studying setup shots on their FB page and the few rig shot groups on Flickr beforehand. I find that kind of mental preparation really helps my confidence.

I did three setups at different elevations. I prefer the more elevated angles that show more of the car, but I think the middle shot really captured the sense of movement on this occasion. The location and lighting are pretty boring, but I really just wanted to pop my rig cherry and I learned a lot from it... 

Doing rig shots really seems to be more an extension of regular car shooting than a whole new discipline. It still requires a good location and nice lighting to get the best results. Hopefully I'll be more comfortable this weekend when I do one more test shoot before offering it in my commercial work.


----------



## MrYakob

Went out to the annual Tulip Festival in downtown Ottawa today, this was the last weekend for it and unfortunately it was quite overcast and rainy so I didn't get to take as many photos as I would have liked.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

My photos from a fashion show I was at got picked up:
Designer Toni Whitaker makes a dramatic comeback after a forced hiatus - CultureMap Houston


----------



## Wretched

Well done!


----------



## Wretched

Here are a few samples from a shoot I did for a custom workshop up the coast. I also shot a series for them this time last year. They use them in their promo materials for a big indoor car show in Sydney every July where most of the nation's top show cars get unveiled for the first time.

A few of what you see in the background (excluding the Stude) will be finished and ready for showing in July.





















If you're interested, you can see the lighting and EXIF info on the pics at my Flickr page here: Jessica Pridham for The Chop Shop - a set on Flickr


----------



## Tang

I've been focusing on music so much recently that I've forgotten to take pictures.. 




What's that? by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

Got sick of waiting for the magazine to run these on their site I went ahead and posted them onto my Flickr page anyway:

Got to shoot Obituary on May 4 at Sydney's Manning Bar. They kicked some major arse and I've never heard such a good mix at that venue, let alone a one-guitar band. Nor have I seen anyone use a Strat to play death. Nice!































See more here: Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Pull back from the dance studio I shot last weekend:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Lunch break from earlier today:


----------



## Winspear

My first long exposure shot. I like it but there is a lot wrong. I needed a torch to be able to see what on earth I was framing, and couldn't see what I was focusing at all else I'd have focused that plant.

I shot this with a 50mm. I tried to use my 18-55mm too but couldn't get anything but blackness with that even though the exposure time was right up just the same as the 50mm. What was up with that?  
Going back with a torch next time to try and do it properly.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

BOOM I JUST GOT A CANON 60D! 
and a 50mm F 1.8 IS II lens. 

Here's a couple pics that I took earlier this afternoon: 








Oh the Bokeh... So creamy...


----------



## Wretched

EtherealEntity said:


> My first long exposure shot. I like it but there is a lot wrong. I needed a torch to be able to see what on earth I was framing, and couldn't see what I was focusing at all else I'd have focused that plant.
> 
> I shot this with a 50mm. I tried to use my 18-55mm too but couldn't get anything but blackness with that even though the exposure time was right up just the same as the 50mm. What was up with that?
> Going back with a torch next time to try and do it properly.



Not sure on all your settings, but it's probably safe to assume your 50mm is a much faster lens than the 18-55mm. So if you were shooting 'wide open' on each lens, the 50mm will let more light in because it's widest aperture is probably something like f1.8 where the 18-55 would be more like f3.5.

What was the shutter speed? Upping your ISO would have brightened the scene a lot, too. If you're worried about grain, a little noise reduction would handle it. Unless you were in the dark in the middle of nowhere, I would have thought 10-30sec would have provided a pretty bright scene.


----------



## Winspear

You are right that the apertures are different - however I set both very high at 16 or so to get a greater depth of field because I couldn't see what I as focusing. It was pitch black, but I couldn't understand why a 30 second release (which is what was used for the photo posted above, ISO 100) still resulted in a pitch black photo. I even put it on bulb and held for 45 seconds, still no light...I had to check that I hadn't left the cover on! I had to leave at that point so could try no further but it makes no sense to me at all. I know large depth of field and very low ISO results in very little light, but I would expect to see something from 45 seconds given the results of the photo above at 30 on the other lens. I'll go try again with a 2minute release or something if the lenses really are that different!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

What were the settings for the image above, it's quite easy to calculate the required exposure time.


----------



## Winspear

I don't have the RAW anymore but it was around f16, ISO100, 30 second exposure on 50mm. 
The zoom lens was probably set to around 30mm also at around f16 ISO100. Tried 20, 30, 45 secs - all black. Upped the ISO, still black then I had to go home


----------



## ThePhilosopher

My suggestion would be to do a test at home of a stationary object and do a long exposure with each lens and see if they'll come out the same. Your camera should focus just fine through the filter (whether you can see or not).


----------



## Wretched

f16 is a pretty small aperture. I could understand that if the scene was so dark, you didn't see much after 30-45sec. I'd just open up more. Even at f16, if the focus wasn't right, it still wouldn't be sharp regardless.


----------



## Berti_smb

Two of my friends had a gig a week ago so i took some pictures. I used Canon 550d and 50mm 1.8 II. If i remember correctly settings were: f/2.8 , ISO 1600 and shutter speed 1/100.




WeCreate Guitarist by -berti-, on Flickr




Subscale Guitarist by -berti-, on Flickr


----------



## Khoi

I'm not sure where else to share this, but for any videographer or video enthusiasts like me, Magic Lantern has made some incredible advances in RAW recording.

This literally means that you have the flexibility of RAW when grading your video shots. They are essentially moving CR2 files!

It's been pretty optimized for the Canon 5D Mark III, but they are greatly making improvements for the 5D Mark II, 6D and 600D etc.

Another really surprising thing is the Canon 50D is actually a GREAT RAW video shooter for a cheap price!

You really have to see it in action to understand the amount of flexibility and even amount of detail and raw data that your videos now retain




Here's more info on the Canon 50D RAW recording that explains it better than I could

http://www.eoshd.com/content/10507/it-lives-5-year-old-350-canon-50d-becomes-raw-cinema-monster


----------



## MetalBuddah

This is probably my favorite photo I have taken all year. So vibrant with color and very well framed. This is the port at St. Kitt's from when I was on a cruise in March. (Nikon D3100/50mm)






I also have a thing for fences. Found this in one in DC by the Zoo. (Nikon D3100/35mm)





Im just starting out and I have to say...I am somewhat intimidated by some of the photos on here 



EDIT: Oh wow....didn't realize how gigantic these shots were.


----------



## Wretched

Khoi said:


> I'm not sure where else to share this, but for any videographer or video enthusiasts like me, Magic Lantern has made some incredible advances in RAW recording.
> 
> This literally means that you have the flexibility of RAW when grading your video shots. They are essentially moving CR2 files!
> 
> It's been pretty optimized for the Canon 5D Mark III, but they are greatly making improvements for the 5D Mark II, 6D and 600D etc.
> 
> Another really surprising thing is the Canon 50D is actually a GREAT RAW video shooter for a cheap price!
> 
> You really have to see it in action to understand the amount of flexibility and even amount of detail and raw data that your videos now retain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's more info on the Canon 50D RAW recording that explains it better than I could
> 
> It lives! 5 year old $350 Canon 50D becomes raw cinema monster | EOSHD.com




Yeah, I've been watching this unfold on sites like fstoppers.com. Very interesting and awesome to see people tinkering with the firmware/installing their own etc, to make cool shit happen.


----------



## Wretched

A sneak peek from a shoot I did this week. Paint wasn't great, but it came out OK.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Having owned my 60D for 4 days now and taken around 300 shots already... 
Dang this thing is amazing. 









Ok, that's enough ridiculous BOKEH for now... 
Here's a couple pics I took when I was in the studio with my good buddies Mark and Matt. 








And here's a picture that a friend of mine took of ME! (first picture of me on these boards I think...)


----------



## Wretched

A sample from the shoot we did last night on a sweet chopper for a magazine over here. Most of the shoot was done in the soft dusk light, but if it gets dark enough, I always like having a play with the light painting.


----------



## Ghost40

I dabble a bit, I wish there was an easier way to link the individual photos from my site...

Zenfolio | David Knife Photography


----------



## Azyiu

Took this one last Saturday under a very rare clear blue sky here in Hong Kong.


----------



## m3ta1head




----------



## Decreate

A shot I took in Tibet


----------



## lawizeg

Really want to get into photography! Amazing stuff here guys.


----------



## Wretched

Just shot this workshop for Performance Garage magazine on Saturday. Had the guys stand in various positions doing different things around the shop so I could stick them together in Photoshop. Happy with how it came out. You can see it bigger here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/benhosking/9004205493/


----------



## soliloquy

Wretched said:


> A sneak peek from a shoot I did this week. Paint wasn't great, but it came out OK.



i have a question regarding your indoor camera settings. your lighting is so perfect, almost seems like an indoor HDR or something with long exposure...but the lights aren't doing that 'burst' thing common with long exposure...

how do you do your indoor pics? the colors everything comes out great


----------



## Wretched

Thanks man, that's nice of you to say!

The settings on this shot were: 30sec @ f7.1, ISO 160, 70mm focal length.

This shot was two exposures; not for an HDR effect, but to allow me to get that blast of flash onto the hood without seeing me or the actual flash. Both 30sec and same as above.

I usually include all my lighting info and EXIF data in my shots on Flickr. You can see this shot here: Fane's Turbo V6 Nissan | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Hope it helps!


----------



## soliloquy

if you're into long exposure, maybe try the 'man on fire' thing


----------



## capoeiraesp

I picked up a Fujifilm x100 the other day and so far I am mighty impressed. It's not a simple camera to work with but it's a really satisfying experience and it's pushing me to learn more than the basics.


























Gonna head into town and get some street action happening.


----------



## Azyiu

soliloquy said:


> if you're into long exposure, maybe try the 'man on fire' thing




The dude "on fire" technique looks very cool and interesting. I think I might just try it out down the road. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## xfilth

Long time no post! 

Some great stuff on the past pages, you guys are seriously talented

Random idea I've had for a while:


----------



## Decreate

Here's another one from Tibet:






The rest are at Decreate813's photosets on Flickr if anybody is interested.


----------



## blanco

I went to cyprus a couple of weeks back, my first holiday in four years, didn't take to many pictures but there were so many lizards near our house. The moon did this really neat thing where it started of orange and became clearer as it moved across the sky.


----------



## asher

Oh, what the hell. I haven't really shot much in years (it petered out when I got into college) and felt like I'd hit a wall, but I just went through this again and it's not as bad as I thought it would be.

asher-s's deviantART gallery


----------



## Wretched

Great to see some new faces sharing pics in here, but overall it seems like it has quietened down a fair bit...

Here's are two of my latest, testing out the new camera rig one more time before offering the service with my other commercial shoots:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

This makes me want to post the only auto photography I've done:
One of the first bagged SRT-8 300s


----------



## Wretched

I really like the 300Cs. They never proliferated over here like in the US, but we do see some with 22s, slammed and dark tints. A believe there are a few getting around with blowers too, but it hasn't become a scene like over there.

I like the elevated angle of the front shot!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I really liked the symmetry of that shot too; I wanted him to take off the plate all together and I would take the holes out in post, but we didn't have a screwdriver.


----------



## Wretched

I don't think it takes away from the image. All cars have them anyway.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

This thread seems to be getting a little more dead each day... 

I'll try to revive it with these: 




























All taken with the 60D + 50mm F/1.8


----------



## Wretched

Gotta love the nifty fifty. I've got the 1.4 version. Don't use it often, but always wonder why not when I do.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

snagged a canon 50mm 1.4 a few weeks ago at Adorama in NYC, been having some fun with it despite being a little long on a crop. Need to shoot with it wide open more often. 




IMG_5382 by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr 





IMG_5060 by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr 




prs I by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr




XI by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr 




Emin9 by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr




all-time co pilot by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr




IMG_5132 by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr





IMG_5129 by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr


----------



## soliloquy

/\ i love the last one the most. love its lighting and mood you've captured


----------



## capoeiraesp

Love it! So tempted to sell an amp to get another camera with a f1.4 50mm. Such beautiful contrast.


----------



## Skyblue

Please note- non of the following pictures are of good quality, as they were taken with my cellphone. They were simply taken by my randomly as I saw stuff I wanted to capture, and I'm posting them here because I like how they look, and not because how good they look quality wise. so please, save any quality-based criticism... But feel free to comment anyway


----------



## Murmel

^
I dig the last one, love the abandoned look and feeling.


----------



## Azyiu

Help and advice needed for outdoor long exposure shot here!

So what do you guys do to avoid tripod vibration for outdoor long exposure shots? This is one area I keep having trouble with, and I've tried anything from weighting down the tripod, mirror lockup etc; yet there is still this annoying vibration from time to time.

FYI, by long exposure I am talking about anywhere between 5" and 30", and I am using either a 70-200mm f/2.8 or that lens on a 2x extender (= ~400mm).


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Without knowing more about your tripod and how the lens is mounted this could be a difficult question to answer (there are other factors as well). I will say longer lenses will register any camera shake more readily than wider lenses. Check your tripod collar, all the knobs on your tripod, and any QR plates you're using to make sure all is tight.


----------



## Experimorph

Loving all the contributions. I just went on a leisurely, spontaneous cycling trip in the sunset in hopes of catching a photo of something worthwhile. Unfortunately I came back home without a single shot... Better luck next time, I guess.


----------



## Azyiu

ThePhilosopher said:


> Without knowing more about your tripod and how the lens is mounted this could be a difficult question to answer (there are other factors as well). I will say longer lenses will register any camera shake more readily than wider lenses. Check your tripod collar, all the knobs on your tripod, and any QR plates you're using to make sure all is tight.



Certainly, and thanks. That said, the tripod and the ball head on it are definitely fine. Looking back at my troubles from the other night, I believe there were two contributing factors.

1) It was pretty windy
2) I totally forgot to switch OFF the IS on my lens... yeah I sucked!


----------



## Wretched

Grab a cable release? 10sec timer?


----------



## bulb

On vacation in Cape Cod with the gf and took some shots throughout the day:


----------



## Azyiu

Wretched said:


> Grab a cable release? 10sec timer?



Even better, I have a wireless one. 

Seriously, as said above, I think the two main factors were the very windy condition + I totally forgot I left the IS on... bummer... next time I will definitely switch OFF the IS, and be more careful.


----------



## kaffefilter

Some shots I took at a Meshuggah show in Stockholm a few weeks ago.














https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151526370766220.1073741834.686301219&type=1&l=da77683e36
http://flickr.com/johanbackstrom


----------



## soliloquy

here are some brilliant star trail pics. NOT TAKEN BY ME!!!













































> It may surprise many of you to find out that the Australian photographer does not consider himself a professional photographer. In fact, the talented Lincoln Harrison has not received any formal training, nor does he hold any degrees in photography. He further explains, "I wasnt planning on getting into photography as a hobby but a week later I had about eight lenses and all the other goodies. Ive been shooting at least two or three times a week ever since, mainly landscapes [and] star trails when the conditions are just right."



more pics and source here: Amazing Long-Exposure Pics Of Star Trails - Likes



my question is, i've seen people using this self starter remote control they attach to their camera that takes pics one after another ever 30 seconds for a 30 second shutter speed. then they merge 100's of pictures together to create this star trail image. 

why go through all that hassle when you can just keep your shutter open using 'bulb' on your camera for a few hours...wont it do the same thing?


----------



## Wretched

I think they do it because of the additional light an exposure that long would bring to the other elements of the image like the town, horizon, foreground etc. Also, noise could become a big issue. Doing it that way just gives more control.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

You also have to deal with heat buildup in your sensor if you do longer exposures and that will greatly decrease the S/N ratio.


----------



## Azyiu

And battery life too. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think a fully charged battery (unless you are using a battery pack) can go beyond 6 to 8 hours in operations non-stop.


----------



## Wretched

All of these things!


----------



## DarkKnight369

Some of my more recent work...











Self Portrait...


----------



## DarkKnight369

kaffefilter said:


> Some shots I took at a Meshuggah show in Stockholm a few weeks ago.



I love the audience reflection in his bass!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's not a bass...


----------



## DarkKnight369

ThePhilosopher said:


> That's not a bass...



Oh yeah...oops. I clearly was more focused on the reflection than the instrument. I forgot about that Iceman 8 he plays.


----------



## Wretched

A few pics from a spread that was finally published this week. I posted a shot of this car in here a while back when I originally shot the car, but here are a few previously unpublished:


----------



## capoeiraesp

Do you guys have any good photography resources for beginners/intermediates?


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

We're a good resource.


----------



## MrYakob

Ocara-Jacob said:


> We're a good resource.



This is true, I only got my first camera a couple of months ago and I've learned a lot from reading these posts and dissecting the pictures you guys have taken. That being said, I do agree with the above post - I would love to have a single source with a bunch of quick tips/rules o thumb etc. I can find information scattered over the internet but I feel like half the time I don't even know what I'm looking for in the first place!


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

^ I actually have the same problem haha. There's a few pros on here though, so PM them with specific questions I say.


----------



## DarkKnight369

MrYakob said:


> I would love to have a single source with a bunch of quick tips/rules o thumb etc. I can find information scattered over the internet but I feel like half the time I don't even know what I'm looking for in the first place!



If it were that simple, there would be an even larger flood of photographers than there are now. I have been seriously doing photography for about 4 years or so. I started my path in college around 2003-2004. I was a multimedia major and photography was embedded into my program. I had a couple semesters worth of training. I have come to learn that photography can be trial and error, and the best way to learn is to go shoot and try different things. Its not quick, but the more you do it the better you will get.

If you are looking at a simple place to start I have 2 things for you to do:

1.) Learn everything you can about lighting. Read books, articles on the internet, etc.

2.) Read your's camera's manual and learn everything about it.


Lighting is hard to master. I still struggle with it at times. Its really awesome when you can control it in a fixed setting, like a studio or something. It can be obnoxiously difficult in very unpredictable situations. Shoot band gigs was a real eye opener for me. Large venue concerts usually have some nice pro lighting and are a little easier to deal with. Smaller gigs can have crap lighting that is going on and off randomly. It can be extremely difficult to nail nice sharp shots in those conditions. I learned that the hard way. I still struggle with indoor weddings at times as well.

Knowing your gear can make a difference. For the longest time I was frustrated with the autofocus not choosing the ideal points, making some images unusable. Read my manual and realized I could choose the autofocus points on the fly, really nailing what I was after.


----------



## Wretched

Here are a few links that might help (I am not associated with any of these links):

Canon's own video series: Canon DLC: Gallery: Canon EOS 101: Photography and Videography Basics

A website called tutsplus. They have a range of sites with excellent tutorials on different things like vectory graphics, photoshop and also taking photos: Photography and post-processing tutorials from beginner to advanced | Phototuts+

If you want to learn off-camera flash, the strobist blog is THE place. Extensive and numerous tutorials all free: Strobist

(I AM associated with this link) InFocus is a free iPad magazine for photography and video: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/infocus-australasia/id627335324?mt=8


----------



## metal_sam14

So I have had my 650D for 3 months now, I was taking some rubbish out the other day and saw some cool colours on the horizon and tried a few snaps, I really liked this one. I had to crop it a bit as there was way too much boring foreground, but I think this turned out OK. As a beginner I would really love to know what you guys think


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I think I would have gone 1-stop darker to avoid having the horizon being blown out (and possibly grabbed a grad ND).


----------



## metal_sam14

ThePhilosopher said:


> I think I would have gone 1-stop darker to avoid having the horizon being blown out (and possibly grabbed a grad ND).



Noted! thanks man


----------



## ZakkB

Here are a couple taken with my Canon Rebel T3i, with the stock 18-55mm lens.


----------



## kaffefilter

Up the street by *kaffemugg on deviantART


----------



## capoeiraesp

Thanks for the resources and tips. I have a lot of respect for you guys and your work on here. 

I'm back in my home city of Perth on the west coast of Australia and recently spent some time hanging out with my old capoeira master in the hills. These aren't edited at all, only in camera monochrome etc.


----------



## Wretched

Some nice shots there, man. You captured the vibe well, I think.


----------



## Wretched

A few shots from a recent shoot that just made cover of a local bike magazine. Spent a long time working the first shot to remove highlights from the tool chests behind and a few highlights on the bike as well. Happy with how it came out.


----------



## Whammy




----------



## Wretched

Finally got around to buying myself a macro lens! Another motoring shooter over here listed his Canon 100mm f2.8L IS for sale on Facebook for cheap and I jumped on it. These are the first two pics I've taken with it so far...

Lighting was from a 300-LED light panel.


----------



## Lillub85

I know this isn't about the thread, but how do you post big pictures. I only know how to attach images. Thanks


----------



## Wretched

I have my images posted on Flickr. I use the little button above the Quick Reply text window with the mountain and sun icon to insert the URL for the image location and bingo.


----------



## Murmel

Damnit, had a great shot of my dog yawning, but I was too focused on getting the framing just right so I missed it. I'm super picky when I shoot too, because I shoot film, need to start taking more chances.
Unfortunately it's very hard to make a dog yawn on command, so I only got a regular shot of her.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

One from some headshots I shot on Saturday, natural light and minimal processing.




​


----------



## Wretched

Very nice, Philosopher!


----------



## Azyiu

Three crappy shots I took the other night.


----------



## Decreate

They're good, but I personally would have straightened the IFC in the second pic.


----------



## Azyiu

Decreate said:


> They're good, but I personally would have straightened the IFC in the second pic.



Thanks, and I don't disagree with your comment. The "funny" thing is that, I've all other shots of it "straighten", and I thought they all look too "boring"; so I ended up picking this one to post.


----------



## Wretched

Had another shoot published recently. This car - a 1971 Holden HQ Monaro - was insane. Check out the undercarriage! If you're interested in the lighting or EXIF, you can see it all here: Peter Kotsopoulos' 1971 Holden HQ Monaro - a set on Flickr


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Oh my FRICK yes^


----------



## metal_sam14

Girlfriend went away for the weekend and I got bored, we had a cold snap recently and I live an hours drive from a nice accessible mountain, so I grabbed the camera on a whim and took some snaps, here are the ones I liked:


----------



## ghostred7

Nothing that great, but was testing some DOF on my cam since I've been without camera battery for years. Did this of some "burnt ends" I made for the July 4th party in neighborhood.


----------



## Wretched

Tried focus stacking for the first time over the weekend, using my new 100mm macro lens. Pretty happy. The copper coil was only about 10mm in diameter.


----------



## Furtive Glance

That looks awesome.

I finally got a 6D after much deliberation. I was shooting with the original XT for about 5 years and was looking at higher end cameras for a looooooong time and finally just sprang for this as a self-graduation present. Fantastic camera. Good lord, such a step up


----------



## Wretched

Nice! The 6D boasts some great specs. Enjoy.


----------



## Fiction

These 3 were from a skate the other day, the focus is a wee bit out on the last 2, because generally I focus, aim and set aperture and shot speed whilst moving. It's always fun and a good way to get quick at taking shots. Going for a duller orange tint kind of look.




Westpac by Zac Cause, on Flickr




Chopper by Zac Cause, on Flickr




Cockatoos by Zac Cause, on Flickr


This one is just playing around in my room at night, with only my lamp on.




Keyboard by Zac Cause, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Random dog looking back at me


----------



## Wretched

Fantastic, Whammy. Love the beam of light. Talk about good timing... or patience!


----------



## Whammy

It was more good timing than anything. I turned around and saw the dog walking towards the light so I got my camera ready and just as I took the shot he turned his head haha


----------



## Wretched

A couple more macro shots I did recently, using focus stacking...

You can download these under the Creative Commons system for use in your own design projects if you like. They're all in high-res: 2013_1007 - Macro Textures 1 - a set on Flickr


----------



## wilch

my missus and I went for a drive to the beach on the weekend, and I snapped this shot.




Porsche Boxster 986 2.7L by wilch, on Flickr


----------



## possumkiller

So you took a pic of a Porsche somebody left by the road?


----------



## wilch

possumkiller said:


> So you took a pic of a Porsche somebody left by the road?



No, that is her Porsche.


----------



## Wretched

Clean horizon line on the Porsche.


----------



## TheDuatAwaits

First time at this.


----------



## Khoi

I've been out of this thread for a while, but I've been on vacation and took a 2 day camping trip to Big Sur, CA.

I haven't really felt inspired lately, but here are some shots I took:


----------



## Whammy




----------



## ThePhilosopher

levijaymz said:


> First time at this.



Holy white balance...


----------



## soliloquy

Azyiu said:


> Three crappy shots I took the other night.



mind i ask what settings you used? every time i do night time photography, my pics turn out too 'starry' and bright, or red/orange even if i go WAY out of my way for white balance...


----------



## -Nolly-

Whammy said:


>



AWESOME


----------



## Whammy

Cheers Nolly


----------



## Wretched

Latest automotive stuff... Like the sunlight in the panning shot.


----------



## Wretched

Just uploaded some more macro texture images to my Flickr account. I put all my texture images under the Creative Commons licensing system so people can use them for their own creative uses - all in high res.

This was my second go at focus stacking. Pretty happy with the results.


----------



## ZakkB

My latest pictures


----------



## Wretched

Some interesting stuff there, Zakk. Nice mood.


----------



## Whammy

Sorry about all the dog photos.
It seems that lately the only time I get out with the camera I also have the dogs with me.

I would prefer to be shooting something else with a theme in mind but for the time being I'll practice my portrait photography on the dogs


----------



## metal_sam14

I was kind-of happy with this picture that I took today, it could be due to the sheer amount that I scrapped but hey, only a few months in and still learning


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Did another shoot with my remarkably photogenic friend recently, and got a few that came out nice.




IMG_4436 by J Henry, on Flickr


I'm having a really hard time finding a way to upload my photos without having them completely pixellated to hell, and having smooth gradients completely roughed up. Photobucket was terrible for it and Facebook is worse. The best I've been able to find is Flickr, but I'm still getting a reasonable amount of compression. I know it is has a lot to do with the way I'm editing because I only really started having these issues when I started really crushing the shadows in the curve, but do you guys have any advice? I've been recommended Behance, have any of you guys used it?

I also just picked up a new prime. I found the 50mm f/1.8 was often too cramped for a lot of things I wanted to do like shooting indoors, in tight spaces, etc because I'm using a crop sensor. I looked into my options and made up my mind pretty quickly on trying out the new line of "art" primes that Sigma's putting out. I just got home with the 30mm f/1.4, and I'm going to put it through the wringer tomorrow. Initial impressions are great, as the construction, fit and finish are impeccable. If it performs as nicely as it looks, I think it'll be a tough lens to beat for around $500.


----------



## Wretched

Gee, I've always used Flickr, but have thought they looked OK. Not sure what to suggest.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Wretched said:


> Gee, I've always used Flickr, but have thought they looked OK. Not sure what to suggest.



Flickr is miles better than anything else I've tried, no doubt. What it is for me is that it gives me some strangeness in the shadowy areas, which are way more raised/faded out than your style, which I'm assuming is why I'm having this issue. It seems that the more I flatten out the bottom of my curve, the more of a problem I get. Adjusting selective colour may also have a hand in it. Flickr has been sufficient for me up until this recent set I did, but I really pushed the bottom of the curve here, much more than anything else I've processed before.

For example, the shadowy area to the right and her hair are completely smooth in the original file, but when I upload to Flickr, it gets noisy/grainy and pixellated like this.




IMG_4494 by J Henry, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

You guys above to some inspirational stuff!

I spent sometime in Fremantle, Western Australia with my good mate Dan from Matsu Photography. He gave me a few pointers and techniques for photography when we were there.


----------



## Wretched

JeffFromMtl said:


> Flickr is miles better than anything else I've tried, no doubt. What it is for me is that it gives me some strangeness in the shadowy areas, which are way more raised/faded out than your style, which I'm assuming is why I'm having this issue. It seems that the more I flatten out the bottom of my curve, the more of a problem I get. Adjusting selective colour may also have a hand in it. Flickr has been sufficient for me up until this recent set I did, but I really pushed the bottom of the curve here, much more than anything else I've processed before.
> 
> For example, the shadowy area to the right and her hair are completely smooth in the original file, but when I upload to Flickr, it gets noisy/grainy and pixellated like this.
> 
> 
> IMG_4494 by J Henry, on Flickr




Maybe the adjustments to the curve is compressing the spectrum of shading or something? Like, there's more image data in a typical wide spectrum of gradients and by reducing the contrast, it's reduced enough to be more noticeable in web-based situations?


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Wretched said:


> Maybe the adjustments to the curve is compressing the spectrum of shading or something? Like, there's more image data in a typical wide spectrum of gradients and by reducing the contrast, it's reduced enough to be more noticeable in web-based situations?



Yeah, that sounds like it could explain it. I guess it's just something I'll have to take into consideration when I'm processing. I also did try behance, and it seems to handle it better than any other medium I've uploaded to. It actually seems like a really interesting site with amazing artists on it as well.

Also, I got a chance to go out with the new 30mm f/1.4 lens today, and to say that I'm loving it would be an understatement.

Wide open at f/1.4: Having never shot at wider than 1.8 before, I love the shallow DOF and the super buttery-smooth bokeh.




IMG_4834 by J Henry, on Flickr

And from f/2.8 and on: it's really as sharp as I could ask for.




IMG_4639 by J Henry, on Flickr

I'd say for roughly $500, this lens would be pretty tough to beat if you want that great roughly 50mm equivalent walk-around on a crop sensor. I did notice some of the chromatic aberration that was noted in reviews, but not enough to be a deal-breaker. I'm really looking forward to seeing what I can get out of this lens.


----------



## Khoi




----------



## kaffefilter

Flickr: johanbackstrom's Photostream


----------



## MetalBuddah

Kaffefilter....I love the colors in that photo. 

What camera/lens/settings did you use?


----------



## kaffefilter

MetalBuddah said:


> Kaffefilter....I love the colors in that photo.
> 
> What camera/lens/settings did you use?



Thank you! Canon 650D and a Sigma 17-50/2,8, using three exposures and some work in Photomatix+Lightroom for color tones.


----------



## MetalBuddah

kaffefilter said:


> Thank you! Canon 650D and a Sigma 17-50/2,8, using three exposures and some work in Photomatix+Lightroom for color tones.



Cheers


----------



## Philligan

Here are some from my second-ish batch of pictures with the T3. I tried messing around with post editing, too - just the stock DPP that came with the camera. I can't really afford Lightroom at the moment, and Gimp is intimidating. 

I borrowed my dad's tabletop tripod and have been messing around with the manual settings. Mostly just aperture adjustment, and a bit with the shutter speed. I tried full manual mode, but for the life of me I couldn't figure out how to adjust the aperture in it. 

Edited flowers:




Beach (it was super windy and kinda cold, so I took like three pictures and went home haha):




S00per serious lens cap:




Controller:




And a really processed shot of the crap on my coffee table. I realized you could see my reflection in the monitor so I edited it a bunch to hide it.


----------



## Philligan

I tried editing that beach one from raw in iPhoto. Is it worth spending time with iPhoto, or should I just stick it out with Canon's DPP until I can afford Lightroom?


----------



## xfilth

More impressive shots these past pages. Wretched, I gotta say your photos are the essence of sharpness, be it the macro shots or car shots!

Dabbling in portrait PP. No clue what I'm doing






Also tried my hand at focus stacking - here is a backplate screw from an Ibanez:


----------



## MrYakob

Today was Redbull Flugtag in my city, unfortunately I was only there in time for the last 15 minutes and the crowd was crazy so I could barely see but here's one of the very few photos I was able to take.


----------



## Wretched

Nice job on the focus stacking, xfilth!


----------



## Philligan

I've never heard of focus stacking before, that's awesome. 

I was at Future Shop with a buddy and caved and got a 50mm f/1.8. I haven't had time to get out and take much with it yet, but I was showing my girlfriend and took a bunch of pictures of her.  This one came out pretty cool. I'm still trying to get a feel for what I should be setting my aperture at (I'm pretty much keeping it in aperture priority). This was with the aperture wide open.

edit: What's the trick for getting pictures super sharp?


----------



## Tang

I haven't been using the 'ol DSLR much recently, but I'm trying to change that with the best models I have  As always, using a Pentax K30 with a 35mm f/2.4. Favorite combo, most def.




Ramona B&amp;W. by nrrfed, on Flickr




Smokey Cat. by nrrfed, on Flickr



Philligan said:


> I've never heard of focus stacking before, that's awesome.
> 
> I was at Future Shop with a buddy and caved and got a 50mm f/1.8. I haven't had time to get out and take much with it yet, but I was showing my girlfriend and took a bunch of pictures of her.  This one came out pretty cool. I'm still trying to get a feel for what I should be setting my aperture at (I'm pretty much keeping it in aperture priority). This was with the aperture wide open.
> 
> edit: What's the trick for getting pictures super sharp?



You set your aperture based on various factors.. how much light is available, how much DOF you want.. the picture you posted might be a slightly OOF because you could be too close to the subject. Every lens has a a minimum focus distance, and the lovely lady you posted appears VERY close to you.

EDIT: the 50mm 1.8 min focus distance is 1.5ft.


----------



## Khoi

Philligan said:


> edit: What's the trick for getting pictures super sharp?




Good lighting - low aperture, low ISO, and a decent shutter speed. 

One thing that I learned too late is that shooting down way at f/1.8 significantly decreases the sharpness. I never stop down that low anymore unless I really really need it, or shooting video (where sharpness doesn't matter as much).


----------



## metal_sam14

I got my tax back and decided to grab a 40mm f2.8 pancake, so far I am loving it. I got to take some pictures of my baby nephew, here are my favorites: 









This edit turned out to be pretty funny so I left it


----------



## metal_sam14

I got my tax back and decided to grab a 40mm f2.8 pancake, so far I really like it, even for the convenience alone. I got to take some pictures of my baby nephew as a test run, here are my favorites: 










This edit turned out to be pretty funny so I left it


----------



## xfilth

Khoi said:


> Good lighting - low aperture, low ISO, and a decent shutter speed.
> 
> One thing that I learned too late is that shooting down way at f/1.8 significantly decreases the sharpness. I never stop down that low anymore unless I really really need it, or shooting video (where sharpness doesn't matter as much).



True! 

It also comes down to the specific lens. Some lenses are sharp wide open (if you can tame the shallow DOF ofc!), but some need to be stopped down to get really sharp - I feel like f4 to f8 is typically the sweet spot? You don't want to go with a too small aperture either, because of diffraction. I really noticed this when shooting (non focus stacked) macro shots and wanted a bigger DOF, stopping down to f22 or f32 - very big DOF, but it hurts the sharpness.

Also, I hear some lenses tend to be softer closer to the minimum focus distance

Rule of thumb for shutter speed when shooting handheld is 1/(focal length). So if you're shooting at 100mm, opt for 1/100 or faster


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I've found that 1/(EFoV) generally works better and compensates for crop bodies. (EFoV = effective field of view: crop factor*focal length). You can get away with less with good technique, but handholding can be tough to master.


----------



## Tang

Lol, iPhone pic but I loved how the colors and symmetry turned out.


----------



## Winspear

Took the ViK for a little walk with a 50mm before realising almost every shot I intended to capture was a wide angle. Oops, nevermind  Got some cool stuff anyway!












Any comments? I feel like I've got the point where I know what I'm doing and how to achieve the effects that I want, but don't know what I'm doing _wrong _or what could be improved.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That second shot would be cool if you stacked a long exposure and a shorter exposure to get the movement in the clouds and get more dynamic range without resorting to HDR. I'm a huge fan of cloud movement, ala:


----------



## xfilth

^That third one is so nice. Gotta love IR landscapes!

Got myself a little niece in march. Lovely subject to shoot


----------



## Whammy

ThePhilosopher said:


>



Oooh those medium format shots are nice. That camera lens is tasty


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Another from the headshot session - natural light, it was starting to get a bit windy so the flyaways were making us both :






Whammy said:


> Oooh those large format shots are nice. That camera lens is tasty



Fixed. 4x5 negatives.


----------



## Furtive Glance

EtherealEntity said:


> Took the ViK for a little walk with a 50mm before realising almost every shot I intended to capture was a wide angle. Oops, nevermind  Got some cool stuff anyway!
> 
> *SNIP SNIP SNIP
> 
> Any comments? I feel like I've got the point where I know what I'm doing and how to achieve the effects that I want, but don't know what I'm doing _wrong _or what could be improved.



That first one's sick. Would make a great desktop background!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Two from the wedding I shot last night:


----------



## Whammy

ThePhilosopher said:


> Fixed. 4x5 negatives.





I always wanted to shoot large format


----------



## Whammy

Yet another dog portrait from me


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I think if the subject were moved further left in the frame it would work a bit better as opposed to being centered.

I'm looking to try 8x10, but the cost is exponentially greater than shooting 4x5 (which if you shoot color is about $2.50+ per shot).


----------



## xfilth

Whammy said:


> Yet another dog portrait from me



Nice shot, I like how you matched the darks with SS.org's color scheme


----------



## Whammy

ThePhilosopher said:


> I think if the subject were moved further left in the frame it would work a bit better as opposed to being centered.



I assume you are talking about mine 

Yeah framing could be better. Dogs don't pose for photos so I normally have to act quick when I see a shot. I would have preferred to get lower to the ground and have the horizon lower, using the bokeh trees more as a frame. Didn't get enough time haha 



ThePhilosopher said:


> I'm looking to try 8x10, but the cost is exponentially greater than shooting 4x5 (which if you shoot color is about $2.50+ per shot).



Yeah it's so expensive. You nearly want to make every photo count


----------



## Winspear

ThePhilosopher said:


> That second shot would be cool if you stacked a long exposure and a shorter exposure to get the movement in the clouds and get more dynamic range without resorting to HDR. I'm a huge fan of cloud movement, ala:


Thanks man I'll try something like that! Nice pics 



Furtive Glance said:


> That first one's sick. Would make a great desktop background!



Thanks! It's my background at the moment  Flickr: tomwinspear91's Photostream There is hi res if anyone wants it

Speaking of which, maybe someone could shed light on this...
Seems that big images look awful small. Like, if I'd have posted the full images instead of ones about a third of the size, you'd probably find the thumbnails up there looked a lot worse. What's with this? I set that as my wallpaper and it looks pretty dreadful. Do I need to export all various sizes from Photoshop because it has a better 'resizer' or something? It does seem Flickrs right click size options are converted better than some things though at least.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I've not used a hosting site in years, but when I resize for web I do a little bit of high pass sharpening. I handle all of my own resizing just because the algorithms a lot sites use isn't as good.


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> Yet another dog portrait from me



That's all I do, man.. All I do!




Ramona by nrrfed, on Flickr




Ramona by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> That's all I do, man.. All I do!



At least I'm not on my own 

Nice grainy B&Ws


----------



## Negav

So many talented people here, really beautiful photos.


----------



## Murmel

I don't take credit for this photo. It was taken by someone at a recent TOE concert. I just thought I'd share, because I think it's dope as hell.
Unfortunately it was taken with a cellphone, had this been on a DSLR it would be ridiculous. Good thing he/she didn't bring it I guess, there seems to have been some rain


----------



## Tang

Murmel said:


> I don't take credit for this photo. It was taken by someone at a recent TOE concert. I just thought I'd share, because I think it's dope as hell.
> Unfortunately it was taken with a cellphone, had this been on a DSLR it would be ridiculous. Good thing he/she didn't bring it I guess, there seems to have been some rain



Absolutely love this shot. That it was taken on a cell-phone must adds to the charm. I'd have cropped it a bit after the fact (empty space on the top and bottom) but it doesn't take anything away from it.



here's one of my recents. the lady made a ton of tie-dye shirts for our upcoming vacation and Smokey decided that it's a kickass place to take a nap.




TieDye Smokey. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## bulb

So much talent in this thread, kinda scary haha.

I just had the urge to take a picture of my PRS, I guess the lighting just seemed like it would work out well, and the guitar is very photogenic. 






SOOC it looked nice, but I always have this editing urge as well haha. I didn't do too much to it (mostly just s-curve and tweaked the red of the couch so it wasn't so "loud"), it's mostly just the golden Mk3/50L combo doing all the work haha. Maybe one of these days I will try to challenge myself and do a day of SOOC pics, maybe allowing myself to B/W some pics as the only exception.


----------



## Tang

My Pentax will only focus properly in Live View. I am not pleased, as I'm leaving for vacation in 6 days.. goddamnit.




Sid (pushed curve) by nrrfed, on Flickr




Dexter and his Superman. by nrrfed, on Flickr


Misha: nice! that prs has a killer grain. damn.


----------



## Wretched

Love the PRS! One day... one day.


----------



## LeviathanKiller

Here's some recent photos I took of ss.org member WaffleTheEpic. One has already been used as a meme in the meme thread. Feel free to download any of them to make more memes. All I ask is to be credited by my username somewhere along with it. 

Did a light bit of enhancing (contrast, etc.) in Lightroom 4. Shot with a Nikon D7100 + Sigma 70-200mm.


----------



## Tang

I was inspired by misha and leviathan and the light was perfect.. so.. ! This is also the first time I've really pushed the highlights so far.. I kinda like the effect it gives. Adds some mystery, imo. Pentax K30 + 35mm f/2.4.. as always.




Artcore Sun. by nrrfed, on Flickr




Artcore Sun #2. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## kaffefilter

Stars in Sweden


----------



## Tang

Does anyone here enjoy framing your shots in ratios other than 3:2 or 4:3? I've been trying my hand at some much wider ratios (1.77:1 anf 2.35:1). I like to pretend I'm a director of photography on some artsy sci-fi movie 

Like so! This is the first time I've tried to incorporated diagonal lines in my work, and I love the end result. Having the umbrella hanging almost perfectly vertical is icing on the cake. 








Kaffe: killer trail shot! Damn, I'm jealous.

Edit: rule of thirds all up in this!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Do panos count - they're clickable to full-sized.


----------



## LeviathanKiller

What do you using for stitching those? Very nice panos


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I used Photoshop CS5.


----------



## Kaickul




----------



## Wretched

Duuuude, they're some wide panos! Ever printed one? Framing must be a bitch!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I have one printed in sections of canvas board: 8x60 or something I believe.


----------



## LeviathanKiller

ThePhilosopher said:


> I used Photoshop CS5.



I always forget about the basic tools in PS. They have that and some other things like focus stacking I think. I need to do more of that.


----------



## Philligan

I posted these from a couple albums in Standard Guitars, but I got some cool ones of my girlfriend's guitar recently.













These next two were manual focus, and I'm really happy how they turned out. For the label inside the sound hole, I couldn't get the camera to autofocus on it with the strings in the way, so I had to go manual. I actually took this one more or less upside down, and wasn't happy with it, so took a few more. Once I was converting them, I wasn't crazy about the others I took, and ended up rotating this one and loving how it turned out. 





For the bridge, just to see the difference, I took one on autofocus and one on manual. This is the manual. Weirdly enough, it came out clearer. I might start just shooting in manual - not sure yet.


----------



## Philligan

Well, time for more pictures.  My buddy bailed on me today, so I walked over to the park and took pictures. Mostly of bits of garbage that I came across. I used pretty much all manual focus this time, too.





















































That was the best one I could get of my neighbour's dog, Polly. Apparently she didn't like the camera, she kept barking and walking away from me.


----------



## metal_sam14

My drummer got a sexy new kit and he wanted me to take some snaps of it miced up and under lights, so at our last gig I shot and edited this: 






Also took some pictures of the bands, as it was my first time photographing a gig they universally sucked. I salvaged this shot into something semi-usable:


----------



## Khoi

Something a little moodier


----------



## Whammy

Just quickly snapped these two as I noticed them..


----------



## Wretched

Some nice moods going on in here!


----------



## MrYakob

Apologies in advance for the big dump of pictures, but I treated myself to a 40mm 2.8 and a Canon 85mm 1.8 just in time for my week long trip to Lake Placid, NY.  Both of these lenses are fantaaastic! The 40mm is such a great lens to leave on and walk around with


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That first shot is killer.


----------



## Whammy

It's great seeing all these different styles of photos from people  Loads of different subjects and moods 

Managed to get out today with the camera. Only took a few. I like these three


----------



## ThePhilosopher

One from Lake Austin:


----------



## Wretched

Whoa! To think that I thought this thread was dying just a couple of weeks ago! Nice work everyone! Loving it.


----------



## LeviathanKiller

Whammy, what are the details on the images! I'm guessing maybe editing filters were used to achieve the lomo-dreamlike effect? Love those last two especially the flower one. I really like your style man.


----------



## Wretched

Here are my pics from the Karnivool gig at the Big Top, Sydney on August 4, 2013. Supported by Northlane.

See all 37 here: Karnivool @ Big Top, Sydney - August 4, 2013 - a set on Flickr


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Some film snaps, been getting into 35mm lately. Fuji Superia 400 film with some bad scans here or there. a couple interesting winding errors as well.




01_4 by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr







03_6 by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr




22_27 by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr




10_15 by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr




21_4A by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr





14_11A by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr





13_12A 2 by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

LeviathanKiller said:


> Whammy, what are the details on the images! I'm guessing maybe editing filters were used to achieve the lomo-dreamlike effect? Love those last two especially the flower one. I really like your style man.



Cheers 

Not too sure what you mean by "details".
But most of my photos are taken with the same lens. All the ones above are an old 55mm f/1.2
I shoot wide open a lot of the time and with a lens this fast it gives a soft dreamy effect naturally.
The color processing on the photo would have been to enhance what's already there. Along with enhancing the natural vignetting and sharping the area that's in focus because it's a soft lens when shot this open (even the bits in focus are soft )

The flower shot was shot at f/2 I think 
It's an old lens so the metadata holds no lens information.

Hope that answers your question 

Here's a before and after so you can see the shot RAW from the camera


----------



## Whammy

Whatever lens you are using it's beautiful. And great use of it too  Not all lenses render the background out of focus in the same way and this does it in a really eye pleasing way. To me anyways 



Paul Reed Shred said:


>


----------



## LeviathanKiller

Whammy said:


> Cheers
> 
> Not too sure what you mean by "details".
> But most of my photos are taken with the same lens. All the ones above are an old 55mm f/1.2
> I shoot wide open a lot of the time and with a lens this fast it gives a soft dreamy effect naturally.
> The color processing on the photo would have been to enhance what's already there. Along with enhancing the natural vignetting and sharping the area that's in focus because it's a soft lens when shot this open (even the bits in focus are soft )
> 
> The flower shot was shot at f/2 I think
> It's an old lens so the metadata holds no lens information.
> 
> Hope that answers your question
> 
> Here's a before and after so you can see the shot RAW from the camera



Just wondering what you just told me. lol
I see now how you got that ethereal look if you're at f/2! 
Do you edit most of your stuff in Lightroom with purchased presets, freebies, or start from scratch on most?
That edit is killer but so was the "before" even. Solid content.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Dancing atop a cliff - mostly just trying out the E-PL3 to see how it handles:


----------



## Whammy

LeviathanKiller said:


> Just wondering what you just told me. lol
> I see now how you got that ethereal look if you're at f/2!
> Do you edit most of your stuff in Lightroom with purchased presets, freebies, or start from scratch on most?
> That edit is killer but so was the "before" even. Solid content.




Yeah I do everything in Lightroom. It has everything I need and nothing I don't 
I always start from scratch but have made a few general presets of my own settings to speed the process up


----------



## MrYakob

Whammy said:


> Yeah I do everything in Lightroom. It has everything I need and nothing I don't
> I always start from scratch but have made a few general presets of my own settings to speed the process up



If you wouldn't mind, could you (or anyone else for that matter!) explain some of the main 'go-to' things that you generally do when editing? I'm extremely new to all of this and so far I've just been either altering presets that have a similar feel that I'm trying to achieve, or just fumbling with different sliders and curves until I stumble on to something that isn't terrible


----------



## Wretched

A few shots from one of my last car shoots. A turbo V6 Datsun 260Z. Pretty crazy car. Makes almost 600hp.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Holy crap I stop checking this thread for a couple days and it blows up... Good work y'all. 

Anyways, I was working on live patches for my band and ended up pulling out my camera. These are what happened. 
50mm, and I think I took all these at either F1.8 or F2.8... I don't remember. Looks like 1.8, they're not sharp enough to be 2.8. 

Edited in GIMP, just did a little curve adjusting mostly. 














EDIT: Here's a shot I took of my new Jaguar. For the record, I enjoy how this one turned out.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Whammy said:


> Whatever lens you are using it's beautiful. And great use of it too  Not all lenses render the background out of focus in the same way and this does it in a really eye pleasing way. To me anyways



Thank you! The beauty of 35mm SLR systems (especially electromechanical ones) in my opinion is the interchangeability & accessibility of all the options to choose from. as long as the glass is light-tight and focuses correctly, nearly any mount or design can be used. Personally, I'm using a Yashica FX-103 Program in metered manual with a old screwmount Yashica ML 50mm f/1.7 adapted to fit the contax/yashica mount. It's pleasingly soft wide open (most of these shots) and a fine balance between the stopped down f2.8 sharpness and 1.7 creaminess a half stop between. Nearly everyone has a 35mm camera lurking around somewhere in a closet or attic, and with drugstore scans and processing for around $3.50-$4.00, film has been winning me over lately.


----------



## Whammy

Paul Reed Shred said:


> Thank you! The beauty of 35mm SLR systems (especially electromechanical ones) in my opinion is the interchangeability & accessibility of all the options to choose from. as long as the glass is light-tight and focuses correctly, nearly any mount or design can be used. Personally, I'm using a Yashica FX-103 Program in metered manual with a old screwmount Yashica ML 50mm f/1.7 adapted to fit the contax/yashica mount. It's pleasingly soft wide open (most of these shots) and a fine balance between the stopped down f2.8 sharpness and 1.7 creaminess a half stop between. Nearly everyone has a 35mm camera lurking around somewhere in a closet or attic, and with drugstore scans and processing for around $3.50-$4.00, film has been winning me over lately.



Yeah normally stoppind the old lenses down a few stops sharpens them up quite a bit.
I love old lenses. Something about them compared to the modern counterparts that I prefer. Less clinical or accurate, depending on your point of view 
I prefer the feel of them too. Having the aperture conrtol on the lens and 100% manual focus.

I used to shoot with an old Olympus OM1 and built up a collection of lenses. My fav being a single coated lens from the late 60's I think  An Olympus 55mm f/1.2.
I how have an adapter so all my old OM lenses fit my Canon 5D, and with it being full frame it captures the whole lens, no cropping of the corners of the lenses which is where I think they have loads of character 

For me it works. Old lens full of character on a digital body. Of course I still miss shooting film and the smaller bodies that come with it.
Nicer shutter sounds too


----------



## kaffefilter

Stars in Visby


----------



## LeviathanKiller

*Mods: Not trying to sell it here. Not anywhere on this forum actually or to any forum members. My post was edited in the other thread to make that clear and so this post was as well as a precaution.*

Here's my Fender Stratocaster that I'm in the process of selling actually. I'll miss it, knowing it was my first guitar.  I've just gotten to where I don't like the shape of the neck. Oh well. 

Gear: Nikon D7100 + Sigma f/2.8 70-200mm & Sigma f/2.8 17-50mm
Editing: Adobe Lightroom 4 for correcting the white balance and adding some contrast and clarity to make it look as close as possible to what it looks like in person.

You can click on each of the images to see them full web-size (1280x853)


___

___

___

___


----------



## Tang

I can't wait to start editing and posting my vacation pics. Lots of goodies.


----------



## xfilth

Borrowed my father's 100-400L, but it was rainy today, so I couldn't really go out:







And a couple of promo shots for me and my flatmate's overly pretentious upcoming concept album:


----------



## Tang

Spot metering + exposure lock = sharks.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Still needs a touch more work:


----------



## Wretched

Nice one, Philosopher. Told myself all week I'll put some more time into lighting practise this weekend, but we'll see! Will post some results if I do.

What was your light setup for this? Look like a clam setup.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A 36"x48" softbox above and slightly to her right (left in frame) and a silver reflector below and a little offset to the other side.


----------



## CD1221

Great thread.

Here are some of the first macro experiments I did last year after a mate gave me some macro rings he never used. 

Canon 350D + macro rings + 50mm 1.8prime + manual focus (the macro rings kill the camera's connection to the lens, have to "focus" by moving the camera.


----------



## soliloquy

kaffefilter said:


> Stars in Visby



what was your setting for this? how many shots were taken and at what interval and what was the shutter speed and iso?


----------



## LeviathanKiller

soliloquy said:


> what was your setting for this? how many shots were taken and at what interval and what was the shutter speed and iso?



In other words...everything.


----------



## ZakkB

Some of my latest work.




















The inspiration for this came from the music video for "Icarus Lives!". Really cool cinematography.


----------



## MrYakob

^Really digging the mood on those shots, nice work man!


----------



## Tang

I took over 1500 pics on vacation  i love photography!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I've got some of those colors too:


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> I've got some of those colors too:



Killer 

Thinking about investing in strobes.. love the look you've got there.


----------



## Whammy




----------



## Ocara-Jacob

The old man picked up a new bike today, so I grabbed the camera as he was getting ready to go for a ride. Just had my 50mm, and it was a little long for these shots, but that's alright. Anywho, these were all taken at F2.8


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Good thread.

I got into photography about 9 months ago when my old man gave me his old Nikon FG - 35mm SLR. Since then, I've got hold of a couple of old lenses and a Nikon D200. The D200 is a good camera, and was a brilliant camera in 2006, but suffers considerable noise at higher ISOs compared to more modern cameras.

Here's my flickr Flickr: joeharvatt's Photostream


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I used a D200 for years before I got my D3 and as a nice backup camera afterward - I traded it for a full 4x5 enlarger setup with a digital timer as I needed that more at the time.


----------



## Tang

Joe Harvatt said:


> Good thread.
> 
> I got into photography about 9 months ago when my old man gave me his old Nikon FG - 35mm SLR. Since then, I've got hold of a couple of old lenses and a Nikon D200. The D200 is a good camera, and was a brilliant camera in 2006, but suffers considerable noise at higher ISOs compared to more modern cameras.
> 
> Here's my flickr Flickr: joeharvatt's Photostream



That's a great start, man. The D200 is a more than capable body, and it it'll autofocus those older screw-driven lens.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Thanks! One of the main reasons for choosing the D200 was the capability of being able to meter with my old AIS lens. I love my 50mm f1.8 It's about 30 years old but still looks great.


----------



## kaffefilter

soliloquy said:


> what was your setting for this? how many shots were taken and at what interval and what was the shutter speed and iso?



Haha, I'm not sure blue-printing the settings is the way to go for a shot... But I believe it was about a hundred shots taken within an hour or so. As far as exposure, I kept shooting with 30 second shutter speeds as my starting point and went for a sharpness/low-noise balance with the aperture and ISO from there.


----------



## Tang

I've really fallen in love with the look of slide film, particularly Fuji's Velvia. Thanks VSCO! Cats are from Hemingway's house in Key West. As usual, Pentax K30 body + Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.


----------



## Wretched

Ahh I remember slide film. Used to love it. Shot countless rolls at car shows, cruises and the like when working on car mags before the move to digital. Requires solid exposures. Well done.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I've been offered a bunch of slide film. What are the benefits over colour negatives?


----------



## Wretched

Technically, there really isn't a 'benefit'. AFAIK it came down to how images looked when scanned for print publication. I've seen many a negative scanned that came out with odd-looking colour casts in print (not to be confused with actual photographic prints). I can only assume that the chemical process of turning a negative into an actual photographic print corrects any colour casting that simply scanning with a drum scanner etc doesn't. Whereas scanning slide film, you already have your positive. Again, it's my assumption from having seen negatives scanned. And naturally, you can always try and correct for colour casts and issues like that in PS later, but magazines and newspapers don't want to spend any extra time on things that they don't have to.

...then you have the typical inherent characteristics of any given film brand and type that photographers find appealing: ie Fujifilm offering richer greens, Kodak favouring the reds etc. Slide films have their own character too, I guess. I don't claim to know them all though, and many have, and continue to, disappear.


----------



## Tang

I love the greens that Fuji slide film produces (real or in Lightroom). Doesn't slide film last much longer than negative film?


----------



## Wretched

How do you mean, 'last'? As in, keep well before use or last well after processing? Or both?

I would assume that, all things equal with regard to processing and fixing of the chemicals, as well as storage, they'd both last equally well.


----------



## senate

My band played a few interstate (Sydney and Canberra) over the weekend just passed.


----------



## Fiction

Ahh good old Clear Skins  .. Good pics, dude!


----------



## Tang

Found this hop-on on my way to work yesterday... quick snap!




Hop hop lizards. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

First dance:


----------



## Kaickul

Offroad/Mountain Trip


----------



## Tang

Oh, how phones struggle in the dark 




BSB2013. by nrrfed, on Flickr




Untitled by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

A few new ones...















Me!


----------



## Tang

When I first began photography, I believed to get great shots you needed a great body and a better lens. Hours of using flickr wondering how all these photogs got such awesome colors and sharpness.. NOW I KNOW!

Hemingway Cat #3423.




Hemingway Cat #2. by nrrfed, on Flickr

Trust no one:




Security. by nrrfed, on Flickr


Anddddddddddddddddddddd, my possible favorite shot from the trip. Pure serendipity.




Reflections. by nrrfed, on Flickr

ISO100 + 2.8 + in-body stabilization 




Jennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Need some opinions. 

I'm picking up a new canon 7D and a 135mm f2 L lens (well recommended). I should still have about $500 or so for another lens. What would you guys suggest? 50mm 1.4?


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Tang said:


> When I first began photography, I believed to get great shots you needed a great body and a better lens. Hours of using flickr wondering how all these photogs got such awesome colors and sharpness.. NOW I KNOW!



What did you find out?!



capoeiraesp said:


> Need some opinions.
> 
> I'm picking up a new canon 7D and a 135mm f2 L lens (well recommended). I should still have about $500 or so for another lens. What would you guys suggest? 50mm 1.4?



I think the 7D has a crop sensor? If so I'd go for something a little wider. A friend of mine has a Sigma 30mm f1.4 which is fantastic. I use a 35mm f1.8 on my D200 which has a crop sensor giving an actual focal length of about 52.5mm

Or if you've got a little more cash, Sigma have just released the 18-35mm f1.8 which I'm excited about but will probably not be able to set money aside for!


----------



## capoeiraesp

Cheers man. I was thinking a sigma 30 or 35mm would be good to go for so I can achieve a more accurate 50mm look.


----------



## Philligan

I wandered around a bit trying out my AE-1 for the first time today. I'll have to wait and see, but I'm pretty sure I over exposed every shot. 

I brought my T3 along, too. I've been really into B&W lately, so tried doing a couple that way.


----------



## Khoi

Tang said:


> When I first began photography, I believed to get great shots you needed a great body and a better lens. Hours of using flickr wondering how all these photogs got such awesome colors and sharpness.. NOW I KNOW!



what did you find? using an unsharpening mask?


----------



## Tang

Khoi said:


> what did you find? using an unsharpening mask?



I'm gonna level with ya man, I found my old Xanax prescription last night and I really had no idea what I was going on about! Looking out my output folder it appears I edited/processed something like 80 pictures and I truly don't remember doing them! 

My apologies for the photography/post-processing equivalent of drunk dialing! Mildly embarrassing!

Back on subject.. Khoi, I've always used Lightrooms sharpening panel.  I'm fairly certain only PS has unsharp mask.


----------



## Wretched

Here's a sneak peek at the results from my first attempt at using a constant light source to light a car instead of just creating squiggles in the background. I used a 300-LED light panel inside a softbox, three or four 30sec exposures and voila!
Pretty happy with the results. There was much more dimension to the image using this lighting method.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang said:


> Back on subject.. Khoi, I've always used Lightrooms sharpening panel. I'm fairly certain only PS has unsharp mask.



You can use the high-pass filter to sharpen as well; there are other methods of sharpening as well, but USM and HPF are the two most common methods besides plug-ins. I only sharpen my web-sized images, for my large files that I almost never do any sharpening.

ACR also has a sharpening algorithm.


----------



## Berti_smb

Its been a while since i used my Canon 550d...
I shot my lovely girlfriend on a sunny day in back yard  This one is shot with 50mm 1.8 II on f/2.8, ISO 100. LR processing...




Melita by -berti-, on Flickr


----------



## Decreate

A pic I recently took in Tokyo.


----------



## Tang

Decreate said:


> A pic I recently took in Tokyo.



Nice shot! Do you own a ND filter? That could've made this shot even better (imho, of course!)


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A 10 stop nd would have made this killer.


----------



## Tang

My first attempt at 'astrophotography'. Sadly, I was so drunk (that's what you do on cruise ships.. get drunk and take pictures) that I forgot to take into account that I was on a moving ship so I should've used multiple short exposures and stacked them in post. As it is, however, I had one 30s exposure that I pushed by 1-stop in post. You can see a hint of the Milky Way, though.




lolstars by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## metal_sam14

My partner and I went on a 5 day getaway to Victoria (Australia) this week. Among the plethora of tourist shots I snapped I made sure I spent some time working on my Photography, I came up with a few shots I am semi-happy with, here they are:


----------



## Philligan

^Those last three are awesome! 

Here are a couple from the last week or so. My buddy with a hot dog, and my dog. 









This one came out kinda cool I think. I was trying to get the tower against the sky, but it was noon and they were all pretty much just totally white. So I tried dropping the ISO to 100, running the aperture on my nifty fifty around 20, and a fast shutter speed. I'm pretty sure I didn't do any post-processing to this.


----------



## Decreate

Tang said:


> Nice shot! Do you own a ND filter? That could've made this shot even better (imho, of course!)


Thx, was using a Voigtlander 12mm lens so I couldn't really put a filter on top of it.


----------



## Tang

Decreate said:


> Thx, was using a Voigtlander 12mm lens so I couldn't really put a filter on top of it.



Oo. That glass sounds most excellent.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> ^Those last three are awesome!
> 
> Here are a couple from the last week or so. My buddy with a hot dog, and my dog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This one came out kinda cool I think. I was trying to get the tower against the sky, but it was noon and they were all pretty much just totally white. So I tried dropping the ISO to 100, running the aperture on my nifty fifty around 20, and a fast shutter speed. I'm pretty sure I didn't do any post-processing to this.



Nice! I did something similar a few months back Love the starbursts.


----------



## Philligan

That's awesome and clear-looking!  What kind of settings were you using?


----------



## Philligan

I dogsat for some friends yesterday, took a couple pictures of him.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> That's awesome and clear-looking!  What kind of settings were you using?



Aperture priority. 1/400s, f/13, 17mm. Pretty much it!


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> Aperture priority. 1/400s, f/13, 17mm. Pretty much it!



Awesome, thanks man.


----------



## Wretched

Another shot from the Mustang shoot a couple of weeks ago... this one is using a Rig Pro camera rig. Pretty happy with it. Only my third time using a camera rig and first for publication...


----------



## ThePhilosopher

There's a local guy who does some awesome rig shots: Digital Remix | Photography by Costas Stergiou | Houston Texas Photographer | Automotive Photography - I was never into automotive photography, but this is some amazing stuff here.


----------



## Wretched

Yeah, there's a real art to good rig shots. I'm still learning. It has to combine the regular rules for a good shot, then add on top a different train of thought for what's going to look good in motion like that. Might take a bit to get my head around.


----------



## Tang

Tried my hand at so-called nightclub photography while on the cruise. Sadly, all I had was my onboard flash, but I did use a napkin to try to bounce the flash.




IMGP9955 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP0973 by nrrfed, on Flickr

EDIT: Wretched, your flickr sets are mindblowing. Seriously great work, man.


----------



## Winspear




----------



## Khoi

Tang said:


> Tried my hand at so-called nightclub photography while on the cruise. Sadly, all I had was my onboard flash, but I did use a napkin to try to bounce the flash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMGP0973 by nrrfed, on Flickr
> 
> EDIT: Wretched, your flickr sets are mindblowing. Seriously great work, man.




your shots are getting wicked sharp man, nice job!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

EtherealEntity said:


> Big Ben Clock Tower photos


One of my soapbox issues is leaning buildings besides Pisa and the derelict. LF spoils me since I can keep verticals straight all the way up (if I would ever buy a wide angle lens).


----------



## Winspear

ThePhilosopher said:


> One of my soapbox issues is leaning buildings besides Pisa and the derelict. LF spoils me since I can keep verticals straight all the way up (if I would ever buy a wide angle lens).



You're not wrong haha - the lampost was the priority for me for sure though, but I think I failed to make it the clear focus of the shot.


----------



## osirisguitar

Macro shots of my CortM520. Didn't seem dusty before I looked at the results 




Low E string, gauge .52 #macro #electricguitar #guitar #closeup #string osirisguitar.com by Anders Bornholm, on Flickr




Tune-o-matic saddle #guitar #electricguitar #macro #strings #closeup by Anders Bornholm, on Flickr




16. volume knob by Anders Bornholm, on Flickr



15. bridge screw by Anders Bornholm, on Flickr




14. bridge locking allen by Anders Bornholm, on Flickr




13. saddle close by Anders Bornholm, on Flickr




12. saddle by Anders Bornholm, on Flickr




11. pickup switch ring by Anders Bornholm, on Flickr




10. pickup switch close by Anders Bornholm, on Flickr




9. pickup switch by Anders Bornholm, on Flickr




8. tuning post by Anders Bornholm, on Flickr




7. pickup pole close by Anders Bornholm, on Flickr




6. pickup pole by Anders Bornholm, on Flickr




5. e-string close by Anders Bornholm, on Flickr




4. e-string by Anders Bornholm, on Flickr




3. a-string fret close by Anders Bornholm, on Flickr




2. a-string fret by Anders Bornholm, on Flickr




1. fretboard by Anders Bornholm, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Khoi said:


> your shots are getting wicked sharp man, nice job!



the compliment means the world to me! Thanks khoi!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I went for something warm and gritty:






And another from the beauty shoot - this why PS is better for me than LR (click the image):


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> I went for something warm and gritty:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And another from the beauty shoot - this why PS is better for me than LR (click the image):



damn dude, I've never put that much work into one photo.. at most using the cloning brush! Never anything with layers, though.

p.s. I was rocking Issues just the other day.. as good as I remember it being!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's not even that much work to tbh, most of it is fairly standard for my portraits except for the layers I merged to get the hair off of her ears (and the two versions stacked to get the background blackened naturally while keeping her brighter).

I heard a song from Issues on my Pandora and had to skip it so I could jam the album when I got home.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> That's not even that much work to tbh, most of it is fairly standard for my portraits except for the layers I merged to get the hair off of her ears (and the two versions stacked to get the background blackened naturally while keeping her brighter).
> 
> I heard a song from Issues on my Pandora and had to skip it so I could jam the album when I got home.



I have Photoshop CS2 (or whichever Adobe has up for free). Can it do the level of work you're doing here?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

If it has the healing tool (and a way to open modern raw files), then yes.


----------



## metal_sam14

I am in Sydney at the moment and I tried to squeeze some photography into the trip. I have also been working on my white balance and editing workflow so here goes:





















I have a couple of other shots from the trip too: Sydney - a set on Flickr


----------



## Fiction

I love the first shot, so surreal.


----------



## capoeiraesp

So sharp in the bird cage shots! Love it!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The bird cages are impressive - I prefer the shot in B&W.


----------



## bulb

Wretched, Tang and Khoi: Your guys pictures are really something else! Amazing work!

Wretched, I LOVE your car pics, I gotta learn how you get everything so sharp and what kinda lighting you use, your stuff looks like fine magazine work haha!

I picked up a Fujifilm X100 Black so that I wouldn't have to take the 5D3 on tour or to places where I wouldn't want to have to lug that around all day. I know the X100s is better, but I got such a good deal on this, and the x100s is backordered so even used ones are going for the same price as new, figured it wasn't worth the rather large price difference.

Either way I am really digging it so far:








Tried some macro shots with it too:


----------



## bulb

And one of the whip with the x100:


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Dang dude... the colors in your pictures are SO GOOD. What are you doing editing-wise? I'm guessing a little contrast adjustment and an S-curve?

EDIT: Here's a quick before/after comparison regarding what I do, editing-wise.


----------



## Philligan

These ones aren't the greatest, but I took them from a moving car haha. I wanna get out and get some grimy shots of the (grimy) new neighbourhood.


----------



## capoeiraesp

I just sold my Fuji X100 (Bulb, those pics are great!) to fund a 7D + 135mm f2 L + Sigma 18-35mm. Bloody nuts! The 135mm is so freakin' fast!


----------



## Tang

Bulb/misha: shit dude, thanks man! I love going out with my cameras and blasting PII. Really appreciate the kind words!


----------



## capoeiraesp

So, these are my first shots on my new 7D and 135mm f2 L.
I am a very, very happy man, even though my photo skills aren't deserving of such gear, yet.


----------



## kaffefilter

I've done some HDR shots in Stockholm over the course of the last year or so.
This picture at 500px
Portfolio


----------



## Murmel

Holy shit.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Reedit of a photo from 2010:


----------



## Wretched

kaffefilter said:


> I've done some HDR shots in Stockholm over the course of the last year or so.
> This picture at 500px
> Portfolio



Nice stuff man. Not normally an HDR fan, but that almost looks illustrated. Nice.


----------



## Wretched

Not sure if I've posted this light painted image before, but just in case I have, here are a few additional shots from that same shoot, which is now published out here in Australia in Heavy Duty magazine.


----------



## kaffefilter

Wretched said:


> Nice stuff man. Not normally an HDR fan, but that almost looks illustrated. Nice.



Thanks.


----------



## kaffefilter

Wretched said:


> Not sure if I've posted this light painted image before, but just in case I have, here are a few additional shots from that same shoot, which is now published out here in Australia in Heavy Duty magazine.



Digging the light painting.


----------



## Tang

Been going through my LR collection and re-editing some of my earlier work.. love the swirly bokeh from the third image. Old manual glass has so much character, imo. It's an old Tokina 135mm f/2.8.




Jenn 14mm. by nrrfed, on Flickr




Savannah LR5 edit. by nrrfed, on Flickr




Mona Borkeh. by nrrfed, on Flickr

EDIT: first two were my 14mm f/2.8 lens.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I spent the last 10 days travelling around France. Here are some shots I'm happy with...




































More on my Flickr.


----------



## Azyiu




----------



## ThePhilosopher

Fix up some of that red/blotchiness in her skin and it'll look much improved though, I'd have cropped the top of her head instead of right above the elbow hands in that shot.


----------



## Azyiu

ThePhilosopher said:


> Fix up some of that red/blotchiness in her skin and it'll look much improved though, I'd have cropped the top of her head instead of right above the elbow hands in that shot.



Thanks for your pointers.

For your cropping suggestion, what might be the determining factors in deciding either to crop the elbow or top of her head? Or what kind of different dynamic do you see in either options? Thanks.


----------



## Tang

Joe Harvatt said:


> I spent the last 10 days travelling around France. Here are some shots I'm happy with...



my favorite of the set.. nice work! I worked on more of those 'club' pictures. I experimented a good bit on these guys.. on these I used my Tamron 17-50 2.8. I started at 17mm and once the flash went off I quickly twisted the zoom up to 50mm before the exposure finished. I really love the effect it had.




IMGP0952 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP0938 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Azyiu said:


> Thanks for your pointers.
> 
> For your cropping suggestion, what might be the determining factors in deciding either to crop the elbow or top of her head? Or what kind of different dynamic do you see in either options? Thanks.



I guess the biggest reason for that particular advice is that you cropped too closely to the joint (elbow) and I can see her right hand so slightly and it's distracting. You (she) played up the hand with the left near her mouth so seeing both is more important than the top of her head. 

To paraphrase Peter Hurley, I know the top of her head is there (on headshots).

I also noticed her bra strap is peaking out near the top of her shoulder and the white near her back (right in frame near her hair) is distracting.


----------



## ghostred7

awesome shots all around. 

question for you photogs...
i'm still running on an old Digital Rebel (300D - the 6MP one) and need a lens other than the standard one that shipped w/ the kit. 

I used to have an aspherical macro 28-200mm i LOVED.

Would you get a new lens or update the body first? If body update, knowing I don't have anything but the standard lens, would you stay with Canon or migrate to one of the "prosumer" Nikon?


----------



## Joe Harvatt

In terms of migrating - if you have a Canon lens you like, stick with Canon. What's the kit lens?

Without knowing your budget and your intention it'd be hard to say whether to upgrade your body or your lens. Obviously your body is quite dated, but my Nikon D200 is quite dated and I manage to get shots I'm happy with out of it. As far as I'm concerned (and disregarding video capabilities) the reasons for me upgrading an older body would be for better noise performance at higher ISO settings and for greater dynamic range. I can live with the limitations of my camera for now - as a hobbyist (and on a student budget). I also don't mind having only 10 megapixels, so that might not have to be a concern of yours. I don't have a great deal of scope for cropping with a 10 megapixel image so I've tried to learn to take a better frame initially.

You should also know that I'm new to photography so not the most reliable source of advice! If I could afford it, I'd have a Nikon D800 with a lot of wide and fast lenses!


----------



## Tang

Be reprocessing some of my NYC shots. These 3 were my favorites from last night. I think the last shot looks damn good for ISO6400.


----------



## bulb

Wretched said:


> Not sure if I've posted this light painted image before, but just in case I have, here are a few additional shots from that same shoot, which is now published out here in Australia in Heavy Duty magazine.



You straight up need to teach me everything you know. 
Good goddamn.


----------



## bulb

Joe Harvatt said:


> I spent the last 10 days travelling around France. Here are some shots I'm happy with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More on my Flickr.



You too.


----------



## bulb

It rained rather suddenly, and I snagged some quick shots of the car since the water was beading nicely and the lighting was perfectly diffused.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

bulb said:


> You too.



Thanks very much! Do you have a Flickr, Misha?


----------



## Tang

Joe Harvatt said:


> Thanks very much! Do you have a Flickr, Misha?



Also curious about this. I'd love to follow all my fellow SSO photographers on flickr or 500px. 

my flickr

I also was wondering what everyones favorite shot of all time, that you took? For me, it was a picture of my girlfriend buying a hotdog or sandwich or something! Just great timing, IMO.


----------



## xfilth

Awesome stuff everyone! Getting really inspired from all of your work

A few randoms:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I don't have a flickr, but some of my favorite shots occurred on this canoeing trip. The weather changed half way out and it was fairly ominous on the return trip. All home-developed film:


----------



## Azyiu

@ ThePhilosopher, Tang, bulb or any of you expert here.

A family member asked me to do a family portrait (outdoor) for her family. In terms of gear I have one flash, two softboxes (one big one small) and reflector etc. Yet in terms of shooting for such purpose, what are some pointers I need to pay attention to? Your suggestions are greatly appreciated! Many thanks in advance guys!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

How many family members are we talking about? How much power are we talking about with the flash? Try to use rim light from the sun and balance with your flash if you can (you may not have the power to do depending on the size of the group). 

I'd use the largest diffuser I had, unless you were going to try something neat like try to shoot and light them individually then make a composite.

With groups, I tend to look for very clean backgrounds as any little thing sticking up I find distracting (the probability that it's growing out of someone's head greatly increases). 

Pay extra attention to proportion and posing as people generally are clueless about how the side of their arm is going to show in a photo (fatter than they'd like generally) as an example. Make sure everyone has similar style attire (don't put someone in business attire next to a teenager in a metal show garb).

Try to mix it up, have some formal and some more informal and casual in the feel of the images so they're not all the same when editing the selects down. This guy knows his posing and how to connect with his clients and I really try to get into this as I shoot and it's starting to make my photos better - I really need to shell out for the DVD.


----------



## Azyiu

ThePhilosopher said:


> How many family members are we talking about? How much power are we talking about with the flash? Try to use rim light from the sun and balance with your flash if you can (you may not have the power to do depending on the size of the group).
> 
> I'd use the largest diffuser I had, unless you were going to try something neat like try to shoot and light them individually then make a composite.
> 
> With groups, I tend to look for very clean backgrounds as any little thing sticking up I find distracting (the probability that it's growing out of someone's head greatly increases).
> 
> Pay extra attention to proportion and posing as people generally are clueless about how the side of their arm is going to show in a photo (fatter than they'd like generally) as an example. Make sure everyone has similar style attire (don't put someone in business attire next to a teenager in a metal show garb).
> 
> Try to mix it up, have some formal and some more informal and casual in the feel of the images so they're not all the same when editing the selects down. This guy knows his posing and how to connect with his clients and I really try to get into this as I shoot and it's starting to make my photos better - I really need to shell out for the DVD.




As always, many thanks for your suggestions! The size of the group is only 3 people. Two adult and an active 10-month-old boy! And my flash is the Canon 580EX.

In addition, when you are shooting a few people lining up horizontally, or when they all sitting on the bench or something; do you shoot them with your aperture wide open? Or close it down some to avoid the DOF getting too shallow? Plus, do you use a single focus point on your camera, and keep the person in the middle as your main focus point? Or, do you use the multiple focal points option in this case?


----------



## Azyiu

By the way, this is my second edit of the same shot I posted the other day. All done on Lr4, and I am never good at photo retouching / post processing... hopefully I will get better at it.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I think you'll be fine on light, I was worried you were trying to light a group like this with a speedlight:
http://bartkophoto.com/BrandiScott/Proofs/Brandi_Scott_0171.jpg



Azyiu said:


> In addition, when you are shooting a few people lining up horizontally, or when they all sitting on the bench or something; do you shoot them with your aperture wide open? Or close it down some to avoid the DOF getting too shallow?



I'll play with my aperture until I get enough DOF to have nose to near the ears of everyone in focus at the same time if I'm shooting parallel to the group:


Code:


-----group-----


------me-------


If I'm not then you'd really need to stop down or use a tilt-shift to get any background separation (or shoot with a 300mm or longer lens).




Azyiu said:


> Plus, do you use a single focus point on your camera, and keep the person in the middle as your main focus point? Or, do you use the multiple focal points option in this case?



I always use single AF point and put it right on the bridge of the nose of the person in the center of the shot when considering depth (may not be in the middle horizontally across the frame).

Retouching isn't really the kind of work you'd want to do in LR (unless they've added layers and it's more capable with regards to spot work).


----------



## Murmel

So I got a sweet deal on 550d from a friend of mine. I also purchased Lightroom.

I'm having a problem with the image not being the same while viewing in Library and Develop. If I choose 1:1 there's no difference, but on FIT it's very noticable.
From what I understand, the culprit is Detail in Develop mode, if I turn that option off there's no telling them apart. Of course I want that option active because it's adding so much to my photo.

When exporting, I get the file as I see it in Library mode. Is there any way of getting around this? Seems stupid not being able to use the Detail option just because of some lame bug.

I have googled, but it hasn't made me much wiser.

Edit: I disabled Details and tried to make some other adjustments. I couldn't make it as sharp as I wanted, but it's better than it was before. One of the first shots I did with the camera, it's my old middle school building.
Would've been cooler if you could get the whole building in the frame, unfortunately the surrounding scenery doesn't allow that.






550d 18-55mm kit lens.


----------



## LeviathanKiller

Wretched said:


> Not sure if I've posted this light painted image before, but just in case I have, here are a few additional shots from that same shoot, which is now published out here in Australia in Heavy Duty magazine.



What did you use as the light source for painting that? Some type of wand or large glow sticks maybe?


----------



## Khoi

Lighting pros:

I am in need of your expertise.

How do I go about in creating this soft lighting look? I absolutely love the mood and lighting in these types of shots. 

It looks like some sort of soft box/beauty dish? I have 0 lighting equipment right now except an external flash, but would definitely like to pick some up. What do I need? A remote controller? soft boxes/beauty dishes? 

I really have no idea.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

You can see the beauty dish in the reflection of the bowling ball in the last shot. The first shot is probably a beauty dish with a grid. A good size is 22" though I only have a 30" BD right now I'd like to step my beauty dish up to the Speedotron dish and add the right adapter for my lights. The shape of it is different from most BD and provides a unique result.


----------



## Khoi

Yeah, I was looking at a 22" BD to use with my Canon 430EXII. Do you think those would pair well to create lighting like that?

Are there other lights involved too? Or when shooting with a BD, is it primarily just the only light source?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Those all look like one light shots to me - I'm not sure if you'll be able to get enough power out of a 430 to throw that kind of light through a 22" BD from the distances you'd need and the DOF those shots have.

Some of my PRS SE Mushok with a covered BKP C-bomb set:


----------



## Furtive Glance

<--- Officially never posting a picture in this thread ever again 

Jesus, you guys. Too talented.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

We all started somewhere, keep posting.


----------



## m3ta1head

click for high res


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Nice bike, I may pick one up in the near future.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

two hyperfocal film shots and an ironic one, as I've invested enough time in film that I've hardly found a need for digital lately. my plans now consist of tracking down a Contax G2 system, grabbing a Fuji X100s and a similar Contax film compact, or diving into the Hasselblad V system. I can't recommend time with a fully mechanical camera enough for improving one's eye and general discipline. 




13_18 by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr





12_17 by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr





02_23A by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Film will definitely improve your technique, that's one of the reasons I still teach it in my photo classes.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

ThePhilosopher said:


> Film will definitely improve your technique, that's one of the reasons I still teach it in my photo classes.



Exactly. I'm planning on getting the necessary materials to develop my own black and white, but I still don't wish to run through a few rolls of tri-x/arista for every event I drag a camera to. (which is why I was considering the x100s, as it seems to be the most "film"-esque digital you can get your hands on, short of something like a digital Leica. Finances permitting, I'd love to get a film compact to take everywhere, an x100s for when I want instant gratification, and something like a Leica M6 TTL or Contax G2 for more robust reportage/travel uses. I love my Yashica SLR, but the shutter mechanism and button are going, and you just can't get these things replaced anymore.


----------



## Rook

Some seriously cool stuff in here, maybe one day I'll have the gentleman's vegetables to post some of my crap in here


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Just get some Rodinal, fixer, tank and a reel and you'll be setup for B&W. I keep wanting an 8x10 camera, but when I have the funds none are available and when I don't they're everywhere to be found (relatively speaking, it's not like finding a used D300).


----------



## Wretched

Thanks for the kind words, bulb! If you have some time, I always post my lighting information in the captions of my images on Flickr: Flickr: HoskingIndustries' Photostream

But for the bike with the light painted background, I lit the bike with three flashes, all on full power. Two lighting the long side of the bike, through white umbrellas. The third was bare and to camera right, hitting the front tyre etc. All on light stands, so about head height. Triggered with Yongnuo YN603C triggers.

It was done in a single 30sec exposure, with the flashes going off when the shutter opened and me running around painting during the remaining time.

The light painting was done with a home made 'wand' for want of a better word. A long piece of 2x1in wood, painted black. To this I zip tied two cold cathode globes, the same as people tend to use in PC cases to light up the internals of their computer. You can buy twin tube kits on eBay for next to nothing, complete with inverter. Buy a few kits and you can mix and match colours, like I did here. 

The inverter is stuck to the wand as well, with the power cables cut and soldered to RCA-style connections. To this, I can attach the home made power pack I made that uses two 9volt batteries, with the other end of the RCA connectors attached to the power cables, along with a momentary switch for on/off. It may sound complicated, but it was easy to rig up and took no time at all. I made several with different colours and one with a 56-LED strip, too... see the pic below.

I was hoping to give you a link to the making of the tools, as I followed one or two other guy's tools and DIYs as a guide, but Flickr is playing up for me right now and can't immediately find anything on Google, either. Sorry folks.


----------



## Wretched

As for the guy needing to do the portrait for family, a single flash and a reflector will get you great results with a little practise. Indeed, some argue that any more just complicates things. One of the most common techniques, and this goes for the person wanting to get that soft light look, is to have the flash through the softbox directly in front and above the subject, so it's providing a nice, even, round shadow under the nose of the subject. Get this lighting to the right brightness and softness as you want by both altering the flash power and the distance of the softbox to the subject (closer means softer light).

Then, grab your reflector and position it directly in front of and beneath the subject's face. This is often called 'clam shell' lighting, because the two light sources kind of create an open clam shape in front of the subject. You can also do it with two flashes, but you just need to make sure the lower light source is not as bright as the top one.

Try adjusting the position and closeness of the reflector until you get the look you want.


----------



## Tang

I just realized earlier today that I more often than not stay at f/2.8. I spend so much time worrying about composition that I rarely even think about adjusting aperture. Until now. I spent a few hours trying to get my shots as sharp as I possibly could. I found the sweet spot on my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 to be around f/5 to f/5.6.




Dalek f/5 by nrrfed, on Flickr




Dalek f/5 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Hey Tang, I bought a Tamron 17-50 for my 7D just prior to hitting Brasil yesterday. Great lens. Any other tips? 
Here are my favourites from today. 

Autofocus hit an interesting area. Not quite what I wanted but symbolic none the less.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

ThePhilosopher said:


> Just get some Rodinal, fixer, tank and a reel and you'll be setup for B&W. I keep wanting an 8x10 camera, but when I have the funds none are available and when I don't they're everywhere to be found (relatively speaking, it's not like finding a used D300).



have you tried KEH.com? Can't think of anywhere else better quality for used gear online, other than say Japancamerahunter for rare JDM stuff.


----------



## Tang

capoeiraesp said:


> Hey Tang, I bought a Tamron 17-50 for my 7D just prior to hitting Brasil yesterday. Great lens. Any other tips?



If your autofocus is being wonky while shooting through the viewfinder, use Live View. As far as I know, live view autofocus is perfect because it uses the sensor to focus. Those two shots I posted above were done this way.

Just make sure to change the Live View autofocus to see contrast detect instead of quick mode.

Edit: i'd much rather compose and shoot using the viewfinder, but my Tamron back focuses like mad and I haven't invested in a focus calibration tool. My Pentax supports lens microadjustments, so one day I will!


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Paul Reed Shred said:


> 12_17 by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr



Nice!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Paul Reed Shred said:


> have you tried KEH.com? Can't think of anywhere else better quality for used gear online, other than say Japancamerahunter for rare JDM stuff.



Yes, usually they only have 4x5 and the rare 5x7 camera - I've only seen an 8x10 listed there once. I usually hunt on LFPF, local camera shops, and eBay.


----------



## Murmel

Is there a trick to getting your pictures super sharp, or is it extremely lens dependant?
I realize that lightning etc is very important.

Went out to a random place near my school today during my lunch break to see if there was anything worthy shooting. There wasn't  Except for this car I thought was pretty cool. I would've liked the background more blown out, but my lens doesn't seem to be able to do that.






I'm finding myself shooting at 24mm, which is around a 40mm equivalent on my crop body, most of the time. A nicer 35mm would probably be right up my alley. My old Pentax film camera has a 50mm, I find it a bit too tight at times.

Edit: As I have a crop body, perhaps I should go for a 24mm fixed. Would a 35mm equivalent on a crop behave the same as a non-crop 35mm? I'm talking distortion etc.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Putting a 35mm lens (that's designed to cover 35mm) is essentially throwing away information around the outside of the sensor. Will it look the same as a 50mm on a FF body, maybe (that's lens dependent); however, it will have the ~50mm FOV on a crop body (same as a 56mm on Canon 1.6x crop bodies).

All my shots have some sharpening applied by default as part of my resize action.


----------



## Wretched

...and that old barn looks like a great subject to shoot!


----------



## Murmel

I think I need to think more creatively when it comes to what I see as "worthy a shot" or not.
The day being extremely gloomy didn't help though.

Unfortunately the sharpening tool in Lightroom seems to be bugged, otherwise I would definitely use it.


----------



## Tang

I think I might've underexposed this a bit. Gonna have to play with the raw when I get to my laptop.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I like the exposure there man - cool light reflections on her face.


----------



## Tang

I just had a moment of serendipity and what is probably the coolest bokeh of my short photography career. Hot damn. I was out photographing my dogs like I'm always doing while listening to Cloudkicker. Then this happened.




HOLY SID. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## metal_sam14

^ That is a killer shot man


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang said:


> I think I might've underexposed this a bit. Gonna have to play with the raw when I get to my laptop.



I like the exposure, I may even try to blend two exposures manually to tone down the brightness frame right.


----------



## Tang

metal_sam14 said:


> ^ That is a killer shot man



I went out later that day to try and recreate that effect at golden hour. Unfortunately my dogs were not cooperating so I had to use my friendly Dalek. 









ThePhilosopher said:


> I like the exposure, I may even try to blend two exposures manually to tone down the brightness frame right.



Thanks man! Could I use photoshop layers to do that darkening of the right side?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Yes, I'd open two different RAW conversions from ACR, one with a lower exposure then use a mask to blend it in nicely. Try a large soft brush (0% hardness) with 100% opacity and 3% flow to slowly build up the effect in the area you're looking for.


----------



## Wretched

A couple of shots from my most recent published stuff. Exteriors are all natural light, but the interiors and wheel shot are shot using speedlites. Lighting info is available on Flickr if you're interested: Shawn Muscat's 1934 Ford Tourer - a set on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Wretched: your stuff is just on another level of sharpness. goddamn man.


----------



## Wretched

Thanks dude! Appreciated.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Guys, can you give me some tips for low light/night time portrait photography?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Use a strobe.


----------



## Wretched

Yeah, either get your off-camera flash working, or use a high ISO

EDIT: That was probably a little too succinct. If using available light, like a street light or whatever light is already in the scene, just try and watch how it's falling on the face and upper body and turn your subject to best make use of that light. If using a flash or other constant light source of your own, just try and make sure it's hitting your subject the way you want it to and watch how the light around is working behind them, if you have a shutter speed slow enough to let any of it in. Some times little lights in the background can blur out beautifully in night portraits when using a shallow DOF.


----------



## Tang

capoeiraesp said:


> Guys, can you give me some tips for low light/night time portrait photography?


Short of using a strobe, it's all about getting the widest aperture you can. My f/2.8 zoom works pretty well. F/1.8 or f/1.4 lens are even better. The shot below is pushing it as far as handholding a low-light scene. It was at f/2.8, 1/10s, and ISO6400. The noise is pretty managable for smaller prints and absolutely fine for web use.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Cheers guys! I was only allowing my camera to max at iso 3200 the other night and the shutter speed was still too slow without flash in aperture priority mode. Since I only have the in-built flash and I'm still learning how to work under such settings, I'm trying to work without it. Seems counterproductive.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Without editing or cropping this picture I'm gonna say this is possibly the best casual street picture I've taken in my short time doing photography. Still nothing amazing compared to most of the high-end fellas on here.


----------



## Tang

capoeiraesp said:


> Without editing or cropping this picture I'm gonna say this is possibly the best casual street picture I've taken in my short time doing photography. Still nothing amazing compared to most of the high-end fellas on here.



Very nice! You caught a great moment.


----------



## Wretched

Yeah, the backlighting it nice!


----------



## Wretched

A couple of peeks at my last shoot from this week. Shhh, I'm not meant to post anything before publication, but I was pretty happy with the results.

Like the orange Mustang, I used a 300-LED light panel through a softbox to light the car in the static shot. The moving shot was using a Rig Pro camera rig and a combination of a 2sec exposure for the car and foreground and a 5 or 6sec exposure for the background. The driver held a flash pointed at his face using a YN603C trigger for the lit face.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Haven't had the time to get film developed lately, here's some mildly to very edited iPhone snaps. 




iPhone Snaps by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr 




iPhone Snaps by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr




iPhone Snaps by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr




iPhone Snaps by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr




iPhone Snaps by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

An iphone pic. I also got some pics of this with my dslr. If they turned out half as cool I'm golden.


----------



## Tang

Turns out the iPhone was the magic.. none of the Pentax shots turned out as awesome. Ah, well..

This next picture I both love and hate. Mostly an intense liking. The time I tried to experiment a little more with the post-processing. It's kinda what I always wanted when I saw nolly and some of misha's heavily matted pictures. Anyways, just going out and taking pictures was a great time and it reminded me why I love the art so much. Jam some good tunes and try to take some pics.




Yellow Submarine by nrrfed, on Flickr




Who even knows? by nrrfed, on Flickr




Ugly lights. by nrrfed, on Flickr

EDIT: what the hell.. here's the attempt. It's growing on me.




MM, FRESH WATER. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Khoi

Just got my 22" Beauty Dish in today, and I've only owned it for about an hour now, but I'm already getting some really nice lighting I'm digging. Can't wait to start using it on some portraits.

the shot below was at ISO 100, 1/160, and f/4.0. I'm quite happy with the amount of DoF I can get with these settings using my Canon 24-105L lens


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I prefer the harsher light you can get without the sock or with a grid with a BD (as that's how I think of the BD as a modifier), but that's not a bad shot either.


----------



## Khoi

yeah I'll definitely be playing with that, but so far I'm drawn towards a softer light with more diffused shadows. I'm still playing with the positioning of it, but I'm liking the angled down look right now.


A couple more test shots. The first one slightly to the left, and the next one more of a straight lighting angled down


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Yes, I'd open two different RAW conversions from ACR, one with a lower exposure then use a mask to blend it in nicely. Try a large soft brush (0% hardness) with 100% opacity and 3% flow to slowly build up the effect in the area you're looking for.



I ended up experimenting with the graduated filter in Lightroom. Good call, I like it much better with the right side of the frame toned down. Cheers!




Jenn. ss.org edit. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

A sneak peek at last night's shoot... Dennis' 1964 EH Holden.
Lit using a 300-LED light panel through soft box. A few 30sec exposures to get what I needed. Canon 5d MkII, 70-200mm 2.8L (f9 @ 30sec).


----------



## Philligan

I had a couple classes canceled because of a strike, so I finally wandered around the neighbourhood and took some pictures. I just got Lightroom, and will go through all my shots when I have a couple hours to kill, but I edited a few quickly to get a feel for it. It's so much better than Canon's stock editing app, it's ridiculous. I thought this one turned out pretty cool.


----------



## Tang

I call this Lunch Break Photography. Most people eat on their breaks.. I shoot!


----------



## Khoi

Late night portrait. Very slowly getting this lighting thing down. I really tried to focus on the shadows and quality of shadow in this shot, trying to get the contours of the body right.




[/IMG]


----------



## Wretched

That looks great, Khoi! Very dynamic.

This is a sample from a car I shot last night. Still going on the shoot in Photoshop. This will end up being the longest processing session I've ever done... around 10 images in this one shot.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Khoi, nicely done - now without lighting the backdrop.


----------



## Philligan

I took this one of my girlfriend yesterday through the 50mm 1.8 using the kit lens and thought it came out pretty cool. I actually held the camera upside down for the picture for whatever reason.


----------



## xfilth

Tried my hand at some long exposure evening/night landscape shots:









And a random, unrelated shot:


----------



## Philligan




----------



## Tang

dude! Crop a little off the left on that first shot and it'll be PERFECT! I'm a huge fan of reflections like that. Nice work, man! Symmetric as shit 




Dex and Mona (abused curve version) by nrrfed, on Flickr




Dex and Mona (abused curve version) by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Does anyone have any good ideas for project inspiration? I need some inspiration. Recommend some photographers that you like to me!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Zack Arias, Peter Hurley, Pratik Naik, Todd Spoth, Chase Jarvis, Joe McNally, lots of guys on LFPF: Image Sharing & Discussion


----------



## Tang

Tried some very low light work. Through the viewfinder this scene was practically black. The autofocus struggled but eventually caught focus. There was no avoiding noise so I tried to use it artistically. 1/4s, f/2.8, ISO3200.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Here are some of the actions I've made and use regularly for various things - I have one that while it doesn't emulate film grain terribly well it can enhance noise to a near artistic-level: www.bartkophoto.com/Retouch/Bartko.atn


----------



## Wretched

Joe Harvatt said:


> Does anyone have any good ideas for project inspiration? I need some inspiration. Recommend some photographers that you like to me!



Even though I never really took on his work as inspiration, I always loved david perry | photographer.

Such a nice guy, too. When I found so many guys at the time unwilling to pass on knowledge (around 2000), David was more than willing to hand over his info and advice.


----------



## Philligan

Thursday was a really nice night, so a few of us hung out on the porch and smoked pipes, including my girlfriend.  I realized too late that I had my ISO set at 6400 the whole time.

Also, RIP 50mm  my camera fell off the table and landed lens first. I took it into the shop today and they said the camera looks fine, but the lens is toast. I think I'm just gonna pick up another one - it's amazing for $120 and is great indoors and in low light.


----------



## Tang

Inherited an old Pentax 35mm SLR from my future in-laws. So excite. I've already picked up 4 rolls of Superia 400. 

Can. Not. Wait.


----------



## Khoi

I had a little portrait photoshoot with a few of my friends. We came out with some great shots I think!

Sorry for the large resolutions


----------



## capoeiraesp

What'd the lighting setup set you back?


----------



## Khoi

The setup is just a 22" beauty dish I got on Amazon for $90 using my Canon 430EX II speedlite. That's it.

The beauty dish is actually mounted onto a spare mic stand I never used, but it wouldn't go high enough so I had to improvise a bit. It's pretty ghetto 

I also used a bounce in some shots which is just literally a foam poster board I had laying around.

I was fortunate enough to have a spare room that my roommate just moved out of with a gray wall.


----------



## Wretched

Just forked out for an X100S on eBay. Can't wait to get my hands on it. Looking forward to the simplicity of a fixed focal length and hoping it'll inspire me to shoot when I'm not being paid to.


----------



## Tang

Having to use my brain to shoot is a welcome change of pace. Manual everything.. talk about a learning curve!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Enjoy that film.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Enjoy that film.



First two rolls are at the lab now. Dude, I'm a little nervous about it!

EDIT: it did get me out and about shooting though. I could've always gone out with my dslr, but this felt different. Definitely a more visceral experience.

EDIT: oh god, I need lots of practice. I am happy that for the most part, the exposures are spot on. The focus is going to take some work. Today was the first time I've ever used split-prism focusing and it was more difficult than I imagined. Anyways.. here are my low-res walgreens scans. Next time I'm taking it to a mom-and-pop shop that do very high resolution scans.




30300015 by nrrfed, on Flickr




30300009 by nrrfed, on Flickr




30300012 by nrrfed, on Flickr




30400001 by nrrfed, on Flickr




30300002 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Matte Split-Prism > Non-split, trust me - well unless you've got ground glass big enough for a dark cloth and a loupe.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Matte Split-Prism > Non-split, trust me - well unless you've got ground glass big enough for a dark cloth and a loupe.



It's a matte split-prism. There's also a focusing collar, but I haven't quite figured out how that works yet.

Oh yeah, it wasn't a Pentax.. it was a Yashica. My father-in-law told he purchased it in 1981, and it looks absolutely pristine for it's age. A quick ebay search reveals a TON of old Zeiss glass for Y-mount..  the Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 looks delicious. The body feels perfect in my hands. It's very hefty, but compact at the same time. It's absolutely tiny compared to my DSLR. 

Honestly, it makes me want a X100S.. so bad.




IMGP2082 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

Score! Until recently I still had my old Nikon FE, but sold it for nothing on eBay. Don't regret the sale yet, but may start to down the line!


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I wish my D200 had split prism focusing for some of the old Nikon AIS lenses I have. Trying to get that little green dot to light up is a nightmare.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Katz Eye Focusing Screen for the Nikon D200 - KatzEye Optics


----------



## Murmel

The colours this autumn are ridiculous. Or perhaps I haven't really been paying much attention to how pretty the world can be until now


----------



## capoeiraesp

Amazing colours, Murmel.

I am pretty pleased with this one. The 135mm L is rockin' my world.


----------



## MrYakob

Went out to see my grandparents yesterday and snapped a ton of pictures of my favorite model. Unfortunately I had been messing with filming with my DSLR earlier in the week so I had the sharpness and contrast and saturation lowered to zero in my picture profile settings


----------



## Philligan

I took this with the kit lens at 18mm and f/3.5. It makes me appreciate the kit lens more and miss my 50mm at the same time.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Toying with some toning in post - if I were going to be super anal I'd clean up the hair over her ear:


----------



## metal_sam14

Shot this at last weekends gig, might upload a few more later tonight. 




Telecaster by samlocke1, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched




----------



## Murmel

Made some attempts at more film/oldschool looking processing with these 2 first shots.










Then I found the missing beer bottle in the water.


----------



## Tang

I had a day off today and thought to myself, "Damnit, nrrfed. You have one of the best APS-C sensors ever made.. go out and shoot!" 

So I did. Night style 




IMGP2126 by nrrfed, on Flickr





IMGP2108-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP2092-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Couple of shots of my new little throw around amp. I don't have anything but the built in flash, so I took the shade off my lamp and used that for the lighting.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Father and son.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

An old shot of a maple leaf with the 4x5:


----------



## ZakkB




----------



## Tang

ZakkB said:


>



Love it.. sets a great mood!

EDIT: redid a shot from the other because I couldn't take those awful bricks anymore.




No more ....ing ugly yellow bricks! by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

You could try to split tone the image to avoid the awful sodium lighting (or emphasize it more).


----------



## Philligan

I got the 40mm f/2.8 to replace the plastic fantastic 50/1.8. I've only messed around with it inside a bit, but I'm really digging the focal length so far, and the build quality absolutely spanks the 1.8 - the AF motor is a lot quieter, smoother, and faster, even on my humble T3. I figured I'd grab this as a replacement so I can get the 50/1.4 down the road and still have some variety with this lens.


----------



## Khoi

did another little portrait shoots for a friend of mine who shapes surfboards. I'm really digging how these came out.


----------



## Tang

I'm on a roll.. at least I think I am!




Third times a charm! by nrrfed, on Flickr




Add a title by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Dropping off 10-15 rolls or so at a local CVS tomorrow. If my eroded light seals cooperate(d), it should be promising to see what comes out of a few months of progression.


----------



## Rook

Figured I'd share some shots I liked from my recent holiday. I don't pretend to be at any certain level or whatever haha, I just enjoy taking pictures.































I have hundreds but that'll be enough for now haha, be gentle.

EDIT: Oh shit, full size. Sorry guys, I'll try sort that now.


----------



## MrYakob

Was just going through my lightroom catalog and found this one that I forgot about from the summer.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

One of my new toy that was a bit more artistically done:


----------



## Philligan

My girlfriend made mulled apple cider in the slow cooker (with cinnamon sticks, oranges, and spiced rum) and I took some shots of her trying it. I only have Lightroom, and had to stitch the photos together in Gimp. I think it compressed them a bunch, and for whatever reason, I couldn't get it to auto-place the third picture - it just layered it on top of the second, and I had to move it by hand, which could explain the black line at the bottom. Anyone familiar with Gimp who could tell me where I went wrong, or anyone know of a better free/affordable editor for stuff Lightroom can't do?


----------



## kaffefilter

So last weekend was Stockholm Zombie Walk 2013. This is one of the shots I took.
This picture at flickr
Portfolio


----------



## Tang

This isn't remotely interesting.. I just have a thing for rainbows 




PAINBOW. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

Finally got out and used my new X100s. Love this little thing!

Here are a few portraits from my recent family do:















This was shot using the built-in ND filter the X100s has. Slowed it down to 0.6sec @ f16, ISO 200. Nice sense of movement in the tree.





So far I've been really impressed with the camera and it's low-light, high ISO capabilities are amazing!


----------



## Tang

Like I said on flickr, I enjoy seeing this kind of work from you! 




20120610-IMGP2202-5 by nrrfed, on Flickr




20120610-IMGP2203 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

Thanks man! Think I prefer the first shot of the traffic cone.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Wretched, I'm heavily considering tossing my Canon t4i body and emptying my pockets for an x100s, how are you liking it? I'm interested in it for "poor man's m9"/travel/reportage/street purposes, as I've spent so much time on film lately I really just can't get on without an aperture ring, manual shutter speed setting, and zone focus abilities. Is the image quality there?


----------



## Wretched

Image quality is great, Paul Reed Shred. Has the same size sensor as my 7D, good processor, very decent lens, feel sturdy in the hands and has all the manual controls you could want.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

It's slightly larger than your 7D's sensor (1.5x vs 1.6x) - it's pedantic I know, but they are similar in size. Paul just go Medium Format  or pickup my D3.


----------



## soliloquy

i've been travelling random places within a 300 km radius from my house. interesting how much you can find if you go on a staycation


----------



## Winspear

Picked up the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 as a birthday present to myself. 
I'd been looking to get a new lens, my first serious lens purchase, and trying to figure out what lengths I found most useful. Definitely wanted a ~18 range, ~28, and ~38. 
I already had the Canon 50mm f1.8 and the 18-55 f4.5orsomethingwaytoohigh. So the F on this was a huge plus, another pushing factor being that it's 22cm macro. With the lens extended to 70mm that means it can focus just 1cm from the glass. God damn awesome, some huge magnification. Loving this lens so far, though it was way too dark and windy outside today to get anything good. So I took this quick promo pick:


----------



## Tang

EtherealEntity said:


> Picked up the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 as a birthday present to myself.
> I'd been looking to get a new lens, my first serious lens purchase, and trying to figure out what lengths I found most useful. Definitely wanted a ~18 range, ~28, and ~38.
> I already had the Canon 50mm f1.8 and the 18-55 f4.5orsomethingwaytoohigh. So the F on this was a huge plus, another pushing factor being that it's 22cm macro. With the lens extended to 70mm that means it can focus just 1cm from the glass. God damn awesome, some huge magnification. Loving this lens so far, though it was way too dark and windy outside today to get anything good. So I took this quick promo pick:



nice  that pick looks insane.


----------



## MrYakob

EtherealEntity said:


> Picked up the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 as a birthday present to myself.
> I'd been looking to get a new lens, my first serious lens purchase, and trying to figure out what lengths I found most useful. Definitely wanted a ~18 range, ~28, and ~38.
> I already had the Canon 50mm f1.8 and the 18-55 f4.5orsomethingwaytoohigh. So the F on this was a huge plus, another pushing factor being that it's 22cm macro. With the lens extended to 70mm that means it can focus just 1cm from the glass. God damn awesome, some huge magnification. Loving this lens so far, though it was way too dark and windy outside today to get anything good. So I took this quick promo pick:



I've been looking for a nice normal zoom that doesn't cost a fortune and I think this might be a winner... Thank you!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

EtherealEntity said:


> God damn awesome, some huge magnification. Loving this lens so far, though it was way too dark and windy outside today to get anything good. So I took this quick promo pick:



Congrats on the new lens, though I'd hardly call it a macro (Sigma likes to label things macro that don't even do .5x - I really think they should stop this practice as it's a huge marketing ploy). A macro should be able to 1x or greater, that Sigma only does .37x. If you want to get close on the cheap look at reversing rings or extension tubes.

Here's an example of what you could do with a reversing ring and your 50mm; none of these are crops.

Reversed 50mm on top, normal shot to show scale below:





As you reverse mount wider lenses the magnification increases - Reversed 24mm and Reversed 20mm:


----------



## Tang

MrYakob said:


> I've been looking for a nice normal zoom that doesn't cost a fortune and I think this might be a winner... Thank you!



Have you thought about the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8? You loose a little bit on the wide end but the constant 2.8 aperture might be worth it. 

Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon Digital SLR Cameras (Model A09E):Amazon:Camera & Photo


----------



## MrYakob

Tang said:


> Have you thought about the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8? You loose a little bit on the wide end but the constant 2.8 aperture might be worth it.
> 
> Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) for Canon Digital SLR Cameras (Model A09E):Amazon:Camera & Photo



It's on my list of ones to consider, seems like there's a million different normal zoom lenses and it's making my head spin 

I was also looking at the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8, I'd lose some of the range on the long end but would gain it back on the wide end

Edit: Also looking at the monster 18-35 F1.8 but I'm not sure I want to drop that much cash on a wide angle zoom


----------



## Tang

MrYakob said:


> It's on my list of ones to consider, seems like there's a million different normal zoom lenses and it's making my head spin
> 
> I was also looking at the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8, I'd lose some of the range on the long end but would gain it back on the wide end
> 
> Edit: Also looking at the monster 18-35 F1.8 but I'm not sure I want to drop that much cash on a wide angle zoom



Indeed there is. If it helps, pretty much every image of mine in this thread was taken with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I have the Pentax version which does not have vibration control. The non-VC versions are supposed to be a tad sharper.

Regardless, both the Sigma 17-17-50 and the Tamron are both excellent and cheap glass.

EDIT: put together a small set so you dont have to search the thread. 

http://www.flickr.com/x/t/0090009/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157636366989694/


----------



## Khoi

Shot at a fashion show today. This was just a behind the scene mini portrait shoot, I was holding my beauty dish in one hand and had my camera in the other.

I'm pretty much obsessed with this lighting. It makes everything look so good without doing much at all.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

MrYakob said:


> Edit: Also looking at the monster 18-35 F1.8 but I'm not sure I want to drop that much cash on a wide angle zoom



I'd only drop money on it if it would cover a FF sensor.



Khoi said:


> Shot at a fashion show today. This was just a behind the scene mini portrait shoot, I was holding my beauty dish in one hand and had my camera in the other.
> 
> I'm pretty much obsessed with this lighting. It makes everything look so good without doing much at all.



Yes, it's addicting. Now go overpower the sun.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Wretched, how are you finding the AF, start up time, and wake from sleep time of the X100s? I had the X100 but sold it for a 7D setup and my biggest gripe was the start up and wake from sleep times. I also found the control layout a bit frustrating for quick AF point adjustments.


----------



## Furtive Glance

Maybe a bit too much foreground on that second one...


----------



## Tang

Furtive: in the second shot, I would've focused on the reflections in the water. I do like your composition, though. Fits in nice and neat with the rule o' 3rds.

here's some stuff I did tonight.. was listening to Sigur Ros and tried to take shots that had the 'feel' as their music.. maybe I'm just a bit crazy!




IMGP2254 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP2269 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP2264 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP2241 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

capoeiraesp said:


> Wretched, how are you finding the AF, start up time, and wake from sleep time of the X100s? I had the X100 but sold it for a 7D setup and my biggest gripe was the start up and wake from sleep times. I also found the control layout a bit frustrating for quick AF point adjustments.



So far I've had nothing to complain about. Start up from Off is super fast and start up from Sleep is a little slower, but from what I read, faster than the previous model. I always consider the control layout something that simply needs to be gotten used to and I'm still getting used to ALL the control positions, but I'm getting there. With three years of regular heavy work with the 7D and 5D MkII, I know those in my sleep (plus another half dozen years on 450D and equiv models). Do you remember if the AF point adjustment controls were customisable like most of the other controls?


----------



## Rook

I checked out the X100 in my recent compact-but-not-so-compact camera hunt, I have to say I did like the feel of it. I'd say it felt a little slow becaue I'me used to the instant response of my 6D, but for a compact it was fine and since I went for the G1X in the end... The G1X is about the slowest large-sensor compact in existence. I went G1X over X100 for the clear sharpness and contrast boost, however softer though the X100 is it does look more 'artistic' off the bat. I still don't think it'd suit me at all but it was a lot nicer than I expected.

Also whoever referenced the M9, I've tried an M9 the X100 is nothing like it.

Also figured I'd share this, I like it haha.




Halloween by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

And this one too.




White Car by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Murmel

Went out to shoot in the dark today for the first time. Most pictures came out way too grainy to be usable. I tried using it to my advantage on this first one however, to create a creepy feeling.
Edit: Just realized that putting like, a doll or something in the middle that's been beaten up would make this picture soo much better.






Unfortunately the distortion in this second one is extremely noticable, quite a lot of fringing too. Widest setting on a kit lens 
But I still kinda dig it.


----------



## Tang

Murmel said:


> Went out to shoot in the dark today for the first time. Most pictures came out way too grainy to be usable. I tried using it to my advantage on this first one however, to create a creepy feeling.
> Edit: Just realized that putting like, a doll or something in the middle that's been beaten up would make this picture soo much better.



The second (b&w) was my favorite. Were you using a tripod? All the shots I posted directly above were done on a tripod so I could lock the ISO at 100 thus avoiding noise. 

Really dig that b&w shot.

Edit: here're most've my good night shots, if you were curios. 

http://www.flickr.com/x/t/0092009/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157636477420936/

Edit2: i like this shot so much that i'm going back tonight to get the symmetry just right.


----------



## MetalBuddah

Here is a shot I took of Nolly last night. Usually don't like processing so heavily with B&W but it fits this shot. More to come soon!!

Nolly, if you see this....I was the photographer with the short spiked hair and the plaid shirt.


----------



## Tang

MetalBuddah said:


> Here is a shot I took of Nolly last night. Usually don't like processing so heavily with B&W but it fits this shot. More to come soon!!
> 
> Nolly, if you see this....I was the photographer with the short spiked hair and the plaid shirt.



Really like that shot, MB. What gear are you rocking?


----------



## MetalBuddah

Tang said:


> Really like that shot, MB. What gear are you rocking?



I was just rocking a Nikon D3100 with a 35mm lens.

Here are some more select photos. You can check out the whole thing here.


----------



## Tang

MetalBuddah said:


> I was just rocking a Nikon D3100 with a 35mm lens.
> 
> awesome pictures!



Damn dude! Some of those are a bit noisy, but it doesn't distract me that much. Those pictures are ....ing ace, man. Especially all 3 of Jake.


----------



## MetalBuddah

Tang said:


> Damn dude! Some of those are a bit noisy, but it doesn't distract me that much. Those pictures are ....ing ace, man. Especially all 3 of Jake.



Thanks bro  Yeah, the noise was a bit unavoidable because I had to shoot at such a high iso. Need a better camera. Not bad for my first shoot of some actualy bands!


----------



## Tang

MetalBuddah said:


> Thanks bro  Yeah, the noise was a bit unavoidable because I had to shoot at such a high iso. Need a better camera. Not bad for my first shoot of some actualy bands!



I assume your 35mm was at least f/1.8? Have you thought about picking up a speedlite? Yongnuo makes some excellent and cheap speedlites for every camera maker.

Here's another one I feel the need to retake. I'm honestly not even sure if I can make it perfectly symmetrical with the way the diagonal lines are.. we'll see.




IMGP2243-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP2237-Edit-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Murmel

Tang said:


> The second (b&w) was my favorite. Were you using a tripod? All the shots I posted directly above were done on a tripod so I could lock the ISO at 100 thus avoiding noise.
> 
> Really dig that b&w shot.


Thanks man.

I didn't use a tripod for any of them. Later, when I went back to the dumpsters I did bring a tripod so I could get the iso down to 100.
I'm gonna see if I can get the new shot up here, but the USB-port hates me and won't recognize my camera right now...


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Murmel said:


> I'm gonna see if I can get the new shot up here, but the USB-port hates me and won't recognize my camera right now...



Get a decent card reader it will speed up your transfer times significantly vs cable + camera.


----------



## Murmel

Getting one from a friend on tuesday. Didn't cross my mind before, but he said pretty much the same thing.

Edit: Do you guys have any recommendations on wide-angle zooms that are decently priced? Sigma's new 18-35 f/1.8 is tempting. It does however seem to have very shady autofocus. I don't really use autofocus much though, so I don't think I'd be bothered.


----------



## Furtive Glance

@MetalBuddah

Those pictures are sick. The 5th one down of Jake is amazing.


----------



## Furtive Glance

Double-post fail.


----------



## Tang

Murmel said:


> Getting one from a friend on tuesday. Didn't cross my mind before, but he said pretty much the same thing.
> 
> Edit: Do you guys have any recommendations on wide-angle zooms that are decently priced? Sigma's new 18-35 f/1.8 is tempting. It does however seem to have very shady autofocus. I don't really use autofocus much though, so I don't think I'd be bothered.



How wide? The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is supposed to be an amazing lens.


----------



## Murmel

Not super wide, 24-55mm. I have a crop sensor camera so the Sigma hits just the spot. And apart from the autofocus its been praised.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I have the Sigma 15-30mm on FF and it's quite awesome - though it has me looking for a good deal on a 14mm f/2.8 (non-fisheye).

I decided to try out the tracking of my E-PL3; I wish I had opened the blinds or something to let in more light:


----------



## metal_sam14

I went to Melbourne last weekend to see Devin and while I was there I stopped by Hosier Lane to take a few shots.



Drug Spot? by samlocke1, on Flickr




Hosier by samlocke1, on Flickr




Bunny by samlocke1, on Flickr




Ferno Ronel by samlocke1, on Flickr




Grungy Stairs by samlocke1, on Flickr




Mini deck by samlocke1, on Flickr




Material World by samlocke1, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

metal_sam14 said:


> I went to Melbourne last weekend to see Devin and while I was there I stopped by Hosier Lane to take a few shots.



Nice work. Great colors, man!

EDIT: speaking of colors, here're two of my favorite things: power lines and sunsets.




Power Line Sunset. by nrrfed, on Flickr

and the side of my house:




IMGP2288 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Khoi

Fantastic colors metal sam. Really diggin the vibrance on them!


I took some pro photos of my guitar. I realize I never took and good pictures of it.


----------



## Murmel

Got my memory card usb thing today, works great.
Re-did the dumpster shot with long exposure, it turned out way sharper this time around. I feel the framing was a bit better last time though.
I made an attempt at bringing a spooky feeling by acting as a dumpster ghost, not sure if I succeeded with that..


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Khoi said:


> I took some pro photos of my guitar. I realize I never took and good pictures of it.



Awesome colours and lighting, man. Is there much post processing? S curve stuff? Did you use your beauty dish for the lighting?


----------



## Khoi

Joe Harvatt said:


> Awesome colours and lighting, man. Is there much post processing? S curve stuff? Did you use your beauty dish for the lighting?



Thanks man.

Post processing was pretty much S curve, and a bit of saturation and contrast. Nothing too intense, all done in ACR.

Lighting was beauty dish, just off at an angle


----------



## Tang

took some pictures of.. my cat! she was chilling on the hood of my car when I went out to grab some items so I returned quickly with Pantecks. First one is f/2.8 and the second is f/5.6. I'm not pixel peeping but that f/2.8 is damn sharp, even if it's at the center of the frame.




Smokey Bokeh. by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP2355 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

When you sharpen, try to mask out the background as it looks strange to be out of focus, but then sharpened in post.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> When you sharpen, try to mask out the background as it looks strange to be out of focus, but then sharpened in post.



Good point man. Would output sharpening have this effect to? I redid them in Lightroom with a much lower total sharpen level and with a higher level of masking. I also turned off output sharpening since I'm not resizing.




IMGP2341-3 by nrrfed, on Flickr


Quick edit: do any of you guys/gals use the Clarity slider in ACR/LR? I can't quite decide if I like how it makes images look quite yet.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang said:


> Good point man. Would output sharpening have this effect to? I redid them in Lightroom with a much lower total sharpen level and with a higher level of masking.



No clue as to how the workflow is for LR, but I would decide on a level of sharpening for the subject and then hand paint a layer mask with a large soft brush (since the edges of your subject are probably going to be a touch softer than the center of the subject it's ok to be a bit more sloppy than if trying to do an extraction or something-this can also add a touch more of a 3D look to subjects).

Have you printed anything from a lab (8x10 or larger) with that amount of sharpening? I've not had much success printing large and adding sharpening - I've pretty much stopped adding sharpening to larger images I'm going to get printed (or have the opacity <15%).


Edit: I would also heal/clone out the person behind the cat.



Tang said:


> Quick edit: do any of you guys/gals use the Clarity slider in ACR/LR? I can't quite decide if I like how it makes images look quite yet.



I almost always use highpass on a softlight or hardlight layer for sharpening.


----------



## Rook

Clarity works great on very cold images, really gives it a sort of shock effect. Good for naturally high contrast stuff too. Tends to screw with background blur in an often displeasing way but if the background is totally blown out it just boosts contrast a bit. Just me of course.

Prime example (no pun intended) of a situation where clarity really set a picture off for me




Escalator by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

And an example where it wouldn't. To me.




White Bird by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

Loving some of metal sam's street shots up there^ Love the colours. I'd cool the white balance a little just because that's the vibe I go for but that's absolutely not a criticism or a suggestion, they look great.


----------



## Rook

Got jiggy with a light box I found today, I look forward to being less shit at this 




Light on Soloist by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Thanks TP and Rook, I really appreciate receiving advice from you guys.

So I was thinking if ya'll were up for posting some stuff from when you first started. I recently found an old HDD with pictures from my original DSLR (the Canon T3... ), but some of the stuff had potential, imo. It's awesome and humbling to see my improvement over time.

EDIT: found pics from my original PoS.. lol. Posting them all in 640px to save space.





cruise08 051 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMG_2721 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMG_2938 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMG_3152 by nrrfed, on Flickr

favorite is definitely the pathway photo or maybe the indoor church (which was taken with above-mentioned Canon T3 with a Tokina 12-24 f/4) I'm incredibly surprised I almost nailed the symmetry..


----------



## Wretched

Tang said:


> Quick edit: do any of you guys/gals use the Clarity slider in ACR/LR? I can't quite decide if I like how it makes images look quite yet.



I always run about 20 on the Clarity slider. It's like sharpening and contrast combined, but nicer, I think. I also use sharpening.


----------



## soliloquy




----------



## Philligan

The girlfriend and I went to a fair over Thanksgiving with another couple, here's the whole set. Brigden Fair - 2013 - a set on Flickr

I had trouble with a lot of bright afternoon light, and everyone standing in the shade. I managed to make it work by pulling back the lights and brightening the shadows in Lightroom - I think it actually worked pretty well.


----------



## MrYakob

Tang said:


> Indeed there is. If it helps, pretty much every image of mine in this thread was taken with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. I have the Pentax version which does not have vibration control. The non-VC versions are supposed to be a tad sharper.
> 
> Regardless, both the Sigma 17-17-50 and the Tamron are both excellent and cheap glass.
> 
> EDIT: put together a small set so you dont have to search the thread.
> 
> /r/photography - a set on Flickr



I owe you many thanks, I happened to be browsing kijiji yesterday and found a used Tamron 17-50 f2.8, I just got home from picking it up now! The auto-focus is louder than I expected but I don't it will bother me too much. I'm excited to get shooting with it


----------



## Tang

MrYakob said:


> I owe you many thanks, I happened to be browsing kijiji yesterday and found a used Tamron 17-50 f2.8, I just got home from picking it up now! The auto-focus is louder than I expected but I don't it will bother me too much. I'm excited to get shooting with it



Excellent. 

I await your shots!




IMGP2592 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP2636-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP2618 by nrrfed, on Flickr



ThePhilosopher said:


> Edit: I would also heal/clone out the person behind the cat.



Finally decided to dive into Photoshop and 15 minutes later.. I assume there's an art to cloning/healing? As you can see, it's pretty obvious that I used content-aware fill here, but I've seen examples online where it's completely seamless. Going to spend a lot of time researching and practicing this technique.




IMGP234441 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

Tang said:


> Finally decided to dive into Photoshop and 15 minutes later.. I assume there's an art to cloning/healing? As you can see, it's pretty obvious that I used content-aware fill here, but I've seen examples online where it's completely seamless. Going to spend a lot of time researching and practicing this technique.
> 
> 
> IMGP234441 by nrrfed, on Flickr



Cloning and healing often get used together, but are very different tools. Healing is good where there's no distinct lines in the section you're fixing or removing things. Cloning is strongest when using it to clean up areas with distinct lines or different areas of high contrast.

This is because the healing tool will cause obvious blurs and other visual issues when trying to use it on or near an area of largely different contrast (excepting times where you're sampling from the same contrasty area [give it ago and see if you can figure out what I mean as I feel I might not be clear enough with that explanation]). You'll also find trying to heal close to or over the edge of your artwork will cause the same blurring of colour/contrast. So sometimes you might start with the cloning tool, then move to the healing tool to make it seamless.

EDIT: I should also point out the primary functional difference between the tools: the cloning tool samples the actual image, whereas the healing tool only samples the texture/light intensity of the image area you've sampled. It's used a lot for retouching skin etc. I use it all the time in my work.


----------



## Wretched

I went looking back through this thread to see if I'd posted this before, but couldn't find it... please excuse me if I have. However, this shoot only recently came out on the cover of a magazine here called Performance Garage.

It was a result of multiple exposures, lighting each car individually. Then having each of the four workshop crew stand in different places, making them appear to be in more places than one. Lighting is all with speedlites, with the mail light being a trio of flashes firing into a Photek Softlighter II, with other accent lighting consisting bare flashes on various power settings.


----------



## Rook

Guys. I currently use a 50mm and a 135mm, that's it. I'm hungry for a new lens because what I tend to do is strap one on and just make it work, get a bit creative with it, enjoy the limitations and get more involved with that. If the 135's on and I'm out and about, I just take isolated subject shots with a bit of distance, the 50 more kind of POV shots. I have a good feel for both lenses and I enjoy them both for their thing (particularly the 50) but it's time to move on and learn more.

I'll preface by saying when I bought the 135 I passed up a pretty great deal on a 70-200 IS II - a lens I usually wouldn't dream of buying not just for the money but also for my love of primes - and I've since done a little bemoaning thinking I could have saved myself a lot of money and that lens is potentially one I will end up coveting in the years to come. It's not a huge deal, I'm actually extremely happy with the 135 and want for nothing, but the point was _I didn't know what I was comparing to_ at the time, and have only found out since just what a killer lens the 70-200 is, not to mention what a ludicrous deal I was offered on it (about £1200 compared to the usual £1850).

So here we go.

I take pictures of stuff. That's not as vague as it sounds, I see things, I think I see a shot, I put the camera to my face and make some attempt at capturing it and portraying not just the thing but my way of looking at it. I realise that's kind of the essence of photography but I mean I don't 'work', I don't have a specific niche or style that I chase.

I rarely do portraiture, I don't really like photographing people because they usually pull stupid faces or stand in a stupid way and it feels totally unnatural to me. I can work with any frame but the 135 is about my limit for compression. You can't just take pictures of 'stuff' with anything longer than a 135 too. I'd like the 300mm f/4 one day just because it's such a great quality lens for a longer tele for a totally realistic price but if I bought that now I wouldn't use it at all. It's not long enough for birds, and between my semi-rural home town and the tight streets of nearby London - there's no need for it. I'd take it to races probably and just leave it in the bag. More specific than I can afford.

I'm thinking of going for a 35, not just for the slightly more inside-friendliness of the width compared to a 50 but the extra depth in perspective - it's difficult to get a real sense of space with the 50. I like taking pictures of flowers (so maximum magnification comparable or better than my 135 would be good) and buildings more than just straight scenery which is why I'm not really looking at anything wider. For me picture quality is a huge deal, sharpness and contrast. I don't think I'm going to be blowing out backgrounds too much as the 50 and 135 are pretty much king for that but we live in a dark country and some subject isolation would be nice. I hate high-ISO noise and try and stay under 400. 

I'm not looking to undermine my 50, but something with similarly low distortion but a distinct feel is what I'm after.

I've used up more than my daily word allowance so I'll leave that there. Any suggestions? feel free to use sample images haha.

Also contemplating going Zeiss and getting something Manual focus, maybe with an aperture ring too just to change up the experience more when using this over my go-to 50.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Rook, 85mm f/1.4 or 105mm f/2 or f/1.8



Tang said:


> Finally decided to dive into Photoshop and 15 minutes later.. I assume there's an art to cloning/healing? As you can see, it's pretty obvious that I used content-aware fill here, but I've seen examples online where it's completely seamless. Going to spend a lot of time researching and practicing this technique.



I'd do it quickly with the heal brush on a new layer (not the spot healing brush, but the manual healing brush where you set your own "sampling from" location).


----------



## Rook

If I bought any 85mm other than the 1.2 I'd end up selling it. I dream of that glass but no can afford.

Maybe used, who knows.

Thanks for your input


----------



## Tang

You're shooting the 6d? I love 35mm lens on full frame so you probably know where I'm going with this!

Sigma 35mm f/1.4. Sharp as a ............ and supposedly great build quality. It's 0.19x magnification compared to the 135L's 0.18x magnification. Min focusing distance is 11'. It's not manual or Zeiss but I'd sure love to have one.


----------



## Khoi

I second an 85mm, Rook. I had a 135mm for a couples weeks, and while it was a fantastic lens, it was just a little too tight in some uses. 85mm is a perfect length, especially for portraits. 

Only downside is the AF is a lot slower than the 135mm


----------



## Rook

Yeah 6D, it's absolutely the perfect camera for me. Compared to say the 5D3, I didn't want that complex AF system, even if I had 61 cross type AF points I'd still use one and focus-recompose then manual-override tweak if I have to because I don't want the camera choosing focus for me, I definitely don't need two card slots, the 6D is slightly more compact, much much lighter and is basically a light 5D Mk2 Mk2 haha, the 5D2 is a camera of legendary status and for a reason. I could maybe say I wish it was just a weenie bit faster, but the only FF that's faster enough to notice is the 1DX, no thanks, and 100% viewfinder wouldn't have killed Canon...

GAS hahaha. I dream of the 85 1.2 but I don't know I'd use it enough over my 50 or 135 to justify just how many pence I'd have to drop on it. If it were 35mm money that'd be another issue hahaha.

35's looking good, could frankly go Canon, Zeiss or Sigma at this rate. Anybody managed to do anything creative with a 24? I'm gunna go trying some Zeiss Distagon tomorrow, the Planar lenses claim to be zero distortion but we'll see.

I've just realised they have a MF 85mm 1.4, holy balls batman.

Thanks guys!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

My ideal kit would be 14, 24, 50, 85, 105, 200, 400. I've got all the range but the 400 (I'm at 15mm on the widest, but it's close); however, I want them in primes.


----------



## Tang

Could you reliably focus a 85 f1.4 with the 6d viewfinder?

Also, I think this is applicable to this thread.. what're some of ya'lls favorite cinematography? It can be whole scenes or just stills from scenes. I'm sure we can appreciate the finer nuances than the non-photographers in the Movie section. I'll start this shit off with some Stanley Kubrick. 

The scene I chose was the Moon Monolith scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey. The first time I watched the movie this was the one scene that completely blew my mind. The perfect use of handheld cameras and the delicious lens flare just.. even now it gives me chills.


----------



## Rook

It won't be snappy snappy but I'll get used to it and the focus indicator will still beep.


----------



## capoeiraesp

I bought a Sigma 35mm 1.4 the other day and I'm blown away! Absolutely gorgeous bokeh, super responsive, great build quality and simply a joy to shoot with.

Some samples.


----------



## Rook

Just got back from trying some stuff out:
Canon 85mm 1.2
Canon 35mm 1.4
Sigma 85mm 1.4
Sigma 35mm 1.4
Zeiss 85mm 1.4
Zeiss 35mm 1.4
Zeiss 35mm 2

The Zeiss 1.4's creamed everything without exception for the straight up look of the pictures and the manual focus was quick, easy and a joy to use. The sigma and canon offerings just looked flat by comparison. I'm gunna go 35mm 1.4, just giving myself a few days to cool off. I don't know how long I'm gunna be able to resist the 85 so I'm selling my canon 135 f/2 l.

Holy shit, life changed. Can't wait to get it.

Thanks everyone!


----------



## Tang

Guys, why wont Pentax make a full frame camera? Lifes not fair 

Rook: that 35 1.4 is a goddamn delicious piece 'o glass. Can't wait to see some shots. Do you have any comparisons from the shop?


----------



## Wretched

A portrait I took a couple of years ago got used on a recent special issue of Live to Ride here in Australia. Stoked with how it came out!


----------



## Rook

Ok, after a brief argument with the girlfriend, I have some samples but they're all Zeiss sadly. I deleted my Canon and Sigma 35's (habit, I snap, I look at the screen and either go 'yeah I can work with that' or muscle memory bash *delete*ok*') but I didn't have many anyway. I pointed the 85's at my girlfriend and she 'has a weird eye' or 'hair's all a mess' so she won't let me put them on the internet...

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/b5pp1t482papto0/qIApRLw2TK

Here instead is a disappointing set of reviews in words. Bare in mind these are just in-the-hand, fairly short first impressions. I took some in the awful artificial shop lighting and some outside where it was dark and overcast. Two light types I'm very used to however so at least the lighting, white balance decisions my camera was making and exposures are stuff I'm familiar with seeing.

Let's start with 35's. I've already written this out once but accidentally deleted it so I'm going to be a little more brief, probably for the best. I'll basically list the reason why I'd take each lens over the others - that's not to say the benefits matter to me personally:

Canon 1.4: Lovely quality, loads in the box, lens profile supported in-camera (can cut down vignetting and chromatic aberration) and focus calibration in-camera so no front or back focus adjustments needed ever, very very fast focus, lightning fast, usual high standard L-lens sharpness and contrast.

Sigma 1.4: Arguably nicer background blur, though both this and the Canon were a little nasty in parts, less plasticky construction, cheaper (duh), very very good image quality for the money. Super good in fact, crazy sharp at the centre.

Zeiss 2: Lovely construction (same as 1.4, below), Zeiss badge, amazingly low distortion, nicely sharp and consistent across the frame. That's kinda it.

Zeiss 1.4: Built like a piece of precision machinery, I can't state this enough. I'd go as far as saying there's no distortion across pretty much the whole centre of the frame, there's a weenie teenie little tiny bit right at the vertical edges, but that's it. I've never known anything like it. Beautiful *look* - yeah it quick ridiculously vignettes and there's some fairly blatant CA at 1.4 if you peep, but I mean the way it renders colour and the focus just falls off from the PoSF, this thing blurs beautifully, it's actually the only 35 I've tried so far that does all round create deep, lush blur, even on detailed high contrast backgrounds (like trees). The lens is sharp, not as much as the Sigma, but coming from the not-razor-sharp 50 1.2 I'm more than satisfied (baring in mind we're also talking 1.4) and I've noticed it's consistently sharp across the frame which the others aren't. I could also set my shutter speeds a third of a stop faster for a similar brightness with the Zeiss, though as I say this does vignette more, can't help but feel that's a bit of a balancing act. I like some vignetting though. The focus ring feels really really solid and there's a lovely mechanical feel to the resistance but you can still find focus fast enough. It's not AF fast, but it's not 'ok just wait a few more minutes while I micro-adjust..... nearly..... just another moment...' it's more like *I'm going to take a shot* *rough focus* *quick adjust* *boom* and I was getting a pretty good hit rate. Oddly, I've never really been able to handle my 50 MF, the ring feels more like it's _just_ for small adjustments, whereas it feels like it's fighting big movements around the range.

In the interests of not rabbiting about my favourite of the lenses I'll try and summarise objectively. I didn't really see the point of the Zeiss F/2 for me, they aren't deadly sharp like the Sigma, it costs more than the Sigma, it's MF only and that's only really worth it if the results are gunna take your breath away IMO. This was nice, but the extra stop of brightness and blur on the competitors are no small deal. The Canon was a lot of money for little details. Yes the focus was faster and all that profiling stuff is contained in the camera or whatever, fact is it's not as sharp as the Sigma in the centre. It is a lot lighter, but eh, it's also really plastic. The Sigma was a really really solid 35mm for the money. It felt a little weird, it looks refined but in a sort of Ibanez Premium kind of a way - it has all the features, fit, finish and materials but there was something about it... It could just be me. I actually preferred the feel of the 85 because even though it was a lump of plastic it felt more authentic... I dunno. Best value by far though. The Zeiss 1.4 was the best quality (along with the Zeiss 2) by not a mile, 10 miles, 50, whatever hyperbole makes the point. The sharpness wasn't as dead on as the Sigma but it was definitely sharper than the Canon. The blur was infinitely better. The weight is something else, seriously. If I didn't have a nice, light 6D I might not be arsed to carry this ironically-not-canon canon of a lens. The Zeiss 1.4 was by a league the most artistic looking lens for the blur, the vignetting (which is present on the others, the camera just gets rid of it), the contrast - other worldly - and most importantly to me the most fun to use. The Sigma wins on paper though.

Over to 85's. I'll do this more quickly as I spent much less time on it. The sigma was straight up disappointing. Not super sharp but ok, laughable chromatic aberration, good contrast, plasticky body. It was fine. For the money actually it was decent, but it was just not even a runner in this race. It presents itself with spec, like a car with a huge engine, but it just wasn't built to race haha. On a budget I'd compare it to the Canon 1.8 and it'd lose there too, the Canon 1.8 is freakishly good if you can loose ~1/2 a stop though.
The Canon 1.2, apart from being out of my budget, is a bit be-all-and-end-all. Centre sharpness, razor; background blur, tear jerking; "look", stunning. More about carrying it around and actually using the damn thing, it is sooooooo heavy. Stupidly heavy. And it's the size of an orange. Even on a strap I'd be sick of carrying this thing around within an hour, I'd also be terrified that some Canon fanboy would steal it off the front of my camera, it's hardly subtle. Then the AF speed - it may as well be manual. In the usual shit light there is everywhere all the time in this country you try to focus, it shuffles some glass around, you try again and it wiggles some more. Your subject has died or at least wandered off by the time you've focused _and_ the nice, expensive, HUGE front element bloody protrudes from the front. It's a gorgeous lens but particularly at 1.2 if you're trying to take photographs of anything moving just go home, this is a studio lens. The Zeiss shared the same quality as the 35's (and all Zeiss for that matter, beautiful). It's not as sharp as the 1.2 Canon, or even the 1.8 I don't think, but again this thing is a winner on looks. The very slight softness (and it is slight, this isn't a _soft_ lens) really gives this thing a distinct appearance and it's very pleasing. That along with the lovely colours and contrast, huge range on the slightly looser (than the 35 1.4) focus ring make this a joy to use. I'd be kidding if I were trying to convince you that this is better than the silly AF on the 85 1.2, but frankly the state the 1.2 is in it'd be just as fast to MF most of the time, you at least have control over that. The Zeiss felt like more of an experience to use and, like the 1.2, when you get the shot it just looks so lovely. So rich looking, you could dive into them haha. For the fact that the Zeiss 1.4 is just over half the price of the Canon 1.2, for a different look but as pleasing to look at photographs it's a winner for me. On a budget I'd maybe consider the Sigma but probably end up folding and getting the faster, sharper Canon 1.8. If money was no object, I still dream of the Canon 1.2 and it is AF in some way... I don't know. Since I'm a normal person with a normal budget and want to enjoy the whole process of taking pictures, I'm going to go Zeiss again.

At the end of the day, these are all my inexperienced opinions, YMMV. I enjoyed writing that though


----------



## soliloquy

anyone here have any hands on experience with a pentax k5? 
i currently have a pentax k-x and really do love it. but i find it is struggling in certain aspects, so trying to upgrade. i already have an 18-55 mm and 50mm lens, so i rather stay with the pentax spectrum. the price seems pretty decent and the reviews are raving about it.


----------



## Tang

soliloquy said:


> anyone here have any hands on experience with a pentax k5?
> i currently have a pentax k-x and really do love it. but i find it is struggling in certain aspects, so trying to upgrade. i already have an 18-55 mm and 50mm lens, so i rather stay with the pentax spectrum. the price seems pretty decent and the reviews are raving about it.



For a while, the K5 was the aps-c camera to beat, and if you can score one at a great price I think you'll love it. Everything you love about the k-x just done better. Seriously, the sensor will blow your mind coming from the k-x.

EDIT: I may be renting a x100s or Sony's RX1 for a small event I'm doing next weekend. Not looking like a pro is the name of the game and the very thought of using the RX1 has me giddy with excitment. The x100s is pretty damn nice too.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

I'm not a sony guy, but this could convert me. Holy hell. Full-frame mirrorless, with either 24mp for $1,698, or 36mp and no AA filter for $2,298. (take that, M typ 240.) I think the most exciting thing about these cameras is all of the lens ecosystem options that opens up. M-mount, Canon, etc. This and the supposed FF X-Pro II could be the cameras to beat next year.


----------



## Tang

Looks like Nikon might be joining the small-form full-frame arena too. 

Breaking: new Nikon full frame hybrid (mirrorless?) camera coming soon | Nikon Rumors


----------



## Rook

Bets on prices? I'm thinking this is gunna surpass the RX1 personally...

Not that I care, I won't be buying one.


----------



## soliloquy

Tang said:


> For a while, the K5 was the aps-c camera to beat, and if you can score one at a great price I think you'll love it. Everything you love about the k-x just done better. Seriously, the sensor will blow your mind coming from the k-x.
> 
> EDIT: I may be renting a x100s or Sony's RX1 for a small event I'm doing next weekend. Not looking like a pro is the name of the game and the very thought of using the RX1 has me giddy with excitment. The x100s is pretty damn nice too.



The only thing that kinda concerns me is that i like wide(er) angle lenses, and when i compare my sisters nikon d90 with my k-x, i see that her lenses are super wide, even though we both have the same focal range. I guess thats more of an 'issue' with a lens than the actual body thiugh


----------



## Scalded_Ape

Southwark London Underground Station


----------



## Tang

Scalded_Ape said:


> Southwark London Underground Station



'dat symmetry.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

soliloquy said:


> The only thing that kinda concerns me is that i like wide(er) angle lenses, and when i compare my sisters nikon d90 with my k-x, i see that her lenses are super wide, even though we both have the same focal range. I guess thats more of an 'issue' with a lens than the actual body thiugh



On those two bodies if you have equal focal length lenses the FOV should be nearly identical. If not something is terribly mislabeled on one of the lenses and would be a huge cause for concern as they're both 1.5x crop bodies.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> On those two bodies if you have equal focal length lenses the FOV should be nearly identical. If not something is terribly mislabeled on one of the lenses and would be a huge cause for concern as they're both 1.5x crop bodies.



Yeah, they should be exactly the same. If your sister were shooting a full-frame Nikon, hers would appear wider but the d90 is a 1.5 crop, right? Besides, Pentax makes some absolutely killer wide-angle primes in the 14mm f/2.8 and the 15mm f/4 limited.

Decided to take out my trust 35mm f/2.4 for a spin today and caught my babies being reasonably cute.. I also set my cam to raw+jpg just to see what the camera came up with..  I'll stick with my raw process, thank you very much! I also used around 50% less sharpening in these than I'd normally use.




IMGP2756 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP2783 by nrrfed, on Flickr

EDIT: thank you for choosing Tang's Pet Photography. I don't mind crawling on the ground to get the shot!


----------



## Khoi

I don't think I ever shared a video I made for class.

Feel free to check it out if you wish, it's fairly short! There's quite a bit of meaning to it if you like reading into videos


----------



## Tang

Khoi said:


> I don't think I ever shared a video I made for class.
> 
> Feel free to check it out if you wish, it's fairly short! There's quite a bit of meaning to it if you like reading into videos




  

Nice and trippy, dude. Just the way I like it. Also recognizing those north-central Florida roads.. the love bugs were a bit out of control this year!

Oh, check out this comparison I made between a straight-out-of-camera jpg and a LR/PS edit.. 




Untitled-1 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

NB Don't watch that video if you have any level of constant tinnitus, jesus hahaha.

Was a bit of a trip, those bugs were a bloody nightmare on my recent US holiday.

EDIT:  Just a thought, let's play a game, first American to pronounce 'Southwark' right wins.


----------



## Khoi

haha thanks, that's kind of the reaction I was looking for! It's supposed to be a bit more experimental and kind of out-there and rather satirical.


----------



## soliloquy

Khoi said:


> haha thanks, that's kind of the reaction I was looking for! It's supposed to be a bit more experimental and kind of out-there and rather satirical.



i'm not sure what i saw, but i liked it. 
great editing and great voice overs too.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Some from my canoeing trip on Sunday:

Fog lifting:






Going upstream:





Looking around:


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Some from my canoeing trip on Sunday:
> 
> Fog lifting:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going upstream:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking around:



Nice moods man.. very nice!

Oh yeah, my x100s will be here tomorrow.. so excited to give this cam a go!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Thanks, but those are from an Olympus E-PL3.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

ThePhilosopher said:


> Thanks, but those are from an Olympus E-PL3.



what lens on the olympus?


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Thanks, but those are from an Olympus E-PL3.



Sorry man, wasn't trying to say you took those shots on a x100s, I was just excited that I'm getting mine.. sorry for the confusion! Still enjoy the shots immensely.


----------



## kaffefilter

Shot another panorama in Stockholm this summer.
This picture at deviantart
Portfolio


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Paul Reed Shred said:


> what lens on the olympus?



Kit lens: 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6.

Tang, I understand now. I was looking at the Fujis but couldn't justify the extra cost.


----------



## Tang

First shot with the X100s would have to be of one of my dogs.. this is a straight OOC jpg.. I think I'm in love. That's some damn attractive bokeh. And it's so quiet.. almost uncomfortably so.




DSCF9395 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm going to shoot some with the Sinar this weekend, we'll chat about bokeh later .


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> I'm going to shoot some with the Sinar this weekend, we'll chat about bokeh later .


----------



## Tang

A few observations from shooting with the x100s for a few days..

1. I lack shooting discipline (proper breathing and keeping the camera still during the exposure)

2. I really miss the in-body image stabilization that my Pentax has. Truly. I'm used to being able to handhold 1/10s at 50mm with my Pentax with zero effort.

Don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful camera.. just need the operator to be as wonderful! I must say though, when you actually get the shots, there's a real sense of accomplishment. I'm even braving the .jpg only waters because the .jpgs out the Fuji are that good. Skin tones are godly.


----------



## Rook

When do you ever need to do 1/10 on a 50 that's faster than f2?! haha!

If I were you and looking at amazing JPEGs, I'd actually just be thinking 'if the JPEGs are this good, the RAW must be AMAZING' haha, can you put some sample RAWs up?


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> When do you ever need to do 1/10 on a 50 that's faster than f2?! haha!
> 
> If I were you and looking at amazing JPEGs, I'd actually just be thinking 'if the JPEGs are this good, the RAW must be AMAZING' haha, can you put some sample RAWs up?



Oh yes, I'll go out shooting later today and upload 'em tonight.

My 50 is a zoom and it's a 2.8. I've got my Pentax set to prefer lower shutter speeds to keep the ISOdown. I think my auto ISO range is 100-1600. Occasionally I'll go higher but I prefer not to.


----------



## Rook

Sweeeeet


----------



## Osorio

Collaborating to the colors, sunset (sunrise in this case) and power lines theme:











You would be surprised with actually just how little color correction there are in these two shots, there is some, but I was only trying to recreate what my eyes were actually seeing... I'm not sure why, but I get ridiculously colorful sunrises here.

These are just shitty cellphone pictures though, so be gentle  no multimillionaire camera set ups here. I do have a DSLR around here, but I rarely take it for a spin as it is somewhat on the heavy side for me to carry around nowadays.


----------



## Tang

Osorio said:


> Collaborating to the colors, sunset (sunrise in this case) and power lines theme:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would be surprised with actually just how little color correction there are in these two shots, there is some, but I was only trying to recreate what my eyes were actually seeing... I'm not sure why, but I get ridiculously colorful sunrises here.
> 
> These are just shitty cellphone pictures though, so be gentle  no multimillionaire camera set ups here. I do have a DSLR around here, but I rarely take it for a spin as it is somewhat on the heavy side for me to carry around nowadays.



Really enjoyed the first shot. Great colors.

And I'm a sucker for powerlinez


----------



## ZakkB

My first experiment with a "fine art" oriented picture.


----------



## Philligan

I went for a walk with the girlfriend tonight and took some pictures with my new 50mm/1.4, in pretty much complete darkness.  The way there and back wasn't bad, but there weren't any lights actually at the water, and even with the 1.4 my little T3 was struggling. I salvaged what pictures I could - they're noisy, but I think they came out pretty cool still.









This one turned out awesome, it looks like it should be from RoboCop or Escape From New York.


----------



## Rook

^Love the last one, the fence on the right is just right! I'd have made the white balance cooler but that's far from a criticism, I'd just be interested to see this with a little less sodium glow. On the other hand that glow makes it feel very street. I like it for sure.

I went back to that camera shop today after being indezeissive for a week (see what I did there) and I there a spanner in the works.







Hmm that's a funny looking 35mm 1.8.






Wait, that's not 35 1.8, it's 18 3.5... Is that why when I take a photograph I get the entire world in?

Yes. It is. I got there, I had a look at the 35 again and it is a shit load of money - a shitting shitty shit load of money and while I would love to own it, with the kind of money I have I have to make everything really count. As it happens during the week someone at work showed me a load of his friend's holiday photos and a huge chunk of them were taken with this 18mm. I then looked it up in the usual (tedious) 'Zeiss 18mm reviews' type way and some seriously reputable sources absolutely scream about this as an amazing ultra-wide. It was actually the review at the-digital-picture and his explanation of what you can do with an ultra-wide and how to use it that made the deal for me. When I looked it up I couldn't find a single dealer in the UK with one, and when I went to the shop today to have a look I was going to see if they had anything else. As soon as I spotted the 18, I strapped it on, tried some of the little 'how to use an ultra wide' tricks I'd found in the last week and straight away. Yes, I have to have this.

They say you buy an ultra-wide for dramatic perspectives and feeling of space in tight environments. No kidding. This lens is stupidly razor sharp, beautiful contrast, some pretty epic vignetting at 3.5 but setting this to F8 and focusing to about 0.8m puts everything beyond half a meter in focus which calls for a completely different way of thinking about shots.

Here are some tests.

Messy car






gate outside my house






creeper on the garage wall






into the graveyard across the road






rose and grave






in colour (desaturated though)






Loving this lens, and a bit of a Zeiss convert at this point. Gunna get the 85mm next and frankly I can't see needing anything else for a long time after that.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I love finding great uses for super wides - congrats on a great lens choice. I started with a 24mm, then I got a 20mm, and now I've got a zoom with 15mm at it's widest and that has me hunting for an amazing deal on the Nikkor 14mm prime (rectilinear, non-fisheye).


----------



## Rook

I'm pretty hooked right now, honestly it's such a cool effect that can really change the way pictures look. I like how it just throws the background away, it sort of isolates subjects in a similar way to small DoF just a different aesthetic. Loads of people saying this lens doesn't 'bokeh' (the 'does it djent' of cameras...) it definitely does, you just have to be real close to your subject with whatever you want blurred right in the background haha. You can see in the picture of the rose the gravestone is already OOF and that's at it's widest F3.5.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's just a physical trade off of wider angle lenses - larger DOF at a given aperture compared to a more tele lens.

I want a Petzval to end all the bokeh debates.

A preview of what will be coming later:


----------



## Khoi

a shower scene???


----------



## ThePhilosopher

1200 DPI scans of 4x5 negatives stand developed in Rodinal 1:100 for 65 minutes.


----------



## Khoi

aw I was hoping for some n00dz


----------



## Wretched

Just a couple of shots from my recent trip to Hamilton Island in Queensland, Australia. If you're interested, you can see more here: Hamilton Island Trip - a set on Flickr

Always feel weird about posting non-car stuff. I find it hard to figure out if they're any good or not.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> I went for a walk with the girlfriend tonight and took some pictures with my new 50mm/1.4, in pretty much complete darkness.  The way there and back wasn't bad, but there weren't any lights actually at the water, and even with the 1.4 my little T3 was struggling. I salvaged what pictures I could - they're noisy, but I think they came out pretty cool still.



Nice! Love the look that 1.4 gives shots  Next step is to throw that lens on a 5DIII or 6D.  My favorite was the last one, easily.



Wretched said:


> Always feel weird about posting non-car stuff. I find it hard to figure out if they're any good or not.



Welcome to the photography world us mortals live in. 

Seriously though, I really enjoyed the one I included in the quote above.. love the B&W.


----------



## Rook

Yeah dude, great picture, the last one.

Also 6D ftw! I honestly don't see the point in the 5D3 for less-than-pro use...

I'm still drooling over how devastatingly sharp this 18mm is haha. Captures texture amazingly. I shot these this morning in early light. Finding the MF dead easy to deal with at the moment. We'll see how I feel about it when I get the 85mm however.


----------



## Tang

I've heard murmuring that Pentax is planning on releasing a full-frame body Spring 2014.. I am excitebike. I can't even imagine how awesome my 35mm f/2.4 would be on a full-frame body.

GIMME PLEASE!


----------



## Rook

I wet dream about APS compacts, if canon ever make one I'll weep.

First with joy, then with sadness that I can't afford one. It'd have to have an optical viewfinder too.

NB I say canon because I have EF lenses, I'm not changing lens fit just for a compact haha. No brand loyalty here though...


----------



## soliloquy

so heres a question, when comparing my pentax k-x with my sisters nikon d90, why is there such a huge difference between the lenses that we both have?

my lens:
18-55mm that is 52 in width
50mm 1.4f that is 49 in width

her lens:
18-55mm that is 58 in width
50mm 1.8f that is 52 in width


even by a few mm in difference, in one picture, she can capture far more details than i can due to my narrow lens. what exactly determines that in a lens?


----------



## Tang

soliloquy said:


> so heres a question, when comparing my pentax k-x with my sisters nikon d90, why is there such a huge difference between the lenses that we both have?
> 
> my lens:
> 18-55mm that is 52 in width
> 50mm 1.4f that is 49 in width
> 
> her lens:
> 18-55mm that is 58 in width
> 50mm 1.8f that is 52 in width
> 
> 
> even by a few mm in difference, in one picture, she can capture far more details than i can due to my narrow lens. what exactly determines that in a lens?



I think I just figured out what you're talking about, and that's the diameter of the filters you can fit on those lens. Are you talking about these numbers? The first is the kit lens from my Pentax and the second is my 35mm 2.4. Unless you're going planning on attaching a filter to your lens, the only number you need to worry about it the focal length, 18-55 and 50mm in this case. On Pentax and Nikon the field-of-view is going to be exactly the same. As far as capturing more detail? Not exactly sure. I'm pretty certain if you stopped both lens up 3 or 4 steps, the difference is quality would quickly fade.




Untitled by nrrfed, on Flickr




Untitled by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## soliloquy

/\ its the wide angle thing. the wider the diameter of the lens, the more it can capture. unless i'm completely wrong, and the diameter of the lens makes no difference what so ever


----------



## Tang

soliloquy said:


> /\ its the wide angle thing. the wider the diameter of the lens, the more it can capture. unless i'm completely wrong, and the diameter of the lens makes no difference what so ever



Firstly, check this link: http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam/User-Guide/filter/thread-rings.html

Nah, those numbers are definitely the filter size. I made this picture to illustrate what I'm going on about. From left to right the lens are: 35mm f/2.4 (49mm filter), 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (52mm filter), 135mm f/2.8 (52mm filter), 17-50mm f/2.8 (67mm filter). You can throw UV filters on there, polarizers on there, neutral density filters.

As you can see, the 18-55 and the 135mm have the same filter size, even though the 135mm is a way longer lens. The 18-55 and the 17-50 have way different filter sizes even though they're the closest in focal length. If you look at the picture you can actually see the diameter of the filter threads. If you look closely at your lenses you can see the filter threads.




Untitled by nrrfed, on Flickr

And here's a shot from the x100s. Mah glorious jpgs.




DSCF9658 by nrrfed, on Flickr




20131026-DSCF9653-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr

Mah diagonal lines.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> Nice! Love the look that 1.4 gives shots  Next step is to throw that lens on a 5DIII or 6D.  My favorite was the last one, easily.



Thanks, man.  I'm really glad I got the 1.4, I love the look of wide apertures in low light, it feels so surreal. 

I've been drooling over a 6D for a while now, but I've still got a couple years of school left, and I'm not sure I could justify ~$2k on a body right now. I'm planning on getting a 70D more or less ASAP, mainly for better autofocus and low light. Think a complete amateur like me would benefit much from the 6D over the 70D? 

I just finished my second roll of film with my AE-1 yesterday, so shitty overexposed pictures are on their way.


----------



## Rook

You'd benefit far more than you would going to a 70D, all a 70D gives you over the 600D is 11AF points and a faster frames-per-second count. You don't gain any creative control, and while the ISO goes up to eleventh-million, even on my 6D which is possibly the best noise performer in Canon's current line-up doesn't produce images you'd actually want to use above ISO 1600, even peeping 1600 isn't silky smooth loveliness, it's small blotches or purple and green even then. I try to keep it 400 or less for keepers.

Low light performance actually improves more with a bigger sensor for obvious reasons and you get so much more control over light and DoF with a full frame, I can shoot in shitty artificial light, indoors, at night on my 50mm and still be using 1/50 shutter speed and ISO 400. You're basically talking about upgrading from an entry level camera to a fast entry level camera, and you're just putting yourself further away from affording what you actually want in doing so.

Without being pushy, I went from a 600D (T3i, whatever you call it), thought I was gunna upgrade to the 70D, realised I don't want a big field of AF points picking focus for me, I never need to shoot at 7fps and if I did want both of those things I'd buy a used 7D which is faster and has even better AF. The 6D cost about £600 more but I gained waaaaay more from it and actually I can't put it down. If I'd bought the 70D I'd be over it now.

Or I'd be taking hundreds of frames at 7fps to justify it to myself


----------



## Tang

Well, to be fair if he upgraded from his 1100D (T3.. no i in this one!) to a 70D it would be a huge upgrade. The 70D is a capable camera, just like the 60D was. Rook makes a good point though, you could always save for a few more months to get what you really want, the 6D. Philligan, from what you've posted I think a full-frame body makes sense for you. The way they operate in low-light conditions is nothing short of magical.

EDIT: check out dxomark's sensor comparison on the T3, 70D, and 6D. Higher numbers are better.

Compare cameras side by side - DxOMark

For shits and giggles, I did a comparison of the 70D, the 6D, and my APS-C Pentax.  Read it and weep, Rook! The only thing holding my sensor back is physics and surface area! This is the shit I'm talking about right here. Pentax needs to apply their knowledge and make a full-frame. I bet that sensor would be up there at Nikon D800 level (I believe it scored a 95)

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Comp...and2)/Canon/(appareil3)/829|0/(brand3)/Pentax


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Get a used 5D or 5DII. It's somewhat cool to see my camera that was released in 2007 keep up with cameras from last year.


----------



## Rook

It's a shame DxO Mark is the biggest load of shit ever 

Forget the 5D, but the 5D II used is a bloody good call. It's a heavier 6D with slightly less powerful ISO and 2 fewer AF points. 2 more megapixels though. A good camera will always be a good camera though, ThePhilosopher, and the 5D MkII is a bit of a landmark in digital cameras. The 6D really is a 5D2 made to feel cheaper (though lighter as a result). I live with my dad who has a 5D2 and can move between the two seamlessly. His is slower to focus than mine but I tend to manual focus anyway. If I have time.

1100D to 70D still isn't enough of an upgrade to me, slightly better ISO and faster FPS, the rest is just gimmicks and gravy haha. Apart from the sensor and maybe AF speed (and creature comforts I guess) the body is nothing importance-wise compared to glass and you get the best out of lenses with a full frame sensor. That was my reasoning anyway.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> It's a shame DxO Mark is the biggest load of shit ever





But seriously, in the end it doesn't really matter. The body and the lens are just a means to end. Get whatever camera you want and go shoot. If you need something specialized (shooting action or very low light) get the body you need, but don't give a .... what others think.

ANYWAYS! Here's some shots I snuck at a friends wedding. She had a whole team of pros and they must've thought I was so cute and quaint (or just a hipster with a 35mm!) shooting the Fuji. I wouldn't want to shoot weddings as a job, that's for damn sure!




DSCF9708 by nrrfed, on Flickr




DSCF9870 by nrrfed, on Flickr




DSCF9935 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Rook, I agree and I was very tempted to say go D3 and don't look back. The D3 is still an amazing machine if you don't need to shoot video, and is far more camera than most people need. I've pushed it quite far I think and I've run out of room shooting a wedding (14bit RAW files). The only upgrade I'm looking at is a medium format setup or augmenting with an 8x10 film (or larger) film camera.

Weddings suck, but do they pay.

Some Sinar, I was really sloppy when I loaded the film into the holders and then I forgot it was Efke and not TMax when I developed. All shot at least f/8 or higher (the lens only opens up to f/5.6. Straight scans, just resized:













100% Crops:


----------



## ZakkB

A Foggy Mind by Zack Berwick, on Flickr

My latest picture.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> It's a shame DxO Mark is the biggest load of shit ever
> 
> Forget the 5D, but the 5D II used is a bloody good call. It's a heavier 6D with slightly less powerful ISO and 2 fewer AF points. 2 more megapixels though. A good camera will always be a good camera though, ThePhilosopher, and the 5D MkII is a bit of a landmark in digital cameras. The 6D really is a 5D2 made to feel cheaper (though lighter as a result). I live with my dad who has a 5D2 and can move between the two seamlessly. His is slower to focus than mine but I tend to manual focus anyway. If I have time.
> 
> 1100D to 70D still isn't enough of an upgrade to me, slightly better ISO and faster FPS, the rest is just gimmicks and gravy haha. Apart from the sensor and maybe AF speed (and creature comforts I guess) the body is nothing importance-wise compared to glass and you get the best out of lenses with a full frame sensor. That was my reasoning anyway.



Interesting, thanks guys.  The low light performance is big for me, but probably just as big is a fast auto focus. I'm happiest wandering around doing street-style shooting, and I'm wondering if the 70D AF would be up my alley? And $2k is a lot of money for a body this early on in my picture-taking life. 

edit: Should have mentioned, it's just the 1100D, not the 600.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> Interesting, thanks guys.  The low light performance is big for me, but probably just as big is a fast auto focus. I'm happiest wandering around doing street-style shooting, and I'm wondering if the 70D AF would be up my alley? And $2k is a lot of money for a body this early on in my picture-taking life.



I guess you have to ask yourself if you plan on continuing shooting? With those FF bodies you are paying out the ass, but they keep their resale value reasonably well. Honestly? I think you'd do just fine with the 70D, but you might get that good old fashioned upgraditis pretty quickly.

Rook: check out mah high ISO  First shot is iso 2500, second is iso 1600, third is iso 4000. 




DSCF0122 by nrrfed, on Flickr




DSCF0150 by nrrfed, on Flickr




DSCF0192 by nrrfed, on Flickr

Here's an approx 100% crop. 




DSCF0122-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Get the best FF camera you can.


----------



## Rook

Tang said:


> I guess you have to ask yourself if you plan on continuing shooting? With those FF bodies you are paying out the ass, but they keep their resale value reasonably well. Honestly? I think you'd do just fine with the 70D, but you might get that good old fashioned upgraditis pretty quickly.
> 
> Rook: check out mah high ISO  First shot is iso 2500, second is iso 1600, third is iso 4000.



I'm not saying a word 

EDIT: hold up, why the hell are you using those kind of ISO's in broad daylight?!


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> I'm not saying a word
> 
> EDIT: hold up, why the hell are you using those kind of ISO's in broad daylight?!



It wasn't nearly as bright as it looks. 

I was sick of my shaky hands messing up shots so I set auto-ISO with a min shutter speed of 1/125. A few of them I brought up to 1/200s.


----------



## Wretched

Wretched said:


>



I had a few people suggest removing the vents in the top left corner. While I think it goes against this type of photography, I agree, it makes it look cleaner and places more attention on the subject.

What do you think?


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

So I was thinking about upgrading to a full-frame DSLR. Right now I use a 60D and my primary lens is my 85mm F1.8. 
I was looking into the 6D, but I decided to mess around with my 60D a bit more to see exactly where I felt it was falling short. 
During my noodling around, I started shooting RAW. 
And I'm not looking back. I've decided to put off getting a new DSLR for a couple years now.


----------



## Philligan

Wretched said:


> I had a few people suggest removing the vents in the top left corner. While I think it goes against this type of photography, I agree, it makes it look cleaner and places more attention on the subject.
> 
> What do you think?



I think it looks a lot cleaner, and I really dig how clear the guy looks. It definitely looks better, but I agree with you, I think I have some philosophical beef with it, too. 

Great picture either way, though, man. I've been following you on Flickr, your people shots are awesome.


----------



## Wretched

Ocara-Jacob said:


> So I was thinking about upgrading to a full-frame DSLR. Right now I use a 60D and my primary lens is my 85mm F1.8.
> I was looking into the 6D, but I decided to mess around with my 60D a bit more to see exactly where I felt it was falling short.
> During my noodling around, I started shooting RAW.
> And I'm not looking back. I've decided to put off getting a new DSLR for a couple years now.



Raw is definitely where it's at. I only shoot Raw on my DSLRs, but shoot Raw and Jpeg simultaneously on my X100s where I (at this early stage, at least), feel I may sometimes just want to pass the images from that camera on to friends and family quickly without having to take them back into LR first.


----------



## Wretched

Philligan said:


> I think it looks a lot cleaner, and I really dig how clear the guy looks. It definitely looks better, but I agree with you, I think I have some philosophical beef with it, too.
> 
> Great picture either way, though, man. I've been following you on Flickr, your people shots are awesome.



Thanks man, that's nice of you to say!


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Wretched said:


> Raw is definitely where it's at. I only shoot Raw on my DSLRs, but shoot Raw and Jpeg simultaneously on my X100s where I (at this early stage, at least), feel I may sometimes just want to pass the images from that camera on to friends and family quickly without having to take them back into LR first.



The only software I currently have to edit Raw images is the software that came with my Canon. I assume LR is the best software to get for this?


----------



## Rook

I was using aperture and I just happened to get LR5 free with my 6D. I tried it to try the perspective correction but was converted instantly, Aperture's a frigging joke by comparison.

Very reliable tools and you maintain an huge amount of integrity in the image, even with some pretty massive adjustments.


----------



## Rook

Also I only ever shoot RAW. I never know when I'm gunna catch a keeper.


----------



## capoeiraesp

I'm a RAW virgin and am about to be deflowered. After much talk with my sister's boyfriend recently, he convinced me along with you guys to get Lightroom.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> Also I only ever shoot RAW. I never know when I'm gunna catch a keeper.



And if one day you're perusing your RAW collection and something catches your eye.. now you have months and months of PP experience and you can turn a shot that wasn't quite a keeper into something beautiful. 

Space is cheap, use that shit. RAW all the way. 

Rook: LR5 perspective correction is voodoo magic.

I dont remember if I posted this yet..


----------



## metal_sam14

here are a few shots from last weekend: 



First Basin Pool by TasmanSam, on Flickr




Peacock head by TasmanSam, on Flickr




Hands by TasmanSam, on Flickr




Peacock by TasmanSam, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Nice DTP tat, man!


----------



## capoeiraesp

Man am I happy to be shooting in RAW. Lightroom is bloody awesome!


----------



## Tang

capoeiraesp said:


> Man am I happy to be shooting in RAW. Lightroom is bloody awesome!



Awesome, and gorgeous guitar too.


----------



## Wretched

This shot made the cover of the new Performance Garage magazine. The location was full of compromises, but it turned out OK. I used speedlites to get some light into the interior of the front car as well as the front of the red VN toward the back. I also had one behind the white car, but it didn't fire and I didn't notice until I got home. It's all a single image - no composite this time.


----------



## Tang

What have I gotten myself into, guys? Doing another wedding this Friday. I like to think I'm pretty prepared, but who knows how these things turn out? My gear + rentals will be as follows:

Pentax K5II body with 2 batteries and 2 16gb SD cards.
Pentax K30 body with a 1 battery and 2 16gb SD cards.
Pentax 31mm f/1.8 (considered to be the best prime Pentax ever made)
Pentax 77mm f/1.8 (for portraits)
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

I'm truly considering going prime only for this, as the bride likes my 'streetish' style, but I feel I might regret not having something in the 135mm range. I thought about renting a full-frame body, I truly did, but I know Pentax's controls/ergonomics like the back of my hand and I don't think I'd have enough time to be completely comfortable with a different brand.


----------



## Wretched

Tang said:


> Pentax K5II body with 2 batteries and 2 16gb SD cards.
> Pentax K30 body with a 1 battery and 2 16gb SD cards.
> Pentax 31mm f/1.8 (considered to be the best prime Pentax ever made)
> Pentax 77mm f/1.8 (for portraits)
> Tamron 17-50 f/2.8
> 
> I'm truly considering going prime only for this, as the bride likes my 'streetish' style, but I feel I might regret not having something in the 135mm range. I thought about renting a full-frame body, I truly did, but I know Pentax's controls/ergonomics like the back of my hand and I don't think I'd have enough time to be completely comfortable with a different brand.



Definitely better to go with what you know in such demanding circumstances. Especially given the quality of images that are possible with crop sensor cameras... full-frame just isn't all that necessary. I've blown plenty of my 7D images up to A1 with no dramas. I would image it a very rare occurrence to need to blow any wedding shots up that large.


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> Definitely better to go with what you know in such demanding circumstances. Especially given the quality of images that are possible with crop sensor cameras... full-frame just isn't all that necessary. I've blown plenty of my 7D images up to A1 with no dramas. I would image it a very rare occurrence to need to blow any wedding shots up that large.



Indeed, especially with Pentax APS-C cameras. It's astounding how far sensor technology has come in a decade. I think the K5ii + 31mm f/1.8 combo is going to ....ing killer.. that lens has some serious mojo.

I'll be waving my Pentax flag proudly!

found some shots of the 31 on flickr.. goddamn..




Costa Dude... by alfie2902, on Flickr




what a character by alexcoitus, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I agree with Wretched, definitely shoot what you're comfortable with as having to fiddle with controls and missing shots that cannot be recreated is a definite way to can your business if you're starting one.

Good luck, my load out for a wedding is 24mm f/2.8, 80-200mm f/2.8, 90mm macro (for pre-wedding stuff) and lighting. I shoot with one body, but wish I had a second so I wouldn't have to switch lenses-D3+D3x would be so awesome. Also, I've blown up images from my old E-1 to 24x36 without problems-that's really on your print lab.


----------



## Rook

Wretched said:


> Definitely better to go with what you know in such demanding circumstances. Especially given the quality of images that are possible with crop sensor cameras... full-frame just isn't all that necessary. I've blown plenty of my 7D images up to A1 with no dramas. I would image it a very rare occurrence to need to blow any wedding shots up that large.



While I don't disagree with you, your point about blowing pictures up is nothing to do with full-framedness, that's just pixel count.

Full frame is brighter and thinner DoF really. You get more width out of standards (all lenses obviously, but standards are designed to be neutral perspective) meaning you can spread the neutral perspective in a more versatile way IMO, where zooms compress to a point before noticing the difference over a huge range becomes much less important. Crops = wider lens for same field = more distortion or crazy perspective. I also like the bigger, brighter viewfinder of FF.

Full frame doesn't mean better IQ or bigger pictures. Some say they give better noise performance but that depends almost exclusively on pixel size when it comes to the sensor itself.

I'm not directing all this at you (wretched) by the way, you obviously don't need telling, just airing some info in general haha. If you're gunna pay to go FF you may as well be fully clued in on what you should expect and why (or if) you benefit.


----------



## Philligan

Ocara-Jacob said:


> The only software I currently have to edit Raw images is the software that came with my Canon. I assume LR is the best software to get for this?



Definitely get Lightroom. I was using the stock Canon DPP that came with my camera, and got LR with my bonus from work. It honestly might be the most beneficial piece of gear I've gotten yet. You get more parameters, and more control over the parameters you've already had. With DPP, I was basically converting RAW files. Lightroom actually let me edit, and actually salvage a lot of pictures I thought were no good.

Hang on and I'll try to find a good example.


----------



## Philligan

Okay, I pulled out a .jpg conversion from an album I did with LR a couple weeks back, and I just grabbed the RAW file and converted it with DPP.

Keep in mind, the LR edit wasn't too long after I'd first gotten it - you get better at editing every time you do it. I thought about re-editing in LR, too, but I'm in the library between classes right now and should be reading. 

Here's Canon's DPP:







And here's Lightroom:


----------



## Wretched

Philligan, while you've been able to save the highlights, I think you've gone a little too far and it now looks quite dynamically flat to me. I'd let some of those highlights loose a little more and add some more contrast back into it. But that's just me.


----------



## Rook

Lightroom is amazingly powerful, I have to say I was reluctant at first because photoshop is so bizarrely laid out but nope, awesome.

Here's a question. X100 users, why X100? I fail to see why one would take that brick over a XE-1 or XPro-1 with the interchangeable lenses?! I can see an XE-1 with that 35mm 1.4 in my future.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> Lightroom is amazingly powerful, I have to say I was reluctant at first because photoshop is so bizarrely laid out but nope, awesome.
> 
> Here's a question. X100 users, why X100? I fail to see why one would take that brick over a XE-1 or XPro-1 with the interchangeable lenses?! I can see an XE-1 with that 35mm 1.4 in my future.



There's something liberating at being confined to 35mm (equiv). Honestly, it's just amazingly designed and built cam. Calling it a brick is a bit unfair, though. It is pocketable. Besides, the XE-1 doesn't have the glorious hybrid viewfinder. 

This shot was from the x100s.


----------



## Rook

In all honesty I'd likely strap the 35 1.4 (dat 1.4) on and be done, but the option's nice. It's the same sensor, and the hybrid viewfinder I was a bit ambivalent about really, I'd use the full digital mode more myself as it's 100% accurate anyway.

You could also stick something like a Noctilux on the XE-1 which would just be amazing.

I do like the 'look' Fuji's have, or at least this particular sensor setup of theirs, the XE-1 has made me more than curious. I stand by my 'brick' remark though, as mirrorless cameras go, there's PEN's, then there's the X100, bricky brick. People say my G1X isn't compact and the X100's way chunkier than that! It's not a criticism, but it is big in a not-a-Leica-but-a-Leica-look-a-like-a way.


----------



## Tang

Different strokes, then? 



Edit: Rook, you on flickr?

Found this cutaway of an old Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 on the LensRentals blog.. goddamn, that's a beauty.


----------



## Wretched

Rook said:


> Here's a question. X100 users, why X100? I fail to see why one would take that brick over a XE-1 or XPro-1 with the interchangeable lenses?! I can see an XE-1 with that 35mm 1.4 in my future.



I picked the X100s explicitly FOR its simplicity and lack of interchangeable lenses. I wasn't taking my cameras anywhere unless I was being paid to, due to having to pack gear, choose which lens/es to take etc etc... I was hoping the fixed focal length would also be a catalyst for creativity. I think so far it has been. Now I just need to get out of the house more.


----------



## Yousef

Hey guys. I'm a photography hobbyist. My wife actually does part time photography jobs so she's got some sick gear, and when we go on vacation I get to hog it all hehe. We have a D7000 with an assortment of lenses, but my favorite is the 35 f/1.8 and 50 f/1.8. Aside from digital, I love film photography. I have a Nikon FM2 with a 50 f/1.4 and Nikon N80 with a 50 f/1.8. 

I post my best shots on 500px and they don't allow direct image linking, so I'll just put links to the photos I want to share with you guys. 

On top of mountains overlooking the Dead Sea. My first HDR shot: 500px / Dead Sea View From Above by Yousef Abdul Husain

Philadelphia Museum of Art. Took this shot because it was EMPTY the day we went: 500px / Philadelphia Museum of Art by Yousef Abdul Husain

A long exposure in my country of Kuwait: 500px / Al Hamra from Marina Beach by Yousef Abdul Husain

Since we're on a guitar forum here is a shot of my Yamaha LS16: 500px / Guitar Strings by Yousef Abdul Husain

I took photos for a Military Simulation event. Here is one my favorites: 500px / kill or be killed by Yousef Abdul Husain

A shot of a poor girl selling stones in Jordan: 500px / Stone Seller by Yousef Abdul Husain

Harvard University: 500px / Harvard University by Yousef Abdul Husain

And my favorite shot of my wife. Took this one on film with a Nikon FM2: 500px / Beautiful by Yousef Abdul Husain

If you'd like to see all my photos in my personal gallery, check out: 500px / Yousef Abdul Husain / Photos

Thanks guys.


----------



## Rook

Tang said:


> Different strokes, then?
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Rook, you on flickr?
> 
> Found this cutaway of an old Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 on the LensRentals blog.. goddamn, that's a beauty.



Haha, yeah dude, just probing 

I am on flickr, I'm gunna pop some stuff in here later so I'll link it then, you?

I'm hopelessly in love with my Zeiss 18 at the moment, and the boxes all have cross section pictures like that on them, very cool.

Also I totally get the enjoyment of a 1 lens setup, pretty much every time I take my 6D out I pick a lens and rather than thinking 'what's gunna get me the most shots' I think 'what shots can I get with this'. If I get an XE-1, I will do the same again but I at least get to choose what lens is permanently on.

I totally get you guys on that front, was more interested if featurewise it was anything more than an aperture ring and hybrid viewfinder.


----------



## Philligan

I think it's the fact that it's a little more geared towards street style photography, too. If it weren't for the 2.8 limit on my 40mm, I could use that lens pretty much exclusively, and wider. I haven't been craving any other lens than the 50/1.8 on my AE-1. For stuff where you'd use a wide angle, why not keep it simpler?

I wouldn't sell my gear now and upgrade to an X100s, but I'd love one in addition to what I've got. I'm still seriously debating grabbing one of those over an upgrade to a better Canon body at the moment.


----------



## Philligan

Wretched said:


> Philligan, while you've been able to save the highlights, I think you've gone a little too far and it now looks quite dynamically flat to me. I'd let some of those highlights loose a little more and add some more contrast back into it. But that's just me.



Noted.


----------



## Rook

I see an XE-1 35mm 1.4 combination in my future for the same reasons.

EDIT: Oh shit, Zeiss in X-Mount

http://www.parkcameras.com/25943/Zeiss-Touit-32mm-f-1-8---X-Mount.html

Sold.

EDIT EDIT: Canon EF adapter too, crikey.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> I see an XE-1 35mm 1.4 combination in my future for the same reasons.
> 
> EDIT: Oh shit, Zeiss in X-Mount
> 
> Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8 - X-Mount - Only £699.00 - Park Cameras Online
> 
> Sold.


And autofocus too.


----------



## Rook

No kidding, didn't see that!

Shot this today, I don't know why but I really love how it came out. I also like how it's a really quiet, moody moment and there's some tool stood up with his camera phone out.




Moment's Peace by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

I had some others today I'd usually think were good enough to post, but I just love this one.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Rook said:


> Here's a question. X100 users, why X100? I fail to see why one would take that brick over a XE-1 or XPro-1 with the interchangeable lenses?! I can see an XE-1 with that 35mm 1.4 in my future.



Hmm... I'd put it down to a few potential things:

1. For many people I think it functions as a casual use/second/just for fun camera, just like the 35mm compacts of the 90s (Contax T2, Ricoh GR1, etc) in that they're quality cameras in a compact size that maintain full features. 

2. The X100s is 1300, an XE-2 is $1k body only, and the bottom tier of x-mount lenses doesn't go below $400 or so. I think the idea of buying a one-and-done camera is more attractive then buying into a whole new system with different lenses, filter sizes, and accessories.

3. Form factor wise, the X100 is fairly similar to that of older Leicas or Rollei 35s.

4. Smaller cameras aren't always as advantageous as one might expect. I tried out some of the Panasonic mirrorless stuff and it was uncomfortably small to hold.


----------



## Tang

Shit, the nerves are really starting to kick. My comfort is I know my cameras front and back.


----------



## Wretched

You'll be fine, Tang. A few frames in and the nerves will settle. But, I always like to think being nervous before a shoot means you still love it and care about what you're doing. Feeling overly confident beforehand means you're over it or feel you've got nothing left to learn... at which point you'll have a shitty shoot.


----------



## Wretched

This shoot dates all the way back to early 2011, but only just came out in Modified Mustangs & Fords in the US... probably not edited as well as my latest stuff, or shot as well, but I still like some of it, like the engine shot.


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> You'll be fine, Tang. A few frames in and the nerves will settle. But, I always like to think being nervous before a shoot means you still love it and care about what you're doing. Feeling overly confident beforehand means you're over it or feel you've got nothing left to learn... at which point you'll have a shitty shoot.



Thanks Wretched.. honestly it's an equal mix of excitement and nervousness. The primes I'm using are simply to die for.. like.. just glorious rendering. Can't wait to see how it turns out.

Thanks again.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Best of luck, work with the coordinator on the schedule of events if you haven't already and remember you decide if they need to reshoot a toast, cake cutting, etc...


----------



## MrYakob

So I've been strongly considering the idea of going to college for photography next September, which means upgrading from my t4i... Problem is that I can't seem to make up my mind on a Canon body 

I'd like to go FF, so I was looking at the 6D. Once I sell the t4i and the two EF-S lens I have I should be able to afford it with minimal waiting, it doesn't seem like there is much need to spend the extra cash on a 5D3 but what's the consensus on a used 5D2? 

There's also the 70D that is catching my eye specifically because of the video fucntion, but I have a feeling that if I got that I would just want to upgrade to FF not too long after anyways...


----------



## Philligan

Awwww yeah, just got my first two rolls of film developed! Apparently film's fairly forgiving, because I shot the first roll of ISO 400 at 1/400s and almost wide open at high noon, and it's not completely overexposed.  I actually kind of learned how to use the light meter for the second roll. 

Here are the better ones from the first roll:









These two are way underexposed, but I think they still came out kinda cool.









And here are some from my second roll:





















And this underexposed one that also looks cool I think haha.


----------



## Rook

MrYakob said:


> So I've been strongly considering the idea of going to college for photography next September, which means upgrading from my t4i... Problem is that I can't seem to make up my mind on a Canon body
> 
> I'd like to go FF, so I was looking at the 6D. Once I sell the t4i and the two EF-S lens I have I should be able to afford it with minimal waiting, it doesn't seem like there is much need to spend the extra cash on a 5D3 but what's the consensus on a used 5D2?
> 
> There's also the 70D that is catching my eye specifically because of the video fucntion, but I have a feeling that if I got that I would just want to upgrade to FF not too long after anyways...



Difference between a used 5D2 and 6D:
-5D2 is made out of wrought iron or something, it's solid
-As a result, 5D2 isn't a little heavier, it's MUCH heavier
-6D has bigger pixels and newer processors which add up to much much better noise performance; about 2 stops at least I'd say.
-5D2 has 9 AF points to 6D's 11 - this would matter to me, I only ever use one
-Used 5D2 will be cheaper but likely have a shutter count in the thousands
-6D has Wifi which allows you to control your camera with a phone, which I've actually used a fair bit. It has GPS too but who cares haha.

I think the 5D2 also has slightly sturdier feeling controls but that's not to say the 6's don't feel sturdy. 

As for which you'd get a better image from, I'd say 6D, but you couldn't tell the difference at anything under ISO1600, believe me. I went for the 6D for the practical things, it's smaller and lighter, the noise performance is the best Canon have done yet with the exception only being the 1DX. The 6D comfortably has better ISO performance than 5D3, there are hundreds of samples online that'll show this.

As for 6D vs 70D, 70D has a higher fps rate and that's sorta it. It has the new processors but much smaller pixels, it still has a crop sensor which means it still has that little viewfinder. It has got 41 AF points or something absurd but I've never wanted the camera choosing focus personally. If I were seriously considering the 70D I still wouldn't buy it, I'd go for the faster still, sturdier 7D.


----------



## Yousef

MrYakob said:


> So I've been strongly considering the idea of going to college for photography next September



I don't recommend going to school for photography. Two reasons. Reason one: Anyone looking to hire you is only going to care about what they see in your portfolio. If they see that you can pull off what they want, then they will hire you. Doesn't matter if you have a masters degree in photography or no photography education at all. Reason two is because photography is 10% taking pictures, 50% networking, and 40% running a business. If you have all the skills available to create the images you want, then all you need to know is how to effectively network and run your business in an efficient manner. 

I highly recommend teaching yourself by using the internet. There are 1000's of webpages that you can do research on to educate yourself on how everything from exposure to composition, not to mention 100's of youtube channels that cover all aspects of photography. 

Instead of going to school for photography, consider going for business administration. 

To further back my point up, here is a thread on reddit from the subreddit of photography where various professional photographers give advice on if you should go to school on photography. I hope it is an insightful read:

Official "Should I go to school for photography?" thread : photography


----------



## MrYakob

Yousef said:


> I don't recommend going to school for photography. Two reasons. Reason one: Anyone looking to hire you is only going to care about what they see in your portfolio. If they see that you can pull off what they want, then they will hire you. Doesn't matter if you have a masters degree in photography or no photography education at all. Reason two is because photography is 10% taking pictures, 50% networking, and 40% running a business. If you have all the skills available to create the images you want, then all you need to know is how to effectively network and run your business in an efficient manner.
> 
> I highly recommend teaching yourself by using the internet. There are 1000's of webpages that you can do research on to educate yourself on how everything from exposure to composition, not to mention 100's of youtube channels that cover all aspects of photography.
> 
> Instead of going to school for photography, consider going for business administration.
> 
> To further back my point up, here is a thread on reddit from the subreddit of photography where various professional photographers give advice on if you should go to school on photography. I hope it is an insightful read:
> 
> Official "Should I go to school for photography?" thread : photography




Thank you for the link, I don't have time to read it at the moment but I will definitely comb through it when I have some down time.

I know that you can learn everything you need to through the internet, but the program I am looking at is all hands on experience including a paid work placement which to me seems like it would help in gaining experience as well as gaining contacts and such. Sure I could go out and buy everything all on my own and figure it out, but to have the chance to work around the equipment and interact with people who are doing it for a living seems worth it to me. It is only a 2 year program and I was in fact looking to take a business management course after that. I have been working a full 40+ hour/week job for the two years that I have been out of high school and have been setting aside half of all my income for when I decide to go to college, so to me it seemed like a good idea to gain the workplace experience and build a portfolio under the guide of people in the industry and at the same time hopefully collecting references that I could use when pursuing this as a business whether that be full time or just on the side.

That all being said, I could be totally off base with my thinking. I have thought about it from your side as well. I've been putting off school of any kind now for too long and I'd like to take something that I have a genuine interest in.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> As for 6D vs 70D, 70D has a higher fps rate and that's sorta it. It has the new processors but much smaller pixels, it still has a crop sensor which means it still has that little viewfinder. It has got 41 AF points or something absurd but I've never wanted the camera choosing focus personally. If I were seriously considering the 70D I still wouldn't buy it, I'd go for the faster still, sturdier 7D.



The 70D has 19 AF points.  The big thing with it is that they're all cross-type, like the 7D. My 1100D autofocus sucks, and I've been having trouble lately with focusing with the centre point and reframing with my 50/1.4 wide open; I'm curious to try 19 equally good AF points, and to try changing groupings on the fly depending on what I'm shooting at the moment.

I've been seriously wrestling with the 70D vs 7D, and the deal breaker for me is the fact that the 70D seems to have significantly better noise handling/low light performance. Like a good couple stops or so. It sucks, because even though the 70D is pretty much equally as good, I'd prefer a slightly simpler, sturdier camera over a more plasticky one with more modern features. But the low light is one of the biggest concerns for me, so the 70D's winning IMHO.


----------



## Tang

this ....in' lens.. this ....in' lens. let's get creative!




K5II2943 by nrrfed, on Flickr




K5II2918 by nrrfed, on Flickr




K5II3085 by nrrfed, on Flickr




K5II3098 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> The 70D has 19 AF points.  The big thing with it is that they're all cross-type, like the 7D. My 1100D autofocus sucks, and I've been having trouble lately with focusing with the centre point and reframing with my 50/1.4 wide open; I'm curious to try 19 equally good AF points, and to try changing groupings on the fly depending on what I'm shooting at the moment.
> 
> I've been seriously wrestling with the 70D vs 7D, and the deal breaker for me is the fact that the 70D seems to have significantly better noise handling/low light performance. Like a good couple stops or so. It sucks, because even though the 70D is pretty much equally as good, I'd prefer a slightly simpler, sturdier camera over a more plasticky one with more modern features. But the low light is one of the biggest concerns for me, so the 70D's winning IMHO.



They are all cross type, yes, but remember full frame has a brighter view, the non-cross are more than responsive enough in my experience, we're not talking the same thing as you get on an 1100 or 600, the focus issues on those isn't cross type or number related. My experience of the multiple cross-type system with a fast lens - and it's the same on the 5D3 - is that it find focus quick, yes, but on just any old random thing. You get a shot but not necessarily what you wanted.

At my work we had 7D's for ages and now we have 5D3's, pretty much always use the centre 'zone' on the 7 or the centre point. You can change AF points on the fly but I find that easier with the 5D2 or 6D because as you scroll on the 7 or 70 (or 5D3) it doesn't scroll point by point, it scrolls through various group modes, some points etc etc.

I've had most success roughly focusing using one point, recomposing and manually fine tuning using an Eg-S focusing screen.

I realise it looks like I've just rabbited on and on there, honestly it makes no difference to me what you get and I'm not exactly gunna take it personally if you get a 70D or something, haha, but I've been through this exact process and use a 50 1.2 and a 135 2 with even smaller room for focusing errors and *tl;dr, the huge focus systems on 70D and 7D are amazing for catching focus on something quickly and getting loads of shots and hoping one is focused on what you want, but with a moment's notice, a small window of opportunity and a thin DoF, one fast AF point, a little manual override and an Eg-S focus screen have consistently given me the best results.*

70 as well as 7 are great cameras, you really can't go wrong, but if I were gunna do it, I'd do it for the right reasons and a 7D would be a great addition to my bag if I were shooting sports, moving cars, or much wider DOF subjects quickly.

EDIT: I apologise, reading that back it comes across really ranty, it's not meant to be. I'm tired and have kinda repeated myself a few times haha. 70D is a great camera, I wouldn't be disappointed with one had I not bought the 6.


----------



## Tang

So after a few days of playing, the 31mm f/1.8 and 77mm f/1.8 are on another level. Like Zeiss/Leica level. 

Goddamn, I know gear shouldn't be the end all, but inspiration comes easy when you're using such nice stuff.


----------



## Rook

I love my zeiss, so sharp it almost hurts.




Autumn Drain by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

On another note I slapped some ext. tubes on my 50 today and got this, I love how it came out.




A Long Three Months by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> I love my zeiss, so sharp it almost hurts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Autumn Drain by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr
> 
> On another note I slapped some ext. tubes on my 50 today and got this, I love how it came out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Long Three Months by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Nice, especially that manhole (is that what ya'll call it over there?) cover. The only thing I have to watch out for on these older Pentax film lens is chromatic aberration in high contrast situations, though Lightroom makes it reasonably easy to fix. I can't stop looking at the candle picture I took..

Hope my friends don't mind that I'm posting a few of these 




IMGP0156 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Drain cover, I think I've heard brits say manhole though.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> Drain cover, I think I've heard brits say manhole though.



Excellent.. the Zeiss is looking fantastic, sir.

And who else besides your favorite Tang rents a $1,000 prime to take pictures of his dogs? 





K5II3159 by nrrfed, on Flickr




K5II3155 by nrrfed, on Flickr




K5II3205 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## soliloquy

i might be picking up a pentax k5 with an 18-55mm WR lens for around $650. has around 2000 clicks on it. and in the near future, i'll either pickup an 18-135 or 50-200WR for it

thinking of selling my k-x w/ 18-55 mm lens to make up for the cost. though the k-x did serve me well for a few years i had it


----------



## Tang

soliloquy said:


> i might be picking up a pentax k5 with an 18-55mm WR lens for around $650. has around 2000 clicks on it. and in the near future, i'll either pickup an 18-135 or 50-200WR for it
> 
> thinking of selling my k-x w/ 18-55 mm lens to make up for the cost. though the k-x did serve me well for a few years i had it



For that price? Absolutely! The K5 is a monster of a camera and a massive upgrade for you.

Tried for some more 'abstract' shots, as it's honestly what I enjoy the most. Taking shots of people is fine with it's candids, but I'm absolutely terrible at directing/posing. I assume it's something that comes with time?




K5II3142 by nrrfed, on Flickr




K5II3226 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## MrYakob

Couple shots with the Tamron 17-50, I really love this lens!

Excuse the piss poor editing of the license plates


----------



## Tang

MrYakob said:


> Couple shots with the Tamron 17-50, I really love this lens!
> 
> Excuse the piss poor editing of the license plates



I don't know if it's flickr messing up, but none of your images are showing up.




K5II3306 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

I love RAW & Lightroom! Why didn't I get onto this combo sooner?

I got to experience some amazing Aussie bushland on the weekend.


----------



## Fiction

That first one looks like a still from a Peter Jackson movie!


----------



## MrYakob

Tang said:


> I don't know if it's flickr messing up, but none of your images are showing up.



Flickr is fine, I'm just stupid and reuploaded the pictures forgetting that I had already linked to them earlier  Should be good now!


----------



## Philligan

MrYakob said:


> Couple shots with the Tamron 17-50, I really love this lens!



Those look great, especially the last two.  Makes me miss Ottawa haha, what a great city.


----------



## Rook

The Tube by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Emergency Use Only by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Up For Air 2 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Self Winding by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

I was inspired by Philligan's shot from a few pages ago.. got my trusty model out for this!




K5II3273 by nrrfed, on Flickr




K5II3292 by nrrfed, on Flickr




mah 9-blade aperture. by nrrfed, on Flickr

And since Rook liked this one, I'll show the rest of ya'll.




K5II3078 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

That skeleton wedding cake one is awesome, man. I really dug it when I noticed the dude in the background basically making a backdrop for them. And that huge bokeh ball haha. Awesome, awesome, awesome.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> That skeleton wedding cake one is awesome, man. I really dug it when I noticed the dude in the background basically making a backdrop for them. And that huge bokeh ball haha. Awesome, awesome, awesome.



Thanks man, I really enjoyed this shot too. And strangely enough, I was shooting into a mirror so I had to maneuver myself out of frame while still getting the cake top and the giant bokeh ball in frame.. not too shabby!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> That skeleton wedding cake one is awesome, man. I really dug it when I noticed the dude in the background basically making a backdrop for them. And that huge bokeh ball haha. Awesome, awesome, awesome.


I agree, though I'd clone out the bright spot-it adds nothing to the image.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> I agree, though I'd clone out the bright spot-it adds nothing to the image.



First try in PS.. hmm.. I can still kinda see the outline of the bokeh ball, but I'll work on it some more.




20120706-IMGP0184-3 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

That's awesome that you shot that in a mirror.  I really wanna go try that now haha.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Not bad, mind if I take a stab and post it?


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> Not bad, mind if I take a stab and post it?



I dig the bokeh ball.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Not bad, mind if I take a stab and post it?



By all means, go ahead! I'm very curious how you'd do it.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

These photos I took were used as the front and back covers of an album recently released by a band called Watch For Wolves:








Watch For Wolves


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang said:


> By all means, go ahead! I'm very curious how you'd do it.



Not the cleanest work I've ever done, but here's my go.


----------



## ZakkB

Pondering by Zack Berwick, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Nice TP! Way better than mine!

Here're a few more from that wedding..


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang said:


> Nice TP! Way better than mine!
> 
> Here're a few more from that wedding..



Those are some nice shots. Thanks, I have lots of practice - here are some of my before and after retouches (I didn't shoot any of this):





Maybe NSFW:
http://www.bartkophoto.com/Retouch/Before_After_0006.jpg
Large Image:
http://www.bartkophoto.com/Retouch/Before_After_0007.jpg

One of mine - if you'd like to take a look at the PSD file PM me.
http://www.bartkophoto.com/Retouch/FayeM_0004.jpg


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Those are some nice shots. Thanks, I have lots of practice - here are some of my before and after retouches (I didn't shoot any of this):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe NSFW:
> http://www.bartkophoto.com/Retouch/Before_After_0006.jpg
> Large Image:
> http://www.bartkophoto.com/Retouch/Before_After_0007.jpg
> 
> One of mine - if you'd like to take a look at the PSD file PM me.
> http://www.bartkophoto.com/Retouch/FayeM_0004.jpg



Thanks, Philosopher.. means a lot coming from you guys! Nice work on those touchups.. I really need to get my act together with that!

Have you guys ever had a shot you really, really wanted to nail and it just didn't come out? Be it messed up exposure, missed focus, or whatever. As I was working thru some of the wedding shots I saw this absolutely delicious bokeh, but my subject was out of focus.. 

Alas..




IMGP0026 by nrrfed, on Flickr

And here's my favorite 'non-bridal party' shot of the day.. the way it renders those out of focus areas.. holy shit guys.. holy shit. EDIT: didn't realize I'd already posted this one.. oops!




K5II3085 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

When I had my 300 f/4, I'd miss shots all the time (riding minimum focusing distance and shooting wide open at 300mm was not for me). I still miss shots occasionally, but most of the time I'm in a situation where immediate reshooting is a viable option. 

It also helps to set the camera to single spot Continuous AF and manually select your autofocus area, when I shoot weddings I prefocus almost all the important shots and just wait for the moment to happen (even with the D3's awesome AF system).


----------



## soliloquy

not mine, but thought you portrait people might enjoy these:


----------



## Wretched

Ahh nice, the collection from the Crime Museum in Sydney! Have been to a couple of their exhibitions, including a great one of all-female crims.

Here are some shots from Behemoth's recent show in Sydney. You can see all 35 images here: Behemoth @ Manning Bar, Sydney - Oct 26, 2013 - a set on Flickr

The lighting was pretty dismal, as it always is at the Manning Bar, but I like the mood of them. They're always excellent live! It was such an intimate venue for such a band that I could still smell Orion's stage leathers past the incense they were burning on stage.


----------



## Tommy

You guys take some amazing photos. Hopefully one day I'll feel like my photos are worthy and I'll post them here. 'Til then I'll keep taking photos mediocre photos and try to get better.


----------



## Wretched

Man, get involved! There's no judgement here, per se. Critiquing, yes. But I'd hope that would provide you with some info to go on that might help you improve!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Well, I've got some good news! I was recently asked by a friend who manages a clothing boutique to help her out with some photo stuff because they're rebranding and had recently parted ways with their last photographer. I said of course, since I'll take any opportunity to gain some experience. Anyway, the plan was to do a couple of features on local designers and producers for their website, so we went to meet up with one of them at his workshop and did an interview and a shoot.

When I sent a handful of preliminary edits to them just to make sure they liked the photos themselves and the direction I was taking them in as far as processing goes, their response was a job offer. I guess I can call myself a photographer without having any reservations about the term now that I'll be getting paid for my work from now on!

I'll post a link when the feature is up, but here's an outtake. We couldn't use it because he looks like he's flying just a little too high


----------



## Rook

That's a nice picture dude, little too VSCO looking for my taste but it's not my picture haha. I can see it suiting what you're going for man, and I really like it as a shot.

Really really like it. It does suit that look really nicely.


----------



## soliloquy

okie, so i just bought a store used Pentax K5. should be in my hands in a week or two. 
now i gotta figure out what lens to get. i find the 18-55 a decent lens, but fairly limited. i do love my 50mm 1.4f lens, so i'll be keeping that. since the K5 is weather resistant, i'm thinking of going with a WR lens. now the question is, do i go for 18-55? 18-135mm? 50-205? 

maybe the 18-135 as a walk-around lens?


----------



## Tommy

Wretched said:


> Man, get involved! There's no judgement here, per se. Critiquing, yes. But I'd hope that would provide you with some info to go on that might help you improve!



Thanks man. Next time I go out and take some photos I'll be sure to post some here!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Rook said:


> That's a nice picture dude, little too VSCO looking for my taste but it's not my picture haha. I can see it suiting what you're going for man, and I really like it as a shot.
> 
> Really really like it. It does suit that look really nicely.



Thanks man, I've always been a big fan of the matted out/raised blacks look. I think it also jives with the demographic that the boutique is targeting.


----------



## Philligan

Wretched said:


> Man, get involved! There's no judgement here, per se. Critiquing, yes. But I'd hope that would provide you with some info to go on that might help you improve!



This.  I tried to stop caring and just post my shitty pictures, and I've gotten better feedback here than pretty much anywhere. There aren't too many of us, but we've got a pretty active community here. And you guys take some monster pictures.



JeffFromMtl said:


> Well, I've got some good news! I was recently asked by a friend who manages a clothing boutique to help her out with some photo stuff because they're rebranding and had recently parted ways with their last photographer. I said of course, since I'll take any opportunity to gain some experience. Anyway, the plan was to do a couple of features on local designers and producers for their website, so we went to meet up with one of them at his workshop and did an interview and a shoot.



That's awesome, man.  I really dig your pictures - they're an awesome combination of grimy, washed out, and still clean looking.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Philligan said:


> That's awesome, man.  I really dig your pictures - they're an awesome combination of grimy, washed out, and still clean looking.



Thanks, man. I try to get as good a mix of old school and modern vibes as I can. It's really simple, too. The only big adjustments I make are in the curve. Any other editing I do is very minimal, like adjusting saturation, exposure and selective colour.


----------



## Rook

I agree man, absolutely. I'm all for matting out the black where it fits too, for sure, I just don't like these eye-hurry over-vibrant, over-matted images people spuriously spit out without regard for the subject matter. I'm hardly in a position to call criticisms like that though heh.

Soliloquay, if I ever use zooms, the short range stuff tens to pull a better compromise for me for image quality and f-stops against range. Very long range zooms tend to get very dark very quickly, and actually if you have a bit of a creative streak (and clearly you do), if you don't have 'every focal length covered' when you go out, you'll just work with what you have. I survive happily with a medium/long tele prime, a 50mm, and an ultra wide. If I see a shot that 24mm would be 'perfect' for, the fun for me is then, ok do I want a neutral perspective or the depth of an 18mm? Do I have space enough to take a few steps back and shoot it was a 50mm? Will getting close with an 18 disturb it? Does it need the context the 18mm would give it or the isolation from my fast 50mm?

You try it, you get some shots, and you find out if you made it work. When you do make it work, it feels great. That's where the fun is for me, hence no zooms, and I get better optics (and cheaper lenses) as a result.

Guys. Compact system cameras. Lots of Fuji users here, but how about Fuji X vs Olympus OM-D? Or even PEN?


----------



## Philligan

JeffFromMtl said:


> Thanks, man. I try to get as good a mix of old school and modern vibes as I can. It's really simple, too. The only big adjustments I make are in the curve. Any other editing I do is very minimal, like adjusting saturation, exposure and selective colour.



Cool, I'll try messing around with the curve next time I sit down to work on pictures. I still don't understand it and it intimidates me, so I've just ignored it so far.


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> Cool, I'll try messing around with the curve next time I sit down to work on pictures. I still don't understand it and it intimidates me, so I've just ignored it so far.



The tone line or 'curve' is very simple. In the tone graph, when there's a straight line that means 'output = input', y=x, gradient=1. The bottom is in, the side is output and it refers to the luminance - how dark or light colours are. If you use the RGB curve then you're essentially playing with the luminance of all colours simultaneously, which is essentially the greyscale. If you know how to read a histogram this'll be very easy to digest.

If you move a part of the curve up, you're pushing that part closer to white - so if you do this to the bottom, darker colours get whiter, in the middle the mid tones get whiter, and at the top you probably blow all the bright colours out. Push a part down the opposite happens. If you drag the very bottom of the curve up, all the black are brightened, so the darkest tone is grey (which is as light as you drag it up to be) which is what gives the matte finish. Similarly, drag the very top of the line down and the whites all become grey, good for getting a lo-fi aged look.

If you increase the gradient; how steep the curve is, you increase the contrast in the area in which you're doing it. Some people, myself included, if you have a very dynamic, contrasty camera use the curve to brighten the mid tones (and compensate by lowering the exposure control) which flattens the highlight contrast and puts all the dynamic range in the lows. For high dynamic range cameras like my G1X it drastically softens skin tones and makes the low toned detailed areas punchier.

People also use the curve to emulate film, because all films have a characteristic tone curve, VSCO have been farting on people for a few years by covering up simple-to-learn tone curve adjustments in smoke and mirrors (there's a little more to VSCO to be fair, but you can get an equally satisfactory film-look using the tone curve and a few other simple adjustments, VSCO just remove you from the learning process I feel).  

Have that in mind next time you play with it though, and what you're doing and the effect you're having will become quite evident quite quickly.


----------



## Tang

soliloquy said:


> okie, so i just bought a store used Pentax K5. should be in my hands in a week or two.
> now i gotta figure out what lens to get. i find the 18-55 a decent lens, but fairly limited. i do love my 50mm 1.4f lens, so i'll be keeping that. since the K5 is weather resistant, i'm thinking of going with a WR lens. now the question is, do i go for 18-55? 18-135mm? 50-205?
> 
> maybe the 18-135 as a walk-around lens?



In your shoes, I'd get the 18-135. It's WR and has pretty good IQ. 

Here's another from the x100s.. I'm still working on getting the guy that's in the door frame heal/cloned out, but it's slow going.


----------



## soliloquy

Rook said:


> I agree man, absolutely. I'm all for matting out the black where it fits too, for sure, I just don't like these eye-hurry over-vibrant, over-matted images people spuriously spit out without regard for the subject matter. I'm hardly in a position to call criticisms like that though heh.
> 
> Soliloquay, if I ever use zooms, the short range stuff tens to pull a better compromise for me for image quality and f-stops against range. Very long range zooms tend to get very dark very quickly, and actually if you have a bit of a creative streak (and clearly you do), if you don't have 'every focal length covered' when you go out, you'll just work with what you have. I survive happily with a medium/long tele prime, a 50mm, and an ultra wide. If I see a shot that 24mm would be 'perfect' for, the fun for me is then, ok do I want a neutral perspective or the depth of an 18mm? Do I have space enough to take a few steps back and shoot it was a 50mm? Will getting close with an 18 disturb it? Does it need the context the 18mm would give it or the isolation from my fast 50mm?
> 
> You try it, you get some shots, and you find out if you made it work. When you do make it work, it feels great. That's where the fun is for me, hence no zooms, and I get better optics (and cheaper lenses) as a result.
> 
> Guys. Compact system cameras. Lots of Fuji users here, but how about Fuji X vs Olympus OM-D? Or even PEN?





well, part of the reason why i'm interested in a zoom lens is, for the most part, i do agree with you, but i've always been mesmerized by the moon. and trying to capture that on an 18-55 kit lens or a 50mm prime just wont work. you can adjust the speed of the shutter, but even then, it turns out WAY too tiny and a white blur. 

though, i always find myself questioning my motives...the moon is only one thing. it never changes. how many times can i take a picture of the moon and make it look different? 

i know if i am travelling, i rather take a 50mm prime and a super wide lens, maybe a 10-15 or something...so we'll see


----------



## Rook

To be honest I've shot the moon a few times with a 500mm on a 1.6x crop sensor (so 800mm equivalent) and then cropped and my shots still aren't life changing and glorious.

My point is, you won't get the moon on any of the zooms you mention in any splendour haha.

Also I noticed you only concentrating on zoom range, I'd be waaaay more interested in aperture range in zooms as it gives you far more creative control. If your lens isn't quite long enough, as long as you get the right 'look' in terms of perspective, you just step closer.

Except in the case of the moon, no amount of stepping will do much for that haha.


----------



## Tang

Rook, Pentax does make weather resistant 2.8 zooms, but they're a pretty penny. Like Canon L series expensive.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Rook said:


> Guys. Compact system cameras. Lots of Fuji users here, but how about Fuji X vs Olympus OM-D? Or even PEN?




I'm with you on this man. After spending so much time with a 35mm SLR, I've decided I want a compact system camera and that points me straight in that direction. Resultantly, I've been tossing around X100s vs. X-Pro 1 vs. XE-2 all day. I know that the X100s's fixed lens doesn't technically make it a system camera, but it being $1300 & the perfect evolution of the 35mm film compact form factor and style make it an quite attractive proposition.The XE-2 is probably the best out of the two interchangeable ones in terms of internals, up-to-dateness, autofocus and sensor, I'm not sure if I can give up the lovely Hybrid OVF/EVF for those benefits.. I've still got a bit more time before black friday to mull it over I guess


----------



## Rook

Yeah dude, with the EM1 out, I'm finding some properly cheap EM5's ex-demo/used and te Zuiko range of lenses looks pretty sweet, adaptors to boot (zeiss, Pentax, Leica, you name it you can fit it). I'm not really interested in the X100's to be honest, more the X Pro for the 'system' ness, but Fuji win on sensor size. That said the Micro 4/3 in the Olympus takes absolutely great images, it's just the perspective issue that's bug me. Small sensors mean if you want the field of view of a standard you get this dramatic perspective or if you want a standard, neutral perspective you get a 70/80-100 type field of view which is limiting to say the least. I'm not about to fork out on a full frame A7 and I don't like the Sony look thus far. Too expensive too. I've tried the OM-D and it's easy and a pleasure to use, crazy fast focus (ridiculous), 10fps, modern conveniences. I'm just tossing that up against the much bigger Fuji sensor (for the lenses) and Fuji's traditional controls, which I know I'd enjoy.

There's always the EOS M I guess LOLOLOL


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> There's always the EOS M I guess LOLOLOL



If the M were EF mount by default I would've already picked one up. They're what? $299 now?






MAH MOIRE! The AA filter just didn't have what it took.


----------



## Rook

Yeah but I could focus the Hubble space telescope faster than the EOS M autofocus, the M lenses are poo, you can easily adapt to EF but the thing's so small EVERY L lens dwarfs it. Pictures are ok, but a compact would focus quicker and take up less space and an SLR would focus faster still for the same IQ. It's a compromise between two things I don't care about haha. No viewfinder options either.

As for moire, I don't see any? Think you need to zoom in bro, any pattern like that will moiré zoomed out on a pixel display haha.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> Yeah but I could focus the Hubble space telescope faster than the EOS M autofocus, the M lenses are poo, you can easily adapt to EF but the thing's so small EVERY L lens dwarfs it. Pictures are ok, but a compact would focus quicker and take up less space and an SLR would focus faster still for the same IQ. It's a compromise between two things I don't care about haha. No viewfinder options either.
> 
> As for moire, I don't see any? Think you need to zoom in bro, any pattern like that will moiré zoomed out on a pixel display haha.



It's definitely visible on my monitor, but zooming in and out fixes it.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I use the E-PL3 for mirrorless. I used it here:





and here:





and for the recent canoeing photos I posted.


----------



## Philligan

I need to read a book for class tomorrow and have no motivation to, so I took a picture of it.


----------



## soliloquy

Rook said:


> To be honest I've shot the moon a few times with a 500mm on a 1.6x crop sensor (so 800mm equivalent) and then cropped and my shots still aren't life changing and glorious.
> 
> My point is, you won't get the moon on any of the zooms you mention in any splendour haha.
> 
> Also I noticed you only concentrating on zoom range, I'd be waaaay more interested in aperture range in zooms as it gives you far more creative control. If your lens isn't quite long enough, as long as you get the right 'look' in terms of perspective, you just step closer.
> 
> Except in the case of the moon, no amount of stepping will do much for that haha.



if you do a quick google search, you'll come across stuff like this that were taken from a 135mm lens:





so it is possible to capture the moon with a 'smaller' zoom lens. 
now, with stuff like this, you'll obviously need a MUCH larger lens


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Yeah but I could focus the Hubble space telescope faster than the EOS M autofocus, the M lenses are poo, you can easily adapt to EF but the thing's so small EVERY L lens dwarfs it. Pictures are ok, but a compact would focus quicker and take up less space and an SLR would focus faster still for the same IQ. It's a compromise between two things I don't care about haha. No viewfinder options either.



My girlfriend almost got the M (ended up with an SL1/100D), and I messed around with it in stores a decent amount. Honestly, it wasn't bad. The autofocus was pretty much as fast as anything (other than an Olympus PEN we checked out, which was a friggen AF beast), same sensor as the Rebels. If I had some extra money, I'd love an M with the 22mm pancake to leave in my backpack - as it is, if I had that kind of cash, it would be going towards a decent tripod and/or flash setup. The only bummer for me is the lack of a viewfinder - I couldn't live with just live view.

Speaking of the SL1, that thing is insane. I know I don't exactly have the most cutting edge camera  but I couldn't believe how fast and precise the SL1 focuses, especially with STM lenses like her kit lens or my 40mm/2.8. It's feels instant and totally silent, to the point that it weirded me out and I wasn't sure if it was actually doing anything. It makes me really excited to upgrade (hopefully sometime this coming spring).


----------



## Khoi

Shot (video) for a wedding yesterday. It was a great experience, but I really love how this shot turned out and it was by complete accident. Kind of ironic that one of my best pictures was taken from a screen cap in a video 











btw, this is what I ended up with just one day of shooting. 478 GBs of RAW footage. Literally, I was shooting RAW video for this wedding, and the workflow yields that amount of data.


----------



## MFB

Jesus Christ dude, how many SD cards are you toting along with you?


----------



## Khoi

MFB said:


> Jesus Christ dude, how many SD cards are you toting along with you?



The 478 GB is actually more than I recorded because it includes the exported files out of the RAW container, so it's almost double. Initially it was about 220 GBs.

The RAW container files are pretty large... for a 13 second video, you're looking at about a 1.72 GB file. Then you have to export that out as a sequence of DNG files, which you then turn into a sequence of JPG or TIFFs, then import it into the video editor, then finally export it out as a video. Lengthy workflow, but the quality is amazing and ultimately worth it I think 

But I carried along 4 memory cards: two CF cards, 128 GB and 64 GB that I completely filled up, and partially filled up two 32 GB SD cards. I wish I had even more memory on the CF cards because SD cards can't record RAW video, which is why I didn't really fill them up. If I had more CF cards, there's no doubt that I would have had enough footage to fill another 32 GB at least.



Also something I found out the hard way.. if you're getting into doing video work, DON'T BUY CHEAP TRIPODS.


----------



## Rook

soliloquy said:


> if you do a quick google search, you'll come across stuff like this that were taken from a 135mm lens:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so it is possible to capture the moon with a 'smaller' zoom lens.
> now, with stuff like this, you'll obviously need a MUCH larger lens



Dude I have a 135 and that would have to be a 100% crop on a high pixel count crop sensor, two things I tend to avoid, 135 really isn't a strong moon length IMO...


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Unfortunately, I haven't gotten out with the camera much lately. I think I'd like to start a portrait project of friends and family soon.

Here's a couple of photos I've been playing with in Lightroom today.

















Also, I'm thinking of maybe adding a watermark from now on - where does everyone sit with that?


----------



## Khoi

Joe Harvatt said:


> Also, I'm thinking of maybe adding a watermark from now on - where does everyone sit with that?



I personally think a watermark is great to have, not just for crediting your own work, but for your own personal progression in photography. A watermark contextualizes your work as being your own. Each photograph with your watermark is taken in reference to your own personal vision of photography. You are accountable for every single photo you post with your watermark, which includes all the bad ones, so it really pushes you to always show your best.

It allows you to ask yourself: "is this picture really worthy of _my_ watermark?"

And in a way, you can really track your own evolution in your work.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm anti-watermark. I used one when I first started out, but now I just use metadata/exif to store all my copyright information. It can be a useful way to self-evaluate your work and say I'm proud enough of this shot to put this branding on it; however, you can do that without the watermark.

When I switched over to portraiture I was a shoot 300 shots and keep 5-10 kind of guy (spray and pray), I'm now down to shooting 40-60 and keeping 7-10 photos. You simply learn to take better photos the more time you spend with it - it takes dedication, learning and putting that learning to practice.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> When I switched over to portraiture I was a shoot 300 shots and keep 5-10 kind of guy (spray and pray), I'm now down to shooting 40-60 and keeping 7-10 photos. You simply learn to take better photos the more time you spend with it - it takes dedication, learning and putting that learning to practice.



True that.. I've been going through old RAW files and it really looks like I just had the camera in 6 fps drive mode and hoping for the best, and it shows.

EDIT: found these bad-boys from my Canon T3 days.. mah noisy 12mp! As you can see, I've been shooting the same shit from the very beginning! On the other hand, these were taken with the 55-250 and it's way sharper than I remember it being..




306-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr




1321-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr




1159 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

It was like -7 degrees here today. It's not even winter yet and I'm already over it, so that gave me a little incentive to go through some photos I took this summer. Too much nostalgia for summer makes for photos that look like they're from a 1970s family vacation


----------



## Rook

ThePhilosopher said:


> I'm anti-watermark. I used one when I first started out, but now I just use metadata/exif to store all my copyright information. It can be a useful way to self-evaluate your work and say I'm proud enough of this shot to put this branding on it; however, you can do that without the watermark.
> 
> When I switched over to portraiture I was a shoot 300 shots and keep 5-10 kind of guy (spray and pray), I'm now down to shooting 40-60 and keeping 7-10 photos. You simply learn to take better photos the more time you spend with it - it takes dedication, learning and putting that learning to practice.



I tend to agree, with all of this really.

I do use watermarks from time to time, tends to be on very public, slightly generic images that people might link to or reuse without me knowing. Seems a little... Presumptuous maybe? I dunno, it does happen though, particularly with pictures of 'products', guitars and the like. I'll be going through another site and see a FS thread and think hmmmm, I recognise those pictures... With a watermark, unless the person's paying enough attention to crop out my VERY subtle (and for that reason) watermarks, but doing that would usually result in a chuck of the image that's actually pertinent being chopped off too.

I don't do it on my keepers though. That said, I think there's one on my Flickr I accidentally put it on.


----------



## Wretched

I always use watermarks, both in the bottom corner and almost always across somewhere in the top third as well, right across. This is because of my subjects, they tend to get re-posted all over the place like Facebook and Tumblr, often without any return link or attribution. Obviously not everyone can see through or past watermarks without being distracted, but I never seem to notice them on other people's work, hence my happiness to throw them on all my own work.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> As you can see, I've been shooting the same shit from the very beginning!



That's awesome.  They're really cute puppies, too. And it's cool seeing how your style's progressed. 

For myself at the moment, I'm definitely against it. There are too many people on facebook who bought a Rebel, shoot it in auto, and make a " ... Photography" facebook page and watermark everything. 

My boss at Home Depot back in Sarnia was telling me about how she does wedding/engagement/baby photography with a D800, and charges $2-3k for a wedding. I found her facebook page, and they're pretty bad full-auto pictures with a Comic Sans watermark.  

I'm not using a watermark because my pictures suck  and I'm just doing it for fun. If I started taking some really awesome pictures and set up a site or whatever, I probably would then just in case I got the chance to sell one or something like that. Or if I ever took pictures for someone not just as a friend.

My boss at Home Depot here in Windsor was talking about maybe getting me to take some pictures, because head office wants more pictures that suggest the employees are a tight-knit community. As much as I hate HD/corporations, I'd be stoked to actually get to take pictures for a stranger, and I'd probably do a small watermark just so HD doesn't try and shaft me.


----------



## Philligan

Also, I finally took a few more pictures. Between work and school, I've basically been working, schooling, eating, and sleeping for the last couple weeks, and haven't gotten the chance to really take some pictures. But I went back home and hung out with my buddy a couple weeks ago, who was baby-sitting his parents' dog.

I've been really into street-style photography, and trying to catch candid moments. I find it more frustrating than trying to set up portraits, but more satisfying when you get a cool shot. And not needing as much gear is nice, because I'm poor and can't afford flashes or lighting setups right now.  I thought this picture came out pretty cool.





This one's framed a little awkwardly, but I think the depth of field came out looking awesome.





And I managed to capture the awesome pug face.  :C


----------



## Tang

Been working on my B&W processing a bit.. C&c please!


----------



## Wretched

Liking the rich blacks in your latest shots, Tang. Nice!


----------



## Berti_smb

Tang said:


> It's definitely visible on my monitor, but zooming in and out fixes it.




Damn! what a great shot! I like it very much 
I am having a horrible time, i cant take photos because my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 is at Sigma repair shop in Germany and i dont have any other in backup. Focus motor is damaged and they need to replace it


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> My boss at Home Depot here in Windsor was talking about maybe getting me to take some pictures, because head office wants more pictures that suggest the employees are a tight-knit community. As much as I hate HD/corporations, I'd be stoked to actually get to take pictures for a stranger, and I'd probably do a small watermark just so HD doesn't try and shaft me.



Always sign a contract and get payment up front. If they're going to use them for any type of corporate usage you definitely need a contract and the last thing they'd allow is a watermark (especially if for print or other public display).


----------



## Tang

I'm not normally a fan of through fence shots, but the bokeh on this is just so ....ing smooth, and I love how the colors turned out.

Also 4x5 because why not.




K5II2941 by nrrfed, on Flickr



Berti_smb said:


> Damn! what a great shot! I like it very much
> I am having a horrible time, i cant take photos because my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 is at Sigma repair shop in Germany and i dont have any other in backup. Focus motor is damaged and they need to replace it




Thank you very much! 



Wretched said:


> Liking the rich blacks in your latest shots, Tang. Nice!



Thanks a bunch, Wretch!


----------



## Tang

That crushed black look is in this year.


----------



## Wretched

Lovely! I definitely prefer the darker stuff.


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> Lovely! I definitely prefer the darker stuff.



Thanks, and I agree. Really love the high contrast, inky black look. 

In other news, I'm about to buy my second body and its a doozy! Behold the beautiful Pentax K3! It's definitely a more 'pro' piece of gear than my K30. My main reason for upgrading is low-light AF. The K3 can focus (with phase-detect) down to -3EV whereas my current Pentax K30 struggles with -1EV. it's a pain in the ass!








> 24.4 megapixel APS-C CMOS sensor
> Sensor-shift image stabilization with rotational compensation
> Anti-aliasing 'simulator' (camera has no optical low-pass filter)
> SAFOX 11 TTL autofocus system (27-point, 25 of which are cross-type)
> 3.2-inch LCD with 3:2 aspect ratio and 1.037k dots
> Pentaprism optical viewfinder with 0.95x magnification, 100% coverage
> 8.3 fps continuous shooting
> 1920 x 1080 video recording (60i, 30p, 24p)
> Dual SD card slots
> Headphone, microphone ports
> USB 3.0 support


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang said:


> I'm not normally a fan of through fence shots, but the bokeh on this is just so ....ing smooth, and I love how the colors turned out.
> 
> Also 4x5 because why not.



Nice shot, but 8x10 is so played out  - unless of course it's a contact print.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Nice shot, but 8x10 is so played out  - unless of course it's a contact print.





Another funny crop. Think this might work better in b&w.


----------



## Wretched

Tang said:


> Thanks, and I agree. Really love the high contrast, inky black look.
> 
> In other news, I'm about to buy my second body and its a doozy! Behold the beautiful Pentax K3! It's definitely a more 'pro' piece of gear than my K30. My main reason for upgrading is low-light AF. The K3 can focus (with phase-detect) down to -3EV whereas my current Pentax K30 struggles with -1EV. it's a pain in the ass!



Nice. I just wrote up 800-odd words on the K-3 for the next issue of InFocus magazine. Looks like an excellent APS-C camera with some features for Nikon and Canon to play catch up on.


----------



## feilong29

I did some street photography in Denver; I'm still new so don't be harsh!  OH, and a few pics from Rocky Mountain National Park:


----------



## Khoi

Here is the wedding video I did! Let me know what you guys think.

I'm pretty happy how the colors turned out, I actually shot in RAW video so I edited them pretty much how I would a photo.

Some of the clips though aren't in RAW so I think they kind of stick out a bit (or at least to me)

Watch in HD of course!


----------



## Tang

Khoi said:


> Here is the wedding video I did! Let me know what you guys think.
> 
> I'm pretty happy how the colors turned out, I actually shot in RAW video so I edited them pretty much how I would a photo.
> 
> Some of the clips though aren't in RAW so I think they kind of stick out a bit (or at least to me)
> 
> Watch in HD of course!




That was killer man.. especially love the first 3 minutes or so before they get to the actual ceremony.. nice cinematography!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

That video was really well-shot, dude. Great job!




A couple of snapshots from earlier today. Babes and black metal


----------



## Rook

Very late 80's early 90's feel to them haha!


----------



## Tang

Continuing the funny crop theme. Don't think I've posted this before...


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Rook said:


> Very late 80's early 90's feel to them haha!



I'm a sucker for oldschool vibes. I actually get such a kick from going through old family photos either from before I was born or from when I was too young to remember, so I've been trying my hand at getting those kinds of moods going on with my editing. I felt it matched the record shop setting and the throwback shirt she had on 



My contribution to the influx of funny crops:


----------



## Tang

JeffFromMtl said:


> I'm a sucker for oldschool vibes. I actually get such a kick from going through old family photos either from before I was born or from when I was too young to remember, so I've been trying my hand at getting those kinds of moods going on with my editing. I felt it matched the record shop setting and the throwback shirt she had on
> 
> 
> 
> My contribution to the influx of funny crops:




Nice!


----------



## Tang

Currently in the middle of a 'photo walk'. There's nothing quite like getting yourself out there and shooting to get the creative drive up. I'm really trying to take my time and actually compose my shots instead of picking the best shots in LR. Slow and steady does it. 

But now I had to stop at a bar for a beer to recharge.


----------



## soliloquy

has anyone ever tried either one of these lens accessories? pros? cons? do they actually work, or just a gimmick? obviously i'm talking about the wide and zoom lens. not the tripod, cap holder or cleaners


----------



## Tang

The teleconverter, maybe. I'm not a fan of attachable wide angle adapters, though.

Here're are a few from the K3 + Tamron 17-50 2.8.. goddamn, what a camera.




20130102-IMGP0259 by nrrfed, on Flickr





IMGP0271 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP0254 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Those shots are _crisp_.


----------



## Tang

JeffFromMtl said:


> Those shots are _crisp_.



And it's the same lens I've used for pretty much every shot in this thread! I wonder if it's the lack of AA filter that's giving me these results?


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I'm not sure. I haven't used a filter since back when I only had a 50mm lens. The filter cracked one day, and that was that. I'm not sure if I noticed too much of a difference, but then again, the nifty fifty isn't the world's sharpest lens to begin with.


----------



## soliloquy

i'm really loving the pentax family of cameras. the k-x treated me well for about 3 years. waiting for the K5 to ship in. thus getting a new lens with it too.


also, do polorizor filters help? i used to hate adding anything in front of the lens (hood excluded), but recently got powered sun glasses, and its a whole new world of colors i'm seeing now. i'm assuming if i add a polorizer, then i might have to muck around with the apertures. how do they react during night photography?


----------



## Tang

JeffFromMtl said:


> I'm not sure. I haven't used a filter since back when I only had a 50mm lens. The filter cracked one day, and that was that. I'm not sure if I noticed too much of a difference, but then again, the nifty fifty isn't the world's sharpest lens to begin with.



Sorry for the confusion. The filter I'm talking about is actually on the sensor of most cameras. It's called an anti-aliasing filter and it helps protect against moire in your images. Over the past several years, more and more camera manufacturers have been making camera bodies without an AA filter this increasing sharpness. The camera I took those pics with (Pentax K3) does not have an AA filter. 

Sorry if you already knew all of this


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Just whipped out my trusty 60D for the first time in a few weeks today. It had just finished raining and the raindrops looked pretty, so I took this shot into Canon's crappy 'Digital Photo Professional' software and edited it a bit, and here's the final result. Cropped it a bit as well, just to make it a little more symmetrical. Also DAT BOKEH 




Taken with my Canon 85mm F1.8 wide open.

What I might start doing is using DPP to edit white balance and saturation and such, and then send the image over to GIMP for the curve and other contrast adjustments.

EDIT: Ugh Photobucket makes this shot look awful. It looks so much better on Flickr but for some reason SSO won't let me link from Flickr.
See?


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Tang said:


> Sorry for the confusion. The filter I'm talking about is actually on the sensor of most cameras. It's called an anti-aliasing filter and it helps protect against moire in your images. Over the past several years, more and more camera manufacturers have been making camera bodies without an AA filter this increasing sharpness. The camera I took those pics with (Pentax K3) does not have an AA filter.
> 
> Sorry if you already knew all of this



Ah, no, I didn't know any of that, actually. The info should come in handy though. I'm definitely not as much of a gearhead as a number of you guys


----------



## Murdstone

I snapped this with my phone at work the other day while eating lunch in the atrium, I'll have to go back sometime when I have a real camera and take something good. I like this ceiling a lot.


----------



## Wretched

Jeff, the AA filter Tang is referring to is inside the camera. An AA or Anti-Aliasing filter has been in almost every DSLR or beyer-type sensor-equipped digital camera for years, until recently, when it's become cool to leave them out. Companies claim that it provides sharper images with better resolution, with the risk of moire in highly detailed sections of the image. The Fujifilm X100s, for example, doesn't have one. The Nikon D610, also. The new Pentax K-3 also comes without, but uses a new technique in which the sensor is rapidly vibrated at a "sub-pixel" level to create the tiniest bit of blur in the image which they claim will reduce the moire effect. This can be switched on and off in the K-3.

soliliquy: a polarising filter is a must-have for your camera bag! I know many guys in the automotive photography world that never take theirs off. I use mine less often, but they're great for selectively removing reflections from windows, water, car body panels etc. They can also reduce glare and saturate the colour of skies and landscapes. Night photography, I would imagine, would see a far smaller effect from the filter, if any, as it works by polarising the light. Having said that, I've used mine a number of times when shooting cars using my multiple flash setup and it still reduces the effect of the flash on the sides of the car, meaning it must be the same with artificial light sources, too.

Edit: ahh, missed the boat on the AA filter discussion! hah


----------



## Wretched

Ocara-Jacob said:


> EDIT: Ugh Photobucket makes this shot look awful. It looks so much better on Flickr but for some reason SSO won't let me link from Flickr.
> See?



I link from Flickr always. How are you doing it?
I "grab the HTML/BB code" text and copy only the actual URL of the image location in that grouping of text, then paste it into the image code button on this site. Works every time.


----------



## Wretched

Here are a few shots from a gig I shot last Saturday with Melbourne band Circles. If you haven't heard these guys yet, I highly recommend them! Kinda djenty with big choruses.

Support band Red Bee





Dawn Heist





Beggar's Orchestra





Circles


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Wretched said:


> I link from Flickr always. How are you doing it?
> I "grab the HTML/BB code" text and copy only the actual URL of the image location in that grouping of text, then paste it into the image code button on this site. Works every time.


Alright, I'll give it a shot.


----------



## Wretched

Good start... now select a smaller size option from the drop down list. I generally use the 1024px option. Saves loading large images.


----------



## Tang

A few more the 3.




IMGP0134 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP0246 by nrrfed, on Flickr




20130102-IMGP0264 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Pre-race.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Wretched said:


> Good start... now select a smaller size option from the drop down list. I generally use the 1024px option. Saves loading large images.



Done. My post on its own needed a 56k warning


----------



## Tang

Ocara-Jacob said:


> Done. My post on its own needed a 56k warning



It's ok


----------



## Philligan

The girlfriend and I put up a (very low budget) Christmas tree tonight, so I took some uncomfortably tight shots with my 50/1.4.













This would have turned out better if we weren't using shit Home Depot balls haha, but it still turned out pretty cool.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Some polaroids from the Sinar - I let them sit on my window sill in the sun for about a week before shooting so they'll color shift a bit more.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Some polaroids from the Sinar - I let them sit on my window sill in the sun for about a week before shooting so they'll color shift a bit more.



So, so hipster. Seriously though, really enjoying the second one. 



It's been raining like a motherf8cker all day so I couldn't really get out and shoot so I spent the day perfecting my b&w processing. In the wise words of Kirk Lazarus; you never go full b&w retard.




IMGP0218-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP0271-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP0265-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I don't know many hipsters that could use a monorail camera. 

It's a shame Fuji made their instant film so well, it's so damn hard to get the colors to shift. I might try the microwave for 1-2 seconds or so.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> I don't know many hipsters that could use a monorail camera.
> 
> It's a shame Fuji made their instant film so well, it's so damn hard to get the colors to shift. I might try the microwave for 1-2 seconds or so.



Is the film you use one of the ones they're discontinuing? Hope not..


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The instant film was discontinued a while ago (2011 or 2012). The LF color films are harder to find now in general then when I first started shooting 4x5, but b&w is still going strong.


----------



## Tang

EDIT: saving those for later.

IN OTHER NEWS:


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> The girlfriend and I put up a (very low budget) Christmas tree tonight, so I took some uncomfortably tight shots with my 50/1.4.



I tried doing something like that last Christmas! Cool stuff man!

I've posted these before, but I don't think you were around then, so:




Christmas Bokes. by nrrfed, on Flickr




Christmas Jenn Bokeh! ISO2000. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

That second one looks really cool. 

The tree isn't much, it was a 3ft for $15 from Home Depot haha, but we're in a shitty rental just for this year, and the rooms are tiny. It's a little tight on the crop sensor, but I haven't had my 50mm 1.4 that long, and wanted to see how much I could blow out the lights. Gotta get that bokeh. 

edit: Cool idea having the lights off, too. If I get a chance tonight I'll see if I can do something like that.


----------



## soliloquy

i'm trying to find an image i found that used a red laser pointer to create a very haunting image. cant find it anymore, but found this instead. such a simple idea that creates such an intense image:



















source for the top one:
http://petapixel.com/2013/09/04/experimental-light-painting-portraits-alex-deforest/


and a basic tutorial:
http://www.youthareawesome.com/painting-with-light/


----------



## Tang

I think Rook might've had the right idea with the Fuji XE-2 + 35 1.4.. that's a nice looking combo!

A few more from my photo walk, lol. The first one here has become one of my favorites that I've ever taken, and as such I feel I might've overdone the processing (crushed blacks and all). I'm going to give it a few days to see how I feel, but I'll probably be reprocessing that one.




IMGP0265-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP0271-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP0218-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I'm a pretty fan of the idea of light painting. I recently got a Lomo La Sardina and might try my hand at it with that some time.


I've decided to revisit some photos from about a year ago before I had photoshop or lightroom. I love seeing the progress I've made.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Philosopher / 6 x 14 large format bait: These 6x14 DIY Cameras Are a Landscape Shooter's Dream - The Phoblographer


----------



## Tang

Paul Reed Shred said:


> Philosopher / 6 x 14 large format bait: These 6x14 DIY Cameras Are a Landscape Shooter's Dream - The Phoblographer





And I see this after reading Ansel Adams waxing poetic about large-format.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I finally recovered some photos from my old computer, which is something that I've been wanting to do for a long time. I've posted this one before (I guess about a year and a half ago now), and it was already one of my favourite pictures I've ever taken. This new version, even more so. Total psychedelic madness. 

Patrick Watson @ Corona Theater in Montreal April 17th, 2012.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

JeffFromMtl said:


> I finally recovered some photos from my old computer, which is something that I've been wanting to do for a long time. I've posted this one before (I guess about a year and a half ago now), and it was already one of my favourite pictures I've ever taken. This new version, even more so. Total psychedelic madness.
> 
> Patrick Watson @ Corona Theater in Montreal April 17th, 2012.



Is this film or digital man? Either your workflow is amazing, I can't tell, or both


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Paul Reed Shred said:


> Is this film or digital man? Either your workflow is amazing, I can't tell, or both



It's digital. But generally any shots I post with that film grit to them are based on presets, so it speeds up the process.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I took this photo for a local clothing boutique to showcase some upcoming holiday stuff, and it was reposted by the clothing company themselves, which has over 100K followers on instagram. My work and the boutique were just put onto international radar. Huge!


----------



## Philligan

That's awesome, man!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Paul Reed Shred said:


> Philosopher / 6 x 14 large format bait: These 6x14 DIY Cameras Are a Landscape Shooter's Dream - The Phoblographer



I'm not much of a wide format shooter, but if I were I'd be shooting 6x17 - it's such an awesome format. I'd rather have an 8x10 or 11x14 than either though - shoot on paper (ISO6 ftw) since the film is becoming increasingly difficult to find.



JeffFromMtl said:


> I took this photo for a local clothing boutique to showcase some upcoming holiday stuff, and it was reposted by the clothing company themselves, which has over 100K followers on instagram. My work and the boutique were just put onto international radar. Huge!



You should license the usage to them if they're wanting to use it for advertising (which is most likely their end goal-more sales; therefore, you should get paid-exposure only helps if it gets you more paying commercial clients, who mostly won't be looking for their next photographer on instagram). One of the reasons I refuse to use instagram.


----------



## metal_sam14

I took a trip up to Sydney recently, here are some snaps I liked. All of them are taken from the Sydney to Manly ferry (minus the plane wing obviously). 




Traveling on Wings by TasmanSam, on Flickr




Harbor Lighthouse by TasmanSam, on Flickr




Manly by TasmanSam, on Flickr




Thunder at Sea by TasmanSam, on Flickr




Sydney Skyline by TasmanSam, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

ThePhilosopher said:


> You should license the usage to them if they're wanting to use it for advertising (which is most likely their end goal-more sales; therefore, you should get paid-exposure only helps if it gets you more paying commercial clients, who mostly won't be looking for their next photographer on instagram). One of the reasons I refuse to use instagram.



Good call, man. I'm going to look into what, exactly licensing entails and see what I can do.


----------



## Khoi

can I do a NGD? 

new gear day!

Finally got a Glidecam! after spending about 2 hours setting it up and properly calibrating it, the results are pretty awesome. 

One thing is that it is SO HEAVY. You wouldn't think it's that bad, but after about 5 minutes, your arm is on fire. The setup weighs about 8.8 lbs that you are holding out with all the weight on your wrist. I need to get a wrist support for it, but that's another $150..... God camera stuff is way too expensive.








aaand a little test shot:


----------



## Tang

Rook: Zeiss Distagon T* Otus 1.4/55 ZF.2 Nikon versus competition: Zeiss eclipses rivals - DxOMark

....


----------



## Khoi

I want one so bad....


----------



## Tang

I love those rankings (on a D800, at least), and they really make me laugh.

1. $4,000 Zeiss.
2. $300 Nikon 50 1.4

and the Zeiss almost doubled the resolution figures!


----------



## xfilth




----------



## Wretched

A sneak peek at a shoot we did this week on Brett Ogden's ProCharged LS1 Holden VY Commodore wagon.

Most of the shot is naturally lit, however we also had a speedlite on full power to camera left and another to camera right highlighting the tyres and intercooler, compositing the two images together to selectively use the strobist image, yet retain the naturally-lit body etc.

Oh, I created the glowing light to camera left by using a high-light selection, then copying it onto a new layer and filling it with white, then using radial blur on the zoom setting.






You can download a wallpaper of it here: Brett Ogden's VY Commodore Wagon | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## Azyiu




----------



## Rook

Tang, I found out about the Otus and had a quick dribble. As it happens I've just traded my Canon 135 f/2 for a Zeiss 85mm 1.4.

The 85mm 1.4 isn't a perfect lens, it has it's little querks for sure, but the look of the image I just can't get over at all. It's not deadly deadly sharp, but the whole image just looks so rich and deep and real, the colours are unmatched (literally, I have my dad's 85 1.2 next to it and my Zeiss's colour are doing a sex to the Canon's backside).

I'm taking it into London on Saturday for a walk around, alongside my Zeiss 18 and Canon 50 1.2, so I'm looking forward to sharing some images after that. There's a little bit of focus shift in the not-quite-open parts if you're close but being full manual I can aperture preview and focus which works more than fine (I use an EG-S focusing screen). I've actually been nailing focus 9 times out of ten, and in the city I plan to close it down to 5.6 and 8 for a lot of stuff to get some quicker shots so I'm not worried about the shift, I'm pretty used to using the depth of field meter and finding hyper focal ranges using the 18.

Anyway, I'll stop talking tip I actually have something to show haha.

And DxO is still the biggest load of shit ever, it's like rating guitars based on number of strings, woods and pickups, there's just more to it than that.


----------



## Tang

Rook, I read a quote from an old time Pentax lens designer that said something like, you can design a lens to be optically perfect (no CA and the like) or you can design a lens that might not be optically perfect but has gorgeous rendering. Apparently it's a huge compromis in lens design.

A good example is the new Sigma 35 1.4. It's sharp sharp sharp, but the way it renders images does nothing for me. I'd rather pick up Pentax's 31 1.8 that has CA out the wazoo but creates the most gorgeous 3D'ish images.


----------



## soliloquy

just got my 18-135mm. this has to be the fastest, quietest and awesomest lens ever! its fairly light too. cant wait for my k-x for show up


----------



## Tang

soliloquy said:


> just got my 18-135mm. this has to be the fastest, quietest and awesomest lens ever! its fairly light too. cant wait for my k-x for show up



You mean the K5? Shits gonna blow your mind dude. That camera is fantastic.


----------



## Rook

I absolutely agree tang. And this lens has only 6 elements, it's crazy bright and the colours are just weepworthy, I'm out shooting it at the moment. Love it.

As regards the Pentax, I'd love to try the K5, I played with a digital medium format Pentax the other day (no idea what model) and the images - obviously taking into account the medium-formatness - was crazy. For some reason I completely black Pentax out of my mind, I have no idea why I was so surprised by the quality.


----------



## soliloquy

indeed the pentax k5. i have a k-x at the moment and love it to bits. 

its odd, i ordered the lens a week after i ordered the body. both of them coming from japan. the body was sent in 2 boxes, one just an SD card and the other the body. the SD card got here yesterday...where is my body?!


----------



## Tang

Here's a high (6400) ISO shot from the K3. Noise performance is at least a stop worse than the K5ii, but that's only because they shoved so many pixels into the K3 (24 vs 16). Feel like I'm turning into Rook when it comes to high ISO's!


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Tang said:


> Here's a high (6400) ISO shot from the K3. Noise performance is at least a stop worse than the K5ii, but that's only because they shoved so many pixels into the K3 (24 vs 16).



That's still pretty good, my 60D has about that much noise seeping through at around ISO 3200.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> I absolutely agree tang. And this lens has only 6 elements, it's crazy bright and the colours are just weepworthy, I'm out shooting it at the moment. Love it.
> 
> As regards the Pentax, I'd love to try the K5, I played with a digital medium format Pentax the other day (no idea what model) and the images - obviously taking into account the medium-formatness - was crazy. For some reason I completely black Pentax out of my mind, I have no idea why I was so surprised by the quality.



It was probably the 645. Delicious. 

Rook, I don't know if you saw any of my K5ii images so I put them in an album for you. As dae as I'm concerned, Nukon and Pentax have the apsc market on lockdown. Poor Canon 

k5ii - a set on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Nice dude! Didn't realise some of those were K5.

Don't know I agree with that, I think the Canon 70D is basically killing the sub £1k APSC market at the moment, what a beast.

EDIT: Some Zeiss 85 1.4 shots! Loving this focal length, loving this lens, having an awesome time overall. Very happy with my choice to trade the 135 for the 85.




Plane in Blue by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Hungerford by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Fixie by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




500 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Windows by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Chevy Truck by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Fear of God by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Two on Bench by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Heading Home by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Tree on Building by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Steel Structure by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Waiting Man by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Praying Woman by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Handlebars by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Boy on Monument by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Colours and Lights by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Traditional English Sweets by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Street Dance by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




White Bike by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Painting by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Getting Up by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Steel Structure and Boy on Monument are my favorites of that set. Killer work! 

And the 70d seems like an awesome camera, and if I were even remotely interested in videography I'd be using Canon.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Happy reflection accident.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Still revisiting and re-editing some older photos.


----------



## Tang

JeffFromMtl said:


> Still revisiting and re-editing some older photos.
> *pics here*



Nice work  If you don't mind me saying, I think that first shot could be better without pushing the shadow end of the curve so far. I think it'd really bring the colors out more. Unless you were going for that muted look, that is. 

In other news, I sold my first prints! Couldn't believe it when I received the email.. still really can't believe it. 

To keep this on topic, here's one from the archive and one new one.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Tang said:


> Nice work  If you don't mind me saying, I think that first shot could be better without pushing the shadow end of the curve so far. I think it'd really bring the colors out more. Unless you were going for that muted look, that is.
> 
> In other news, I sold my first prints! Couldn't believe it when I received the email.. still really can't believe it.



I'm always open to constructive criticism! And I actually completely agree with you. The thing is, I was making an effort to maintain the vibe in both shots, because they were from the same day, so I was trying to keep some consistency. I pushed the saturation/vibrance and contrast a little bit more to get more colour and pop out of it. Context aside, I agree the shot as an individual would benefit from crisper tones.

Congrats on the prints! I sold a few last year, but they were to friends and members of the extended family, which isn't exactly the same thing. Where do you sell your prints?

also really digging that first shot ^


----------



## Tang

JeffFromMtl said:


> I'm always open to constructive criticism! And I actually completely agree with you. The thing is, I was making an effort to maintain the vibe in both shots, because they were from the same day, so I was trying to keep some consistency. I pushed the saturation/vibrance and contrast a little bit more to get more colour and pop out of it. Context aside, I agree the shot as an individual would benefit from crisper tones.
> 
> Congrats on the prints! I sold a few last year, but they were to friends and members of the extended family, which isn't exactly the same thing. Where do you sell your prints?
> 
> also really digging that first shot ^



Ah, that makes sense. As a set it works, no doubt.


----------



## Rook

@JeffFromMetal I really like the colours in that photo of the young lady, very nice.

Photo dumping again, sorry gents.




Building and Reflection by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




60 Queen Victoria by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Monolith by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




That Way by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Coloured Lights by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> @JeffFromMetal I really like the colours in that photo of the young lady, very nice.
> 
> Photo dumping again, sorry gents. First one is best due to the glorious, glorious reflection on the building to the right. Damn, dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Building and Reflection by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 60 Queen Victoria by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monolith by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Way by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coloured Lights by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Those all the 85? First one is best due to the glorious, glorious reflection on the building to the right. Damn, dude. 

Here's one from dusk.. it really reminded me of fall. Please excuse the silly border, I didn't realize I had left that option on..


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I like 'That Way'. Is that with 85mm? Must nice to get the personal shots with shallow DOF without having to be up in their faces.


----------



## Rook

Those are all the Zeiss 85 yeah, thanks guys! I like 'That Way' too, particularly as that was a quick snap and one does not simply 'quickly snap' with the Zeiss 85 at 1.4. Manual focus only, a heavily damped (some would say 'precise') ring and a 270 degree focus travel means if you aren't already near enough focused, you aren't getting the shot hahaha. Surprisingly though I had a very very high hit rate with that 85, I think because it's MF I'm actually paying a lot more attention to my focus than AF where you half hold the shutter and assume you have whatever in focus. I also don't have to 'focus recompose', because I'm not using static AF points so I can find the ideal focus in the final frame, which is great.

I've not enjoyed a lens this much. Well. Ever actually. The 50mm I have was awesome when I got it but it's a very standard focal length and the sharpness and bokeh are things you tend to expect with a red ring, the 50 1.2 doesn't really have a look to it like the Zeiss 85 though, and I love how big and real the perspective looks with it too.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Dude, I dig that 'Monolith' shot so much. So clean, but such an ominous vibe.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> Those are all the Zeiss 85 yeah, thanks guys! I like 'That Way' too, particularly as that was a quick snap and one does not simply 'quickly snap' with the Zeiss 85 at 1.4. Manual focus only, a heavily damped (some would say 'precise') ring and a 270 degree focus travel means if you aren't already near enough focused, you aren't getting the shot hahaha. Surprisingly though I had a very very high hit rate with that 85, I think because it's MF I'm actually paying a lot more attention to my focus than AF where you half hold the shutter and assume you have whatever in focus. I also don't have to 'focus recompose', because I'm not using static AF points so I can find the ideal focus in the final frame, which is great.
> 
> I've not enjoyed a lens this much. Well. Ever actually. The 50mm I have was awesome when I got it but it's a very standard focal length and the sharpness and bokeh are things you tend to expect with a red ring, the 50 1.2 doesn't really have a look to it like the Zeiss 85 though, and I love how big and real the perspective looks with it too.



Does the 6D have manual focus confirmation? It uses the phase detect auto focus system to tell when the middle point (usually) is in focus. I use this feature on my Pentax w/ manual glass all the time and it works wonderfully. 

It might be hidden in your custom functions somewhere v


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Tang said:


> Does the 6D have manual focus confirmation? It uses the phase detect auto focus system to tell when the middle point (usually) is in focus. I use this feature on my Pentax w/ manual glass all the time and it works wonderfully.
> 
> It might be hidden in your custom functions somewhere v



I'm hoping that it does, because I'm hoping to upgrade to the 6D fairly soon, and it's been really handy when I've had to use it on my 7D, which often just loves focusing on the nearest object in AF  I don't see why they would leave it out, but then again, the 6D is lacking a few other features that the 7D possesses.


----------



## Tang

Hey guys.. some more silly B&W. I've been watching alot of Kurosawa films recently and I've come to adore his use of longer lens, so with that inspiration in mind..


----------



## Rook

JeffFromMtl said:


> I'm hoping that it does, because I'm hoping to upgrade to the 6D fairly soon, and it's been really handy when I've had to use it on my 7D, which often just loves focusing on the nearest object in AF  I don't see why they would leave it out, but then again, the 6D is lacking a few other features that the 7D possesses.



The focus confirmation does indeed still work on MF, the only change is that the focus system in the camera itself isn't driving the motor - because there isn't one. When you half hold the shutter (or press the AF-ON button) the focus points still flash up when something in their vicinity is in focus. It's amazingly revealing oh how accurate AF systems are actually, when it's confirming 'focus' when it's not perfect. You are however removing the AF's interpolating system where it 'thinks' it's in focus, checks a little bit behind and little bit in front and then settles which is why those points are more accurate in AF modes.

A few other things though that I feel are worth saying given the comparison you make.
- The standard focusing screen in a 6D (or any canon camera, any DSLR full stop probably) isn't up to accurate MF. it's designed to be bright at around f/4 so shows quite a big depth of field, to have any hope you'll need to swap that screen out for a Canon EG-S screen, which is 'high precision', and shows a much tighter depth of field and is consequently also much brighter at anything f/2.8 or wider wide open, as a result, anything f/4 or narrower will be really quite dark, and even my f/3.5 is just a weenie bit dark in lower lighting situations, maybe a stop or so darker than ideal.
- The 6D is a lighter, faster 5D2 with better noise performance. People bought 5D2 for the full framedness, the improved noise performance and the downright inspiring video quality. The 5D2 was also the same magnesium alloy body as a 1D whereas the 6D is half plastic (top half) and more compact. Point being, you don't buy a 6D to compete with a 7D for speed, the only thing in Canon's lineup that can compete with the 7D for speed is the 1D stuff, maybe look into a 1D Mark 3 used if you want speed, they go absurdly cheap, and have a bigger sensor and much bigger pixels than the 7D. It's not full frame but the crop factor is only 1.3x. 7D has a much smaller sensor so can work much faster, hence the tradeoff. A 7D and 6D set would compliment each other beautifully. No pint having a 7D to MF though heh.


I forgot what my point was so there's loads of words.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Hahaha it's all good. I'd love to keep the 7D, but I'd have to sell it in order to fund a 6D purchase. The noise performance is a huge deal for me, and is my #1 reason for upgrading aside from sheer full-frame image quality. There aren't a ton of features I'll miss going from the 7D to the 6D, as I've never shot sports or really pushed the 7D for speed. I'm going to miss a few AF points, but perhaps what I'll miss most is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 that won't be compatible with the full frame sensor. I love that lens to bits and its 45mm length on a crop sensor is _perfect_.


----------



## Rook

Why won't it be compatible?! It works on full frame dude! Assuming you have the one I'm thinking of, I don't know how many 30mm 1.4 sigmas there are in the world. That said though, the number one most important thing about that lens - as far as I'm concerned - is preserved, and that's the perspective. Stuff will be just as compressed or thrown off into the distance on any sensor, and that's a hugely overlooked aspect IMO, particularly when it comes to photographing faces. 

A 30mm would be a really nice addition to my kit but I think I'm gunna go 35, my 50 can be a weenie bit tight indoors and the only reason I like my 18 is for the slightly over the top drama of the perspective, you don't use a lens like an 18 to just get more in the frame, it launches further objects off into the distance and sucks closer objects in like a black hole. I think a 35 would be wide enough for indoors and I'd easily be able to get some use out of it on the day to day. Great for video too, fairly neutral looking perspective, as wide as you can go before stuff starts looking a little weird.

Sorry I forgot my point again.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Apparently, both the 30mm f/1.4 and 18-35mm f/1.8 Sigma's are crop-sensor only, because they're designed like the EF-S lenses with the smaller image circle and extended rear element, which can damage the mirror and/or sensor. It's the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 that's compatible with both full-frame and crop-sensor. The only drawback is that it's almost $400 more expensive.

I'm definitely interested in wide angle as well and have been for a long time, but I've ended up with a job shooting models/fashion so unfortunately, the wide's going to have to wait. 50mm seems like a good choice, but although a little bit unconventional, I really like shooting people with a wider lens. I might consider the 35mm, if I don't end up going with the Canon 50mm f/1.4 based on price alone. I wouldn't want to count on the nifty fifty to produce pro-quality images for me.


----------



## Tang

I believe the Sigma 30 will vignette pretty severely on a full frame can.

And here's a shot from a d700 with the 30.. this is at f/4. Cool effect but I'd get sick of it quick. 






In other news, I had a bit of a revelation today.. I don't need to upgrade my camera body because for the most part it serves my needs wonderfully. What I should be investing in are lens, which is the realization every photographer comes to eventually. So now it's just a question of which, and I'll lay out my options below 

Pentax 40mm f/2.8 pancake.. SO TINY! 






Pentax 35mm f/2.8 Macro. Probably the sharpest of the DA Ltds.






Pentax 43mm f/1.9. The one I'm leaning towards. It's a film/full frame lens so I can use it on my K1000 film body in addition to my K30. It'll be a great portrait lens on the APSC. Plus the glorious aperture control.


----------



## Rook

A realisation all photographers come to eventually?! It's obvious! It's a realisation everyone should come to day one!

I have a 6D because it's full frame, if you could get a cheaper full frame I would have done, it's always always always been about the glass for me. I have three great lenses, and all primes, rather than half a dozen different zooms and more range for this precise reason.

This is why I didn't buy a 5D3 or something. I did only realise recently you could get a 1Ds Mark II so cheap recently though, on reflection I probably would have gone with that if I'd known. No creature comforts, but a full frame field of view and huge fat juicy pixels for dat dynamic range.

6D is way lighter though I guess, so on reflection maybe I would have gone that way, who knows.


----------



## Metalma5ness

Wow, how have I only just discovered this thread, there's some really awesome shots on this page alone, Here's some of mine from this years travels:

Dubrovnik by night:








Cicada:





The Walls:





Mounted Gambian:





Hardraw Force:





Constructive criticism etc. would be awesome, thanks


----------



## Berti_smb

My Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 is back from repair and it is wonderful, could not be happier 

Here is one picture from sunny end of summer days:



Bees and flowers by -berti-, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Metalma5: I really enjoyed The Walls and the guy on horseback. Killer b&w processing. Hope you post here more!

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you my first bird picture. I can see why people go crazy trying to get these shots..


----------



## feilong29

Got a new Nikon D610 and took some test shots of one of my Labs  I'll be in Indy this weekend so I'm going to try and get some cool street shots done and break this camera in!








I was trying to go for a 'matte' look; I like it a lot but it might be more prevalent in some futures shoots.


----------



## Tang

feilong29 said:


> Got a new Nikon D610 and took some test shots of one of my Labs  I'll be in Indy this weekend so I'm going to try and get some cool street shots done and break this camera in!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was trying to go for a 'matte' look; I like it a lot but it might be more prevalent in some futures shoots.



I think we all go through that matte phase! Can't wait to see more shots from the Nikon.

Here's another one of my loosely Sergio Leone inspired dog shots, lol. Just imagine them with cowboy hats and revolvers..  Lens was a Pentax 31mm f/1.8 LTD.





And a few from the Pentax 43mm f/1.9. This lens has some serious mojo.


----------



## feilong29

Tang said:


> I think we all go through that matte phase! Can't wait to see more shots from the Nikon.
> 
> Here's another one of my loosely Sergio Leone inspired dog shots, lol. Just imagine them with cowboy hats and revolvers..  Lens was a Pentax 31mm f/1.8 LTD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And a few from the Pentax 43mm f/1.9. This lens has some serious mojo.



Man, I like the these! Looks straight out of a vintage magazine  Ya, I hear that matte is sort of the hype for now, but I think it looks classy, when used right  

Our dogs make good subjects  Mine cooperates better than my kids do


----------



## Tang

feilong29 said:


> Man, I like the these! Looks straight out of a vintage magazine  Ya, I hear that matte is sort of the hype for now, but I think it looks classy, when used right
> 
> Our dogs make good subjects  Mine cooperates better than my kids do



Dude, my taking pictures of my dogs was how I learned photography. I have 3 chihuahuas and 1 cat, and they're still probably my most photographed 'models' 





And here's some more abstract stuff that I went full 'matte' on.


----------



## feilong29

And here's some more abstract stuff that I went full 'matte' on. 



[/QUOTE]

I love it! What do you edit in? LR? And if so, do you just do a linear curve adjustment?


----------



## Tang

feilong29 said:


> I love it! What do you edit in? LR? And if so, do you just do a linear curve adjustment?



It's all Lightroom 4 and I shoot in RAW. The curve started off in a mild S-shaped until I crushed the shadows... perhaps it's easier if I show you! Added a mild amount of sharpening and then some clarity to bring out texture in the concrete.


----------



## feilong29

Tang said:


> It's all Lightroom 4 and I shoot in RAW. The curve started off in a mild S-shaped until I crushed the shadows... perhaps it's easier if I show you! The Hue adjustments I did mostly got rid of a nasty greenish tent in the concrete.



Ah! Ok! I'll have to give this a try  Thanks a bunch buddy!


----------



## Tang

feilong29 said:


> Ah! Ok! I'll have to give this a try  Thanks a bunch buddy!





I learned this method from Periphery's bass player, Nolly. He has a bunch of great shots earlier in the thread if you search for them.

EDIT: found 'em

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/3489632-post643.html

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/3441738-post557.html

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/3426333-post513.html

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/3434565-post534.html


----------



## Rook

#VSCO 

Nolly overdoes that somewhat IMO, his style's not quite my thing. What you're basically doing is limiting the bandwidth of your photo, and the gradient of that curve at a given point is proportionate to contrast. Point is, don't fall into the trap of applying the same curve to everything, that defeats the purpose (not saying anyone does that) and it's easy to get carried away with a look I think. I'm certainly guilty of this.

Tang's is subtle, I like that.


----------



## MrYakob

Woke up this morning to a lovely price alert email from canonpricewatch.com 

Snagged a 6D body for $1400 on ebay! I'm so excited I can't contain myself


----------



## Rook

I'm not bragging when I say I have the means to buy basically any 35mm camera on the market at the moment (I have good credit and I'm not afraid to use it haha) and I continue to insist that the 6D is the best thing going right now IF you don't need super fast, and to be honest most people that think they need super high speed end up in fact not.

Congrats. Now I'm checking out this 'canonpricewatch.com' you speak of heh


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> I'm not bragging when I say I have the means to buy basically any 35mm camera on the market at the moment (I have good credit and I'm not afraid to use it haha) and I continue to insist that the 6D is the best thing going right now IF you don't need super fast, and to be honest most people that think they need super high speed end up in fact not.
> 
> Congrats. *Now I'm checking out this 'canonpricewatch.com' you speak of heh*



Me too.  Seeing how close these run to the 70D price if you hunt around has got me looking for them.

I've been using my AE-1 more, and I could probably live forever with a 50mm lens on 35mm format. I'm saving for a ring for the girlfriend, and after that I'm gonna hit the 6D fund hard. Hopefully tax return season is good to me this year.


----------



## MrYakob

Rook said:


> I'm not bragging when I say I have the means to buy basically any 35mm camera on the market at the moment (I have good credit and I'm not afraid to use it haha) and I continue to insist that the 6D is the best thing going right now IF you don't need super fast, and to be honest most people that think they need super high speed end up in fact not.
> 
> Congrats. Now I'm checking out this 'canonpricewatch.com' you speak of heh



Thanks! It looks like the 6D is exactly what I'm looking for and I didn't see a need to pay basically twice as much for a 5D3.

Also Canonpricewatch is pretty much a constant tab in my browser. I don't remember how I came across it but it comes in handy!


----------



## Tang

Dudes, $1,400 for the 6d? Nice deal. 

Rook, my curves weren't always subtle.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

You guys and your money!


----------



## Rook

Joe Harvatt said:


> You guys and your borrowed money!



fixed that for ya dude


----------



## Philligan

Joe Harvatt said:


> You guys and your student loans!



Updated for specificity.


----------



## MrYakob

Joe Harvatt said:


> You guys and your debt inducing payments!







Tang said:


> Dudes, $1,400 for the 6d? Nice deal.
> 
> Rook, my curves weren't always subtle.



Because I'm in Canada it ended up being around 1600 after import fees and stuff, but to get a 6D from a store here costs almost 1900 before tax so I definitely lucked out!


----------



## Rook

Quit complaining, I paid £1500 for mine, that's like $2400!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Looks like I might be jumping on the 6D deal as well. Looking into having it shipped to my uncle in the US to avoid paying that extra $200.


----------



## Rook

6D4LYF

Sig banner in order I think, just to make Tang feel left out more than anything.


----------



## Philligan

Man, I don't know how many of these are left. I know I shouldn't (and probably won't), but I'm so close to putting one on my student loan.  My dad wants to buy my T3 and kit lens from me when I upgrade, so I'd make a little bit back right there.

I'm in university and only working part time, so part of the engagement ring's gotta come out of the student loan. If that wasn't the case, I'd jump on this. 

I'm feeling pretty lucky, though. I haven't had as much camera GAS as I do with guitars.  Especially considering how much gear you need to do different things (tripod, flashes, etc). I was worried I'd be freaking out about all the lenses out there, but I'm really happy with my 40/2.8 pancake and 50/1.4, even on a crop sensor. The only other lens I realistically want right now is the 70-300 IS for when I need a tele, and maybe a wide angle down the road. And then a 6D.  I think really being into street stuff helps that. I'd be screwed if I got into animal photography or heavy into portraiture haha.

Speaking of, any of you guys have experience with those cheap ($100-200ish) portrait lighting setups? I don't have an external flash (yet), but I think it would be cool to get a cheap one- or two-umbrella light setup, to set up sort of a photo booth at parties and stuff.


----------



## Philligan

Oh man. I didn't realize these weren't refurbished. This just got a lot more tempting.


----------



## MrYakob

Philligan said:


> Oh man. I didn't realize these weren't refurbished. This just got a lot more tempting.



The site only says more than 10 available. It said that this morning when I paid too, they had sold 40 then and I think it's up to over 100 sold so far. No idea what their stock levels are.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

MrYakob said:


> No idea what their stock levels are.



1 less now


----------



## MrYakob

JeffFromMtl said:


> 1 less now



Nice! Congrats


----------



## Tang

Come at me, ya'll.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\/


----------



## Philligan

It probably isn't gonna happen for me, but worst case, I should be joining you guys in a few months. 

And oh man, I'm an idiot.  I was bummed because all my Lightroom edits have seemed sorta low resolution. Everything I looked up said you can change the export size/resolution at the export menu, and I've been getting so mad because the only options I saw were for labelling and exif data. I just realized now that you can scroll down in the export menu.  

I just shot a roll of ISO 200 on the AE-1 today. It's not developed yet, but that means I can put in the ISO 400 B&W that just picked up at a local shop yesterday. 


So here's an unnecessarily high res shot of the film I'm shooting next.  This works out pretty well - it's my girlfriend's extended family Christmas this weekend, and it's gonna be in a hall of some sort. I'm hoping 400 B&W means I'll be able to get some wide open shots with a little grain to them.


----------



## Tang

All that talk about buying lens instead of bodies went out the window when I received an email this morning saying the K5ii was $500 off at B&H. 

Order placed. 

Oops.


----------



## metal_sam14

Philligan said:


> It probably isn't gonna happen for me, but worst case, I should be joining you guys in a few months.
> 
> And oh man, I'm an idiot.  I was bummed because all my Lightroom edits have seemed sorta low resolution. Everything I looked up said you can change the export size/resolution at the export menu, and I've been getting so mad because the only options I saw were for labelling and exif data. I just realized now that you can scroll down in the export menu.
> 
> I just shot a roll of ISO 200 on the AE-1 today. It's not developed yet, but that means I can put in the ISO 400 B&W that just picked up at a local shop yesterday.
> 
> 
> So here's an unnecessarily high res shot of the film I'm shooting next.  This works out pretty well - it's my girlfriend's extended family Christmas this weekend, and it's gonna be in a hall of some sort. I'm hoping 400 B&W means I'll be able to get some wide open shots with a little grain to them.



My grandfather has one of these laying around, mint condition but he never uses it. I must grab it and try it out!


----------



## Philligan

You definitely should, they're a lot of fun.  If film wasn't so expensive I'd seriously consider just using it all the time. If they ever make a digital version (aka a Leica I can actually afford haha) I'd really think hard about it, too.

It's great how much full manual slows you down. It's more relaxing, and you stop worrying about your pictures so much.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Tang said:


> Come at me, ya'll.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\/


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> You definitely should, they're a lot of fun.  If film wasn't so expensive I'd seriously consider just using it all the time. If they ever make a digital version (aka a Leica I can actually afford haha) I'd really think hard about it, too.
> 
> It's great how much full manual slows you down. It's more relaxing, and you stop worrying about your pictures so much.



Gunna say it again, Leica are rangefinder cameras!

Just get an XE-2 or XPro-1 and be done. Probably what I'm gunna do.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Gunna say it again, Leica are rangefinder cameras!
> 
> Just get an XE-2 or XPro-1 and be done. Probably what I'm gunna do.



I know.  I just meant an all-manual, only-manual digital camera.


----------



## Tang

After a very chilly walk (for Florida, anyways) I came back with a few I enjoyed. Don't let those palm trees fool you.. it's cold.













Hope everyone enjoys all their new gear.. I know I will!


----------



## feilong29

Took a few random shots today at the Denver International Airport. I'll take some of the Indianapolis Airport in a couple of days, as there are a couple of cools things in there to photograph  Oh, and my lame attempt at the Milky Way; I need to learn how to edit that bad boy!


----------



## Rook

The focus looks off on the Milky way one?

The sky in my area has a horrible orangey brown glow to it, but I've had the best luck so far sing the widest lens I can, which you can hold open for longer, you get a bigger 'look' to the image.

Also, try and get things that don't move in the wind in the foreground, rocs or buildings, otherwise you get random blurry crap. I've had a few attempts now and I'm not particularly happy with any of them.




Stars and Clouds by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Rook said:


> 6D4LYF
> 
> Sig banner in order I think, just to make Tang feel left out more than anything.



Man, I'm using a Nikon D200 - that's 2007 I think...


----------



## Joe Harvatt

metal_sam14 said:


> My grandfather has one of these laying around, mint condition but he never uses it. I must grab it and try it out!



Do it!


----------



## Wretched

A sneak peek of our shoot with Lawrence and his LSX-powered Holden VZ Calais sedan.

We used a light painting technique for this, with a 300-LED light panel through a medium soft box and three 30-second exposures.


----------



## capoeiraesp

I recently went into the south east region of Victoria, Australia with my in-laws. Here's a couple of faves.


----------



## feilong29

Just some random stuff:


----------



## Tang

capo and feilong: nice work guys.. love seeing the stuff this community comes up with.

Here're a few from Thanksgiving.. I packed very light.. just my K30 and a 43mm f/1.9 prime. 43mm is a bit more forgiving indoors than 50mm, but it still felt a little tight on APS-C. I prefer 30'ish mm indoors. The last shot is my favorite because it has almost a 3D'ish rendering to it.. the way the bokeh isolates the subject is just wonderful. I believe they're all ISO 1600.

















TL;DR: Pentax knows how to make goddamn awesome primes.. I wish you guys could use these without crazy adapters


----------



## Rook

What was that tang? I couldn't quite read it.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> What was that tang? I couldn't quite read it.





PENTAXMASTERRACE



Shit, who am I kidding? I'd love a 6d + 28mm 1.8 combo.. 'dat glorious high iso performance.


----------



## Rook

You wouldn't need it with dat 1.8 and dat sensor size


----------



## feilong29

HA! I really want to try and Pentax now! I think I'm gonna try some freelensing stuff today


----------



## Philligan

I finally got a tripod today.  Henry's had the Vanguard combo with the SB100 ball head on sale for $169; after tax, it was still cheaper than the Buy It Now price on eBay.

We'll call this a self-portrait, and not a mirror selfie.  And I wanted to immortalize the moustache before I grow my beard back.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I may jump on a 105mm or 135mm DC.


----------



## Philligan

I went out for a couple hours and shot with a buddy of mine this evening. He does mostly wedding and couples photography for a living, so I picked up a lot from him.  I used his D600 a bit, and holy shit am I definitely going full frame as soon as I can afford it. It also weight a ton with the battery grip and 24-70 2.8.  He asked me if I'd be his second shooter at his weddings next summer.  I'm super pumped for that.

Here's my favourite from this evening. The whole album is here.

A Friday - a set on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

^ Just checked out the album. I love IMG_2113, Great shot!


----------



## Philligan

Thanks man! I really need to start actually titling my pictures.


----------



## Khoi

I shot a photo narrative for one of my film school applications.

The prompt was:

"In no more than 20 still photographs, tell a story based on this prompt: A character is wandering in a city and encounters a situation that drastically changes his/her life. We are looking for your ability to tell a visual story without the use of dialogue or description."


Let me know what you guys think!

Look at them in order here:

Khoi - Photo Narrative


----------



## Tang

Khoi said:


> I shot a photo narrative for one of my film school applications.
> 
> The prompt was:
> 
> "In no more than 20 still photographs, tell a story based on this prompt: A character is wandering in a city and encounters a situation that drastically changes his/her life. We are looking for your ability to tell a visual story without the use of dialogue or description."
> 
> 
> Let me know what you guys think!
> 
> Look at them in order here:
> 
> Khoi - Photo Narrative



That was sick dude.. I loved the double exposures!

My cat:


----------



## flint757

Has anyone tried the more recent mirror-less 4/3 cameras?


----------



## Rook

Any specifically?

I wouldn't go micro 4/3, sensor's just too small, particularly as you can get things like the Fuji XM or XE stuff which not only has a crop sensor, it's actually bigger than the crop in canon DSLR's. The OM-D in particular makes little sense in comparison to the Fuji, more so now the full frame Sony A7's out for not too much more.


----------



## flint757

I was looking into the NEX-6, the OM-D E-M5, the Panasonic GH3 and the Sony A7. The GH3 really stood out for me. I'm just trying to get an idea on whether or not it is worth it and whether it will be around long enough to justify investing in the newer tech.

How do the mirror-less cameras compare to the standard DSLR's? 

What would you suggest for someone doing mostly landscape, random events and both night and day shots. Wouldn't be doing any portrait shots and I have no intention on blowing them up into huge print outs either.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I have an Olympus E-PL3 and it's a nice alternative to my DSLR for carrying around. I take with me when I go canoeing or scouting for locations to shoot. It's nice for shooting BTS video (still working on this) or quick little shots of our ferrets when the DSLR is a hassle or too noisy (damn D3 shutter).

There's a West Houston photography meetup once a month (usually at Rudy's on IH-10) if you're in the area I can pass the information along for the next meetup.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Here's a picture of an abandoned cinema in my neighbourhood. My neighbourhood is actually full of this sort of stuff, and I need to just go out and shoot some of it more often. I guess I'm just so used to it that it feels normal to me, but it's got a ton of character, abandoned buildings and graffiti.


O! Strange crop, praise be unto thee!


----------



## Rook

flint757 said:


> I was looking into the NEX-6, the OM-D E-M5, the Panasonic GH3 and the Sony A7. The GH3 really stood out for me. I'm just trying to get an idea on whether or not it is worth it and whether it will be around long enough to justify investing in the newer tech.
> 
> How do the mirror-less cameras compare to the standard DSLR's?
> 
> What would you suggest for someone doing mostly landscape, random events and both night and day shots. Wouldn't be doing any portrait shots and I have no intention on blowing them up into huge print outs either.



If you're even considering the A7, get the A7. I'm not a big sony fan, but you'll benefit so much from that bigger sensor. OMD EM-5 (or EM1 if you're talking A7 money?) is a very cool camera, but does all the same stuff as an A7 with half the sensor size. NEX-6 again, same as the A7 without the big sensor, A7 wins this whichever way you put it haha. Panasonic GH3 is truly a mystery to me, why anyone would want a body that size for a micro 4/3 sensor is just beyond me. A canon 7D isn't much bigger and is one of the fastest cameras on the market, has a bigger sensor and is built like a brick shithouse.

No I'll go into a little more detail why I have such a sensor size obsession (but bearing in mind I WOULD shoot medium format if I could afford 645D).

1. Bigger sensor = more light
This is obvious, if you make your light sensor bigger you get more light. This means lower ISO settings as well as more and/or bigger pixels. See below.

2. Bigger sensor can = bigger pixels
Bigger pixels means more dynamic range (much more) and less noise. The old full frame Canon 1D's like the 1DS Mark 3 has that great 35mm sensor with just 16MPx resolution and get a look at those colours! Outside of that, when looking at smaller sensor/pixel cameras, you tend to see people talking about a camera being suited to something in particular. The Canon G1X (bigger tun micro 4/3) for example people say it preserves shadows very well, good for landscapes and architecture, Fuji X series on the other hand people talk a lot about how beautifully it renders skin. You have to pick where your bandwidth is with smaller pixels - bigger sensor means less compromise on this because it's assumed you get bigger pixels ooooor

3. Bigger Sensor = more pixels
Sure you can wedge 16Mpx on a micro 4/3 sensor these days but they'll be small pixels (see above). If you're happy with this however you can trade off for resolution or bigger pictures. This is what it is, doesn't particularly appeal to me personally. I'd always rather have bigger pixels. 18-20 on a 35mm sensor is enough for me!

4. DAT BOKEH
I won't go into the science of it, but bigger sensor means potentially thinner DoF meaning even cheaper more compact lenses are more capable of achieving good subject isolation. Remember the things that affect DoF are - apart from sensor size - focal length, aperture and distance from subject. Bigger sensor means you have to get closer to your subject to fill the frame and means you can use longer lenses without having to stand on a different continent to get the shot.

5. Perspective =/= Field of View - skip to the tl;dr if you're already bored of this epic post
Perspective is in my opinion one of, if not THE most overlooked attribute of focal lengths. People reel off the '35mm equivalent' lengths of lenses when used on smaller sensors. Fuji's 35mm 1.4 (which isn't actually a 1.4 on a crop sensor, closer to about 2.0 in 35mm terms) mounted on a Fuji 1.5x crop is a 53mm 'equivalent', but this is very misleading. It has the _field of view_ of a 53mm lens, but the magnification of the lens is still that of a 35mm focal length, meaning you still get a wider looking perspective than a true 53mm lens on a full frame, the perspective in a 35mm on any sensor size is the same.

What does this actually mean. Well a lot of people say 50mm is 'what you see', but actually it really isn't, take a picture of someone's face at anything inside a meter and see how their nose sticks out a bit and their ears fall flat to the side of their heads or hold your viewfinder up to one eye and look straight ahead and see how stuff in your viewfindered eye is smaller. Your eye's perspective is actually similar to an 85mm, but as it is on a 35mm frame your 85mm frame is quite tight. If you want to get this very neutral perspective on a smaller sensor you're going to really struggle, head shots straight up look weird on anything under about 85mm and 85mm on a micro 4/3 has the field of view of a 170mm on a full frame. Good luck using that in most situations. By 'wide' perspective I mean the wide-angle effect of sucking in objects close to the lens and throwing away objects further. An example, an iPhone camera has to have a pretty small focal length because the sensor is so small and anything longer would restrict the field of view too much, try taking a picture of an aeroplane in the sky with an iPhone. Just doesn't even show up, it's too far away, even though to your eye it obviously occupies a sizeable area of your view. That's the effect of perspective.

*tl;dr* Smaller sensors make it harder to get a neutral perspective, meaning that for a like-for-like field of view, a bigger sensor will show more distant objects as bigger relative to closer ones. To me this is crucial when it comes to taking a photograph of what you see.

*In summary* I'd go for the biggest sensor I can, and frankly I don't give a damn if my camera has a mirror or not as long as it has a good, accurate viewfinder - be it rangefinder or electronic viewfinder. Mirrorless cameras have the ability to fit a bigger sensor into a smaller body with a closer flange distance AND a curtain shutter can operate faster than a mirror, not to mention the battery life save and the subtlety of the sound it makes; it barely makes one.

I'm not big on the Micro 4/3 system, they throw the background away too much for my style, but: 
If I were gunna go for a Micro 4/3 it's be the OMD
I'd sooner get a Canon 600D over a GH3, might just as well. 
I'd die for a CSC with a full frame.

For landscapes, I'd always go for the biggest sensor as to get the wide field of view on a small sensor you have to use 8-10mm lenses which make the landscape you're focusing on look really far away compared to objects in the foreground and I hate that look.

EDIT: Wow, really went for it didn't I, sorry. I don't have that many people to nerd out on camera gear with so I always have the temptation to go OTT.


----------



## MrYakob

I just got a notification from ebay that the company that had the deal on the 6D is requesting to cancel my order... They didn't give any reason except "Other", I denied the request so hopefully it will all be gravy but I don't have a great feeling about all of this - Just glad I haven't sold my 650D yet


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Any of you guys need a Canon 50mm f/1.4 prime, here's a good deal!

Amazon.com: Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Standard & Medium Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: CANON: Camera & Photo


----------



## JeffFromMtl

MrYakob said:


> I just got a notification from ebay that the company that had the deal on the 6D is requesting to cancel my order... They didn't give any reason except "Other", I denied the request so hopefully it will all be gravy but I don't have a great feeling about all of this - Just glad I haven't sold my 650D yet



Shit, I hope they don't try cancelling mine. My Uncle placed the order for me, so I'll have to check if they e-mailed him about this also...


----------



## Rook

Been black and whiting a lot recently...




Silver by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Hangar by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Tree in Fountain by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Grid by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Twisting Squares by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Leicester Square by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Rook, B&W all-day every-day.

I've recently learned that stopping down creates more attractive bokeh then when left wide-open (in certain cases). Behold my octagons.





ATTENTION! I was wondering if you guys could say a word or two about how long you've been shooting, what your inspirations are.. silly shit like that!

I've only been shooting seriously for a year. Before that I had Canon's most basic DSLR (T3 represent!) and a 50 1.8 but I really had no idea what I was doing. Along comes Pentax and changes everything. If I'm honest with you guys, I bought into the Pentax system to be a bit different and the K30 was far better value than anything Canikon had at the time. As for inspirations, I've picked 4 or 5 Ansel Adams photobooks and they're absolutely wonderful. I know I don't really shoot that style but I feel it IS helping to develop my sense of seeing and composition.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I shot film about 7(?) or so years ago I guess, when I was fresh out of highschool and took a darkroom class and stuff, but my Minolta broke and that was kinda that. About 2 years ago, I dated a girl for a few months who was into photography. She had a DSLR, which was something I'd never used before, and so I asked her if I could use it to work on a University project and I sort of rediscovered my love of photography. From then on, we would go out shooting together sometimes, but after we broke up, I didn't have a camera anymore, so I got my 7D and a Canon 50mm f/1.8, which I've had for a a bit less than 2 years now. Since then, I've added the 18-55 and 30mm f/1.4 to the bag, but it was always a hobby/casual thing. I was asked to help out with a shoot for a local clothing boutique, and after that shoot, they offered me a job. I wasn't looking for a job in the field, and the fact that I'm still not 100% confident in my skills is one of the reasons for that, but I accepted it because if they're confident in my work, then I guess that's enough for me. It's also a great way to get better at it - having to reach certain goals and having to know how to get an image that someone else asks for, rather than just casually doing my own thing.

As far as inspiration, I don't really know any photographers and I was a musician and a writer for years before I took up photography, so for me, the approach was similar to my approach to those two - sort of about setting or capturing a mood or a vibe. I guess that's why I've sort of fallen into that filmy/vintagey look with my processing lately. I've always been a sucker for nostalgia, and I think that's starting to come through in my photography much more, the more confident I get in it. I also recently shot my first roll on a Lomo, so I'm excited to get that developed. It should be a kick!


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

how long i've been shooting: just about a calendar year or so.

inspirations (no particular order)

-ended up on the strange side of youtube and saw a henri cartier-bresson documentary and was mesmerized

-my girlfriend is an artist and got me into taking cellphone snapshots seriously

-digitalrev 

-there's leicamen in the family, and my aunt does photojournalist and concert work. Meeting Zack Arias was a revelation.


----------



## xfilth

In exactly 9 days, I can celebrate my 1-year anniversary as a camera owner. I was inspired to photography by my father, who in the recent years took it up as a hobby as well. I don't have a ton of fancy equipment - 650D, a 17-55 and a speedlite (I do, ofc, steal and use my father's equipment whenever I'm spending time in my hometown  ). I wouldn't say I'm a serious photographer at all - when I'm home doing school/work/music/whatever, my camera often goes weeks without being touched at all. I do really enjoy shooting whenever I have an idea, going somewhere, or when just going for an evening walk.
Also, I have to say that I enjoy post-processing/manipulation as much as the shooting itself. I don't take the most interesting photos, but I think that my best, or most evocative pictures, are composites. I also really enjoy macro shooting whenever I can steal my fathers Tokina - there's just so much beauty and weirdness down on the smaller scales of our world.

I don't really have any particular inspirations (which is probably one of the reasons I take so few photos), but I enjoy surfing forum threads like this one a lot - so many talented people!

A few from the archive that I haven't posted here before:









^guess 5 brands?


----------



## Wretched

I've been shooting on and off since around 2000 when I got my first film SLR (A Nikon FE). I got to shoot more often when I landed a job with a car magazine and began shooting car shows, cruises, tech stories etc. It wasn't until I went freelance in 2010 that I started shooting car features and more serious portrait work etc. My aspirations are to continue learning and get toward the level of guys like Easton Chang and many of the true commercial advertising guys, but I find inspiration from all over the place, like this thread and the people on Flickr and 500px etc.

Here's a peek at the last shoot I did. I just finished processing it.
As with the last shot, the still image is a composite of three images, using a 300-LED light panel through a medium softbox to light it.
The motion shot was created using a Rig Pro camera rig and two exposures: a 2sec shot for the car and foreground and a 6sec shot for the background.

Get wallpapers (or see them bigger) here: Flickr: HoskingIndustries' Photostream


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I started shooting in 1998 when I took Photojournalism I and II in high school - it was all darkroom and film. I didn't really shoot much in college, but I picked back up after I graduated in 2006 and I've been shooting ever since.

My mantra behind shooting (after I learned the hard way about portraiture) has been shoot everything is if you'd want it in a magazine (and not one of those silly online-only jobs, but print). As I transition to a new kind of clientele - I'm hoping to keep the same techniques but provide a much more unique product from my film shooting.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

xfilth said:


> ^guess 5 brands?



Warwick, Ibanez, PRS, ESP, EBMM


----------



## xfilth

ThePhilosopher said:


> Warwick, Ibanez, PRS, ESP, EBMM



Replace PRS with Schecter and you are spot on! - Well done, sir!


----------



## flint757

Rook said:


> If you're even considering the A7, get the A7. I'm not a big sony fan, but you'll benefit so much from that bigger sensor. OMD EM-5 (or EM1 if you're talking A7 money?) is a very cool camera, but does all the same stuff as an A7 with half the sensor size. NEX-6 again, same as the A7 without the big sensor, A7 wins this whichever way you put it haha. Panasonic GH3 is truly a mystery to me, why anyone would want a body that size for a micro 4/3 sensor is just beyond me. A canon 7D isn't much bigger and is one of the fastest cameras on the market, has a bigger sensor and is built like a brick shithouse.



So out of standard full frame DSLR cameras what do you recommend? Isn't the 7D a crop sensor?


----------



## Wretched

7D is a crop camera... but I love mine!


----------



## Tang

Double post.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Alright guys, it's the holiday season. I'm feeling like I've hit the ceiling in terms of what my humble 650D can handle. I say that in full confidence that it's the camera and not me, as I'm happy with my film output and the things i've done with VSCOcam/iPhonenography. My compositions, technique/mechanics, and subjects are fine, but something about the rendering and output of the 650 just falls short every time for me. My main issues are low light performance and crop factor/as rook so eloquently put it, perspective not equalling field of view. I've done at least 30 rolls of film in 6 months or so, and picking up the Canon just puts a bad taste in my mouth compared to what I know a roll of porta 400 and my SLR w/ a gem of a Contax/Yashica lens can put out. So. That leaves me a few options:


-6D, body only to accompany my humble 50mm 1.4 and 40 2.8. 6D would be purchased with intent to buy high end prime shortly after.

-6D kit plus 50 and 40, no gear for a loooong time.

-save and 5D III for autofocus, eat it in the wallet, lightness, & diminishing returns department.

-buy a 5D kit and file for bankruptcy this isn't even an option 

-buy an x100s and shut up about crop sensors because I've grown to love manual exposure and it fits the 35mm compact/slr form factor I'm comfortable with. It isn't a DSLR, and comes with all the size, stealth, and avoidance of the "Uncle Bob with a d800" scenario. No L series / Zeiss / other gear related money pits to fall into. avoidance of option paralysis. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Tang

If I were going to full frame right this moment it'd either be the Nikon d610 or Canon 6d. Ultimately I'd go to a camera store and check both of them out in person to see which feel better in the hand.

Rook, I recently watched a feature length film shot completely with a hacked GH3 and it looked marvelous. That has nothing to do with still quality, though.


----------



## flint757

Anyone here ever try out the Pentax k-3?


----------



## Tang

flint757 said:


> Anyone here ever try out the Pentax k-3?



Oh hi there, I'm just the person you'd like to talk to.

What questions do you have about it? I'll gather some sample images from it for ya.


----------



## Philligan

I've been at it for... four or five months now? Rocking the lowly Canon T3/1100D. 

My biggest inspirations are you guys (d'aaawwww), because everyone talks about stuff and there are so many different styles here. And a buddy of mine from back home, because having someone actually there with you giving advice is awesome, and who knows how to stand in front of a camera to help me know what to look for. And any street guys I see on youtube, because I'm still a little shy when it comes to candid stuff of strangers.


----------



## Philligan

Also, I had a very long, shitty drive today, but I found a couple cool shots after I got back into Windsor.  The focus may be off in the first one, but I've been expecting that from my T3. I wanna see if I can tell it to only use the centre point, because it's the only one that actually works. 

I've started shooting all manual, and it's actually going great so far.  It slows me down, but I find I'm liking how the shots turn out more because I'm tweaking the exposure to what I want to see, and not what the camera thinks works. My friend gave me the idea of taking two or three different exposures of each shot, so I can find the one that works best when I'm on my laptop, and not just try and judge it on that tiny LCD screen.


----------



## flint757

Tang said:


> Oh hi there, I'm just the person you'd like to talk to.
> 
> What questions do you have about it? I'll gather some sample images from it for ya.



Awesome.

Hows does the shutter speed, fps and auto-focus on the K-3 compare to similarly priced cameras? How's the HDR? Do you find yourself wanting a full frame while using it or does it feel like it nails it most of the time for you? What environment do you find it is best at?

Looking online it looks like a kick ass camera. I'd go full frame, but after including lenses it just seems like it'd get crazy expensive. The 6D is lacking in some of the things I listed above which kind of makes it a deal breaker (slower, worse auto focus, half the fps of the 7D) and the D610 and 5D MK III are a bit out of my price range after everything is said and done.  7D feels like a strong contender too. I'll need to dig more and see if I can't find them all locally to give them a try.


----------



## feilong29

I've been shooting for about 3 months now. I've always wanted to take up photography, but never had the money to buy a good camera. I finally sold my Caparison Angelus and got a Nikon D3200 and a 50mm 1.8, 35mm 1.8 and a Tokina 11-16 (those all didn't come from selling of the Angelus, hehe). 

I think it's an amazing thing to capture the essence of the formations and 'scapes around you, and everyone is looking to get photos taken, so why not? Also, seeing some of the stuff you guys produce really inspires me. I just don't know where to go (locally) to get anything cool :/ I'm glad I got my full frame though! I feel so much more confident, especially since I can get a quality image that I see in my mind.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

flint757 said:


> Awesome.
> 
> Hows does the shutter speed, fps and auto-focus on the K-3 compare to similarly priced cameras? How's the HDR? Do you find yourself wanting a full frame while using it or does it feel like it nails it most of the time for you? What environment do you find it is best at?
> 
> Looking online it looks like a kick ass camera. I'd go full frame, but after including lenses it just seems like it'd get crazy expensive. The 6D is lacking in some of the things I listed above which kind of makes it a deal breaker (slower, worse auto focus, half the fps of the 7D) and the D610 and 5D MK III are a bit out of my price range after everything is said and done.  7D feels like a strong contender too. I'll need to dig more and see if I can't find them all locally to give them a try.



When my 6D arrives, I'll be parting ways with my 7D. I've got a friend who's interested, but she hasn't given me a definite answer. If you're interested, let me know! I'll also have a Canon 18-55mm, 50mm f/1.8 and Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (this lens performs so well that I'm bummed that it isn't compatible with the full-frame 6D) available with it 

My favourite thing about the 7D aside from image quality is that it's got 100% viewfinder coverage. It was a huge deciding factor for me when I went with it over the 60D. Plus, you can take it anywhere cuz it's built like a ....ing tank!


----------



## feilong29

Random and nothing spectacular:


----------



## Rook

flint757 said:


> Looking online it looks like a kick ass camera. I'd go full frame, but after including lenses it just seems like it'd get crazy expensive. The 6D is lacking in some of the things I listed above which kind of makes it a deal breaker (slower, worse auto focus, half the fps of the 7D) and the D610 and 5D MK III are a bit out of my price range after everything is said and done.  7D feels like a strong contender too. I'll need to dig more and see if I can't find them all locally to give them a try.



This is a bit of an unfair comparison, and there are a few points to address here I feel.

Autofocus, the 7D doesn't have faster AF as such it just has a more dense coverage BUT in having such complex AF systems, you are literally handing over the decision on what to focus on to the camera and if you're using faster lenses with shallower depth of field this is not a decision you want the camera making. The 6D isn't slow to focus, and has a similar but newer AF system than the 5D II which isn't amazingly fast but if it were problematically slow it wouldn't be one of the most successful digital cameras ever made.

FPS; Are you shooting sports? Frankly, the few things I've ever tried to shoot with continuous frames, the 4.5fps has either been more than enough or solo much slower that even 8 wouldn't solve it. The high fps stuff becomes useful when you're doing paid work in active situation where you NEED the shot to get paid and you have to give yourself every opportunity to get it. You need an AI Servo Focus mode that's good enough to keep up too, which frankly the 7D doesn't have.

With all that said, maybe you do need that AF system and frame rate, maybe a majority of your shooting is of active things or wildlife that would benefit from the crop factor and speed and things are so far off, a misjudgement of focus point doesn't ruin the shot, in which case go 7D every time. I know a fair few people who neglected the full-framedness in favour of the 7D's speed only to use the centre group of AF points, focus-recomposing, and only ever shooting one or two shots at a time, hence my fussing haha.



Paul Reed Shred said:


> Alright guys, it's the holiday season. I'm feeling like I've hit the ceiling in terms of what my humble 650D can handle. I say that in full confidence that it's the camera and not me, as I'm happy with my film output and the things i've done with VSCOcam/iPhonenography. My compositions, technique/mechanics, and subjects are fine, but something about the rendering and output of the 650 just falls short every time for me. My main issues are low light performance and crop factor/as rook so eloquently put it, perspective not equalling field of view. I've done at least 30 rolls of film in 6 months or so, and picking up the Canon just puts a bad taste in my mouth compared to what I know a roll of porta 400 and my SLR w/ a gem of a Contax/Yashica lens can put out. So. That leaves me a few options:
> 
> 
> -6D, body only to accompany my humble 50mm 1.4 and 40 2.8. 6D would be purchased with intent to buy high end prime shortly after.
> 
> -6D kit plus 50 and 40, no gear for a loooong time.
> 
> -save and 5D III for autofocus, eat it in the wallet, lightness, & diminishing returns department.
> 
> -buy a 5D kit and file for bankruptcy this isn't even an option
> 
> -buy an x100s and shut up about crop sensors because I've grown to love manual exposure and it fits the 35mm compact/slr form factor I'm comfortable with. It isn't a DSLR, and comes with all the size, stealth, and avoidance of the "Uncle Bob with a d800" scenario. No L series / Zeiss / other gear related money pits to fall into. avoidance of option paralysis.
> 
> Thoughts?



I'd say forget the 5DIII, the only benefit is the AF system, in a similar way to above it's designed to guess well what you want to focus on and track it which you need I think if your career depends on it, not if you're out and about shooting stuff. 5DIII works well with the big 2 zooms, the 24-70 IS and 70-200 IS, because they both have the outright IS speed to keep up well enough to make the AF system worth it. The Servo mode is very good on the 5D3 and is great for tracking moderate speed subjects, if you think you're going to be doing enough of this to spend an extra thousand dollars and this is crucial to getting your shot, this is why you buy a 5D3. It does RAW video too but I'm not interested enough in that for it to impact my decision personally. I never see the point in people buying the 5D3 for idle 'stuff what I found' shots. 'I bought this 5D3 to take a picture of a lamp post'. Why?! I've never cared about people buying expensive gear for the sake of it, but there are benefits to the actual image quality of the 6D over the 5D3 which people overlook or trade off purely because of numbers games - the 5D3 plays the 'more expensive so better' card, has more megapixels, has more memory card slots (I don't get this), more AF points and so on. I personally benefit from the lighter weight of my camera, better noise performance and so on.

As I say, I wouldn't pine over the 5D3 unless that tracking will make a real difference to you. Not saying the 5D3 isn't a fabulous camera and not saying it's not worth the money, but be aware of where you're benefiting.

The 50 1.4 is a great lens and would definitely do the 6D justice, I wouldn't worry to much about trading that off for a 1.2 for the sake of 1/3 stop of brightness. The 1.2 is a sharper lens but it's also slower focusing. I went for the 1.2 because I got a good price and kinda went 'eeeeh *f*uck it' haha.

The DSLR vs 'Digital Rangefinder' as I reluctantly call them, all the benefits you mention are completely relevant - weight, discretion etc, I plan to get one now that I have a FF DSLR though. Buildings and stuff aren't shy, they don't mind me pointing a huge camera at them, and all of my more candid street shots are 6D and 85mm lens, hardly subtle heh. I want a CSC so that I can carry a good camera around more without looking like a total tool.

Would I _just_ have a CSC instead of a FF DSLR? I would say not, but not as hastily as perhaps I once would. I _would_ miss having a usable 85mm field of view for dat perspective and it's just too tight on a small sensor, as it is it's a little tight FF. Things like the Sony A7 blur the line somewhat, and you can pick up a Leica M8 used for less than £2k now. The M8 I think is pretty shit IQ by comparison, but the A7 - let's not forget that Sony make Nikon's sensors, the A7's have D4 and D800 sensors...


----------



## Wretched

Here are some shots from Between the Buried and Me's gig at the Metro in Sydney on Nov 16. They were supported by Ne Obliviscaris and The Contortionist.





































See all 32 images here: Between the Buried and Me @ Metro, Sydney - Nov 16, 2013 - a set on Flickr


----------



## metal_sam14

Great shots man! it's funny, I travelled up from Tassie for that gig and I could see you taking pictures and I was wondering if it was you!


----------



## Wretched

Haha yeah man, I was there. Reviewed it too: Live Gallery: Between the Buried and Me @ The Metro, Sydney &#8211; Nov 16, 2013 | Hosking Industries

Good show! Although I thought the drums were far too overbearing for BTBAM's set.


----------



## metal_sam14

Wretched said:


> Haha yeah man, I was there. Reviewed it too: Live Gallery: Between the Buried and Me @ The Metro, Sydney  Nov 16, 2013 | Hosking Industries
> 
> Good show! Although I thought the drums were far too overbearing for BTBAM's set.



I agree with you there, that ....ing kick drum was murdering everything. I thought the Contortionist has the best sound on the night but overall the show was incredible.


----------



## Wretched

I loved The Contortionist. Hadn't heard them before, but their mid-tempo dirge-y riffs with the combination of fluid melodies over the top was cool. Found the guitarist on the right hand side amusing with his awkward pose and I'm pretty certain the singer has some mental issues. In a good way.


----------



## metal_sam14

Wretched said:


> I loved The Contortionist. Hadn't heard them before, but their mid-tempo dirge-y riffs with the combination of fluid melodies over the top was cool. Found the guitarist on the right hand side amusing with his awkward pose and I'm pretty certain the singer has some mental issues. In a good way.



Funny you say that, my girlfriend tagged along on the night and she was thrown by the singer's presence, he was a strange one!


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Rook said:


> As I say, I wouldn't pine over the 5D3 unless that tracking will make a real difference to you. Not saying the 5D3 isn't a fabulous camera and not saying it's not worth the money, but be aware of where you're benefiting.



Yeah, this is the conclusion I came to as well. I'm not looking for something to strap a 300mm f/4 onto and hit a NFL game 



Rook said:


> The 50 1.4 is a great lens and would definitely do the 6D justice, I wouldn't worry to much about trading that off for a 1.2 for the sake of 1/3 stop of brightness. The 1.2 is a sharper lens but it's also slower focusing. I went for the 1.2 because I got a good price and kinda went 'eeeeh *f*uck it' haha.



If I traded up to the 50 1.2 it would be less about the aperture and more about build quality and rendering. the focusing motor in my 50 won't last me forever, and optically the 1.2 is just one of those lenses that has that look to it, you know? the way that renders the subject (especially wide open) is worth the price of admission entirely.



Rook said:


> The DSLR vs 'Digital Rangefinder' as I reluctantly call them, all the benefits you mention are completely relevant - weight, discretion etc, I plan to get one now that I have a FF DSLR though. Buildings and stuff aren't shy, they don't mind me pointing a huge camera at them, and all of my more candid street shots are 6D and 85mm lens, hardly subtle heh. I want a CSC so that I can carry a good camera around more without looking like a total tool.



This is the same predicament I found myself in. I bought an Olympus MJU / Stylus Epic to keep the compact camera wants down & for stealth and anonymity purposes. As much as I'd like to buy into one of the compact systems right now, I'd rather be in canon FF and let sony/fuji/etc develop real full frame mirrorless systems with decent lens support. (read: no sony lens mount vaporware)


----------



## Tang

Happy NCD to me! My K5ii showed up today and it's everything I hoped for! I found this comparison pic online between my old body (the K30) and the K5ii. You wouldn't believe how much easier having physical buttons for everything makes shooting. I never realized how much time was wasted in menus trying to change autofocus or metering settings (just as an example)







And for the first shots... needless to say no matter what camera or lenses I use my 'style' comes through all the way. Shooting low and looking up all the way.. the so-called heroic shot


----------



## Wretched

Nice bokeh!


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> Nice bokeh!





Thanks! I really try not to abuse bokeh too much, but shooting at dusk you've only got so many options!

And it's just lovely to look at. 

EDIT: you guys should see how ridiculous I look crawling on the ground trying to get these shots.. *f*ucking goofy.


----------



## Rook

flint757 said:


> So out of standard full frame DSLR cameras what do you recommend? Isn't the 7D a crop sensor?



Yes, but is still notably bigger than a micro 4/3 sensor which is what I meant. I see how my statement was misleading though...

Nothing wrong with crop sensors per se and the 7D is an amazing camera, the point of all my longwinded posts is figure out what you're actually going to use before buying a camera based on numbers and features. Seems obvious, and I realise I keep addressing it in relation to the 6D but take it any way round really. Wretched clearly shoots moving subjects and technically tricky shots, a 7D is the best thing shy of a 1DX for that and considering it costs less than a quarter what a 1DX costs, it's a pretty great deal.



Paul Reed Shred said:


> If I traded up to the 50 1.2 it would be less about the aperture and more about build quality and rendering. the focusing motor in my 50 won't last me forever, and optically the 1.2 is just one of those lenses that has that look to it, you know? the way that renders the subject (especially wide open) is worth the price of admission entirely.



Yeah, don't get me wrong, the 50 1.2 is an absolutely astounding lens, and it's not like they depreciate either. I've not had mine long but Canon's prices have already gone up a few times and they're selling used for about what I paid. Madness.


----------



## soliloquy

i'm having a hard time figuring out what polarizer filter to get. people keep steering me towards hoya, which is fine. but even in hoya i see they have really cheap stuff, middle of the line stuff, and really expensive stuff.

what is the difference between the middle of the and top of the line stuff?

for example, other than the price and packaging, what is the difference between:




HOYA HD CIR-PL 62mm Filters

vs





Hoya HRT Circular Polarizing UV Filter Polarizer 62mm

vs





Hoya 62mm Circular Polarizing Glass Filter PL-CIR SLIM B62CRPL 


sure, the middle one has UV in it...but aside from that, anything? and how about the third and the first option? there is a $25ish difference between the two


----------



## Tang

I'd assume the more expensive polarizers use higher quality glass. I've heard stories that using cheaper filters can lead to soft shots and mild distortion but don't hold me to that!

You get that K5 yet? I got my k5ii and I love it. Cell phone pic incoming!


----------



## Rook

dat perspective


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> dat perspective



dat 7.6x crop factor.


----------



## soliloquy

Tang said:


> I'd assume the more expensive polarizers use higher quality glass. I've heard stories that using cheaper filters can lead to soft shots and mild distortion but don't hold me to that!
> 
> You get that K5 yet? I got my k5ii and I love it. Cell phone pic incoming!



i most certainly did receive my k5. its a completely different beast from my k-x. my k-x was fairly user friendly and basic. i find my k5 to be a bit more manual and hands on than my k-x. i'm trying to figure out what the 'x' mode does. the instruction manual says its used for flash and its shutter speed by default is set to 1/180s. and it has WAY more features than my k-x. trying to get used to all of them. its a bit intimidating, but i'm learning. 

i'll put up my k-x up for sale once i've gotten used to my k5 fully. 

the k5 does feel very sturdy and solid. so far the pictures, though limited in the amount i've taken, are very bright and hardly any noise that i've been experiencing in my k-x as of late.


----------



## Whammy

Haven't taken any photos lately or even posting on SSO. Been busy prepping for moving country.
Just moved to Sweden last week.
It started to snow so I took the camera out of the case.


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> Haven't taken any photos lately or even posting on SSO. Been busy prepping for moving country.
> Just moved to Sweden last week.
> It started to snow so I took the camera out of the case.



Miss ya, man.. hope you can get to posting more when you're not so busy.. Sweden is a beautiful place.. just point the camera anywhere!


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> Miss ya, man.. hope you can get to posting more when you're not so busy.. Sweden is a beautiful place.. just point the camera anywhere!



Cheers man. I'm in the middle of nowhere and a snow storm is coming so expect a lot of snow photos


----------



## Whammy

Got one in just before sun set. I saw the ideal photo on the way home but didn't have my camera with me so I rushed home before it got any darker.
The setting and background is different from where I wanted to take the photo but I wasn't going to drive back to the location


----------



## Winspear

^ Very very nice. The moon is a great touch


----------



## xfilth

Great pictures, Whammy. You must live pretty far north in Sweden - I live in Copenhagen and all we get is boring, grey and rainy weather!

Look what I acquired today


----------



## Whammy

xfilth said:


> Great pictures, Whammy. You must live pretty far north in Sweden - I live in Copenhagen and all we get is boring, grey and rainy weather!
> 
> Look what I acquired today



I'm not really that far north. Two hour drive north from Stockholm. The snow was only light today, or so I was told anyways 
I was only in Copenhagen a week ago. Didn't get too much of it as I was passing through it. We drove to Sweden from Ireland. Long long drive!

Nice buy! The B7K is on my wish list. So is the fractal I can see in the background of your photo


----------



## Philligan

That first one of your dog is perfect.


----------



## Tang

Great sunset, Whammy!

I did some work today.. a little..


----------



## Whammy

^ Such a happy squirrel


----------



## Rook

There's something very soft looking in your pictures, are you ducking the clarity or something? It's a nice effect. I can see how high up you're pulling your blacks but I don't think that's it. I can tell by the size of the 'bokeh balls' in the highlights that you're not using a particularly wide aperture, given the compression of the volvo you're looking about 50mm (cropped?) so you presumably have at least f2 thus if you're stopped down at all I'd expect them to look rather _more_ sharp...

I dunno. Can you explain? Haha. I like whatever you're doing but I don't know if it's 'in camera' or some shifty post work.

EDIT: Those trees have a very sigma-looking blur haha, the Canon 35L looks a bit like that stopped down too.


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> There's something very soft looking in your pictures, are you ducking the clarity or something? It's a nice effect. I can see how high up you're pulling your blacks but I don't think that's it. I can tell by the size of the 'bokeh balls' in the highlights that you're not using a particularly wide aperture, given the compression of the volvo you're looking about 50mm (cropped?) so you presumably have at least f2 thus if you're stopped down at all I'd expect them to look rather _more_ sharp...
> 
> I dunno. Can you explain? Haha. I like whatever you're doing but I don't know if it's 'in camera' or some shifty post work.
> 
> EDIT: Those trees have a very sigma-looking blur haha, the Canon 35L looks a bit like that stopped down too.



Most of what you are seeing is softness from wide open.
Also nothing is cropped. For my own photos I'm a firm believer that if I can't frame the photo correctly then I shouldn't hit the shutter release 

I shoot wide open a lot and normally pick lenses with certain kinds of bokeh.
Normally I prefer older lenses due to the way they bokeh acts in the corners but I do own a modern lens which I also like but think the bokeh looks more clinical.

I also think a lot about the ratio of in focus to out of focus background.
It's not enough thinking that once the background is renenderd out of focus it's okay. How far away the background is from the in focus subject along with where the focus point is (1 meter, 2 meter etc) determines the level and effect of bokeh. If the background is a little too far away it's blured too much. I guess I choosing the background to act as various layers instead of thinking of it as one out of focus background. If you layer them right it shouldn't look like an obvious f1.2 lens.

Even for shots where I'm focusing close to infinity I still choose to shoot wide open most of the time. I like the softness around the subject and other artifacts that come into play like vignetting. 


These photo are taken with a Canon 85mm f/1.2.
Both shots are wide open.
http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/3827100-post1753.html

This was also the Canon 85mm f/1.2 but stopped down to f/4
I would have preferred a lower iso but didn't have my camera stand.
http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/3827386-post1756.html

These shots were taken on my favorite lens. An old Olympus Zuiko 55mm f/1.2. Single coated manual focus lens. I prefer to focus manually.
Again all wide open.
http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/3828518-post1762.html

I have other Olympus Zuiko lenses, all fairly fast. They all have different bokeh styles. I really like the 40mm. Very non-offensive bokeh. Everybody likes it 
24mm f/2
40mm f/2
85mm f/2
135mm f/2.8


----------



## Tang

Speaking of bokeh, here's some sweet, sweet Pentax old school action. 

It's like ....ing butter in photographic form. ISO3200.


----------



## Whammy

Buttery  Can just make out a guitar.
Is the lens a 1.7?


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> Buttery  Can just make out a guitar.
> Is the lens a 1.7?



Close. It's still an odd number though, 43mm f/1.9. 

And that's a lefty Ibanez Artcore. My other baby 

Edit: here's a color version of a pic from earlier. Not sure which I like better.. I do love how the composition turned out, color or not!


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> Close. It's still an odd number though, 43mm f/1.9.
> 
> And that's a lefty Ibanez Artcore. My other baby
> 
> Edit: here's a color version of a pic from earlier. Not sure which I like better.. I do love how the composition turned out, color or not!



I knew it was odd  Just didn't know what way it went from 1.8 

I prefer the B&W. The Color is nice. I just prefer it monochrome because I feel the bokeh is less distracting when all the bokeh octagon balls are the same instead of different colors.
Plus in color I feel the lights and your dog are both fighting for attention instead of working together. That's just me though 

Although that being said I like the shadow detail around your dogs eye in the color. In the black & white the higher contrast is blacking out some information which would be nice to see


----------



## Rook

Whammy said:


> These shots were taken on my favorite lens. An old Olympus Zuiko 55mm f/1.2. Single coated manual focus lens. I prefer to focus manually.
> Again all wide open.
> http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/3828518-post1762.html



I just meant this one, 55mm basically answers it but I meant cropped sensor haha. I generally agree, I don't crop, but every now and again I'll find something in a shot I've rejected from a funny crop or something which I might keep.

Interesting though, that doesn't look like 1.2 based on how close your point of focus is, interesting. It looks wide open in terms of softness, but if you said 'guess the f stop', I'd have said 2.8 at least.


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> I knew it was odd  Just didn't know what way it went from 1.8
> 
> I prefer the B&W. The Color is nice. I just prefer it monochrome because I feel the bokeh is less distracting when all the bokeh octagon balls are the same instead of different colors.
> Plus in color I feel the lights and your dog are both fighting for attention instead of working together. That's just me though
> 
> Although that being said I like the shadow detail around your dogs eye in the color. In the black & white the higher contrast is blacking out some information which would be nice to see



I pretty much agree with all of the above. I feel the with the b&w there's no distractions and you can just focus on the composition. Thanks for the mild c&c!


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> I meant cropped sensor haha. I generally agree, I don't crop, but every now and again I'll find something in a shot I've rejected from a funny crop or something which I might keep.
> 
> Interesting though, that doesn't look like 1.2 based on how close your point of focus is, interesting.



Ah sorry, it's a full frame sensor. Canon 5d MKII.
If I use a cropped sensor I'd lose all the interesting artifacts in the corners. I tried it before and wasn't happy with the results. I wouldn't go for a cropped sensor unless I had lenses designed for the sensor.


----------



## soliloquy

has anyone tried infrared photography?
the filter is fairly cheap at under $20. and it seems so cool. unfortunetly photoshop and i dont get along. i have no idea of knowing how to use it to create results like this:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Using an IR filter is no where near as good as using a converted camera. I have a filter and it requires super long exposures and a fair amount of manipulation in post. With a converted camera you set a custom white balance and you're off to the races (more or less), I want to buy a converted D200.

Some IR with the filter - some with the D3 and others with my old D200:


----------



## soliloquy

/\ well, you could always use a cheap camera and convert that into a IR camera. an old DSLR that you dont use might do the trick as well


----------



## Tang

Ick, not really a fan of IR photography.. something about it rubs me the wrong way. If you're curious, lensrentals.com does have a few IR converted Nikons available to rent.


----------



## Rook

Whammy said:


> Ah sorry, it's a full frame sensor. Canon 5d MKII.
> If I use a cropped sensor I'd lose all the interesting artifacts in the corners. I tried it before and wasn't happy with the results. I wouldn't go for a cropped sensor unless I had lenses designed for the sensor.



Ah interesting, mounting the Zuiko on a 5DII, might have to try that!

And I agree, the querky imperfect artefacts make lenses for me. FULL FRAME FTW


----------



## ThePhilosopher

soliloquy said:


> /\ well, you could always use a cheap camera and convert that into a IR camera. an old DSLR that you dont use might do the trick as well



Unfortunately the only DSLR I have is a D3 so it's cheaper for me to buy one pre-converted. I always find better things to spend the money on though.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Got some shots with the sardine cam developed. Much love for this wonky device.


----------



## Whammy

Some photos from yesterday when it started to snow 
In case anyone is interested the lens is an old Olympus Zuiko 55mm f/1.2
All shots are wide open.

















For this photo I focused a bit in front of the subjects (dogs & person).
The reason being that I still wanted to shoot wide open but if I focused on the subjects no visible layer of falling snow will be seen in front of them due to the shallow depth of field.
Focusing a bit before them highlighted a layer of falling snow and placed them behind it, slightly blurred, hopefully giving the impression of being absorbed by the snow


----------



## Rook

See those look way more 1.2-ish in my eyes, weird, particularly the first two. Lovely skin tone, by the way, gorgeous.

Got a link to your lens somewhere? You've piqued my interest.


----------



## Wretched

Not sure if this is going to work or not... but this is an animated gif of how the nine layers of images came together to create the shot of the black Porsche I uploaded a couple of months came together... more or less...


----------



## capoeiraesp

That is awesome!!!


A cat with a busted leg is not fun to have in the house.


----------



## Rook

Guys.

Cheaping out on a Canon 70-200.

Which would you chose out of 70-200 2.8 IS (mark I) and 70-200 2.8 non-IS?

Using it for worky type shots, I've got some informal offers and I'd like to take advantage, can't use MF lenses for that though. My 18mm is MF but is so wide I can levee it wide open and focus about 1-1.5m and my hyper focal range is about 1.2m-infinity, nice effect, and I have a 50mm 1.2 which is obvious both AF and very bright. My body is a 6D so great noise performance. Point here is I need AF speed more than anything, if it's similar across all models then I'm not worried.

I'm thinking the 70-200 IS mii is the sensible option as I'm potentially going to shoot some bands and they're pretty cheap, but if the IS mii gives 2 stops of brightness and I'm talking about shooting moving subjects... I still have to use fast than about 1/120 shutter speed as a minimum to completely freeze motion, IS just means I can zoom a little longer but I can't see needing to in that scenario. The 135-200 range is more likely to be used in controlled shots which, if I'm controlling them, will be done in good light.

Or am I talking shit, who knows.

Thoughts?

Very hypothetical, I just like to plan well in advance, probably looking to buy spring '14, IS version II is not an option. This thing needs to get the shot, but it also has to pay for itself.


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> See those look way more 1.2-ish in my eyes, weird, particularly the first two. Lovely skin tone, by the way, gorgeous.
> 
> Got a link to your lens somewhere? You've piqued my interest.



Yeah those shots more obviously 1.2 

Here is a link to the Zuiko 55mm f/1.2
The web site has all the Olympus Zuiko lenses on file.
Buying old lenses is a great way of getting super fast glass for a fraction of modern equivalents.
I got that lens from around 200. They have become more popular since then so the average price has gone up.

I originally got into these lenses from using my dads Olympus OM1 35mm film camera. He had the standard 50mm f/1.8 with it but I started to slowly build up more lenses for it.

When I switched to digital I went for Canon because it was able to accept a large variety of different lenses, with an adapter of course. Other full frame digital bodies at the time could not.

I've used a few of the Zuiko 50mm range.
The 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens. Standard but pleasing bokeh. Sharp enough lens.
The 50mm f/1.4 has horrible bokeh. The way it renders the background out of focus is not nice. Almost like the bokeh is fractured.
The 50mm f/1.2 was released after they discontinued the 55mm 1.2.
Bokeh wise they are very very similar. The 50mm seems to be sharper though. It's also more expensive on the second hand market.

If you're looking for awesome bokeh for great value the old Pentax f/1.4 s-m-c takumar has very pleasing bokeh similar to the bokeh swirl you'd get from a f/1.2.

Loads more old lenses out there, I just have an affinity with the old Zuiko lenses.

EDIT:
Oh you might find this interesting.
A list of some lenses and their bokeh rating.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/files/bokehrankings5.pdf


----------



## Whammy

It won't stop snowing where I am


----------



## Tang

Rook, definitely go for the IS. Once you go IS you never go back. 

I enjoy IS on all of my lenses  In-body IS is the shit.


----------



## Tommy

Just a heads up for you guys. Amazon is selling Canon 6D body only for $1415. I'm really considering picking one up at that price.


----------



## Furtive Glance

^That's an awesome price, holy crap. 600 or so off list? They also had the 24-105 f/4 L that the kit comes with for 600$. So you'd essentially get a free solid-ass lens. But I think that lens price was strictly Black Friday...

Anyway, some shots I dug out of my harddrive taken a few years ago with ye olde trusty XT and its stock lens


----------



## Wretched

This is a little animated gif I put together for a tutorial story I'm doing in issue 10 of InFocus on creating composites. It shows the nine different layers I used to create the Porsche 944 images I posted a couple months back.



Not sure if it's of any interest to anyone, but I thought it was pretty cool.

EDIT: Embarrassing. Forgot I'd already posted the exact same thing a few posts earlier! Oops. been a big week.


----------



## Whammy

One of the rare occasions where I stop down from wide open 

I stopped down to around f/4. I think 
The lens was a 40mm f/2 pancake.


----------



## MrYakob

So after BuyDig refunded my money and wouldn't tell me why they cancelled my order , I grabbed a 6D off B&H instead, but somebody at the Purolator facility here put it on the wrong truck so now I have to wait until Monday which is a bummer because I was hoping to have it for a family dinner we're having tonight. C'est la vie I suppose!


----------



## Winspear

Wretched said:


> This is a little animated gif I put together for a tutorial story I'm doing in issue 10 of InFocus on creating composites. It shows the nine different layers I used to create the Porsche 944 images I posted a couple months back.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure if it's of any interest to anyone, but I thought it was pretty cool.



Awesome picture. 

So you are lighting the car from different angles to accent every part of it and then merging them? Very cool. I had no idea this was a technique used, though I suppose looking at the photo and thinking how to achieve it it would become clear.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

We don't get much snow here in Houston, but the few non-evergreens we have around started to change as it's a brisk 35°F outside currently.


----------



## Tang

So I checked my flickr and noticed that one of my pet shots absolutely blew up.. I was surprised and honored! Most of my shots have around 100'ish views and a couple of likes each.. this bad boy is already up to 5,200 views and 71 likes.. it's nice getting 'recognition' from other photographers even it's the flickr brigade! 




Dexter's waiting for something.. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Dawn and I got home and, lo and behold, the Santa Claus parade was going by the end of the street. So I took my T3 out with the 50/1.4 and took pictures in what was way too cold. 






My camera was struggling in the dark (and the cold ) but I got a few I liked, particularly these two.


----------



## Philligan

So, I was cleaning my 50/1.4 just now and noticed a really small scratch on the front element. It's really small, and you have to look at the lens in the right light to see it, and I don't think it's showing up in my pictures at all. I'm wondering if it's just in the coating.

I know it's probably nothing, but just to be safe, is it worth looking into? I'm just a little pissed because I've kept a lens hood on it and don't know how it got there.


----------



## Wretched

Bit late now, but a cheap UV filter is the best way to avoid front element damage. They don't impact on image quality by any discernible amount and are cheap to replace if they get ruined.


----------



## Wretched

EtherealEntity said:


> Awesome picture.
> 
> So you are lighting the car from different angles to accent every part of it and then merging them? Very cool. I had no idea this was a technique used, though I suppose looking at the photo and thinking how to achieve it it would become clear.



Yeah, the lighting was coming from different angles in each shot. often not by very much, but enough to catch the lumps and bumps in different ways.


----------



## Rook

If it's not showing up in your pictures then it's fine. With regards to filters, some absolutely can affect IQ, most notably a subtle loss in saturation or contrast and can increase flare and with cheaper filters it's not a difficult change to see but putting a good enough filter on all your lenses will cost more than having the odd front element replaced in the event of one of them getting damaged enough that it makes a difference. On basically anything longer than 24mm and non-macro, any damage to your lens will be well out of focus, you'll only see it if the light catches it from the side causing flare, but that's why you'd use a hood.

I don't want to say do use a filter or don't, that's a whole debate, but personally I'm in the 'if it was meant to have a bit of glass across the front it would have been built that way' camp, and go filterless. As it happens, all but one of my lenses are 72mm thread so I have one b+w filter because it weather seals my 50mm but my 6D is only partly weather sealed anyway.

EDIT:

LEAVES




Leaves by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Sky and Trees by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Rook, I've taken a bunch of foliage and texture shots recently. Can't wait to finally work on them and share 'em. 

With regards to front element scratches, check this shit out. 

LensRentals.com - Front Element Scratches

The moral of the story is front element scratches are usually ok. Rear element scratches will ruin your day.


----------



## Whammy

I generally don't use any filters to protect the front element. I only have it on my biggest lens because it's easier to scratch it. I just have a clear glass filter on it. It shouldn't filter any kind of light.

Lovely texture shot Rook.


It's getting very cold (-15°C) and creepy as no one is around


----------



## Philligan

Thanks guys.  I was reading around, and I'm pretty sure this is nothing. If I pop the cap off and look at the lens, I can't see anything - I only noticed it when I was getting really close to it while I was cleaning it. I think it's just like a little scuff in the coating, and who knows how long it's been on there. I had it for maybe a few days before my hood showed up, so it could have been from before then. I think I was just being paranoid.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Phone pic here, but after taking the definite scenic route and being passed from family member to family member, I was able to pick it up at my parents' place today!






I can't really say anything about the image quality as the battery is currently charging, but dat sensor! It's ....ing huge!

One thing I've already noted, however, is that I'm really going to miss the super robust construction of the 7D. I hate that I just shelled out more money for a camera that _feels_ cheaper, but I'm sure I won't care so much anymore once I get a chance to put that full-framedness to work.


----------



## Tang

That's the mirror you're seeing, no?


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Tang said:


> That's the mirror you're seeing, no?



Yeah, but even then, bigger sensor, bigger mirror. My 7D looks like a joke beside it.


----------



## Rook

JeffFromMtl said:


> Phone pic here, but after taking the definite scenic route and being passed from family member to family member, I was able to pick it up at my parents' place today!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't really say anything about the image quality as the battery is currently charging, but dat sensor! It's ....ing huge!
> 
> One thing I've already noted, however, is that I'm really going to miss the super robust construction of the 7D. I hate that I just shelled out more money for a camera that _feels_ cheaper, but I'm sure I won't care so much anymore once I get a chance to put that full-framedness to work.



Congrats!

Enjoy the weight benefits though, I can't go back to a 5DII now, no way. Give EOS Utility a try too, very very useful.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I just tried out the EOS wifi remote, it's pretty amazing what we can do with our phones these days. I've never used EOS Utility before, I'm going to look into what I can do with that.


----------



## Rook

I use the remote when I'm out with friends, they like posting all their junk on Facebook so a cool photo from me, download it to my phone and mail it. You can even load it into VSCO can if like me you shoot RAW and wanna get a quite BW conversion or tweak. Fine for Facebook...

I use EOS utility for all my videos, you can set the storage to your computer instead of the camera SD and target AF and stuff. Obviously I prefocus my MF lenses but yeah, works great!


----------



## Tang

Here's a high ISO(6400) shot from the king of APSC sensors.


----------



## Rook

Is that a onboard-processed JPEG? I know the software noise reduction on those Fujis is very good, it's predictably killing some detail but it's maintained colour really nicely and the detail noise seems to be well disguised as some kinda rough film grain.

Noice. I'm going to pretend being a bigger than usual APSC sensor helps.

ISO12800 mother lovers. Bit misleading though as it has some grain added and the black shifted slightly blue in Lightroom.




Monument by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> Is that a onboard-processed JPEG? I know the software noise reduction on those Fujis is very good, it's predictably killing some detail but it's maintained colour really nicely and the detail noise seems to be well disguised as some kinda rough film grain.
> 
> Noice. I'm going to pretend being a bigger than usual APSC sensor helps.
> 
> ISO12800 mother lovers. Bit misleading though as it has some grain added and the black shifted slightly blue in Lightroom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monument by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Rook, this was actually taken with my Pentax K5ii which is using a Sony sensor (1.5x crop) Exit was: 43mm, 1/60s, f/1.9, and iso6400 shot in RAW. I actually didn't add any luminance noise reduction in Loghtroom. The out-of-camera noise reduction doesn't look anywhere near as good whe shooting jpg. 

'dat ISO12800 doe. Jesus Christ man. 

Jesus Christ.

Edit: I heard DxO Optics new Prime Noise Reduction algorithm works serious magic on 6400 and above with the better crop sensors. I'd hope so, considering it can take up to 5 minutes to process 1 RAW file!


----------



## Fiction

Wow, that monument shot is excellent, Rook.


----------



## Rook

Ah thanks man 

Oh wow, didn't realise that was the pentax. Can I ask, tang, why did you buy an X100 and a small SLR when you could have gotten an X Pro or something and had a system camera AND with a bigger sensor in a smaller package? 

Noise performance these days is a wonderful thing. I'll dig out the raw file of that Monument picture and you can see what the state of noise was before I added grain and screwed with colour tone etc.


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> Noise performance these days is a wonderful thing.



It really is. I've used a few older digital bodies and the amount of noise at a high iso settings is crazy compared to modern equivalents.

That being said I had the original Canon 5D (MKI) and although it had A LOT of noise at 1600 I still thought it was more usable that the noise on my 5D MKII. I felt it was more reminiscent of grain on high iso film compared to the MKII. I don't know, maybe I'm crazy


----------



## Whammy

The creepy pathway to my house


----------



## ZakkB

Silence by Zack Berwick, on Flickr

My latest Photoshop experiment.


----------



## Wretched

Just thought I'd share this one with you all. It even surprised me a little. I've become used to having to reduce the red saturation that comes from gigs that offer little more than red lighting for support (and sometimes even headline) bands, but Fozzy and Buckcherry copped it pretty hard when supporting Steel Panther the other night.

This is Fozzy's Rich Ward, before processing and after. I only shoot RAW for gigs these days and I think this nicely shows the latitude available in RAW files. This is only processed in Lightroom 4. No super secret Santa Photoshop trickery or anything.


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> Just thought I'd share this one with you all. It even surprised me a little. I've become used to having to reduce the red saturation that comes from gigs that offer little more than red lighting for support (and sometimes even headline) bands, but Fozzy and Buckcherry copped it pretty hard when supporting Steel Panther the other night.
> 
> This is Fozzy's Rich Ward, before processing and after. I only shoot RAW for gigs these days and I think this nicely shows the latitude available in RAW files. This is only processed in Lightroom 4. No super secret Santa Photoshop trickery or anything.



Excellent! Did you use split toning to accomplish this?

Here's a classic Florida sunset.. lowered exposure and that's pretty much it. It's a lovely 80* F today 




IMGP0860 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

Tang said:


> Excellent! Did you use split toning to accomplish this?



No, no split toning, Tang. 

I lowered the white balance to about 3500, then headed to the Camera Calibration section at the bottom of the Develop module and altered the colour and saturation options there for the RGB range. Once it was looking OK, I went back up and altered the Luminance settings for the colours present in his face and body (in this case, Blue, Purple and Magenta), altered the exposure settings up the top, adding some Highlights and Whites and reducing Blacks (by 'reducing', I mean, adding more to the image... sounds counter-intuitive, but it was a minus figure, not a positive figure).

As with most of my images, I added 15 Contrast, 20 Clarity, Sharpening and camera lens corrections.


----------



## Winspear

Went to Scandinavia this morning, recorded a black metal record in a shed on a 4track, got frostbite etc.

Some of my favourites:



















You can see the rest here:
Flickr: tomwinspear91's Photostream

Crits please, lots to learn but I think these are some of the first photos I've taken (aside from guitars) that I'm happy with. It's been a while since I went outside - I'd forgotten the pleasure of low iso tripod-free shooting with sharpness in the hundredths of a second range


----------



## ThePhilosopher

In that first shot I'd find a way to clone the post and chain to the other side - it may not have been there, but if 'shopped well no one would know the difference and it would add more symmetry to the shot.


----------



## Winspear

ThePhilosopher said:


> In that first shot I'd find a way to clone the post and chain to the other side - it may not have been there, but if 'shopped well no one would know the difference and it would add more symmetry to the shot.



That was my favourite photo before you said that - now imagining that I think I'll hate it until edited. Good idea


----------



## ThePhilosopher

EtherealEntity said:


> That was my favourite photo before you said that - now imagining that I think I'll hate it until edited. Good idea



I do my best.

Some playing around with b&w processing and macro:














And cell phone shot:


----------



## Tang

ISO80. Should I try and clone out those palm trees?


----------



## Whammy

As it is the palm trees curve in, drawing your attention towards the center object.
Removing the palm trees would make the photo more symmetrical but highlight the wide skyline, which would seem off balance to the other half of the photo.

If you were to remove the palm trees I would then suggest cropping the skyline down a bit to redirect the attention away from the sky and towards the center object


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang, try it as a square crop.


----------



## Whammy

I've noticed that I tend to prefer my B&W photos to have a black to white ratio of around 50:50 (maybe 60:40). I don't mean solid black & solid white.
More along the line of half of the shot is under 50% grey and the other half is over 50% grey.

So I've been trying to actively take photos of this ratio which can be a little awkward.

How does everyone else prefer their B&Ws to appear regarding black to white ratios? I'm curious to know how others approach their B&W shots.

I still like shots with more blacks or even more whites. Different moods, different flavors. Something just draws me into shots with this ratio. Don't know why


----------



## Tang

Whammy, I've always done my B&W on a shot-by-shot basis.. recently though I've been on a huge Ansel Adams kick (got two of his giant 8x10 photobooks.. just beautiful stuff) so I've been trying to emulate that 'look'. I know most of his awesomeness came from large format and his aptitude in the darkroom but still I try. I usually spend twice as long processing a b&w shot than I would with color. I mostly use a LR plugin called Silver Efex Pro 2 and it's bloody brilliant, imo.

For example some recent shit.




The Lone Leaf by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP0810-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

My digital approach to B&W is completely contrived and experimental compared to my B&W approach with film, which is entirely thoughtful and carefully executed.


----------



## MrYakob

Finally got my 6D after what feels like a forever long game of run-around with Purolator... Unfortunately it's already pitch black out so I'm stuck shooting my regular old model. Man... the low light performance on this is just awesome!


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> Whammy, I've always done my B&W on a shot-by-shot basis.. recently though I've been on a huge Ansel Adams kick (got two of his giant 8x10 photobooks.. just beautiful stuff) so I've been trying to emulate that 'look'. I know most of his awesomeness came from large format and his aptitude in the darkroom but still I try. I usually spend twice as long processing a b&w shot than I would with color. I mostly use a LR plugin called Silver Efex Pro 2 and it's bloody brilliant, imo.



Not to mention Ansel Adams was part of a group call F/64  His love for huge depth of fields and sharpness is another contributor to his photo style 

I adore his photos 

For B&W one of my favorites is August Sander.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

To add to our collection of pet photos, here's my neighbour's skeptical dog in 16x9. I should get more pictures of my pooch on here as well.


----------



## Rook

My black and white tends to be more on the mostly-black side, and I like thick blacks and big contrast. I always push the whites up, I don't like B&W that lacks punch much, it's difficult to lose direction I think.




That Way by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Coloured Lights by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Twisting Squares by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## soliloquy

i'm still trying to get used to the k5. though an amazing camera, it so different from my k-x. my k-x, i found a bit more user friendly in the sense that any/every mode i selected allowed me to change the ISO on it to whoever i liked. same goes for the exposure. with the k5, it seems on modes such as auto, flash, another mode i'm forgetting, there is no possible way to control your ISO. i normally dont go higher than 1000 ISO (usually stay between 200-800ish). but with the k5, if i go in the auto mode, the ISO usually stays higher than 1000. it lingers between 1000-3200 or so. sure, the k5 can handle it, but its irritating that i dont have control over it. 

same goes for the shutter speed. on the k-x, in its auto mode, it allowed me to change the shutter as well. it seems on the k5, i have a mode for shutter specifically. another for the aperture, another for exposure, another for ISO etc...

the k-x really got me spoiled. must re-learn....must-relearn....


----------



## Tang

soliloquy said:


> i'm still trying to get used to the k5. though an amazing camera, it so different from my k-x. my k-x, i found a bit more user friendly in the sense that any/every mode i selected allowed me to change the ISO on it to whoever i liked. same goes for the exposure. with the k5, it seems on modes such as auto, flash, another mode i'm forgetting, there is no possible way to control your ISO. i normally dont go higher than 1000 ISO (usually stay between 200-800ish). but with the k5, if i go in the auto mode, the ISO usually stays higher than 1000. it lingers between 1000-3200 or so. sure, the k5 can handle it, but its irritating that i dont have control over it.
> 
> same goes for the shutter speed. on the k-x, in its auto mode, it allowed me to change the shutter as well. it seems on the k5, i have a mode for shutter specifically. another for the aperture, another for exposure, another for ISO etc...
> 
> the k-x really got me spoiled. must re-learn....must-relearn....



Just tested it out and it appears auto on the k5 is completely auto. If I were you, I'd start using Av (aperture priority) or P mode. In P mode the camera will automatically select the aperture and shutter speed based on your current ISO unless you need to change a setting which would involve turning whichever setting you need to adjust. 

I use aperture priority almost 90% of the time. I have it set up do the back dial controls the aperture and the front dial controls ISO. More often than not these settings will get me through a whole day of shooting. Occasionally I'll use exposure comp but not often enough to map it to a control wheel. 

Let me know if you have any questions about the k5!


----------



## Winspear

^ Going to start using AP  I always used manual up until now because typically I've been using a tripod and taking a while to set up in poor light etc. but after having so much fun yesterday without a tripod I think more walkaround in AP ISO100 is in order!


----------



## Rook

Noooooo stay in manual. If you're not hurrying manual is better for getting a feel for exposures, controlling depth of field at the same time as trading off shutter speed for ISO as you need to, keeping an eye on your ISO to make sure it isn't going too high, making sure your shutter speed isn't just fast enough to stop motion blur but also to freeze any motion if you need to and so on.

I shoot full manual these days and while I'm of the opinion that you should do whatever you have to to get the shot when that's what you need to do, when you have time using manual settings means you're constantly learning without even thinking. You also get very consistent lighting in Manual if you're shooting, say, and event when the light isn't constantly changing. An indoor wedding for example. You can see looking at my Flickr a lot of that is aperture priority, that's mostly because I've been learning my lenses more recently and have made the switch to some MF stuff, I'm back in manual now so we'll see how my hit rate changes...

If you gotta get paid, anything's fair game as far as I'm concerned; if I were working I'd use zooms, auto focus, I'd crop pictures if I needed to, whatever, when I'm just faffing about though which is most of the time the more processes you get your hands on the more you learn IMO.


----------



## Tang

Rook, my favorite part thing about using manual is always having the light-meter visible. After a while those numbers just start making absolutely sense and you know how much to change shutter speed and aperture to get the exposure you want. Once I figured out that a stop of light is a stop no matter which settings you adjust everything came together. 

While I almost always prefer Av, I recommend everyone learn how to shoot in manual. It's a great way to really get to know your camera. 

Bonus: shooting old lenses with aperture rings in manual.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Here's two shots I've heavily edited (obviously). I was playing around with the curves, and got to a point that I didn't want to go back from. It's probably too much for some people's tastes.


----------



## Wretched

A few pics from a shoot I did several months ago but can only post now it has been published...

Amazing FB Holden sedan with all late-model running gear and total show car quality build... just phenomenal.


----------



## Tang

You're killing me, Wretched. 

In the best way possible, of course. 

Here's a super sharp tree thing. Got a lot of looks trying to get this shot.. I'm thinking about doing a b&w conversation on this one.


----------



## Wretched

Thanks Tang. I can see you're loving your new rig, too. Seeing improvements every time you post.

Candy red paint is notoriously difficult to get colour out of, without putting it in direct sunlight (which I didn't want to do). So, the best way is to pump flash into it, which I did in the first and third images. To avoid ugly hot spots from the bare flashes, I used a polarising filter on the lens, which either removed the highlight altogether, or made it small enough to remove easily in PS.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Joe Harvatt said:


> Here's two shots I've heavily edited (obviously). I was playing around with the curves, and got to a point that I didn't want to go back from. It's probably too much for some people's tastes.



Clean your sensor or find the heal tool.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

The low light performance with full frame is actually ridiculous. This is from a poetry reading my friend did at a bar last night. My 7D wouldn't have been anywhere near capable of getting anything usable in these conditions.


----------



## Whammy

Joe Harvatt said:


> Here's two shots I've heavily edited (obviously). I was playing around with the curves, and got to a point that I didn't want to go back from. It's probably too much for some people's tastes.



I like the processing  But as ThePhilosopher mentioned your camera sensor has some dust on it. The small translucent dark spots visible in the skyline is dust on the sensor.
It's no big deal, easily fixed.
I'm sure my sensor needs cleaning too. Just haven't been arsed 




Tang said:


> Here's a super sharp tree thing. Got a lot of looks trying to get this shot.. I'm thinking about doing a b&w conversation on this one.



B&W could be cool  So would some vignetting 

-----------------------

I'm still on a B&W buzz


----------



## Winspear

When I get to a location I usually, on manual, chuck ISO to 100 and see if it's going to be useable. If it's not, I find the lowest that it is. After that, seems all I do is set the aperture where I want it for the shot and then set the shutter speed to get the exposure bang in the middle. The way I'm thinking is, I may as well go into a manual because the shutter speed will adjust for me as I change the aperture - but aside from that I can't really see what difference it would make? Of course if I was doing anything specific with shutter speeds etc I'd still go into manual but I can't see a downside to manual if all it's doing is saving me the shutter speed step. Granted that does only take a second, haha. 
Unless I'm making a mistake - should I not be trying to get the exposure meter in the middle every time? Granted, sometimes it's not quite the look I want but I figured I was meant to turn it up or down on the RAW edit instead haha - presumed it would be better or something


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Whammy said:


> I like the processing  But as ThePhilosopher mentioned your camera sensor has some dust on it. The small translucent dark spots visible in the skyline is dust on the sensor.
> It's no big deal, easily fixed.
> I'm sure my sensor needs cleaning too. Just haven't been arsed



Yeah, it definitely does. But I also thought "f*ck it".


----------



## Rook

EtherealEntity said:


> When I get to a location I usually, on manual, chuck ISO to 100 and see if it's going to be useable. If it's not, I find the lowest that it is. After that, seems all I do is set the aperture where I want it for the shot and then set the shutter speed to get the exposure bang in the middle. The way I'm thinking is, I may as well go into a manual because the shutter speed will adjust for me as I change the aperture - but aside from that I can't really see what difference it would make? Of course if I was doing anything specific with shutter speeds etc I'd still go into manual but I can't see a downside to manual if all it's doing is saving me the shutter speed step. Granted that does only take a second, haha.
> Unless I'm making a mistake - should I not be trying to get the exposure meter in the middle every time? Granted, sometimes it's not quite the look I want but I figured I was meant to turn it up or down on the RAW edit instead haha - presumed it would be better or something



Yeah there are a few points I'd raise here.

First, if you're out on location and the light isn't changing you don't want your camera upping and lowering exposure as it sees fit, you'll end up with a series of photos from the day that are all different exposures depending on how you're camera's metering and personally I like the consistency of the same (or close enough) exposure on a series of shots.

On my camera I've gone into the menu to custom settings and flipped the shutter and aperture controls round on manual so that aperture is on your right index finger as it would be in Av and shutter is on the dial at the back in place of exposure comp. The reason why I think it's better to have shutter speed on your thumb, even though it's acting very similarly to exposure comp, is because you might go for a shot, see that you're metering a little bit dark but slowing your shutter speed won't freeze the subject - an animal or something that's actually moving say, or wind blowing trees and or your hand - you can then in two flicks consciously guarantee your shutter's going to be fast enough and not then let your camera faff about with ISO or something and degrade your IQ.

Second point, my 6D tends to meter a little on the bright side for my taste. It doesn't seem to matter what metering method I use you end up with these attack-of-the-colour, dead highlight, undynamically lit pictures. I usually find my self exposing between 2/3 stop and 2 stops darker than the camera thinks. Changing exposure in post is one of the fastest way to degrade IQ and kill of all the softness you get from shooting sub 400 ISO's.

My experience of Av tends to mean the camera is bumping ISO beyond where I want it for a shot, if I fix ISO I find I'm trying to change that before shooting which I personally find a little more fiddly and it means you can quickly lose sight of where you're shutter speed is going and to top all of that, shutter speed to me is crucial, because the most perfectly exposed, composed photograph will instantly be destroyed by too slow a shutter and there's no coming back from that. 

Usually, shooting manual, when I first put on the lens I set my shutter to about a stop to 5/3 stop faster than the focal length minimum (you know people say >1/50 for a 50mm, >1/85 for an 85mm etc to prevent camera shake) and meter for an area similar to what I'm going to be shooting usually about about f/2.8 (somewhere in the middle of the f-stops you think you'll use) to find your safe minimum aperture. This is easy if you're just wandering outside for example, even easier in a studio, just be aware of changing light. When you then go for the shot check you're meter, as I say I'm usually safe about 2/3 a stop dark, set your DoF and because aperture and shutter speed both work in 1/3 notches, just click you're shutter as many times the opposite way to what you did your aperture. I usually do this while focusing as it's time you have to spend anyway.

One benefit I have had from shooting manual is that the number of photos blurred by motion has gone from being around a third to flat zero. Aside from that, I now know what 'a stop of light' looks like, and the kind of shutter speeds I need to freeze certain movements and so on. A better understanding.


----------



## Winspear

Thanks for the bucket of knowledge


----------



## Tang

EtherealEntity said:


> Thanks for the bucket of knowledge



Rook is out of control 

If I shot more people I'd worry about shutter speed more, but honestly I can comfortably shoot 1/5s with my 31mm 1.9 because of the 4 stops of image stabilization I get in-body. I wouldn't dare try those shutter speeds on a different body without an IS lens.

Some color shots for my friends.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> Rook is out of control
> 
> If I shot more people I'd worry about shutter speed more, but honestly I can comfortably shoot 1/5s with my 31mm 1.9 because of the 4 stops of image stabilization I get in-body. I wouldn't dare try those shutter speeds on a different body without an IS lens.



I'm really digging reading about all the B&W - I still know next to nothing about post-processing so this is giving me a lot to think about. 

And I really need to second what Nick said about shooting manual. I do all manual now, and really started after using my AE-1 - it slowed me way down, but it made it way more relaxing and I thought more about every shot. In manual, my T3 starts to meter in the viewfinder, so I can use it the same way I'd use the AE-1.

I didn't like using manual when I was worried about getting the shot (especially because my POS T3 makes you go into the menu to change the ISO haha), but I started using manual with auto ISO, and it's the best of all the worlds.

Even in aperture priority, if it was dark, sometimes the camera would pick a longer shutter speed and I'd get a blurry shot. I'd rather have a noisy, underexposed shot than a blurry one. So if I'm shooting in the dark (like I did at the parade last weekend), I set the maximum aperture, and like Nick said, the maximum shutter speed I can get away with, and let the camera handle the ISO - this really came in handy at the parade, because some of the lights on the floats got pretty bright, so the lighting was changing like crazy from shot to shot. 









Aperture priority was basically becoming another Auto for me. I'd set the aperture for whatever DoF I wanted (or depending on the lighting) and just basically take pictures and forget about it. But with manual, you start thinking about your shutter speed too, and whether you'd want to capture movement or not. Manual FTW.

Also, definitely no 6D for me now.  I got engaged the other day.  And rings are expensive as hell haha.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Whammy said:


>



Love this one.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Well since I did it last year, I'm going to make it a thing. My second annual 16x9 winter self-p.


----------



## Rook

EVERYBODY SELFIE GOGOGO

And congrats Phil!


----------



## Tang

I will selfie as soon as I get home and setup the tripod


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Shit, I missed the part about the engagement, Phil! Congrats!


----------



## Khoi

I came across this photographer on Reddit, she's absolutely incredible

I don't even know how she gets these effects..

You have to check out the gallery, this is the only one I could embed

500px / Elena Shumilova / Photos


----------



## Rook

Some of those look like Brenizer panoramas, and some have an awful lot of post work done.

They aren't for me, but I like when photographers have a style. 

I recommend anyone who hasn't give the Brenizer method a try do so, I've been doing it a lot lately but haven't managed to do one that actually comes out as a good image haha. Careful though, they frequently go in excess of 200Mpx hahaha.


----------



## Khoi

I had no idea such a thing existed. I know what I'll be playing with for a bit!


----------



## Tang

There were some awesome shadows at work today and of course I didn't have my camera with me so iPhone it was with a heavy dose of Instagramishness. 

I call this one Pacman Growing from the Earth.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Speaking of great photographers we've come across lately, yesterday I ordered a print of this photo from Chris McKenney.


----------



## Philligan

Thanks guys! 

Count me in for a selfie.  I've got a potentially cool idea for one, I'll try it when I have some spare time this weekend. Gotta put that new tripod to good use haha.

Also, if all goes well I should be picking up a Yashica Electro 35 tomorrow.


----------



## Whammy

Winter self portrait coming up


----------



## senate

What's everyones thoughts on the Fuji X100S? I've been looking at getting a camera of my own as these and previous photos have been taken on a Nikon something, belonging to another band memebers girl friend. Would it be alright a "starter" camera? 

More band nonsense photos;


----------



## Khoi

Just ordered a Canon 135mm f/2. If you guys remembered, I rented one several months ago. Such an incredible lens. I'm very happy to be the owner of one now! 

Got a pretty killer deal on it too, $760 used from Lens Authority (sister website to LensRentals.com). They aren't even that cheap on eBay!

But this means I'll probably be selling my Sigma 50mm 1.4. I realized that I never use it, and whenever I do, I'm pretty disappointed in the quality. It's just way to soft for my tastes.


----------



## Tang

Senate: I love the x100s, but it's definitely not for everyone. You have to ask yourself if you're ok being stuck at 35mm for all time. What focal lengths do you use the most on that Nikon?

EDIT: tried something new processing wise.. very desaturated and I upped the clarity.




IMGP1165-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## senate

Tang said:


> Senate: I love the x100s, but it's definitely not for everyone. You have to ask yourself if you're ok being stuck at 35mm for all time. What focal lengths do you use the most on that Nikon?



I'm not even sure what model of Nikon the camera is haha it just gets brought along from time to time and I'll pick it up 

What I meant to ask was, what's the X100S like as a beginner camera?


----------



## Tang

senate said:


> I'm not even sure what model of Nikon the camera is haha it just gets brought along from time to time and I'll pick it up
> 
> What I meant to ask was, what's the X100S like as a beginner camera?



Honestly? I wouldn't recommend it for a beginner. It has a lot going on and I don't think it'd be friendly to a newbie. You budget sounds pretty good if you're looking into the x100s so I can probably recommend picking up a Nikon DSLR. You could pick up a d7100 for close to that price and you'd be familiar with the layout and could borrow lens from your friend if need be.

I'm sure others here will chime in soon on recommendations, but I'm sure everyone will agree that the x100s is not for the faint of heart.


----------



## Whammy

I briefly used the X100S. I liked the hands on shutter speed & aperture controls. Just like using a film rangefinder which was very nice.

I would imagine having the controls located as they are would be very beneficial when learning. No going into menus or looking at small screens to see what your setting are.

I haven't used it extensively so I can't comment on it's other features, like performance, menu navigation etc.

However the lack of being able to change the lens could be very limiting down the line if you feel like expanding your options.
For that reason alone I wouldn't recommend this camera for a beginner.

------

Some more photos I took today


----------



## capoeiraesp

Khoi said:


> Just ordered a Canon 135mm f/2. If you guys remembered, I rented one several months ago. Such an incredible lens. I'm very happy to be the owner of one now!
> 
> Got a pretty killer deal on it too, $760 used from Lens Authority (sister website to LensRentals.com). They aren't even that cheap on eBay!
> 
> But this means I'll probably be selling my Sigma 50mm 1.4. I realized that I never use it, and whenever I do, I'm pretty disappointed in the quality. It's just way to soft for my tastes.



Oh man! Best decision you'll make this year. I LOVE mine. It's such s killer portrait lens too. I was shooting for my school's athletics meet yesterday and got so many of the best shots I've ever done. The subject isolation is just incredible at F2 and even at F4 the depth of field is just as stunning. 

If yore selling the Sigma, go try the 35mm 1.4. That's my other lens and rocks my jocks pretty hard.


----------



## capoeiraesp

I had an X100 for a while. I loved the 35mm focal length and it was really sharp. It taught me a lot about manual control and definitely felt/worked like a traditional film camera in that regard since apeture and shutter speed are so immediately workable. 
Ultimately I found the controls on the x100 too cramped and worked against spontaneous shots. The selection of AF point was always a pain. I also didn't like how slow the startup time was and wake from hibernation. 
That said, this is the x100 and a lot of these issues have been rectified in the x100s. 
I'd say it'd be a big step up for a newbie.


----------



## Tang

Capo: a lot of the problems with the original x100 (sllllloowww AF, slow startup) was fixed in a recent firmware update. It's incredible seeing a company still supporting outdated (for a camera) technology.

Guess who's getting into portraits?  A local hair/beauty shop wants me to shoot all of their models on a month by month basis and I'll be getting paid! I'll be renting the Pentax 77mm f/1.8 until I make enough to purchase it flat out. I'm assumin the 115mm f/2.7'ish (35mm equiv) will be perfect for shoulder shots. I'd consider a 50 1.4 but since the focus in on the models hair and makeup a longer focal length is appropriate.


----------



## Philligan

Late to the party but here we go! Self portraits #2 and #3. For #1 the motion light went out and I got a picture of me looking up in the dark. 

I'm not too thrilled with these, but it's cold out (somewhere around -20) and I'm waiting for pizza to show up.  In hindsight, since I have a fairly interesting back ground, I'd probably go with a narrower aperture (aka not wide open haha) so focusing wasn't such a pain. I framed the shot, used live view to change the focal point, focused on a garbage bin, then used the 10s self-timer to run over, throw the bin away, and stand where I thought it was.  As it is, I wish my head wasn't trimmed, and I was more in focus, but they have kind of a cool, grimy film look going on. I'm okay with them, and it's a start at least. 

Also, I took one with my AE-1 and some ISO 400 B&W - I'm really stoked to get this roll developed.  I'm gonna bring two or three rolls and the AE-1 with me to Ireland, too. I'm figuring I'll shoot the T3 (40/2.8 during the day, 50/1.4 when it starts to get dark) and I'll take just the AE-1 out for one of the days.


----------



## Rook

I'll submit my selfie tomorrow when I'm home during daylight haha.

Congrats on the 135! Mine was great, very very fast focus, you could shoot a head shot at f8 and you'd still get blurry background haha. I traded mine for my Zeiss 85, which I'm glad i did, it's a much more artful lens, everything I shoot with the 85 just makes me weep.

And on that note, Tang, go 85mm, it's THE portrait lens. Forget field of view, if you have to am take a step back so be it, 85mm is such a natural, flattering focal length, I would dream of shooting faces with anything else. Shorter noses start to grow, longer your face starts to look like the back of a bus. Admittedly the latter is preferable, but yeah. Don't risk it, just go 85 and cry with joy.

I just need a 35 1.4 and I'm done for a while. Can't help but want to go Zeiss, I've become a Zeiss fag. I have a Zeiss vice but the price makes me think twice.


----------



## Philligan

I just figured out how to set my T3 to back button AF and do off-menu ISO adjustments. 

Hopefully the new camera feeling lasts a while.


----------



## Tang

Rook, 85 on full frame? The closest prime I can get to that FL (and I've become addicted to primes only) is the 50 1.4. I might just pick up the 50 and the 77. The I wanted the 77 because it has the best rendering of all Pentax primes, bar none. 

P.s. I just spent the last hour with my intervalometer and had some good times. Self portraits are way more fun than I could've ever imagined.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Who do I blame for wanting a 6D and that 85mm zeiss?


----------



## Tang

capoeiraesp said:


> Who do I blame for wanting a 6D and that 85mm zeiss?



Zeiss teases an 85mm F/1.4 Otus Lens Coming in 2014 | Popular Photography | Popular Photography

Poor Rook won't know what hit him!


----------



## Khoi

ugh so much want for the 85mm..


----------



## Whammy

The 85mm is a prefect portrait lens.
I have the Canon 85mm f/1.2 II. It was the only lens that I splashed out a lot of money on. I considered it an investment.

The focal length is great for portraits. It allows you to fill the frame with the model without standing uncomfortably close or too far away from them.

But with that being said I have no issues getting a very similar look from my 55mm f/1.2. I just need to stand a bit closer 

Here are some old photos taken with my 85mm


----------



## Khoi

Yeah, it was either get a 135mm now, or an 85mm... eventually. It was hard to justify the 85mm with it being literally twice the price of the 135mm. I know they aren't directly comparable, but I feel like the 135mm is just too good to pass up for the price. It's also gonna teach me to be more creative with the tightness of the 135mm instead of always relying on a zoom lens.

I do know that I'd love the hell out of an 85mm though........ ah camera GAS is worse than guitar GAS!


(actually, I don't know about that one)


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Whammy, I remember a couple of those from earlier in the thread. So awesome.

------

I was able to catch the tail end of my friend's instalment at an art exhibit tonight despite finishing work at midnight. I got a couple shots of her interacting with some of her pieces:

She did a stop-motion film that she had looping and projected on to a wall, so I wanted to try taking a shot with her in front of the screen.







And here is a sculpture she made of a dead and decomposing wolf with its guts out.


----------



## Rook

It's not just about the bokeh, it's about the PERSPECTIVE haha. The fact that an 85 has a field of view of about a 130mm on crop doesn't mean that a 50is a crop equivalent because the perspective of that 50 will be the same as on a full frame (or any other sensor size) and make with ze big nozez. 85 on crop is tighter but just as flattering, it's the most neutral perspective.

Whammy, I said the same as you when I got my 135, I didn't really want manual focus at the time and the quality of the lens itself, dat bokeh... It all seemed too good to be true but it wasn't it was genuinely an astounding lens. Nice, tight minimum focus distance too which is great for photographing 'stuff', flowers and the like particularly.

Sadly the price of those Otus lenses is a massive buzzkill. I don't know where they got $4,000 from, the zeiss dealers here are asking £3300, and completely .... that.


----------



## Whammy

JeffFromMtl said:


> Whammy, I remember a couple of those from earlier in the thread. So awesome.
> 
> ------
> 
> I was able to catch the tail end of my friend's instalment at an art exhibit tonight despite finishing work at midnight. I got a couple shots of her interacting with some of her pieces:
> 
> She did a stop-motion film that she had looping and projected on to a wall, so I wanted to try taking a shot with her in front of the screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is a sculpture she made of a dead and decomposing wolf with its guts out.




Cheers man 

The framing of the first shot is great, along with the lighting 
Are you shooting film?


----------



## capoeiraesp

Don't let anyone instill any doubt in your mind about the 135, it slays!

Serious question. Outside of a high quality lens and camera, how else do you improve the initial sharpness and detail of a shot?


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> Whammy, I said the same as you when I got my 135, I didn't really want manual focus at the time and the quality of the lens itself, dat bokeh... It all seemed too good to be true but it wasn't it was genuinely an astounding lens. Nice, tight minimum focus distance too which is great for photographing 'stuff', flowers and the like particularly.



Funny you mention about minimum focus distance. I'm normally happy with the minimum focus distance but sometimes I feel it's not close enough. So I end up detaching the lens from the body and hovering the lens around 1cm away from where I would mount it. It's like having the lens on a bellows but without the bellows 
I use that technique for a lot of flower shots with my 55mm & 40mm. It's the only way I can get macro style shots without a macro lens. Having a manual focus lens really helps for this.


----------



## Khoi

capoeiraesp said:


> Don't let anyone instill any doubt in your mind about the 135, it slays!
> 
> Serious question. Outside of a high quality lens and camera, how else do you improve the initial sharpness and detail of a shot?



You're in luck, because I just came across this video last night that explains exactly that!

I typically use Photoshop and just use an Unsharpen Mask or use the Sharpening in ACR, but I think this video has a better method. This method is usually better for highlighting specific spots you want sharper i.e. the eyes.

Start at 3:22 where he gets to adding more contrast and sharpness to the shot.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Whammy said:


> Cheers man
> 
> The framing of the first shot is great, along with the lighting
> Are you shooting film?



Thanks, man!

Aside from the Lomo stuff I posted a little while ago, I've only been shooting digital. I'm a sucker for oldschool film vibes, though. I have a couple of presets in lightroom that I use, and most of my edits are based on those.


----------



## Tang

capoeiraesp said:


> Don't let anyone instill any doubt in your mind about the 135, it slays!
> 
> Serious question. Outside of a high quality lens and camera, how else do you improve the initial sharpness and detail of a shot?



Low ISO, quick enough shutter speed, and stopping down to your lens sweet spot (usually 2 stops from wide open) is what I've always done to get max sharpness. A good tripod will always help. 

I like how the light and shadows play in this shot.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

It's -30 degrees here today and my dog just wants to stay warm and snooze. I should be studying for finals, but instead I took a few of her, and decided to work on my B&W processing. I've struggled finding my groove with B&W, but I think I'm getting the handle on it. I'm really happy with how this turned out. Also worth noting: this was shot at ISO 12,800. God, I love full frame.


----------



## Tang

It's on. I'm gonna high ISO tonight and see how it compares to you full-frame chaps.


----------



## Rook

capoeiraesp said:


> Who do I blame for wanting a 6D and that 85mm zeiss?



Is there a shifty eyes smiley? Haha!


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> Is there a shifty eyes smiley? Haha!


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> It's on. I'm gonna high ISO tonight and see how it compares to you full-frame chaps.



I'm already in, that's every shot with my T3. 

I drove across town after work tonight to buy this for $10 off some girl on Kijiji.





It's normally about 15 minutes each way, and took me almost an hour and a half tonight, because we're in the middle of a ridiculous blizzard (it's been going all day, and is supposed to carry on through to tomorrow night). And I'm starting to wonder if my Focus doesn't have snow tires.  (or tyres for you Brits)

Anyway, an hour and a half for a $10 third party shutter release is stupid, so I bought this to make the trip more productive. It's my first Irish whiskey. I really dig it so far - not as smooth as scotch straight, but it mixes better than rye or bourbon.

Colour or B&W?


----------



## metal_sam14

I like the B&W version, also Jameson is glorious  I either drink straight or mix with a good quality ginger beer, tastes wonderful.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> I'm already in, that's every shot with my T3.
> 
> I drove across town after work tonight to buy this for $10 off some girl on Kijiji.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's normally about 15 minutes each way, and took me almost an hour and a half tonight, because we're in the middle of a ridiculous blizzard (it's been going all day, and is supposed to carry on through to tomorrow night). And I'm starting to wonder if my Focus doesn't have snow tires.  (or tyres for you Brits)
> 
> Anyway, an hour and a half for a $10 third party shutter release is stupid, so I bought this to make the trip more productive. It's my first Irish whiskey. I really dig it so far - not as smooth as scotch straight, but it mixes better than rye or bourbon.
> 
> Colour or B&W?



Color. The green in the bottle and the caramelly color of the Jameson is a nice contrast.

Speaking of contrast..




IMGP1143-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## MrYakob

Today was the first day that I've had the chance to use my new 6D while there was daylight, unfortunately it was also -30C today so I was still stuck shooting indoors.

I've totally fallen in love with my 85 1.8 on full frame, I was really close to selling it because I could never get along with it on my t4i but I'm really happy with the results I'm getting so far. 

It's also extremely refreshing not to have any compatible zoom lenses and just working with primes.


----------



## Tang

MrYakob said:


> Today was the first day that I've had the chance to use my new 6D while there was daylight, unfortunately it was also -30C today so I was still stuck shooting indoors.
> 
> I've totally fallen in love with my 85 1.8 on full frame, I was really close to selling it because I could never get along with it on my t4i but I'm really happy with the results I'm getting so far.
> 
> It's also extremely refreshing not to have any compatible zoom lenses and just working with primes.



Primes only is pretty liberating, isn't it? While I love my 2.8 zooms to death there's something special about a one body, one focal length setup.


----------



## Whammy

metal_sam14 said:


> I like the B&W version, also Jameson is glorious  I either drink straight or mix with a good quality ginger beer, tastes wonderful.



I normally just drink it with ice. Never tried it with ginger beer. Sounds good  Must try that


----------



## feilong29

Some samples from a party I took photos of


----------



## capoeiraesp

Shot a friend's grading today.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Decided to screw around with my post-processing. Unfortunately, I took this shot JUST before I started shooting RAW, so I don't have that file to screw around with. Can't remember if I took this shot with my 50 or my 85... Probably my 50.


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> It's my first Irish whiskey. I really dig it so far - not as smooth as scotch straight, but it mixes better than rye or bourbon.
> 
> Colour or B&W?



I really like Jameson. I am Irish though 
I prefer the color but I think the B&W could outshine the color version if processed differently.

Normally when I process my B&W shots I do more than just pull the color out. I'll process everything differently compared to how I would if it was color. The contrast, curves, highlights, shadows etc.
I'll even use a "Black & White Mix" (it's in lightroom, don't know about other programs) which allows you to lighten or darken colors which affects the shade of grey in the B&W image.
It gives the vibe of using color filters on B&W film. Like using a yellow filter to make skin tones appear brighter or in the case of the Jameson photo it would make the walls and label whiter making the bottle pop out more 




JeffFromMtl said:


> It's -30 degrees here today and my dog just wants to stay warm and snooze. I should be studying for finals, but instead I took a few of her, and decided to work on my B&W processing. I've struggled finding my groove with B&W, but I think I'm getting the handle on it. I'm really happy with how this turned out. Also worth noting: this was shot at ISO 12,800. God, I love full frame.



-30 feck that's cold. The lowest it got here so far is -20 and the dogs still want to go out and play 

B&W is looking good. So's the grain 


Took a photo of a friends dog for her. The dog has very intense eyes so I tried to capture that.


----------



## kaffefilter

Shot of Stockholm from last summer.
This picture at flickr
Portfolio


----------



## Whammy

I've still yet to go to Stockholm. Lovely photo.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Hmm. A7 body with a zeiss m-mount prime or 6D & the 35 f/2 IS. A7 is in the front of my mind because the form factor reminds me of my 35mm SLR. IQ has been awesome in what I've seen so far. 6D has way more lenses available, but it's a DSLR. Can probably get both for the same price, I think. Rook?


----------



## Rook

A few points to consider:
- Canon 6D's bigger body also crams in more features, not to mention battery life. Video quality also excellent.
- The A7 is essentially a Nikon sensor, dunno how you feel about Nikon vs Canon 'look'
- 6D's faster but neither is 'fast'
-6D has a proper AF system, the A7 I tried had sketchy focus at best, kept focusing on the background. I'm sure Sony will resolve it but the SLR's are infinitely more reliable, be it a 6D or D610 or whatever.
- It's ALL about the glass. Buy whichever will allow you get the best lenses on the front. There would seem to be more options with Canon, including proper Zeiss lenses. The original Zeiss designs oddly don't actually come in Sony E mount and the Sony 'Zeiss' lenses are not Zeiss. Zeiss Zeiss, granted, are made by Cosina in japan (who make Voightländer) but the designs are 100% Zeiss. The 6D also gives you access to things like the 70-200 f2.8's and the 85 and 50 1.2's, some of the finest modern lenses on the market.
- A7 is smaller. Much much smaller. Still needs big lenses because of the big sensor, but smaller flange distance means they have to potential to be smaller. A 1.4 35mm or longer will still be big though, not Fujinon size. Don't forget a small body also means worse balance, you'll basically be holding the lens.
- Pricewise, the A7 is very slightly cheaper than the 6D.
- For work use I wouldn't dream of showing up with an A7, battery life, focus reliability and lens selection make the 6D a clear winner.
- Durabilitywise, the A7 is fully weather sealed and the 6D only 'partially' weather sealed. I've used my 6D in torrential rain and it's find, I did keep it covered as often as I could though. This only works if your lens is weather sealed of course. I have to say, try dropping both with a fast full frame lens on and see which survives, I'm pretty sure my Zeiss 85 would crush the A7, sadly I've dropped my 6D a number of times and there's not a mark on it. I don't recommend trying that out though...

I'd have a strong SLR first before going mirrorless, personally, and I'd want the mirrorless to be significantly more practical than my SLR to spend the money. The 35 f2 currently available for the A7 isn't particularly small and Leica (and M mount Zeiss) tend to be very expensive for even slower lenses...

What do you need? Practicality? Features? A particular lens mount? Video?


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Rook said:


> What do you need? Practicality? Features? A particular lens mount? Video?




-Practicality, I'd be using this for taking introspective pictures of inanimate objects and whoring lightroom for purely self indulgent purposes, and staged portraiture/mild event work.


-Features: Full frame sensor, and all that implies. (true FOV, high-iso response, DOF)

-Lens Mount: I have a canon 50 1.4 and 40 2.8, I do like the idea of having lenses worth something more places than the internet like the L stuff. I'm a stones throw from NYC/ all of the brick & mortar stores there.

Video- nothing more than messing around on a few licks for personal use, so not really a factor.


Really the only thing the A7 has for me is the mirrorlessness, but I do agree with you. A great DSLR wins out on a not-bad mirrorless camera for me right now, at least until the market matures.


----------



## Philligan

Whammy said:


> I really like Jameson. I am Irish though
> I prefer the color but I think the B&W could outshine the color version if processed differently.
> 
> Normally when I process my B&W shots I do more than just pull the color out. I'll process everything differently compared to how I would if it was color. The contrast, curves, highlights, shadows etc.
> I'll even use a "Black & White Mix" (it's in lightroom, don't know about other programs) which allows you to lighten or darken colors which affects the shade of grey in the B&W image.
> It gives the vibe of using color filters on B&W film. Like using a yellow filter to make skin tones appear brighter or in the case of the Jameson photo it would make the walls and label whiter making the bottle pop out more



Awesome, thanks a lot man.  I'm using Lightroom as of a couple months ago. For the most part I do minimal processing (white balance, then basically messing with shadows and highlights and sometimes a bit of sharpening). I've played with a B&W Mix early on, but found it a bit intimidating so I've stayed away from it. I still really need to delve into LR and get more involved, so I'll give that a try.

I really need to learn to get into presets, too, so my photos have some consistency.


----------



## Philligan

I did a quick B&W re-edit. It's really bugging me how it's not quite focused (damn you, T3), so the B&W really helps. I played with the colours in the B&W mix and used the orange and yellow to get some pop (and hopefully a bit of that parchment feel), sharpened it up a bit, then added some grit.


----------



## Tang

Much, much better Phil. I prefer that b&w to the color version.


----------



## Philligan

Awesome, thanks.  I'm starting to get a feel for taking shots, but post is still almost entirely new to me.


----------



## Wretched

Just a few shots from the Steel Panther gig at the Hordern Pavilion in Sydney a couple weeks ago. Hilarious! Supported by Fozzy and Buckcherry.



























You can see all 41 shots here: Steel Panther @ Hordern Pavilion, Sydney - Dec 7, 2013 - a set on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Much better Phil 
Careful not to push the B&W mixer too much or you'll start to see weird artifacts being introduced. I've gone over board with it a few times 

---------------

I though some of you may find this interesting or useful.
I was routing through my stuff and came across an old catalog for Olympus lenses. Think it's from the 70's.

Anyways at the back of the catalog they put in a "Change of background by angle of view" section.
It shows a load of different lenses used but every photo was taken at a different distance so the subject is the same size in every photo without cropping.






They have another section where the photographer stays still but goes through lenses 8mm through 1000mm. I can stick that one up too if anyone's interested.


----------



## Philligan

^There's a good one in my AE-1 manual that goes through I think around thirty of the FD lenses. I just came home from Windsor last night, and it's in Windsor, but I'll hunt around for it online.


----------



## Whammy

^
That'd be cool to see if you could dig it up 
Thinking of doing something similar with my own lenses and keep them all at the same fastest F stop. Should be a fun project.


A photo I took yesterday. Who likes bokeh?


----------



## flint757

Whammy said:


> They have another section where the photographer stays still but goes through lenses 8mm through 1000mm. I can stick that one up too if anyone's interested.



Go for it.


----------



## xfilth

^smooth as butter! F1.2?


----------



## Whammy

xfilth said:


> ^smooth as butter! F1.2?



Yeap it's a 1.2 alright


----------



## Tang

Edited to reedit.


----------



## Whammy

Here are the other examples from the same catalog I posted earlier.
It shows a change of angle of view from the same point.
Some creepy kid is in the photos too


----------



## JeffFromMtl

the kid just appears.

------

A couple from a set I shot for work (they wanted colour so that's what I sent them, but I prefer these):


----------



## Whammy

Yeah the kid appears slowly. Kinda creepy with her on the swing 
Nice Black & White. Available light? Obviously I haven't seen the color photos but these work really well in B&W.

I've done that before for a friend where I gave them photos in B&W. They wanted color.
I gave in and supplied them with color photos. They were nasty in color. I felt dirty afterwards


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Whammy said:


> Yeah the kid appears slowly. Kinda creepy with her on the swing
> Nice Black & White. Available light? Obviously I haven't seen the color photos but these work really well in B&W.
> 
> I've done that before for a friend where I gave them photos in B&W. They wanted color.
> I gave in and supplied them with color photos. They were nasty in color. I felt dirty afterwards



Thanks, man.

Yeah, it was all available light. It was pretty nasty, like you say. It was around 4:30, and this time of year, it's pretty much dark out before 5. Plus there was this nasty yellowish light on the wall, but it was the only place we really had to shoot then and there. I sent them the colour photos, and posted these two B&W ones on my facebook, and when the manager saw them on there, she changed her mind and asked for the B&W  I know what you mean though, I wasn't a fan of the colour ones at all, and knowing that they won't be published makes me feel a lot better


----------



## Philligan

Got my third roll of film developed. 

I've got a roll of B&W done, but apparently Walmart doesn't develop B&W, so I'm gonna wait til after Ireland and take a few rolls to the local camera shop.

I'm not sure if Walmart made the mistake, or I did something, but every picture on this roll has a couple horizontal lines across the frame. I looked, and for the life of me, I can't see anything on the negatives. Did they just do something wrong with the scanner?

It's kind of annoying, because there were some shots I liked, but at least it was like $5 to get the roll developed with jpegs. The girl working didn't know what a jpeg was, so maybe that's why. 

I've been reading, and it sounds like it's most likely either a developing/scanning issue, or something scratching the film when you wind it. The negatives look okay, but I'd rather be safe before I scratch a bunch more.

edit: They're not as noticeable here, but in some shots they're really bad.


----------



## Rook

Starting to shoot some BW film with a Pentax K1000. Looking forward to getting some results. I wanna develop the film myself (then scan) but I just don't have anywhere to do so at the moment so I guess I'll be paying haha.

Lovely shots though.


----------



## Tang

Rook joins the Pwntax master race! Definitely look into the FA 50 1.4.. awesome lens on a film body. 

What I've been doing.. don't mind the children jumping in my shots.. if I were a kid I'd probably be doing the same damn thing!




IMGP0685 by nrrfed, on Flickr

Please note, this is my first attempt at fireworks and I did no studying at all.. just winged it in manual! 13 seconds at f/14 and ISO100. Used my backup body (K30) with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 locked down to 17mm.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Holy shit, that giant ball doesn't even look real. Sweet shot, dude!


----------



## Tang

JeffFromMtl said:


> Holy shit, that giant ball doesn't even look real. Sweet shot, dude!



Thanks man. For those that are curious, it was the K30 and the Tamron 17-50 2.8. Iso100, 2.5s at f/11. 
 
Wait til you see the shots I took of it with my K5ii and 31mm 1.8. Holy shit, it looks straight up 3d. Yes, I'm walking around Disney World with 2 camera bodies and 3 lenses. I don't regret a thing.


----------



## Philligan

Mmm, texture. And holy crap, our garage door sucks.  Gotta love shitty rentals.


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> Got my third roll of film developed.
> 
> I've got a roll of B&W done, but apparently Walmart doesn't develop B&W, so I'm gonna wait til after Ireland and take a few rolls to the local camera shop.
> 
> I'm not sure if Walmart made the mistake, or I did something, but every picture on this roll has a couple horizontal lines across the frame. I looked, and for the life of me, I can't see anything on the negatives. Did they just do something wrong with the scanner?
> 
> It's kind of annoying, because there were some shots I liked, but at least it was like $5 to get the roll developed with jpegs. The girl working didn't know what a jpeg was, so maybe that's why.
> 
> I've been reading, and it sounds like it's most likely either a developing/scanning issue, or something scratching the film when you wind it. The negatives look okay, but I'd rather be safe before I scratch a bunch more.



If the scratches are in the same spot every time then odds are it's the camera body scratching the film as you wind it.
A lot of the times batch scanning (scanning more than one frame at a time) is done on the negatives so the scratches may appear in different places if it is the scanner at fault.

I've got hundreds of films developed over the years when I was starting out. Mostly shit photos...
(a quote from Henri Cartier-Bresson - "Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst.") 
...a lot of slide film and traditional black & white. One thing I found is to find a dedicated photography shop (one that does a lot of film processing) and try a few out. Pick the one with the best quality.

For traditional black & white film, unless it's C41 (Wiki Link) film like the Ilford XP2 Super (that can be processed with color negative films) then it has to be developed by hand. It can be done in a day or two (including drying times) but most photography stores will give you a week for it's completion date.

The bigger stores that offer photo developing as an extra in the store are normally really bad. I used them a few times when I was stuck and regretted it. Most don't know what they are doing and the equipment isn't maintained. Dust & scratches on scanned film.

My best experience was with a local small camera store that sold a lot of film cameras. I used them most of the time except for slide film which needs different equipment and processing.

I had a basic scanner but the scans never did the photos justice. My intention was to get a proper scanner but they are expensive so I switched to a digital body. Worked out cheaper in the long run. Still want a kick ass scanner so I can shoot and develop my own B&W film and move up to a medium format film camera.


-----------------

Random photo


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Love the colours on that giant ball shot, Tang.

I've gone back on a few shots from the summer last night while in editing mode:


----------



## Tang

Kennedy Space Center is ducking awesome. Pics very soon. 

Holy shit the Saturn V. Holy. Shit.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

The black and white kick continues.


----------



## Wretched

A pic from a shoot that just came out. nice LSx-powered VL Commodore race car. Very neat package.

See more, if you're interested: Winmalee Car Care's VL Commodore - a set on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Tang said:


> Kennedy Space Center is ducking awesome. Pics very soon.
> 
> Holy shit the Saturn V. Holy. Shit.



I was there two months ago man, took my ThinkTank Urban Disguise with me my 6D and a bunch of lenses haha. Did the whole of Disney like that too.

Dat Atlantis tho.

I have some Epcot shots somewhere I think...


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> I was there two months ago man, took my ThinkTank Urban Disguise with me my 6D and a bunch of lenses haha. Did the whole of Disney like that too.
> 
> Dat Atlantis tho.
> 
> I have some Epcot shots somewhere I think...



I watched the last flight of Atlantis from my driveway so it was extra special seeing it up close like that. I attempted a tripod panorama of the nose section so we'll see how well it'll stitch! We got there first thing in the morning and were alone in that giant room.


----------



## ghostred7

OK....it's now official. My camera blows. It's been a good beast. Canon 300D (aka: Digital Rebel...i think 1st DSLR from them). I have that + the default lens that came with it. All other lenses are dead and/or missing. I have that body + lens + Speedlite 430. It's time for an upgrade. 6MP with a slow-as-frak burst/write speed is just killing me. I have ~$1000 to spend. Caveat is that it has to be sold at Dell (where my credit is....else I'd be all over B&H's site lol).

Do I stay with Canon b/c of the Speedlite?
Do I keep my old 18-55mm lens and just get a new body if staying with brand?
Regardless of brand should I go with a kit to get good/better glass?

Thanks in advance. I'm itchin to get back behind the lens. Doesn't help that the wife got an invite to do makeup for fashion week and we need to get test shots done with a camera i can flippin properly set white balance on.


----------



## Whammy

The sun sets so early here. Very little time to actually take photos during the day. The only chance I had today was through the car window 







Show the space center photos


----------



## Tang

Gotta work on then when I get home.. soon enough . And I've still gotta work on those goofy self portraits! The Lightroom queue is building up fast!

That car window is frrakkng awesome though! Very cinematic.


----------



## Rook

ghostred7 said:


> OK....it's now official. My camera blows. It's been a good beast. Canon 300D (aka: Digital Rebel...i think 1st DSLR from them). I have that + the default lens that came with it. All other lenses are dead and/or missing. I have that body + lens + Speedlite 430. It's time for an upgrade. 6MP with a slow-as-frak burst/write speed is just killing me. I have ~$1000 to spend. Caveat is that it has to be sold at Dell (where my credit is....else I'd be all over B&H's site lol).
> 
> Do I stay with Canon b/c of the Speedlite?
> Do I keep my old 18-55mm lens and just get a new body if staying with brand?
> Regardless of brand should I go with a kit to get good/better glass?
> 
> Thanks in advance. I'm itchin to get back behind the lens. Doesn't help that the wife got an invite to do makeup for fashion week and we need to get test shots done with a camera i can flippin properly set white balance on.



An interesting predicament.

While I'm the first to go GLASS GLASS GLASS GLASS this simply means I won't be buying a new body every 10 minutes or overspending on number features, I do obviously however have a 6D and it's a little easier to say body doesn't matter when you have what you feel is a great body...

No less, the point still stands so my recommendations (which mean as much or as little as anybody's, but I like talking gear haha)
- Stay with Canon if you're comfortable with how they work and you have gear. If you feel like Nikon, Sony (lol) or Pentax or even Olympus or Fuji have more to offer then switch. Brand loyalty is stupid, brands aren't loyal to you, just get what works and meets your budget.
- Save more if you can't get exactly what you want. Simple as that. As with guitars if you settle you'll just end up spending more. Make it nice or make it twice is what they tell you in the service industry, I'm sure there's a way of screwing with that to make it fit here haha.
- Glass is (apart from the person looking through it) the most important thing. This is why primes are so great compared to zooms; at a given price point you could buy a decent range, reasonably slow zoom or a fast prime or two that'll be much sharper, make you work harder, and give you more creative control and better image quality. In an ideal world I'd have all my silly primes and then a 24-70 and 70-200, everything covered, but since I'm not working I don't need super speed and super flexibility so I can take the time to make a shot and fuss over details and thus reap the benefits of primes.

So your options I think are:
- Canon 60D; maybe 70D's will be on sale after Christmas? Great cameras. This is your whole budget eaten up and you'll just get the kit 18-135 lens. It's the 'higher end' lens but that's not saying much. Body only would be better and get a prime if you can sacrifice a little convenience for IQ, your 18-55 would still fit on either of those bodies.
- Fuji XE1 and the 18-55 or the 18 or 35 primes
- Canon 600D and $500 worth of great lens

I mention the Fuji because, despite being a different system, the sensor's bigger than a canon APS-C (or Nikon for that matter) and because it's a short flange distance mirrorless camera you can get faster and higher quality glass for less because they don't need to be as big or complicated. Olympus and similar mirror less offerings use the Micro 4/3 sensor which is tiny. The system is very flexible but I couldn't stand a sensor so small personally.

There are of course other system versions of those canons, from Nikon or Pentax say, but Nikon and Canon have much better lens selections that Sony and Pentax (sorry, just my opinion) and you have Canon gear - thus, Canon.


----------



## Tang

If you want to go Pentax be aware the most of their lenses are more expensive than the Canikon counterparts. At least if you want to go first party with lenses. My favorite lens (31mm f/1.8) was more expensive than my body by $700. 

I agree with Rook, if you're comfortable with Canon's ergonomics stick with Canon. I'd settle for nothing less than the 70d or 6d.

Edit: I checked out Dell's site and they have the 70d body only for $1,050. I'd go check out the body at Best Buy or wherever to see if you like it. It's gonna be more buttons than your current body.


----------



## Whammy

Managed to get out in the cold while it's still bright outside. Pulled over beside this lake to take a few quick photos.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Wow

Much gloom

Such Sweden


----------



## Whammy

JeffFromMtl said:


> Wow
> 
> Much gloom
> 
> Such Sweden



Haha it actually looked really nice out. The mist was great. Refreshing!
I guessed I captured the doom and gloom side of things. Force of habit


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Just got out of the shower to the doorbell ringing. The 50mm f/1.4 is here


----------



## Whammy

^ Photo


----------



## Rook

Of the 50 or with the 50? 

I VOTE WITH.


Shit forgot to post my selfie, I'll do it this weekend.


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> Of the 50 or with the 50?
> 
> I VOTE WITH.
> 
> 
> Shit forgot to post my selfie, I'll do it this weekend.



Good question. Both


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Alright, well here's one of the 50mm f/1.4, taken with the 50mm f/1.8. Please ignore the dirty window/sill 






And here's a quick shot with the 1.4 stopped down to f/2.2:


----------



## Tang

Excellent. The one thing I miss from my Canon days is that 50 1.4. Not that my T3 really did it much justice! Philligan is using his T3 far better than I did, no doubt!

Action shot!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Yup, it's definitely a nice lens. It's nice having the option to open up to f/1.4 again after being temporarily relegated back to 1.8 after I got the 6D.

------

I just finished up with a shot that I love. It's probably very raw, amateurish and unconventional, but considering that's something I like seeing in photography, it's actually one of my favourite shots I've gotten.


----------



## Tang

Finally doing some processing.. had my K5ii set to take shots every 3 seconds and this creation was born.. went 16x9 for the fun of it.




IMGP1442 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Try some longer exposure stuff at the lake.


----------



## GlxyDs

These is so much talent in this thread, I love looking through it. I thought it would be nice to post some stuff here.

----------------------------------


----------



## Whammy

ThePhilosopher said:


> Try some longer exposure stuff at the lake.



Yeah I've been meaning to get into long exposure photography. I still prefer to shoot close to wide open so I need a serious ND filter.
I have an ND4 filter but it only allows for 2 stops of light reduction.

Guess I got to start somewhere though so I'll be stopping down the lens 
I would imagine exposures of 30 seconds plus are ideal for silky clouds and water?



Took a few photos early this morning in the garden. I still prefer the softness and eeriness of wide open shots along with the vignetting (I've added extra vignetting to the photos) but I decided to try stopping down the lens as I had my tripod set up.

Would like a few opinions on what you all prefer. Both shots are processed the exact same.
The first shot is a 40mm at f2. (The background bokeh is subtle cause of the far focus distance)
The second is the same lens at f16.
Unfortunately the clouds had moved in their position for the second shot along with the mist retreating.

F2





F16


----------



## Tang

Really loved the shadow play in this.


----------



## Philligan

JeffFromMtl said:


> Just got out of the shower to the doorbell ringing. The 50mm f/1.4 is here



Welcome to the club, man.  The 1.8 is light, but the 1.4's better at everything else. I only use that and the 40/2.8 pancake right now, and the only other lens I actively want is a tele zoom.

I've been quiet here lately, but I leave for Toronto tomorrow to fly out to Ireland.  

Pictures to follow. I'm not bringing my laptop (should have bought a bigger camera bag), but I'll try and get some decent cell phone shots that I can upload at places with wifi.


----------



## Tang

'sup guys.


----------



## ghostred7

Rook said:


> An interesting predicament.
> 
> --stuff--
> 
> So your options I think are:
> - Canon 60D; maybe 70D's will be on sale after Christmas? Great cameras. This is your whole budget eaten up and you'll just get the kit 18-135 lens. It's the 'higher end' lens but that's not saying much. Body only would be better and get a prime if you can sacrifice a little convenience for IQ, your 18-55 would still fit on either of those bodies.
> - Fuji XE1 and the 18-55 or the 18 or 35 primes
> - Canon 600D and $500 worth of great lens
> 
> I mention the Fuji because, despite being a different system, the sensor's bigger than a canon APS-C (or Nikon for that matter) and because it's a short flange distance mirrorless camera you can get faster and higher quality glass for less because they don't need to be as big or complicated. Olympus and similar mirror less offerings use the Micro 4/3 sensor which is tiny. The system is very flexible but I couldn't stand a sensor so small personally.
> 
> There are of course other system versions of those canons, from Nikon or Pentax say, but Nikon and Canon have much better lens selections that Sony and Pentax (sorry, just my opinion) and you have Canon gear - thus, Canon.


The body is antiquated is my main irk over this. I'm not married to a brand and only would favor Canon stuff due to the existing flash & lens. That being said, it's not a show-stopper. I just know it shouldn't take 2mins to write to a 1000x CF for 6 or so pictures. That + lack of video is killin me. I am most familiar with Canon. I'm a hobbyist at best...although a camera that could pull double duty as a B-cam for my video shoots would be smexy. I guess that's an additional factor I need to take into account.

I'll research the Fuji stuff. I haven't messed with Pentax since '98 with my film camera (was really a Sears but Pentax made the Sears stuff).


----------



## capoeiraesp

Can you guys recommend me a good solid tripod?


----------



## Azyiu

capoeiraesp said:


> Can you guys recommend me a good solid tripod?



Define solid, what you expect to shoot using it? And what's your budget? Personally I use a Gitzo 1541T. It is good enough for what I do.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Sorry. I was mid post when the wife cracked it at me for stopping work. House work that is. *whipped
I'm keen to start on some long exposure stuff so I want something stable with a reasonable height of extension.


----------



## Tang

ghostred7 said:


> The body is antiquated is my main irk over this. I'm not married to a brand and only would favor Canon stuff due to the existing flash & lens. That being said, it's not a show-stopper. I just know it shouldn't take 2mins to write to a 1000x CF for 6 or so pictures. That + lack of video is killin me. I am most familiar with Canon. I'm a hobbyist at best...although a camera that could pull double duty as a B-cam for my video shoots would be smexy. I guess that's an additional factor I need to take into account.
> 
> I'll research the Fuji stuff. I haven't messed with Pentax since '98 with my film camera (was really a Sears but Pentax made the Sears stuff).



If it helps, all the stuff I post is pretty much Pentax only but if I were you I'd stick with Canon, especially if you're going to doing video.. they're the best at video in a DSLR.. get some of that Magic Lantern on there and you'll be set!




IMGP0805 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP0792 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> I've been quiet here lately, but I leave for Toronto tomorrow to fly out to Ireland.
> 
> Pictures to follow. I'm not bringing my laptop (should have bought a bigger camera bag), but I'll try and get some decent cell phone shots that I can upload at places with wifi.



Where are you heading in Ireland? The weather sucks there right now


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I'm torn about what to go for for my next lens. I should be able to shell out for one some time in the next couple of months (assuming I can sell the 7D and my APS-C lenses soon), and I'm deliberating between a wide prime (somewhere between 24 and 35mm) and an ultra-wide zoom like the 17-40mm. I've been wanting an ultra-wide for a long, long time, but that Sigma 35mm f/1.4 seems to be calling my name, since it would appease my love of street and snapshot photography. I loved their 30mm f/1.4 so much, I expect the same thing from the 35.


----------



## Whammy

JeffFromMtl said:


> I'm torn about what to go for for my next lens. I should be able to shell out for one some time in the next couple of months (assuming I can sell the 7D and my APS-C lenses soon), and I'm deliberating between a wide prime (somewhere between 24 and 35mm) and an ultra-wide zoom like the 17-40mm. I've been wanting an ultra-wide for a long, long time, but that Sigma 35mm f/1.4 seems to be calling my name, since it would appease my love of street and snapshot photography. I loved their 30mm f/1.4 so much, I expect the same thing from the 35.



Strictly speaking from a point of view of your photography style.
I'd say a 35mm would get more use.
Not going to go into different lens quality etc. I just think you get more enjoyment out of a 35mm


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Whammy said:


> Strictly speaking from a point of view of your photography style.
> I'd say a 35mm would get more use.
> Not going to go into different lens quality etc. I just think you get more enjoyment out of a 35mm



I completely agree with that. I was just considering the ultra-wide for urban exploration-type stuff, although that can still be done, if less dramatically with the 35, but it definitely would get less use. I have a feeling that if I got a 35mm, it'd replace the 50mm as my walk-around.

I've also seen reviews that put Sigma's new 35mm right up there with the Canon L series 35mm for substantially less money. Their new 30mm f/1.4 from the "art" line has been the best lens I've used so far, so I'd be inclined to expect the same of the new 35mm.


----------



## Whammy

JeffFromMtl said:


> I completely agree with that. I was just considering the ultra-wide for urban exploration-type stuff, although that can still be done, if less dramatically with the 35, but it definitely would get less use. I have a feeling that if I got a 35mm, it'd replace the 50mm as my walk-around.
> 
> I've also seen reviews that put Sigma's new 35mm right up there with the Canon L series 35mm for substantially less money. Their new 30mm f/1.4 from the "art" line has been the best lens I've used so far, so I'd be inclined to expect the same of the new 35mm.



I have a 40mm & a 55mm (similar to having a 35mm & 50mm setup) and other lenses. The 40mm & 55mm are the lenses I use the most. Depends on my mood but both get a lot of use. There is enough of a difference between them to feel like I have variety but close enough that I don't have to drastically re-think how to shoot and frame when I switch lenses. Personal opinion of course.

I'd imagine it's the same with a 35 & 50.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Whammy said:


> I have a 40mm & a 55mm (similar to having a 35mm & 50mm setup) and other lenses. The 40mm & 55mm are the lenses I use the most. Depends on my mood but both get a lot of use. There is enough of a difference between them to feel like I have variety but close enough that I don't have to drastically re-think how to shoot and frame when I switch lenses. Personal opinion of course.
> 
> I'd imagine it's the same with a 35 & 50.



Yeah, I'd say so. I think they're both great focal lengths since they're in that sweet spot between wonky/stretched out proportions and flattened out features. So unless you specifically need wide or long, they can shoot just about anything, but with enough of a difference that there's a noticeable change in perspective. I'd probably end up being that ridiculous guy that prefers shooting people/portraits with a 35mm 

On an unrelated note, I'm in the process of opening up an Etsy shop to offer prints for sale, I just have to get home to find some bank info before I complete the process. Have any of you guys sold on there before? Or if you sell prints elsewhere, what sites do you use?


----------



## Whammy

I've had photos printed out before, lovely paper, nice frames. Had them hung up in some shops.
Never sold any


----------



## JeffFromMtl

That's blasphemy. We should do an SSO print swap!

I sold a couple of prints last year to a few friends and family members who inquired and I had a few friends ask about prints of some recent stuff too, so I got some done and picked them up yesterday. I figure that if people I know are interested in buying my photos, then hopefully people I don't know might be as well.


----------



## Whammy

JeffFromMtl said:


> That's blasphemy. We should do an SSO print swap!
> 
> I sold a couple of prints last year to a few friends and family members who inquired and I had a few friends ask about prints of some recent stuff too, so I got some done and picked them up yesterday. I figure that if people I know are interested in buying my photos, then hopefully people I don't know might be as well.



If you have people buying them that's a great start. Even better if you get people you don't know buying them 

Actually I sold one over 3 years ago.
It's a photo of a drunk friend. He's my tattoo artist. He's sober holding the photo 






Here is the original. Canon 5D Mark I.
That's at 1600 iso. The noise is crazy


----------



## Tang

Caught the sunlight just right off the giant Saturn V building down at KSC. Quick conversation to b&w and bam! Was using my legs to hold the tripod at just the right angle. I need something wider than 17mm (24 FF equiv).


----------



## Rook

Re your lenses Jeff, I personally take the following view.

You have a 50mm on a full frame which is barely 1.5X magnified over a 35mm. The 35mm length is a very standard looking one, a 50 with not too much extra depth in the perspective and a little extra FoV. I treat a 35 like an indoors 50mm BUT you can use a 50 indoors 9 times out of 10.

For ages I just had a 6D and a 50mm and went through the process you describe now - what next. What got me thinking was basically that I loved my 50mm, so if I'm gunna put it back in my bag I'm gunna need a reason to want to take my glorious bit of glass off the front of my camera and slap something else on. 35 and 50 both being reasonably similar (though I definitely feel there's a distinct look to both, I can tell when I'm shooting but it's not something anyone else would really pick up on) I eventually came to the conclusion that between a 35 and a 50 I'd end up with one of them strapped on and just setting and forgetting. I was going to get the Zeiss 35 1.4, it's the first Zeiss I tried, but I'll come back to this.

In the end I decided that the lens would have to be something I'd still use frequently enough in my general shooting. I like 'stuff' photography and street shooting. I had a 135mm for a while which was great for head shots and would have been great if I were doing paid work but got no use when I was out and about doing my thing. The next thing I went for however was an 18mm prime. 18mm being an 'ultra wide' length challenges you to really take note of your surroundings and your subject and give some real consideration to your shot before you pick your lens. There really isn't a huge amount that suits the 18mm focal length (or similar) but when you find that shot you get jagged, dramatic perspective with straight lines, crazy warped distortion on curves and these huge variations in relative size that present the world in a really alien, abstract way. 18mm is also relatively close to your actual field of view rather than your focal FoV (which is about 40-50mm). 

Because my 18mm is such a challenge to use (and stunning) it's not basically my favourite lens. You really have to get involved in your shot - field of view is so wide you're basically in it anyway - and when you pull it off and get something worth shooting at that length you get these really awesome, artistic shots that truly give the viewer a sense of seeing things for a new perspective, no pun intended, and that's what photography's all about for me.

In terms of _adding_ to my bag rather than just varying it, an ultra wide prime was the best decision I could have made.

Now that I have 50, 18 and 85 I have a complete street kit I feel I can start adding luxuries like similar focal lengths, and now I'm considering adding a 35 1.4 to my bag. I strongly suggest you challenge yourself and an ultra wide is a great way to do it on the street.

Some 18mm shots:




Moment's Peace by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




The Tube by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Under Construction by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Angled Buildings and Sky by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




View and Clouds by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

As for 35's, my feelings are thus:
Canon 35mm 1.4 is an outdated piece of crap IMO. Sorry if there are any owners here but Canon need to sort their 35mm's out...
Sigma's 35mm is nice and sharp and has a smoother bokeh but I son't like the colours personally, I felt they looked a bit flat, it doesn't really have a 'look'. Probably be very good if you rely a lot in processing.
Zeiss 35mm is beautifully sharp with nice bokeh again, colours are something else but it does get a little bit of colour fringing wide open. I like the 'look' of this lens straight out of the camera and also love the build and MF but that's taste.
Canon's 35mm f2 is very good for the money.
Zeiss's 35mm f2 is every better for the money but costs more, get's the look of the 1.4 for the price of the Sigmas and the like.
Samyang I found rather uninspiring tbh.
Canon's 16-35mm 2.8 is a really cool lens but not prime-sharp (at all, very strong for a zoom though) and 2.8 wan't fast enough for me at 35mm tbh.

I have my heart set on the Zeiss 1.4 but that's because I've become a Zeiss whore hipster (and I know they retain their value, so don't mind spending the money) but the Sigma is a very very strong option.

EDIT: Forgot to say, I'd LOVE to see what you'd do with an ultra wide dude.


----------



## Tang

Agree with Rook, again.. ! There is nothing like an ultrawide (15mm-18mm) on a full frame body. It's just goddamn sexy is what it is.

Finally getting to my favorites from this last vacation.. do you guys ever dread doing post work on your pictures because you're afraid they might not have turned out as awesome as you expected? 




IMGP0645 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Thanks for the input, Rook. It definitely makes a lot of sense. Having as much focal range covered between my lenses would be a logical move, and although I know I'd be comfortable with a 35mm, I think getting a whole new perspective and lots of room for experimentation would be really inspiring. I remember after owning only the 50mm f/1.8 with my 7D for a year, picking up the 18-55 was like entering a whole new world, and I pretty much had that lens slammed down to 18mm the entire time (or I guess about 25ish mm on the 7D), and just wishing it could go wider. Not to mention, photos like the ones you just posted are always really good at making me wish I had an ultra-wide angle.

As far as ultra-wides go, my #1 option is the 17-40mm based solely on the price point. I'm not crazy about the f/4 aperture (especially at the longer end), but I've seen them go for sub-$600 in my area on the used market. The 16-35 f/2.8 would be a dream lens for me, but I think it's well outside of my price range, as they go for well over $1,000 second-hand. It might be a good idea to check the used market for some Zeiss glass. I'd normally rule out MF lenses but at that wide an angle, I think it should be plenty forgiving for me.

Edit: This also looks like a strong contender. Amazing price, f/2.8 aperture and great reviews.
http://lozeau.com/en-CA/products/lenses/tokina/tokina-at-x-pro-fx-16-28mm-f-2-8-af-for-canon/


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I used to dread looking at my photos for post, but the more comfortable I've gotten the less that's an issue.

Some of the fuzzies taken with the E-PL3, ISO800 1/[email protected]/3.5:


----------



## capoeiraesp

Go the Sigma 35mm 1.4
I love mine!
Not a great photo but there's something I like about it and it was shot with my 7D and 35mm.


----------



## Tang

The last selfie I'll post  park benches make decent tripods! 31mm 1.8 @ iso 3200. No extra noise reduction added.


----------



## Rook

I haven't taken a selfie yet


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

shoot, I still need to take mine as well.


----------



## Murmel

I just gotta say Rook, your post-processing is some of the coolest I've seen. Looove it.


----------



## Whammy

A few other photos from the lake I was at. I didn't like these photos at first but they've slowly grown on me.

Mainly because I love the way the forest outline along with it's reflection in the water looks like an audio wave file


----------



## Tang

Came across this quaint Norwegian village..




IMGP1720-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Took some more in the city today.




Scaffolding by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Drops of Colour and Light by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Murano Glass by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Impromptu Pianist by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Sundials and Compasses by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Dead Umbrella by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Jawbone by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

And I've been playing with a flash, practising you might say, and I realised the dramatic contrast (this is an indirect, diffused 580 EX II) really suited the dramatic perspective of my dramatically wide 18mm drama. 

So I took a picture of a cupboard.




Cupboard by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Murmel said:


> I just gotta say Rook, your post-processing is some of the coolest I've seen. Looove it.



 That's very kind dude, nice that somebody likes it haha!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Welp, I was just offered my first wedding shoot, and I'm actually so nervous about it. She said that she doesn't really want the traditional/cliché wedding photo style, and that she loves my style based solely on what I've got on my tumblr, and that's the sort of look/vibe she wants. So if there's anything to take from that, it's that if I stick to my guns I should be fine, but it's still pretty daunting none the less.

I'll also want to rent a few lenses soon so that I can find my groove with them, since I'll definitely be needing more than my 50mm for this.


----------



## Whammy

JeffFromMtl said:


> Welp, I was just offered my first wedding shoot, and I'm actually so nervous about it. She said that she doesn't really want the tradition/cliché wedding photo style, and that she loves my style based solely on what I've got on my tumblr, and that's the sort of look/vibe she wants. So if there's anything to take from that, it's that if I stick to my guns I should be fine, but it's still pretty daunting none the less.
> 
> I'll also want to rent a few lenses soon so that I can find my groove with them, since I'll definitely be needing more than my 50mm for this.



Good job man 

Renting another camera would be a good idea.
Having two cameras with different lenses on saves a lot of time. You don't want to be switching the lens when you see the perfect shot.
Odds are you'll be mingling with the crowd (fly on the wall) and having two options within a seconds reach is very handy.


----------



## Tang

Yeah man, you definitely want 2 bodies at different focal lengths. Say a 35mm and an 85mm. Having two bodies saved me on my first wedding.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Thanks for the advice, guys. I'll see what I can do about renting a 2nd camera for sure.


----------



## Rook

I'd have to think about what I'd use for a wedding tbh. I certainly don't image I could waste all that time faffing about with manual focus primes but I'd think the usual selection of primes would be great if you have the time and less pressure. Some weddings I've been to (as a guest) the bride and groom have literally been so keen to get good photos they'd hold and stay posed for photos at every significant moment, photographer probably couldn't believe his luck.

Anyway, I'm trapped indoors this evening because of a ridiculous storm so I decided to bang out a selfie. I figured I'm championing the ultra-wides these days, have been cocking about with a flash and have been black-and-whiting everything thus, my selfie.






Enjoy.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

God, I love what you can do with ultra-wides. And some say they're no good for shooting people


----------



## capoeiraesp

Just ordered myself one of these dirty burgers.


----------



## Tang

Living on the ISO edge, gentlemen. Here's that promised 12800. I can post the color version to give you an idea on how the noise really looks.


----------



## soliloquy

so my area got hit by a sever ice storm. its the worst i've seen in my 14 years of being in Canada. also, as many of you know, i've been struggling (enjoying really, just learning curve) with my new Pentax K5. i noticed my favourite mode to use is 'TAV'. it helps me control the shutter speed and my aperture. i wish i had a control over the ISO as well. the Manual mode isn't too friendly for me as the everything i have control over with the exception of the auto-exposure. oh well...still a learning curve...

and my 18-135 lens is interesting. its very smooth and quick, which is great. but its focus ring is kinda hard to use when doing manual focusing as it has no grip. its fairly smooth and SMALL. not that i have giant hands, but its hard to grip the focus ring. and there is a strange vignetting in some of the pictures. i kinda like it

anyways, onto the storm. though its insane and VERY problematic (400 000 people out of power/heat/water/etc for over 3 days with tons of fallen trees, broken cars and houses, etc...also its christmas!), this has to be one of the most beautiful thing i've seen as well. its VERY haunting, eerie, yet beautiful. if you're into The Game of Thrones, it really looks like the realm of White Walkers:






















and this is just a young tree, probably no older than 20 years. younger trees stood up fairly well. older trees that are 50+ years are crumbling under the weight as they are bone dry during winter, so they become brittle....


----------



## MrYakob

I'm lucky enough that we just narrowly missed that storm here in Ottawa, hope you're doing alright over there. Pictures look great though!


----------



## Tang

Solio, looking good man! It was 83* F here today in Northern Florida  anyways, the first and third are my favorites with the third barely edging ahead. Glad to see you're becoming one with that K5 

Here's a little Stanley Kubrick inspired shot from Disney World. 






The Old Gods attack Disney World:


----------



## Rook

JeffFromMtl said:


> God, I love what you can do with ultra-wides. And some say they're no good for shooting people



They're tricky really, you can't get too close the lens or too close to the edges of the frame, and I personally try and get people front on because if say one shoulder's closer than the other you look like you have one deformed arm haha. But all that and you still have to 'fill the frame'. What I love with shots like what I was sort of doing above is that you get my whole body in and you can see what's around me, my sofa, on of my guitars, a keyboard, a desk, you could probably see all kinda of random crap if you looked at the full res photo.

Everybody buy ultra-wides. Do it now.


----------



## Rook

Also my Fuji X GAS is reaching critical mass, might accidentally buy a used X Pro 1 and 18mm set up in the new year. And maybe a speedlite. And maybe that nice leather grip. And maybe that ridiculous Voigtlander noctilux copy. And a K mount adapter so I can use all the lenses from my K1000.

Srsly tho the X Pro 1 is on sale in a shop near me at the moment AND you get a free 35mm 1.4 if you buy the 18mm bundle AND they have it in interest free credit offer. The temptation is overwhelming.

And it's all you guys' fault.

Yep, GAS mass.

EDIT: Oh Christ there's an x mount zeiss 12mm 2.8. F_u_ck.

EDIT EDIT: In case I don't internet-see you, merry christmas all.




Merry Christmas to All by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## soliloquy

rook, when taking pictures of fireworks, what is your shutter speed? i normally keep mine fast at about 1/60-1/100 or so. but it seems fairly lifeless. 
and are you using a tripod for it?


----------



## Rook

I assume you mean Tang, don't think I've posted any firework shots!

As an aside, I use fast shutter speeds, small-ish apertures and prefocus with a long hyper focal range on a standard or short lens. I like the silhouetting effects and darker photos bring out more retrievable colour from the fireworks.


----------



## Tang

soliloquy said:


> rook, when taking pictures of fireworks, what is your shutter speed? i normally keep mine fast at about 1/60-1/100 or so. but it seems fairly lifeless.
> and are you using a tripod for it?



You mean me? 

The one I posted above was an 8s exposure at f/9 and ISO80. A tripod is definitely necessary unless you have something very sturdy to set the camera on.

I'll give more details later when I take my break.


----------



## soliloquy

my apologies, yes i meant Tang


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

The way the sweater was knitted makes Santa look 8-bit  that's pretty cool even though it probably wasn't intentional.


----------



## Khoi

capoeiraesp said:


> Just ordered myself one of these dirty burgers.



Watch out with those, they actually bend quite a bit when I used my friends


----------



## soliloquy

capoeiraesp said:


> Just ordered myself one of these dirty burgers.



care to tell what this grip does/functions?


----------



## capoeiraesp

A videographer friend of mine swears by his. I want to use it with the camera pointing perpendicular to the bracket for panning and just generally more stable video shots. 
Khoi, I bought it with the extra 'stiffiner' lock that mounts to the horse shoe/flash. For $100 I'm willing to take the gamble. Lots of cool guitar building stuff will be filmed.


----------



## Tang

Edited for later.


----------



## Tang

Merry Christmas to my favorite little photography community from me and my gang of chihuahuas!


----------



## Rook

And to you dude!

Anybody any tog-gear for Christmas?

I got a Canon 430 EX II Speedlite all to myself, no more borrowing flashes!

Excpect to see tonnes of garish flash shots with hideously off white balance.

Merry christmas all.


----------



## Whammy

Merry Christmas all. Although for some strange reason they seem to celebrate Christmas on Christmas eve in Sweden 

So today I went for a walk in a forest


----------



## Tang

Nothing new for Christmas I'm afraid. I blew most of my photography budget that new body.


----------



## Rook

^I took a photo of that, it's on my Flickr hahaha, mines all blue and weird though.

I dunno how much longer I can hold out on an X Pro 1. The body's on sale now AND you get the 18mm for and extra £50 at the shop near me AND AND Fuji are running a deal where you get the 35 for free if you buy the body and 18 together, it's nuts, and for under and grand and they have it on interest free credit. UMPHHHHH.

It's gunna have to happen I think. Dunno how long I'll last before I start GASing for that Zeiss 12mm but it so expensive... 

I'm going to Iceland in January, I'd love to carry it round then. UGH.


----------



## Tyler

Got a new D3200 for Christmas and shot this with the stock lens. Im starting to get the hang of things running in manual but still need some practice


----------



## Tang

Excellent Tyler. That will be a great camera to learn on! Nice dog too


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Christmas at my parents' place! I got a Fuji Instax 210 and my mutt got evolution lessons


----------



## Rook

^Nice dude! Dat format, dat grain, dem tones, wowe, such retrow, so greene.

Seriously dude, nice .

And congrats Tyler, your first DSLR? Manual's a good start!

In other news, I just found out a 56mm 1.2 X mount (85mm equiv) has been announced. Somebody say something to stop me ordering an X Pro 1 right now, PLEASE.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> ^Nice dude! Dat format, dat grain, dem tones, wowe, such retrow, so greene.
> 
> Seriously dude, nice .
> 
> And congrats Tyler, your first DSLR? Manual's a good start!
> 
> In other news, I just found out a 56mm 1.2 X mount (85mm equiv) has been announced. Somebody say something to stop me ordering an X Pro 1 right now, PLEASE.



Do it. Such Fuji. Such primes. 

Worst meme ever?


----------



## Tyler

Rook said:


> ^Nice dude! Dat format, dat grain, dem tones, wowe, such retrow, so greene.
> 
> Seriously dude, nice .
> 
> And congrats Tyler, your first DSLR? Manual's a good start!



Yep its my first! Ive been wanting to get into it for a while now and Im pretty excited that Im able to now  Im going out tomorrow to get a UV filter and a Nikkor f/1.8D and maybe look at some flashes


----------



## feilong29

Got a chance to do the Denver Skyline


----------



## Rook

Tang said:


> Do it. Such Fuji. Such primes.
> 
> Worst meme ever?



Nice shot dude!

Yeah I hate it, I keep getting sucked into it. 

I'm gunna do it boys, tomorrow I become an X-Photographer. Well. I'm not quitting so not an ex photographer but a photographer of x cameras. Well... I'll still strictly be a Canon shooter too, but I'll have some fun with an X camera alongside my Canon system. Welllll........

Might pick up a speedlite for it too, dunno.



Tyler said:


> Yep its my first! Ive been wanting to get into it for a while now and Im pretty excited that Im able to now  Im going out tomorrow to get a UV filter and a Nikkor f/1.8D and maybe look at some flashes



Sweet dude, 50 1.8 is a great call. I wouldn't rush into flashes, I know so many people that stick a flash on and set to ETTL and don't know how to work it or what you can do with it, don't even properly understand exposures (the people who buy an SLR and immediately set up a FIRSTNAME LASTNAME PHOTOGRAPHY Facebook page and start sprawling garish watermarks on their horrendous, overprocessed 'work') but then I have no idea what you're trying to do or how much you know. I'm glad I paced myself with flashes but YMMV. 

Also, SAY NO TO POINTLESS FILTERS


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> Nice shot dude!
> 
> Yeah I hate it, I keep getting sucked into it. I'm gunn do it boys, tomorrow. Might pick up a speedlite for it too, dunno.
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet dude, 50 1.8 is a great call. I wouldn't rush into flashes, I know so many people that stick a flash on and set to ETTL and don't know how to work it or what you can do with it, don't even properly understand exposures (the people who buy an SLR and immediately set up a FIRSTNAME LASTNAME PHOTOGRAPHY Facebook page and start sprawling garish watermarks on their horrendous, overprocessed 'work') but then I have no idea what you're trying to do or how much you know. I'm glad I paced myself with flashes but YMMV.
> 
> Also, SAY NO TO POINTLESS FILTERS



Thanks! It was a conscious effort at copying your desaturated (to my eyes at least) style. I lowered saturation and vibrance and jacked up the clarity. Lowered the main exposure slider while raising the midtones in the rgb curve.

Rook, I'm currently trying to think of a name for my photography gig. I was thinking "It could be worse photography."  honestly, first name last name is so lame but who knows.


----------



## Rook

Haha nah I didn't mean like that, and you're talented, it's people who literally shoot auto with a kit lens and immediately set up a 'photography' page with loads of selfies.

Wasn't a criticism of name-photography nomenclature as much as it's hasty use by inexperienced trendy youths haha.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> Haha nah I didn't mean like that, and you're talented, it's people who literally shoot auto with a kit lens and immediately set up a 'photography' page with loads of selfies.
> 
> Wasn't a criticism of name-photography nomenclature as much as it's hasty use by inexperienced trendy youths haha.



No offense or misunderstanding! And I agree, there's a plethora of Facebook name photographers. I'm getting my own domain though, so a good name is important!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I've been so reluctant to brand any of my photography for exactly that reason. I never wanted to come across as one of those idiots that gets their first DSLR and thinks that they've instantly become a _photographer_. I've gotten to the point that branding will be kind of necessary if I want to expand my client base and present myself a little more professionally, but still the idea of it makes me feel super uncomfortable.


----------



## capoeiraesp

I scored this sweet 'Spark' lens by Lensbaby from my older sister for Christmas. I've only tested it a little bit but man does it produce some cool effects. Very hip.


----------



## Tyler

Thanks for the advice Rook! And yeah I only want a filter for protective reasons over my lenses. Im basically just picking it up for fun. Take some cool pictures here and there since I travel a lot, maybe snap some when I either play shows or attend them. A big use will be for recording play throughs which I dont necessarily need anything over the top for. Im excited to get into all of this though thats for sure!


----------



## Skyblue

Tang said:


> Nothing new for Christmas I'm afraid. I blew most of my photography budget that new body.


Dude, that picture is amazing. Real great job on this one. 

I'm going to visit a friend in Tel Aviv today, and we're planning on going to Jaffa tomorrow, I think I'm going to grab my mom's old camera (It's a Konica Minolta Dimage Z3) and experiment a bit


----------



## Tang

Skyblue said:


> Dude, that picture is amazing. Real great job on this one.
> 
> I'm going to visit a friend in Tel Aviv today, and we're planning on going to Jaffa tomorrow, I think I'm going to grab my mom's old camera (It's a Konica Minolta Dimage Z3) and experiment a bit



Thanks! 

Here's one more fireworks shot from Disney. Really love how ominous the castle looks in this one.


----------



## MrYakob

Does anyone have any opinions on the 17-40 F4L vs the 16-35 F2.8L? Thinking about running out and grabbing the 17-40 while it's on sale, but that 16-35 looks might tempting. Obviously the price difference between the two is massive, but from what I've read it seems that the IQ is pretty much on par across both lenses. My thought is that with the high ISO capabilities of the 6D the F4 aperture shouldn't be too much of an issue unless in extreme low light. Thoughts? Experiences?


----------



## Whammy

Haven't been feeling too inspired lately to take photos so all I took today was a cliched bokeh shot.

Trying to get into astrophotography. I just need clear nights.


----------



## Whammy

MrYakob said:


> Does anyone have any opinions on the 17-40 F4L vs the 16-35 F2.8L? Thinking about running out and grabbing the 17-40 while it's on sale, but that 16-35 looks might tempting. Obviously the price difference between the two is massive, but from what I've read it seems that the IQ is pretty much on par across both lenses. My thought is that with the high ISO capabilities of the 6D the F4 aperture shouldn't be too much of an issue unless in extreme low light. Thoughts? Experiences?



Personally I'd go with the 16-35. More money but overall it seems that most people who have used both declare the 16-35 a clear winner.

The extra speed would come in very handy with any portraits too. A more versatile lens.
Glass lasts longer than camera bodies. In a few years all our digital camera bodies will be outdated. A good lens won't (assuming the new cameras still use the same mount for the lens )

That being said the 17-40 is good value for money. And if you only use it for landscapes odds are you won't be making much use out of the extra speed on the 16-35.

I do have a predisposition to gravitate towards faster lenses so my opinion is biased


----------



## Rook

^I have to say my experience would agree with that. The 16-35 is an absolute monster of a lens, and 16mm at 2.8 has fabulous low light capabilities for still subjects - bright lens, ultra wide angle = wide f stop and low shutter speed without motion blur - fantastic! My 18mm is 3.5 and that's only because I can't afford the 15mm Zeiss (look it up) at 2.8 and the 21 2.8 is too big and not ultra enough in it's wideness. I could really use that extra 2/3 (ish) a stop of light and it has had me doubling my ISO from edge-of-acceptable to must-be-black-and-white-with-noise-reduction territory, indoors in evening time with low-ish artificial light being the most common scenario.

The 17-40 didn't inspire me, if I were to shoot zooms I would wait and buy the 16-35. In fact it'd probably be one of the main lenses I used because it's so versatile. Neither are anything as like as sharp as my 18 prime so I won't go into that.

I'd save, the 16-35 is gunna be a classic.


On another note, continuing my X GAS first world problems: I keep feeling like if I bought that X Pro1 and a 23mm 1.4 (THATS BLOODY £700) I'd have an awesome carry it everywhere shooter for street and everyday stuff that an SLR would be too intimidating or just too much to use. My brain then went - hold up, that's just a big expensive X100S.

I then looked up the X100S and feel like it'll do what I want and I have a system camera, I don't need to be able to stick lenses on it for portraits and blah blah, I have an awesome SLR for that. I would however miss being able to play with a load of Voigtlander and Pentax lenses, but I just keep thinking 'how much am I really gunna do that?!'.

I've then been around the Internet looking at all the great shots people have taken with either camera which is pointless because you just end up finding stuff by great photographers so of course the pictures are great because the gear doesn't make a great picture.

I feel like I _could_ go x100S and shoot JPEGs in black and white or using their film profiles and use it as a carry-everywhere point and shoot for stunning photos that won't harm my hard drive (or my neck) AND give me that all-manual fix I crave and love but the control freak part of me can't let to of the flexibility and changability of the X Pro1 and shooting RAW etc. I feel a little off buying a £1000 camera with a fixed prime even though I know once I stick the right lens on an X Pro it'll probably stay there - and I have an SLR for everything else.

I'm gunna go and play with them both tomorrow, something has to happen haha.


----------



## Tang

Lolwut?

Did you just say x100s? Are pigs flying? Did Meshuggah go alt-country?



Rook: tax returns are approaching quickly in the US and I feel the desire building in me: mah Zeiss 85


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> I've then been around the Internet looking at all the great shots people have taken with either camera which is pointless because you just end up finding stuff by great photographers so of course the pictures are great because the gear doesn't make a great picture.
> 
> I feel like I _could_ go x100S and shoot JPEGs in black and white or using their film profiles and use it as a carry-everywhere point and shoot for stunning photos that won't harm my hard drive (or my neck) AND give me that all-manual fix I crave and love but the control freak part of me can't let to of the flexibility and changability of the X Pro1 and shooting RAW etc. I feel a little off buying a £1000 camera with a fixed prime even though I know once I stick the right lens on an X Pro it'll probably stay there - and I have an SLR for everything else.
> 
> I'm gunna go and play with them both tomorrow, something has to happen haha.



Too true. I always look up photos taken with certain lenses. Some awesome, some dreadful 
End result is the it's all down to the photographer. And a good photographer will make the most out of any piece of equipment.
It can be nice though to know what kind of characteristics certain types of equipment have. And generally speaking the better photographers exploit these characteristics to their advantage.

I was considering an XPro-1. I wanted it strictly for an old lens I have.
It's from a half/frame 35mm camera, so although the camera uses 35mm film the image from the lens is only projected on the half of one frame. 72 shots on a 36 roll film...
The sensor of the XPro-1 is very similar size wise to a half frame camera and I've seen great results with very minimal cropping from the half frame lenses.

I've now decided to try and get a Sony NEX-7 instead. I just want something super small with the same sensor size for the one lens I have. Something that can fit in my pocket but still give me my bokeh fix 

This is the camera I'm taking the lens off.
It's a tiny lens compared to my others. An Olympus Pen 40mm f/1.4


----------



## JeffFromMtl

MrYakob, as far as utlra-wide lenses go, you might want to check out the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 as well. It has the least range out of all of them, but who really uses the long end of an ultra-wide angle? It's got a constant f/2.8 aperture, gets comparable reviews to the Canon 16-35 and costs about half the price. I did my research, and when I go ultra-wide, that's the lens I'll likely be spending my money on.


----------



## Rook

Whammy said:


> Too true. I always look up photos taken with certain lenses. Some awesome, some dreadful
> End result is the it's all down to the photographer. And a good photographer will make the most out of any piece of equipment.
> It can be nice though to know what kind of characteristics certain types of equipment have. And generally speaking the better photographers exploit these characteristics to their advantage.
> 
> I was considering an XPro-1. I wanted it strictly for an old lens I have.
> It's from a half/frame 35mm camera, so although the camera uses 35mm film the image from the lens is only projected on the half of one frame. 72 shots on a 36 roll film...
> The sensor of the XPro-1 is very similar size wise to a half frame camera and I've seen great results with very minimal cropping from the half frame lenses.
> 
> I've now decided to try and get a Sony NEX-7 instead. I just want something super small with the same sensor size for the one lens I have. Something that can fit in my pocket but still give me my bokeh fix
> 
> This is the camera I'm taking the lens off.
> It's a tiny lens compared to my others. An Olympus Pen 40mm f/1.4



I very much agree. The Fuji is only a 1.5x crop, much bigger than a micro 4/3 (2x) which I've warmed to given the quality - and the bokehlicious lens selection they have on offer.

I can't stick sony, I just don't like their 'look', I'm sure they're great but they aren't for me. Presumably the exact same quality that's always made me chose Canon over Nikon (Sony, at the heart of Nikon's image rofl).

Leaning to the X100S at the moment but this is pointless until I've tried them both tomorrow.

The old lens thing is a major appeal for the X Pro for me, I could put the 24 2.8 of my K1000 on their, Voigtlander, Leica (lol), Olympus, Canon FD - there are adapters out there for all of them, I feel like that could be a lot of fun. Maybe that's for another year though and one day I'll end up with both?


----------



## Rook

Forgot to add, guy who was looking at ultra wides, buy a prime and challenge yourself and in the process enjoy the insane sharpness, contrast, and in some cases reduced minimum focus distance of the simpler designs.

Despite it being ridiculously complicated to use well, my 18mm is still my favourite lens in existence.


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> I very much agree. The Fuji is only a 1.5x crop, much bigger than a micro 4/3 (2x) which I've warmed to given the quality - and the bokehlicious lens selection they have on offer.
> 
> I can't stick sony, I just don't like their 'look', I'm sure they're great but they aren't for me. Presumably the exact same quality that's always made me chose Canon over Nikon (Sony, at the heart of Nikon's image rofl).
> 
> Leaning to the X100S at the moment but this is pointless until I've tried them both tomorrow.
> 
> The old lens thing is a major appeal for the X Pro for me, I could put the 24 2.8 of my K1000 on their, Voigtlander, Leica (lol), Olympus, Canon FD - there are adapters out there for all of them, I feel like that could be a lot of fun. Maybe that's for another year though and one day I'll end up with both?



I have a feeling you will really like the _feel_ of the X100s.

Yeah the Sony does look a little funny, but it's small, the quality is good and it's cheaper and at the moment those qualities are more important for me.

I'm sure you know but all the lenses you've mentioned will have the edges cropped.
I'd love a Leica Noctilux f/1 (from photos I've seen I prefer the bokeh of the f/1 to the f/0.95). For years I've wanted one. It'll never happen  but getting a XPro-1 or NEX will get me one step closer. But I don't know if I could live with the gorgeous bokeh at the edge of the frame being cropped 
I'm sure I'll never be in a position to have to worry about it 

Check out these old lenses...
Olympus Pen F - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These will have a very very low crop factor


----------



## Rook

Haha, whammy loves the edges.

I'm not too worried about it, I will miss the vignetting though, the DxO whores complain about it but I love a good Vignette.

Sony (and by association, Nikon) images just seem a little harsh to me, and the colours a bit garish. Some people call it 'detail' but I prefer the more subtle look of Canon's stuff. In therms of the design of the cameras themselves I've no problem with Sony's CSCs. A7. Would bang.

Have you tried any of the Nokton stuff? I love the look of the Voigtlander Heliar ultra wides...


----------



## Tang

The more pictures I look at from the Zeiss 85 the deeper the desire grows. 

If I can snag one for under $1k I will. Goddamn right.


----------



## Whammy

I love vignetting too but that can easily be added afterwards if needs be.
I even went so far at one stage to try and add more natural vignetting when shooting film. I think I put on 5+ random filters all stacked on top of one another to see if it added any more vignetting (along with other things )
It hardly made a difference to the vignetting 



Rook said:


> Sony (and by association, Nikon) images just seem a little harsh to me, and the colours a bit garish. Some people call it 'detail' but I prefer the more subtle look of Canon's stuff. In therms of the design of the cameras themselves I've no problem with Sony's CSCs. A7. Would bang.



Are you talking about in camera processing or shooting raw.
I always shoot raw and never noticed much of a difference regarding colors with different camera. Then again I never used a Nikon.




Rook said:


> Have you tried any of the Nokton stuff? I love the look of the Voigtlander Heliar ultra wides...



I've seen amazing examples from the 35mm 1.2 & 50mm 1.1 Nokton.
The 12mm 5.6 is an superb lens. Here is an example of the lens from someone I follow on flickr
Shanghai | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## Khoi

Been loving my 135mm! I do wish I had an 85mm to walk around with though


----------



## Rook

Whammy said:


> I love vignetting too but that can easily be added afterwards if needs be.
> I even went so far at one stage to try and add more natural vignetting when shooting film. I think I put on 5+ random filters all stacked on top of one another to see if it added any more vignetting (along with other things )
> It hardly made a difference to the vignetting



Yeah indeed, it's what I usually do. Over-do in fact 



Whammy said:


> Are you talking about in camera processing or shooting raw.
> I always shoot raw and never noticed much of a difference regarding colors with different camera. Then again I never used a Nikon.



Raw, particularly the higher res Nikons have much more AAAAH colours, and I'm not the only person who notices it, a lot of people I know either like it and shoot Nikon or don't and shoot canon. This fluff about 'I don't shoot video so I bought Nikon' is a pad of rubbish, they both do decent video and stills haha, it's just whatever system you prefer or whatever.



Whammy said:


> I've seen amazing examples from the 35mm 1.2 & 50mm 1.1 Nokton.
> The 12mm 5.6 is an superb lens. Here is an example of the lens from someone I follow on flickr
> Shanghai | Flickr - Photo Sharing!



OOOFFFFFF Lovely. 5.6 is a little unsettling, particularly on a crop sensor...



Tang said:


> The more pictures I look at from the Zeiss 85 the deeper the desire grows.
> 
> If I can snag one for under $1k I will. Goddamn right.



There's one on ebay UK for £650 which is about $1000, Canon EF mount. Or is there a pentax one you're referring to?



Khoi said:


> Been loving my 135mm! I do wish I had an 85mm to walk around with though



That's a lovely shot dude. the 135/2 is a beast of a lens. As you say I decided 85 suited me better but if you have ANY use for the 135 then rinse it, amazing lens.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> Yeah indeed, it's what I usually do. Over-do in fact
> 
> 
> 
> Raw, particularly the higher res Nikons have much more AAAAH colours, and I'm not the only person who notices it, a lot of people I know either like it and shoot Nikon or don't and shoot canon. This fluff about 'I don't shoot video so I bought Nikon' is a pad of rubbish, they both do decent video and stills haha, it's just whatever system you prefer or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> OOOFFFFFF Lovely. 5.6 is a little unsettling, particularly on a crop sensor...
> 
> 
> 
> There's one on ebay UK for £650 which is about $1000, Canon EF mount. Or is there a pentax one you're referring to?




Found a Pentax mount 85 for $995. It'll be a few months, but they pop up fairly often.


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> This fluff about 'I don't shoot video so I bought Nikon' is a pad of rubbish, they both do decent video and stills haha, it's just whatever system you prefer or whatever.



The same goes for everything. What suits your preference 

My original reason for picking Canon was because it's a bit of a whore when it comes to 3rd party lenses 




Rook said:


> OOOFFFFFF Lovely. 5.6 is a little unsettling, particularly on a crop sensor...



The speed is a bit slow. I'd imagine even looking through the view finder would be fairly dark.
But it seems worth it to have such a spectacular wide angle lens. A faster lens at 12mm wouldn't have the same consistency without putting the price through the roof.


----------



## Rook

Very true, I mostly shoot my 18 at f8 unless I'm shooting at MFD and want to get... well... it's not really out of focus as much as slightly less in focus haha. Some lens whacking reveals some pretty hilarious results though.

And Tang it didn't even occur to me there was a Pentax mount version of the Planar T* 1.4/85 hehe, the fact that there is causes me to say unto you DDOOOOO EEEEEETTTT. Love my 85.


----------



## Metalma5ness

I haven't put anything up for a while, today I was out on a drive with the family and I saw this guy sitting on a fallen branch. The contrast between the pheasant and its surroundings was pretty striking to begin with but I wanted to experiment with colour isolation to try and really emphasise him- this is the result.


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> Very true, I mostly shoot my 18 at f8 unless I'm shooting at MFD and want to get... well... it's not really out of focus as much as slightly less in focus haha. Some lens whacking reveals some pretty hilarious results though.



With the wider angles you can set it to f8, set your focus so infinity falls just within the far boundaries of the f8 depth of field and shoot from the hip. All you need to worry about it framing (which is a big thing with super wide lenses ) and exposure.

I know a few photographers who use that tactic for street photography.
Maybe not with an 18 though. Shooting from the hip would be a little awkward.

I used to do a lot of shooting from the hip to catch people in close quarters in a very natural state. I mainly did it for some behind the scenes I worked on. Most of them wouldn't have even noticed I took a photo which was ideal for me.
It helps to only use one lens and get VERY accustomed with its angle of view.​ I'd always do it with the 55mm. Because I'd always manual focus it got to the point that I was able to accurately guess how far they were away and pre-set the focus on the lens.
It a fun challenge when using a fast lens to get the focus just right (or close enough) along with the framing.

Think I went off topic there


----------



## Tang

Been experimenting with a different look in my processing. Lowering the overall exposure level while raising the midtones in the curve. Desaturate and lower the vibrance and wham! It ends up looking like some of Rook's stuff, strangely enough!




IMGP1720-5 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP1717-3 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

^LOL

That's because that's what I do hahaha! Or at least part of it 

It's awesome that you're going for the Rook-look by the way hehehehe. If you wanna keep guessing then go for it, otherwise if you want any more clues let me know 




Whammy said:


> With the wider angles you can set it to f8, set your focus so infinity falls just within the far boundaries of the f8 depth of field and shoot from the hip. All you need to worry about it framing (which is a big thing with super wide lenses ) and exposure.
> 
> I know a few photographers who use that tactic for street photography.
> Maybe not with an 18 though. Shooting from the hip would be a little awkward.
> 
> I used to do a lot of shooting from the hip to catch people in close quarters in a very natural state. I mainly did it for some behind the scenes I worked on. Most of them wouldn't have even noticed I took a photo which was ideal for me.
> It helps to only use one lens and get VERY accustomed with its angle of view.​ I'd always do it with the 55mm. Because I'd always manual focus it got to the point that I was able to accurately guess how far they were away and pre-set the focus on the lens.
> It a fun challenge when using a fast lens to get the focus just right (or close enough) along with the framing.
> 
> Think I went off topic there



And I do exactly this too, HYPERFOCAL RANGES GUYS, GOOGLE IT 

Yeah f8 means I can focus the near side of my focal range to about 70cm and get everything out to infinity in focus. Funny you refer to 'shooting from the hip' because if you don't shoot people scenes from about hip height at 18mm they get huge heads. You gotta go about waist level and get it exactly level with the horizon and the perspective stuff get's less whacky and you end up with a really nice, contextual shot. Love it.

Can't prefocus my 85 even at f8, DoF is just too small. The hyper focal range with the long end at infinity only gives me close focus distance of 15m hahaha. Looking forward to doing some of this with (a) Fuji though with the 18/23mm that comes on.


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> Can't prefocus my 85 even at f8, DoF is just too small. The hyper focal range with the long end at infinity only gives me close focus distance of 15m hahaha.



Yeah I have the same issue with my 85. Most super fast 85mm lenses only stop down to f16.


----------



## Tang

So I've been practicing my manual focusing abilities with an old Tokina 135mm f/2.8. This ....er is all metal and weighs about as much as I imagine that Zeiss 85 weighing aka a bloody ton. These shots aren't great but it does show I can kinda focus manually.
Both of these were shot at f/4 because the fringing and softness wide open makes me sad.



IMGP2932-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP2886 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> So I've been practicing my manual focusing abilities with an old Tokina 135mm f/2.8. This ....er is all metal and weighs about as much as I imagine that Zeiss 85 weighing aka a bloody ton.



You think the Zeiss 85 is heavy? Try the Canon 85 1.2. The damn thing weights over a kilo (36oz).


----------



## Rook

Yeah as someone with both lenses (Zeiss and Canon 85's) the Canon is actually the size of a grapefruit. The zeiss isn't miles off in weight though being all metal, the Zeiss 35 1.4 is (amazing) heavier though.

Oh and I went X Pro1 in the end and now I have it I'm actually pretty damn glad I didn't go X100S. My girlfriend got involved though so I can't have it til my birthday in a few weeks, first world problems. Pumped! Taking it to Iceland end of January haha.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> Yeah as someone with both lenses (Zeiss and Canon 85's) the Canon is actually the size of a grapefruit. The zeiss isn't miles off in weight though being all metal, the Zeiss 35 1.4 is (amazing) heavier though.
> 
> Oh and I went X Pro1 in the end and now I have it I'm actually pretty damn glad I didn't go X100S. My girlfriend got involved though so I can't have it til my birthday in a few weeks, first world problems. Pumped! Taking it to Iceland end of January haha.



Nice choice!

I did some math and my k5ii + Zeiss 85 is exactly 3 lbs (1.3kg) and that seems doable. Gotta do some push-ups


----------



## Rook

Pah, I've carried my 6D and the Zeiss 85 around (I'm strapless yo muthaluvas) literally all day, it's fine


----------



## capoeiraesp

Here's another shot from my new $90 lensbaby 'spark'. Straight JPEG.






And a colourful shot from the Sigma 35 1.4


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> Pah, I've carried my 6D and the Zeiss 85 around (I'm strapless yo muthaluvas) literally all day, it's fine



I used to go strapless until I started using expensive lens.. I think you're crazy!








Smooth as silk:


----------



## Tang

OH SHIT IT WORKED! 3 shot stitch. I should've done more of the shuttle but I didn't think it would work  Feel free to click on the larger image.. it's stupidly high resolution and I used a super sharp lens!




IMGP2227_stitch by nrrfed, on Flickr

and here's the second one. Lens flare adds character!




IMGP0764-2_stitch by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## MrYakob

So I made a decision yesterday and grabbed the 17-40 on sale! Honestly the price of the 16-35 just isn't in the cards for me right now and I always have my other lenses if I need to shoot in low light, this is meant to be more of an outdoor walk-around lens for me. I'm still learning how to navigate the waters of UWA lenses but so far I like it alot


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> Pah, I've carried my 6D and the Zeiss 85 around (I'm strapless yo muthaluvas) literally all day, it's fine



That's crazy. I used to at first but when I eventually got the 85mm 1.2 on my 5D MII it brought the weight up to nearly 2Kg. Walking around with it for a few hours would kill my wrist so I eventually put the strap on it just encase it ever slipped 

When I had the 5D MKI (gave it to my dad) along side the 5D MKII for work stuff I'd have both camera straps at different lengths so if I needed to carry them both I could put them on the same shoulder and not have them bumping into one another 




Tang said:


> OH SHIT IT WORKED! 3 shot stitch. I should've done more of the shuttle but I didn't think it would work  Feel free to click on the larger image.. it's stupidly high resolution and I used a super sharp lens!



The stitching worked great


----------



## Rook

Ah no way I'd do it with the 85 1.2. I just keep my bag on my side and act like it's a holster for a gun haha.

Street shooting with a huge SLR with a lump of glass on the front swinging around your neck isn't exactly subtle, people look at you like you're gunna throw something at them. Kinda the reason I've gone X series, the Canon will be reserved for architectural stuff and potraits and the like.


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> Ah no way I'd do it with the 85 1.2. I just keep my bag on my side and act like it's a holster for a gun haha.
> 
> Street shooting with a huge SLR with a lump of glass on the front swinging around your neck isn't exactly subtle, people look at you like you're gunna throw something at them. Kinda the reason I've gone X series, the Canon will be reserved for architectural stuff and potraits and the like.



This is why I don't use my 85mm for street shooting and badly want a small digital body for my half frame lens 
I do have a smaller old Olympus manual lens 85mm f2 which has a minimum focus of .8 meters. I keep forgetting about f2 because I just keep assuming the canon is better even though both lenses both have their good and bad qualities haha. I should start using it more. Really really nice lens but I just personally don't like 85mm for street stuff.

I do like if for fly on the wall stuff where everyone is busy doing something. Then I can go into sneaky sneaky mode where they don't even realize I'm breathing down their neck let alone holding a monster of a camera 

I do love the 85mm for environmental portraiture. If you are the right distance away everything looks so natural.


----------



## Whammy

Seeing as how I realized that I have been neglecting my Olympus 85mm f2 I decided to compare it to the Canon 85mm f1.2

It's a basic comparision but I had fun doing it  Everything is processed the same.

The lenses:
Olympus F.Zuiko Auto-T 88mm f/2
Canon EF 85mm 1.2L II USM

The first photo shows them both using the same aperture.
Olympus wide open at f2. Canon stopped down to f2.






The second shows them both wide open.
Olympus at f2. Canon at f1.2


----------



## Tang

such borkeh.

wowe!

Seriously, I approve of both lenses!

So I met this guy at the gas station last night and kindly asked if I could take his picture:




IMGP2965 by nrrfed, on Flickr

EDIT: Tamron 17-50 f/2.8


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Some from my trip to west Texas - click the panos for full-sized images.












HDR Sunset as we hiked into the night.















VLBA Fort Davis.





Sundial.





107" Telescope.










Hiking while handholding the 80-200mm f/2.8 on the D3 - now that's a walkaround kit .
HDR B&W Conversion. 



​


----------



## Tang

Excellent work TP! I'm in a minimalist mood so my favorite is the White Door followed by the B&W landscape.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Neptune is the brightest object.





Damn truck ruined my 15 minute exposure and I had to cut it short by about 5 minutes.





Some half-assed astro.





Where we stayed.





And my selfie; testing the lighting for pictures at our Christmas Party.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

TP your pics are always breath taking.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I do my best.


----------



## Tang

Went shooting in my backyard to try and sharpen my eye and photograph things I see every day but never truly 'see'. Taken with a 35mm f/2.4 at f/3.5


----------



## Rook

I do that every now and again then look back at my shots and go 'pah! That's just a xxxxxxx' hahaha.

Nice work dude, might do some of the same...


----------



## Whammy

Nice photos Philosopher. I'd love to be at that altitude just to look at the stars.


I did a NGD,

thought I'd share the photos here too


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Scored some Cokin ND filters for Christmas. Unfortunately I don't have my tripod with me to try them out.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> I do that every now and again then look back at my shots and go 'pah! That's just a xxxxxxx' hahaha.
> 
> Nice work dude, might do some of the same...



Thanks man, here're two more from this set! It was a lot of fun doing this little exercise. All taken with the little $200 35mm lens.


----------



## Rook

Favourite of the bunch!

Nice man, nicccccceeee.

Also:

http://......./19xQtWw

Dat zeiss
Dat price
Dat equivalent focal length
Dat macro 
Dat option to mount it to X Pro1
Dat want

EDIT: Ooop not allowed bitlies apparently:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/350956088512


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> Favourite of the bunch!
> 
> Nice man, nicccccceeee.
> 
> Also:
> 
> http://......./19xQtWw
> 
> Dat zeiss
> Dat price
> Dat equivalent focal length
> Dat macro
> Dat option to mount it to X Pro1
> Dat want
> 
> EDIT: Ooop not allowed bitlies apparently:
> 
> 
> Mint Zeiss Pentax PK KA 2.8/24mm SUPER Wide Angle Lens *ist D DL DS in Box | eBay



The shadowy one? That's my favorite too  thanks man!

Love the cheaper k-mount Zeiss stuff I'm seeing I eBay.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Here's a few shots from near my parent's house.


----------



## soliloquy

just ordered a circular polarizer filter. now wondering if i should get a hood for the lens too. my previous two lens i saw no difference using a hood. i felt a difference, and that was, i wasn't touching the lens due to the hood coming in the way, so less to clean. but its a minimal thing...


----------



## ThePhilosopher

You'll only see a difference when shooting into (or nearly into) the sun (or other light source) as the hoods are to reduce light flare.


----------



## Khoi

Officially fell in love with the 135mm today. I never really got a good chance to test it out outside, but damn is it incredible. The perfect distance for shooting people without being all up in their face.


----------



## Rook

It's a stunning lens. Little too tight for the streets of London but if I could have used more oh god would I have haha.

Lovely shot bro 

Also Joe what lens is that?


----------



## Whammy




----------



## Tang

I know I post a lot of pictures of my animals, but I really, really liked the lighting and composition of this shot. 35mm @ 2.4. 1/30s @ ISO800. The cloud-diffused sunlight coming in through the back door made the light just perfect.




IMGP3041 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Khoi said:


> Officially fell in love with the 135mm today. I never really got a good chance to test it out outside, but damn is it incredible. The perfect distance for shooting people without being all up in their face.



You're echoing my experience with the 135 exactly.


----------



## Whammy




----------



## ThePhilosopher

Got ReMOTE?


----------



## Tang

Since no potential client wants washed out, desaturated pet portraits I choose to go reasonably vibrant. Big money in pet photography 




IMGP3132-3 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP3181 by nrrfed, on Flickr

Bonus cat pic!




Smokey by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> Since no potential client wants washed out, desaturated pet portraits...



Got to disagree 
Photo for a client...


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I _only_ want washed-out, desaturated pet pictures. But maybe that's why it's best that I continue to take my own


----------



## Tang




----------



## Rook

ThePhilosopher said:


> Got ReMOTE?
> *Novation Remote SL*



Hey! Don't see much novation around these parts, always a happy sight for me heh.

Anyway I've been sick the last few weeks so have had lots of time to sit and stare at the internet and I found this:

Flickr Pic

Holy crap, dat ultra-wide FoV and dat Bokeh in one lens?! I guess the true 14mm focal length means your effectively end up with a 21 2.8 with the close focus of a 14mm but with the crop factor magnifying the OOF 'bokeh balls' and general bokeh.

Anyway, I've never seen a full frame _actual_ 21mm 2.8 (can't forget for the 'same picture' crop factor affects f stop in terms of depth of field too...) create bokeh like that.

Might have to save up for that lens...


----------



## Tang

Rook, I had a lot of fun with Pentax's 14mm 2.8. The bokeh was good enough for my purposes!

Dat ultra wide portraits.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I love my Novation board - it's far superior to the old Axiom 49 I had and I got it much cheaper than the Nektar Panorama. I'm still waiting to get my hands on the Nikon 14mm f/2.8 (non-fisheye).


----------



## Rook

Cheeky secret, I work for Novation! Don't tell anyone though haha, that's not why I'm on this forum so don't get involved in the discussions. Most people who'd care don't check this thread hahaha.

An yeah, tang, I thought I might be able to resist the 14 for my X Pro1 because I have a STUNNING 18 on my full frame but that's a shit load if extra BOKEH, and maximum magnification... Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Hmmmm...

Also gunna get a K mount adapter so I can use my K1000 lenses woo.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> Also gunna get a K mount adapter so I can use my K1000 lenses woo.





My best friend, Dexter: 




IMGP3128 by nrrfed, on Flickr

I like how abstract fire becomes in b&w.




IMGP3284 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## feilong29

Two pics I edited from my trip to the airport using my Nikon D610 and Tokina 11-16mm












BTW, how do you use your images from Flickr on here? I'm having no luck!


----------



## Philligan

Man, I really missed this thread when I was in Ireland haha, feels good to get caught up. Sadly, we weren't able to do as much as we were hoping when we were there (bad time of year and shitty weather), and I was pretty busy driving the entire time, but I'll hopefully have a few decent pictures to upload when I get the motivation to sort through ~600 raw files. 

I'm heading back to Windsor tomorrow, so I'll hopefully have some spare time tomorrow evening to work on some. 

Side note: I actually used my kit lens for pretty much the first time since I first got my camera.  I was really digging the focal length, and the flexibility of the zoom. I used the 18mm end a lot more than I expected, and loved it for people shots so I could get a lot of background/world. Unfortunately, it makes me want a 6D and 24-70 2.8.  And really has me wanting to try an ultra-wide.


----------



## Tang

Edited because I don't like the version I posited!


----------



## Whammy

feilong29 said:


> BTW, how do you use your images from Flickr on here? I'm having no luck!



Nice pics 

Normally I click on "view all sizes" within flickr, view the size I want and right click and select "copy image location".
Then paste that into the "insert image" on SSO.




Philligan said:


> Man, I really missed this thread when I was in Ireland haha, feels good to get caught up. Sadly, we weren't able to do as much as we were hoping when we were there (bad time of year and shitty weather), and I was pretty busy driving the entire time, but I'll hopefully have a few decent pictures to upload when I get the motivation to sort through ~600 raw files.
> 
> I'm heading back to Windsor tomorrow, so I'll hopefully have some spare time tomorrow evening to work on some.
> 
> Side note: I actually used my kit lens for pretty much the first time since I first got my camera.  I was really digging the focal length, and the flexibility of the zoom. I used the 18mm end a lot more than I expected, and loved it for people shots so I could get a lot of background/world. Unfortunately, it makes me want a 6D and 24-70 2.8.  And really has me wanting to try an ultra-wide.



Nice man. Looking forward to see pictures of home 


Some pics from the last few days. The snow hasn't been sticking so the scenery changes drastically.

A snow covered lake





Outside with my dog at sunrise





In the forest with my dog


----------



## ihunda

Joining great thread, that's an HDR I took last week:


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Only one of my pups was feeling adventurous enough to venture out into the snow with me this morning.
This one's name is Yahtzee. She used to love the show when she was younger, now she just stays inside most of the time.


----------



## Tang

The same fire pic from earlier only in color!






I also reedited the fire bokeh shot to get rid of the matte look, well.. toned it down.






Edit: do you think it would be possible to composite these two shots to overlay the cool bokeh effect with the in-focus fire? Gonna have to try that.


----------



## Rook

Hit da stweets again today with my good buddy EtherealEntity (I call him Tom), thought I'd share some of my favourites of the day as I often do.




Hand Rail by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Web by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Monument Crossroads by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Children in Whitechapel by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Gherkin and Cranes by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

Dunno why but I love the colours in this




Pork by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Columns of Saint Paul's by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Lincoln's Inn Light by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Post Office Left by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Pigeons 1 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Sun on Tower by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Lantern Overhead by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

Probably my favourite of the day




China Town Busker by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




China Town Arch 2 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

And there's a tonne more on my Flickr and I'm working on others. Probably my most successful day ever heh.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The long exposure and the columns are quite good.

Tang, something like this?


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> The long exposure and the columns are quite good.
> 
> Tang, something like this?



Yeah! That's the look I'm going to try as soon as I get home. I assume you just did 2 layers there? I think if I did it well, the little bokeh flames won't be glaringly out of place since they are technically in the same plane of focus.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Two layers and some levels adjustments to keep the noise in check - I adjusted the black point on each layer (by clicking the brightest sections of background with the black dropper) and then the top layer (with the bokeh) is set to lighten.


----------



## Philligan

Well, the whiskey gave me a second wind and I went through SD card 1 of 2 and edited a few shots. There were a couple that looked alright that I'll have to go back and work on, and there are three shots that would have been awesome if I'd manned up and gotten more involved and gotten a better angle/shot. As it is, the subject matter is cool, but I was a poo-say and hung back from a safe distance and ended up with three mediocre shots.  At least I learned from it haha.

I've been working on getting a warmer, film-y look, and finally learned the Tone Curve haha. This is pretty rough, but it's a start at least.


----------



## Philligan

I'm pretty happy with how this one came out. It's definitely not great, but since i was shooting into the sun, it was just a bunch of dark land and overexposed sky. I played with the tone curve and levels a bit and juiced up the land/water some and it turned out not too shabby IMHO.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> I'm pretty happy with how this one came out. It's definitely not great, but since i was shooting into the sun, it was just a bunch of dark land and overexposed sky. I played with the tone curve and levels a bit and juiced up the land/water some and it turned out not too shabby IMHO.



Next time you're shooting into the sun like that, stop down as much as your exposure will let you (like f/16 or so) and watch the magics happen. Depending on how many aperture blades you have, you'll get a pretty neat starburst that may or may not to add to the shot 




IMGP2209 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## feilong29

These are nothing to brag about, but I think I finally nailed the way you guys edit your images lol. Love that look!


----------



## Tang

^^^^^Look at them bokehs in that tree.. hot damn!

And here is my seriously scary cat.




IMGP3123-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## feilong29

I revisited some old pics from a street walk I did since I edit differently now:


----------



## Decreate

Picture I took at the Shenzhen Midi Music Festival


----------



## capoeiraesp

Met my favourite luthier's new pup.


----------



## Philligan

More! We're covered in snow here, I'm hoping my shift gets canceled so I can hide out at home and edit more pictures today.


----------



## Philligan




----------



## Philligan

I'm not thrilled with this one, but the reflection in the water looks cool.


----------



## Tang

Nice work everyone above! Here's an action shot and some beer. You can really see the two extreme ends of my processing style. Very colorful and very drab!


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash

Every time I view this thread I end up liking every photo, you guys are awesome photographers


----------



## Philligan

I've finally started clicking with my editing and I'm getting hooked.  I've still got a long ways to go, but it's nice to finally start noticing some progress, especially when I figure something out on my own.

I've started getting pickier with my shots and have been paring my Flickr down more and more. I think I'm starting to see some progress, though.


----------



## Philligan

And the lonely bike. I ended up consciously looking for bikes to shoot.  Hopefully I have some more decent ones.


----------



## Tang

Nice! Getting every last drop from that T3!


----------



## Tyler

Got this a couple days ago when I was in Buffalo


----------



## Tang

I've caught the 85mm bug pretty badly. It has such a natural perspective and.. I don't know! The more 85 stuff I see in my travels the more I need one. 

That Rokinon 85 1.4 is looking very appealing right now. All metal body, excellent optics, and auto aperture on Pentax?  Cheap too. 


And that bokeh. That bokeh though.

Ahh! dat manual focus. dem portraits all day every day. Thanks a bunch Rook. This is all your fault.


----------



## Philligan

More bike!


----------



## Philligan

And this one's not great, but it was darker than it looks when we got to the Cliffs of Moher, and the T3 was struggling pretty hard. All my shots here were really underexposed because I forgot my tripod, so I just maxed out my aperture and ISO and set the shutter speed to what I could get away with doing handheld. They pretty much came out black and Lightroom did the rest.


----------



## feilong29

Tang said:


> I've caught the 85mm bug pretty badly. It has such a natural perspective and.. I don't know! The more 85 stuff I see in my travels the more I need one.
> 
> That Rokinon 85 1.4 is looking very appealing right now. All metal body, excellent optics, and auto aperture on Pentax?  Cheap too.
> 
> 
> And that bokeh. That bokeh though.
> 
> Ahh! dat manual focus. dem portraits all day every day. Thanks a bunch Rook. This is all your fault.



I'm gonna get one! Never realized that's what he used and after ample research, it is really a gem of a lens!


----------



## Rook

The Zeiss 85 is my go to street lens, it just makes shit look epic (to use the proper artistic terminology).

It has it's flaws - OH BOY DOES IT - but I honestly don't care. The colour, definition and almost 3D look to the pictures I take with it are just astounding. The Canon 85 1.2L is a tad sharper wide open and obviously half a stop brighter (and one other thing which I'll show in a bit) but the photos just don't leap out to me like the Zeiss. Zeiss weighs a lot less to boot...

EDIT: yep, 675g to the canon's 1025g and I don't use a strap. It's obvious which I'd rather carry around - in town on Thursday Tom and I were literally walking the streets for 7 or 8 hours.

EDIT EDIT: And just look at it. LOOK AT IT. UGH.


----------



## feilong29

Rook said:


> The Zeiss 85 is my go to street lens, it just makes shit look epic (to use the proper artistic terminology).
> 
> It has it's flaws - OH BOY DOES IT - but I honestly don't care. The colour, definition and almost 3D look to the pictures I take with it are just astounding. The Canon 85 1.2L is a tad sharper wide open and obviously half a stop brighter (and one other thing which I'll show in a bit) but the photos just don't leap out to me like the Zeiss. Zeiss weighs a lot less to boot...



Gotcha! I wish I had Zeiss money! The Rokina looks killer for what it is though  Can't wait to get one and use it.


----------



## Tang

feilong29 said:


> Gotcha! I wish I had Zeiss money! The Rokina looks killer for what it is though  Can't wait to get one and use it.



I really don't know how Rokinon is selling that lens for so cheap. It's a beautiful lens. Simple and to the point.

Found some sample pics for your viewing pleasure.


----------



## feilong29

Tang said:


> I really don't know how Rokinon is selling that lens for so cheap. It's a beautiful lens. Simple and to the point.



Right??? I'm trying to get one before they catch on  I was thinking that same thing today that they should sell it for a few hundred more lol. But please don't Rokinon! Apparently, Rokinon is as sub-company/brand of Samyang or the other way around.


----------



## feilong29

Rook said:


> Hit da stweets again today with my good buddy EtherealEntity (I call him Tom), thought I'd share some of my favourites of the day as I often do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Monument Crossroads by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr
> 
> Rook, what were your settings for this? And did you use a ND filter?


----------



## feilong29

Tang said:


> I really don't know how Rokinon is selling that lens for so cheap. It's a beautiful lens. Simple and to the point.
> 
> Found some sample pics for your viewing pleasure.



DAT BOKEH! I did a search on Flickr this morning for this lens and was blown away.


----------



## Rook

You should be able to see my settings in the exif data, I'll check in a sec. No ND filter though I shot at a pretty high f stop and it was sundown so really no need.

EDIT: Yup 6 second at F16, ISO400. Think I pumped the exposure about a half stop more in post when I turned down the vibrance to get that sorta whitewash look.



Philligan said:


> More bike!



I found this amusing as I've been photographic bikes a lot, particularly dead ones that people have just wrecked and abandoned around town haha.

I have a good half dozen bike pics at the moment I think.


----------



## Tang

I've got bike pics too! This one was with the 14 2.8


----------



## Rook

I was looking at a 14 2.8, what is that?


----------



## Whammy

40mm f2


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> I was looking at a 14 2.8, what is that?



Pentax 14.


----------



## Rook

No aperture ring, whelp.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> No aperture ring, whelp.



Sadsauce 

Maybe consider this Rokinon? Comes in all 3 mounts and has auto-aperture on the Pentax model.. apparently sharper than most people need. It's definitely sharper than my Pentax 14. And it's cheap enough to give it a shot without breaking the bank!

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1640/cat/110

EDIT: Whammy sure loves shooting wide open


----------



## Rook

Yeah I just found it, I think I can get the Fuji one used for similar money which seems like the more fun option heh.

Did a second pass of my photos from the other day and put up some more, it'd almost be rude of me not to spam you guys with them.




Two Umbrellas by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Busker and Fan by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

This one just looks surreal, can't put my finger on why...




Lantern and Crowd by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

dat colour fringing




Standing Bike by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Couple at Lincoln's Inn by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

This just made me laugh




Hiding Bike by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

Love how the contrast and colours came out in this




Work in Progress by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

and this was a nice surprise find at the end




Young Steps by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

EDIT: Forgot to add, those 'other traits' of my 85mm, I think the Zeiss 50's pretty funny for it to being two of their older designs.

COLOUR FRINGING MAYHEM, NOW WITH 100% CROPS

This is from the black and white picture of the chine town gate






and this is from the trees with the balloons in them, don't know if I posted here





The chromatic aberration is a little nuts wide open. It doesn't bother me personally, this lens has so much good going for it, but in the case of the first one particularly it did soften the detail quite a bit, that was with the sun directly behind it though. Look at any high contrast 85mm pics on my Flcikr though and you'll see it hyuckhyuckhyuck.


----------



## Tang

MUH PURPLE! Seriously though, Rook; I enjoy pretty much everything you post. It's great inspiration to go out and shoot.

Check out some low ISO shadow recovery, ya'll. Such shadows. Top shot is my baseline edit, shadows haven't been touched. Second shot is shadows pushed to 100 in Lightroom.. it almost looks HDR.. too much for my taste.




muhshadows by nrrfed, on Flickr

EDITED: really loved how this turned out.. maybe later tonight I'll post the before/after so you can see what the actual RAW file looked like.




Backyard: day 1. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Tang said:


> MUH PURPLE! Seriously though, Rook; I enjoy pretty much everything you post. It's great inspiration to go out and shoot.





You too bro


----------



## ThePhilosopher

If you printed them it'd bother you - I've seen stuff with aberrations printed large (think 48"x60") and I just c(f)ringed.


----------



## Whammy

85mm f1.2






85mm f1.2






55mm f1.2






85mm f1.2


----------



## Tang

God damn, I'm loving how that 85 renders 

And here's me pushing the low limits of APSC. 

ISO6400. 31mm. 1/20s @ f/1.8


----------



## capoeiraesp

Gotta love luck shots.


----------



## Whammy

^ I do low shots like that the whole time 

Gotta love live view and crawling through the grass


----------



## Tang

Crawling through the grass all day every day! That's all my pet pictures!


----------



## Rook

ThePhilosopher said:


> If you printed them it'd bother you - I've seen stuff with aberrations printed large (think 48"x60") and I just c(f)ringed.



A friend of mine prints with a ZE 50 1.4 - worse for CA than the 85 which apparently is about on par with the 85 1.2 - and it really doesn't, it only occurs in extremes anyway, like I said those are pointed directly at the sun.

I like imperfection though 

Gunna do some 40x60's soon so I guess we'll see!


----------



## Whammy

Been at a lot of different lakes lately. Sweden's full of them.
Found this. A Beaver clearly went hog-wild 

24mm f2 (finally found a reason to use the 24mm)






40mm f2


----------



## Tang

Some more low light work with my favorite test model  she doesn't mind me posting these! First one is iso3200 and the second is 6400. This is probably as good as you're going to get with a crop sensor.


----------



## feilong29

Whammy said:


> Been at a lot of different lakes lately. Sweden's full of them.
> Found this. A Beaver clearly went hog-wild
> 
> 24mm f2 (finally found a reason to use the 24mm)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40mm f2



Man, the color in these are superb!


----------



## Whammy

feilong29 said:


> Man, the color in these are superb!



Thanks man. I was trying to go for a Kodachrome style of colors. Always loved how that film looked


----------



## feilong29

Whammy said:


> Thanks man. I was trying to go for a Kodachrome style of colors. Always loved how that film looked



You'll have to give me some tips on how to achieve that! So awesome the kind of work and talent you see in this thread. I look at this thread more than the Guitars FS/FT thread now, haha.


----------



## Tang

I prefer more Velvia-like colors, but Kodachrome was the shit.. RIP 




IMGP1927 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP2045 by nrrfed, on Flickr

and some color ISO12800 for ya'll. Medium noise reduction applied in LR.




IMGP2014-3 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

feilong29 said:


> You'll have to give me some tips on how to achieve that!



One of the most important things for me is the white balance.
A lot of people with use auto or set it to the lighting conditions. I do use auto but for more filmesque processing I try and strictly stick to "Daylight".

If I was using film more than likely it's white balanced to daylight, regardless of how cloudy or what artificial light sources are around.

It was very cloudy out and if I set the white balance to "cloudy/shade" or "auto" it would have killed that lovely blue cast on the water while shooting film would have kept it.

Here is the photo with white balance on "Daylight" and another with "Auto" (which in this case is the same as "Shade" white balance)...


----------



## feilong29

Whammy said:


> One of the most important things for me is the white balance.
> A lot of people with use auto or set it to the lighting conditions. I do use auto but for more filmesque processing I try and strictly stick to "Daylight".
> 
> If I was using film more than likely it's white balanced to daylight, regardless of how cloudy or what artificial light sources are around.
> 
> It was very cloudy out and if I set the white balance to "cloudy/shade" or "auto" it would have killed that lovely blue cast on the water while shooting film would have kept it.
> 
> Here is the photo with white balance on "Daylight" and another with "Auto" (which in this case is the same as "Shade" white balance)...



Ah, gotcha! Thinking outside the box. It's easy to stick with settings for their intended use, but it's cool to see how using the other settings for those different conditions can really enhance and bring out those gorgeous colors. Thanks for the tip bro!


----------



## Tang

Nice!


----------



## Rook

I always take a pseudo-greycard approach to my white balance, I pretty much always go for neutral neutral tones if that makes any sense hahaha.

I don't really think about it because my camera usually judges it pretty well, but if it doesn't that's basically one of the first things I'll address in post anyway, I could probably benefit from always using the same WB setting anyway though...


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> Crawling through the grass all day every day! That's all my pet pictures!



I feel like there's a Pokemon quote in there somewhere. 

Here are some from our tour of the Guinness Storehouse.

My beer:









Dawn's official beer in the Gravity Bar.





And this guy showing me how a real man pours beer.


----------



## Whammy

When processing my photos I treat white balance just like any other variable. Something to be manipulated in order to give me the tones I desire.
I do like to use Daylight but I'll only use it on photos that suit.

Some photos look better warmed up (increase white balance temperature), other look better cooled down (decrease white balance temperature).
I am referring to using available light though.

At the end of the day I want my tones to look natural. But my definition of natural might be different from others 

When using available light subtle adjustments of white balance can do absolute wonders for skin tones.

Also processing a digital color file as black & white, the white balance can affect the black & white rendering.
In Lightroom, hit the "Black & White" to treat a color photo in black & white only.
Then adjust the white balance slider and see what happens.


----------



## Rook

Absolutely absolutely absolutely.

All of that


----------



## capoeiraesp

Had a killer sesh this evening with my man Dan from Matsu Photography.

















The last time I visited this place was when I was in the crowd for this Fear Factory clip.


----------



## Whammy

^ Love the first shot


----------



## capoeiraesp

Thanks man. It's my fav too.


----------



## Tang

Fujifilm unveils XF 56mm F1.2 R portrait lens for X system: Digital Photography Review

There's a great reason to go Fuji. 

EDIT: I also use White Balance as an artistic tool these days.


----------



## ihunda

A little fun with old films as well,
What do you want to drink??


----------



## Tang

Hey dudes! Here're some before and after shots.. if anyone wants me to show my settings I'd be glad to. The left is the straight out of the camera RAW file.




Untitled-1 by nrrfed, on Flickr




Untitled-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr




Untitled-3 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ihunda

^nice @tang, what did you do on the picture of leafs?


----------



## Philligan

Here are a couple from a walk just outside Tinahely:


----------



## Rook

Tang said:


> Fujifilm unveils XF 56mm F1.2 R portrait lens for X system: Digital Photography Review
> 
> There's a great reason to go Fuji.




 Maybe. Couple of angles on this.

That lens looks cool, and if I didn't have my Canon system as well I'd probably be utterly dribbling over it, but the reason I went to Fuji was for a lighter, carry everywhere camera. That lens is 1.2, sure, so nice and bright but it's over 400g, big, probably gunna be slow to focus (not a criticism, but contrast AF and a fast lens like that, it's very likely) and cost a grand in the UK, more than my Zeiss 85 OR 18 and not far off what I paid for my 50 1.2 L...

I feel like Fuji's big attractions are as a simple, pleasurable, experience-to-use system that allows you to nerd out a little on your shots, get a bit of a rangefinder experience, and most importantly to carry around lighter gear - their straight out of camera JPEGs are pretty great too. I think that would be a great lens for the people who only want and use the rangefinder type experience and _would_ use Leica, rather than being a professional grade photographic tool like a full frame 50 or 85 1.2 and so on.

That sounds a little weird and vague, so I'll try and break it down to a few shorter sentences.

If you're fully invested in a Fuji system, it's all you want and all you use and it's the rangefinder experience your after (read; the Leica experience) it would be a wonderful addition to your setup.

If you're looking for that range or that look and starting from scratch (or using another system), I think it could end up being a slow, poor(ish) value for money equivalent of a lens you could mount on a crop SLR for half the price. The body would cost half as much too. You could get a used 7D and 50 1.4 for less than the price of that, and the Canon 85 1.8, the FF equivalent, would cost only £300, a third the price of the 56 1.2...



*tl;dr* It's a real luxury of a lens tbh, not the cracking value and practicality I personally bought into Fuji for as a real usable partner to my FF system. All that said, if this £1000 is even slightly exaggerated I could see myself feeling the temptation...


----------



## Tang

ihunda said:


> ^nice @tang, what did you do on the picture of leafs?



Almost all the action is happening in the curves. I desaturated a bit and added clarity. I used the HSL sliders to bring out the greens in the grass.




curves by nrrfed, on Flickr




hsl by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

I have an idea guise.

Post a RAW file, the next person to post has to do their own edit of the last person's RAW and post their own RAW. Just a thought, if you're gunna work on someone's file, reply that you're going to (with the next RAW) then edit your post with the finished edit. Just means people won't start an edit then come back to post only for someone else to have pipped them hehe. Once we've picked up a bit of momentum we can have all manner of nerdy conversations about RAW files, lenses and editing. One of the added fun factors is, of course, you can't see the picture before you edit because uploading RAW to Flickr or Photobucket or whatever converts to JPEG making it decided un-RAW, you gotta use dropbox or something 

I say we do it. I'll even provide a RAW file to get us started.

Rook RAW 1


Also, I can does leaf pics too?




Leaves by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> I have an idea guise.
> 
> Post a RAW file, the next person to post has to do their own edit of the last person's RAW and post their own RAW. Just a thought, if you're gunna work on someone's file, reply that you're going to (with the next RAW) then edit your post with the finished edit. Just means people won't start an edit then come back to post only for someone else to have pipped them hehe. Once we've picked up a bit of momentum we can have all manner of nerdy conversations about RAW files, lenses and editing. One of the added fun factors is, of course, you can't see the picture before you edit because uploading RAW to Flickr or Photobucket or whatever converts to JPEG making it decided un-RAW, you gotta use dropbox or something
> 
> I say we do it. I'll even provide a RAW file to get us started.
> 
> Rook RAW 1
> 
> 
> Also, I can does leaf pics too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leaves by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



I'll give yours a go! I'll add my RAW when I post your edited version.

EDIT: muh FF action! Had to decide if I wanted to tame those highlights in the sky or not. Ended up at -100 highlights.




ss.org RAW challenge by nrrfed, on Flickr

EDIT2: having trouble picking a RAW so I went out and took some pictures just for this challenge. It'll give whoever a chance to play with such dynamic range. Wowe.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ml3st1zz6qq9pao/IMGP3665.DNG


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Perhaps we should make another thread for the RAW challenge so as to not clutter this thread.

I'll take a stab at Tang's and post one after I have a while to peruse.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Perhaps we should make another thread for the RAW challenge so as to not clutter this thread.
> 
> I'll take a stab at Tang's and post one after I have a while to peruse.



That might be a great idea. Either Rook or myself can start it.

EDIT: I started it. I'll edit my original post to include Rook's original RAW file and my edit.

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/ar...-ss-org-raw-challenge-thread.html#post3869438


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I think it might be a good idea to have your final version of the RAW you post so others can see the outcome you have (unless you think that may influence their outcomes).


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> I think it might be a good idea to have your final version of the RAW you post so others can see the outcome you have (unless you think that may influence their outcomes).



Maybe after the guest editor posts their version the original photographer can post theirs? I do like the idea of the guest not knowing how I would've edited a particular shot.


----------



## Wretched

Great tones, Whammy


----------



## Wretched

Just blew AUS$600 on the B&H website last night.

Ordered:
Wein IR trigger for my X100S (Will better let me shoot with speedlites over 1/1000sec high-speed sync)
Honl 1/4 grid for Speedlites
Honl gobo bounce card for use with Speed Straps
Westcott Apollo 28in softbox
Westcott Apollo 50in softbox
Westcott 40-degree grid for 28in softbox


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I love my grids - I really want a new BD, but damn those Molas are expensive.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> Here are a couple from a walk just outside Tinahely:



Really love that b&w shot Phil! I'd have bumped up and the contrast and blacks but its still pretty sweet.

I just braved the Florida cold to take se ultra low light (mostly moonlight or -3 EV) and froze my ass and hands off. Soon my friends.


----------



## Wretched

ThePhilosopher said:


> I love my grids - I really want a new BD, but damn those Molas are expensive.



You'll get just as good a BD effect with a cheaper unit, though. But hell yes they're expensive! Looking at a 22in white one when I finally get around buying some mono blocks (probably Einstein 640s).


----------



## Tang

my shadows and moonlit shots. needless to say all are at iso6400 and most are below 1/15s.










IMGP3720 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP3692-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP3682-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Rook said:


> Also Joe what lens is that?



Sorry for the delay, it's been a busy month and I haven't been on here much.

It's a Nikon 35mm 1.8, on a Nikon DX sensor.

Last weekend was spent at Skyhammer studio near Liverpool, England mixing my band Intensive Square's first album. I took the camera with me...


----------



## Rook

I like the second shot a lot, nice use of out-of-the-box framing.


----------



## Whammy

Joe Harvatt said:


>



Nice, haven't seen too many of these consoles in studios. Most times its a V or VR series. Never actually used the predecessor to the V series.
The 51 series is an underrated console. Make the most of the console


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Whammy said:


> Nice, haven't seen too many of these consoles in studios. Most times its a V or VR series. Never actually used the predecessor to the V series.
> The 51 series is an underrated console. Make the most of the console



Thanks, and thanks Rook.

We were fortunate to track through a Trident, and mix on a Neve console. This album should be plenty 'warm' enough.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> Really love that b&w shot Phil! I'd have bumped up and the contrast and blacks but its still pretty sweet.



Thanks man, I had trouble with that one, so maybe I'll post it in the RAW thread. 

It's the first day of classes (they closed the school yesterday due to weather), I only have one 80 minute class today, and it's -43 outside again, so I'm probably not going to class today.  We'll see, but it's probably not gonna happen haha. I'll get in the RAW thread soon, after I go for my run (not outside).


----------



## Tyler

Snapped a pic of my other guitarist yesterday when we were recording some ideas


----------



## Whammy

Just took this photo now. Well a few minutes ago 

85mm f1.2


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Whammy, you live in an amazing looking area. All your shots are great.


----------



## Tyler

Joe Harvatt said:


> Whammy, you live in an amazing looking area. All your shots are great.



My thoughts exactly. Im jealous every time I see them


----------



## Tang

Hahaha, dudes! So I found the first pet shot I ever took (with a iPhone 3!) and it shows I've always had a decent eye


----------



## Whammy

Joe Harvatt said:


> Whammy, you live in an amazing looking area. All your shots are great.





Tyler said:


> My thoughts exactly. Im jealous every time I see them



Thanks guys. Appreciate it. Kind words are always nice 
Yeah the area I'm in is fairly picturesque. Everybody who's been living here for years is used to the scenery  For me it's a welcome change which is helping motivate me to get out with the camera


----------



## Decreate

Here's a pic I took in Tibet last month


----------



## Tang

Sofa king awesome ^^^


----------



## Philligan

After seeing Whammy's killer edit of my bike, I decided to have another go at it. I tried to make it juicier but still keep the grimy, slightly washed out look.


----------



## Tyler

Its been real cold here and my dogs hate going outside in it, so I get this kind of look when they need to. Did some very small editing in CS5 and wanna get more in depth with it, just not sure where to start.


----------



## Philligan

I've never used CS, and I'm mediocre on good days haha, so bear with me.

If you haven't already, and if CS has this, try playing with the contrast a bit and the vibrance. Your dog's not a particularly crazy colour in this shot, so there are two ways you could take it: wash it out for a more filmy look, or pump colour a bit unnaturally for more a more juicy look. I'd probably go for the grimy, filmy look, because that's the kick I'm on right now haha.

If CS has this, try pushing the vibrance a bit to make your dog pop, and in the general editing section, try making the blacks and/or shadows a bit blacker to give some contrast. Then go to the blacks/shadows/highlights section, and after you added some blackness in the general, use the dedicated shadows/highlights section to bump the blacks up a bit, making it look kind of matte. Then add some grain/grit and bask in the grime.


----------



## Khoi

A portrait of my girlfriend's dad. I really like how this shot turned out, not sure what about it sticks out to me, but I like it.

Shot with the 135mm at F2


----------



## Tang

Khoi, the pose and how the 135 renders it's out of focus areas so cleanly make the shot pop to me. It really has almost a 3d'ish look.


----------



## Tyler

Philligan said:


> I've never used CS, and I'm mediocre on good days haha, so bear with me.
> 
> If you haven't already, and if CS has this, try playing with the contrast a bit and the vibrance. Your dog's not a particularly crazy colour in this shot, so there are two ways you could take it: wash it out for a more filmy look, or pump colour a bit unnaturally for more a more juicy look. I'd probably go for the grimy, filmy look, because that's the kick I'm on right now haha.
> 
> If CS has this, try pushing the vibrance a bit to make your dog pop, and in the general editing section, try making the blacks and/or shadows a bit blacker to give some contrast. Then go to the blacks/shadows/highlights section, and after you added some blackness in the general, use the dedicated shadows/highlights section to bump the blacks up a bit, making it look kind of matte. Then add some grain/grit and bask in the grime.



Awesome, I'll try this out. With me being colorblind Im afraid of making something look totally weird to everyone else but look fine to me haha


----------



## Philligan

Tyler said:


> Awesome, I'll try this out. With me being colorblind Im afraid of making something look totally weird to everyone else but look fine to me haha



Whenever you to B&W edits, try playing with the colour sliders anyway - since there's no colour, it starts affecting the textures.  So say you're adjusting the red slider, even though it's black & white, it'll change the brightness/texture of whatever in the picture was red.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> Whenever you to B&W edits, try playing with the colour sliders anyway - since there's no colour, it starts affecting the textures.  So say you're adjusting the red slider, even though it's black & white, it'll change the brightness/texture of whatever in the picture was red.



A quick way to play with the color sliders in B&W mode is to use the picker tool. Simply click on whatever 'color tone' you want to play and slide it up and down. You'll see the color sliders change on the right and have an instant preview of what that change will do.


----------



## soliloquy

@Tang, your dogs are strange. doesn't matter what angle you take a picture of them, they always have a strange and adorable smile on them. very photogenic! 


anyways, added some more pics
mr fluffy










nothing significant about this picture with the exception of that blue shiny part behind











and its weird how the camera reacts differently with different people. if you remember me having difficulty using the 'auto' mode on my K5 when i got it. i still refuse to use it. i gave me camera to a friend who, as far as i know, doesn't even own a point-n-shoot. regardless, she took 2 odd and blurry pics, which was expected, and then she took this. i haven't edited this pic in any way shape and form


----------



## Tang

Haha, it must be a chihuahua thing, solio.

Here's another lovely natural light dog portrait. 35mm. 1/13s @ f/4 @ ISO800.




Dex. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

As much as I don't want to gush, I'd like to seriously let everyone know how awesome this subforum is. You guys take some killer photos, and everyone's positive and helpful. 

I joined The Photography Forum a while back, and it's full of assholes. It's either seasoned posters getting in Canon vs Nikon arguments, or being people dicks to newbies. I've posted a couple times and gotten some incredibly shitty replies, even after saying I'm a beginner and would like tips on how to take better photos. Here are a couple replies I've gotten.



> There is no such thing as 'cool' shots.
> 
> There are shot that are well composed, well exposed and well focused with a DOF that matches the desired center of interest.





> If the shots are bad because you've made a mistake, don't post them.



And this gem, where I posted about going for a grittier film look.



> My own experience with film is that is capable of producing excellent image quality unless it has been mishandled in some way.
> 
> Instead of putting all that effort into doctoring (!) your digital images, you just get a film camera and mishandle the film.
> 
> Nah, that would be too easy. Never mind.



Anyway, I just wanted to thank everyone for helping me shoot better photos and not being assholes.


----------



## Tang

It's really easy to give CC without being an asshole, as evidenced by this forum. On the other hand, if I want really brutal, honest feedback I'll post my stuff to 4chan's photography board. They don't pull punches there!


----------



## soliloquy

/\ you CAN ask the same thing here. we can be ass holes while being nice. kinda like swearing with an Australian accent, it always sounds seductive.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> It's really easy to give CC without being an asshole, as evidenced by this forum. On the other hand, if I want really brutal, honest feedback I'll post my stuff to 4chan's photography board. They don't pull punches there!



I can only imagine. Reddit scares me enough. 

It's cool, though, because I normally get the most productive help from doing things in person (like when I shot with my buddy who takes pictures for a meagre living), but I probably get more tips and help here than anywhere else. Typically, going on forums just makes me want more gear, and here I learn how to take better shots with the cheapest dSLR Canon sells.


----------



## soliloquy

thought you guys would enjoy this. i love how saturated some of his pics are. simple idea, photographer taking a pic with his girlfriend who is holding his hand. 



















































source: just google him, he has TONS of stuff all over it
Photographer's Girlfriend Continues to Lead Him Around the World - My Modern Metropolis

EDIT: okay...so some of those images dont work, but you get the idea...


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's some psuedo-Jill Greenberg and Dave Hill stuff right there.


----------



## MrYakob

I was off work sick the other day so I decided to clear my head and screw around with the 17-40! The shot of the JP6 is basically straight out of the camera except for a bit of a reduction in the highlights, I like how it caught of the colours in the Mystic Dream. (And yes, I know my guitar is dusty )


----------



## capoeiraesp

Strobe fun!


----------



## Tang

So normally I wouldn't post such a snapshot'ish picture like this, but I love how the composition (if I use the word composition does that automatically make it not a snapshot?!) uses the reflection to show the longing of the chihuahua. All she wants to do is go outside and play, but she's a bad little ....er that won't stop barking. Seriously though, I fecking adore the paw on the window.

That got weird real quick.




but dad!  by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

capoeiraesp said:


> Strobe fun!



Not a bad start, keep at it.


----------



## Philligan

capoeiraesp said:


> Strobe fun!



I really dig this. There's something unsettling about a really warm looking sunset and a blatantly flashed person, but in a good way.  It looks unnatural and laid back at the same time.


----------



## Tang

Have ladder, will photograph.




rooftop. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

The HDR glory in your face colour disgustingness of those hand-holding photos hurt my face haha.

Nice, cool, original idea, HATE the look. Yuck. Nice use of ultra-wides though. Cropped, sure (kinda defeats some of the purpose of UW's...) but that's gotta be 15-18mm range.

Different approach though, fair enough 


I don't think I've really critiqued anybody's work here. If I don't really like it like it I don't really say anything. I can critique if people like but I don't know that I'm in a position to be handing out advice or critiques tbh, holding my own work up as a 'if this is what you're aiming for, you are/aren't going about it the right way' haha.


----------



## ghostred7

Couple of shots from an airshow in 2004. Finally getting all my old pics back off of an old computer. These were all taken from the ground. 75-300mm lens, shutter ~ 1/4000, aperture 5.6

Went back and took the raw image and made a couple of +/- 2 stop images of the 1st 2 pics here to get a "faked" HDR


----------



## Whammy

^ The second photo is cool
It reminds me of the old Airfix boxes for model planes


----------



## ghostred7

Whammy said:


> ^ The second photo is cool
> It reminds me of the old Airfix boxes for model planes


Thx! I thought it looked a little CG-ish too.

This is the same shot with only some natural HDR to bring out the underside and nose graphic some instead of stylized.


----------



## Whammy

Yeah that one is more natural. It's super hard to get a natural HDR. IMO anyways 

If you increase the clarity of the photo it would help bring in the detail from underneath the plane without needing to go into HDR territory 

-----------------

So my Weimaraner decided to have some fun.

Weimaraner: 1 - Mac Book Pro: 0


----------



## Rook

Ouch, MacBroke Pro.


----------



## feilong29

WHY-maraner?????


----------



## Whammy

It was an old Mac Book Pro from 2009. Not the one I currently use thankfully.
Stupid dog jumped up and managed to pull the screen straight off.

I just use it as an external hard drive now for storage.


----------



## Rook

Don't see that you have a lot of choice now hahaha.



I'm gunna challenge myself now, I think I'm hoping for too much in post right now. Gunna just shoot JPEGs for the next month and either bin them or put them on my flickr, meaning they have to pass the 'only show your best' rule. If i delete every photo I take over the next month, so be it.

I feel like I need to go to the next level, feeling really uninspired by my stuff.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Very happy with this. We used 4 different workbench lights on it.


----------



## Wretched

Very well done.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Rook said:


> Don't see that you have a lot of choice now hahaha.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gunna challenge myself now, I think I'm hoping for too much in post right now. Gunna just shoot JPEGs for the next month and either bin them or put them on my flickr, meaning they have to pass the 'only show your best' rule. If i delete every photo I take over the next month, so be it.
> 
> I feel like I need to go to the next level, feeling really uninspired by my stuff.



That's where I'm at now, uninspired. I hope that my photo students shooting film will inspire me to go out and get something done.


----------



## Rook

Exactly that. I've been shooting film, I'm up to four undeveloped rolls now though, I can't face it.

Just went on a mad deleting rampage on my Flickr, I think I need to stop haha.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's why I only keep current files and files from last year on an internal drive I access regularly (everything else is backed up on externals and on drives I don't use often).


----------



## Tang

I don't know if this'll help you guys, but I've really been on a 'photographing mundane things in new ways' kick and I've found it's really helping me see the world in a more photographic way.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Exactly that. I've been shooting film, I'm up to four undeveloped rolls now though, I can't face it.
> 
> Just went on a mad deleting rampage on my Flickr, I think I need to stop haha.



I did that twice not long ago, and have been thinking about doing it again. 

I've got a B&W roll waiting to get developed because Walmart won't do it, and three or four rolls of B&W waiting to be shot. 

I've kind of slowed down with film lately, though. I was really into it for a while, but I realized I was using it as a crutch - I got better feedback on my film shots, even though they weren't as good. I think the standards can be a bit more lax with film because of all the variables, whereas with digital, it's essentially free to keep shooting until you get and edit the perfect shot. 

Now that I've started getting better with my post-processing, I'm starting to like film more, because I see more areas that I can work on improving, and have more control over the shots I take. That may be taking away from the purity of photography and turning it more into a general form of art, but I don't care.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> I don't know if this'll help you guys, but I've really been on a 'photographing mundane things in new ways' kick and I've found it's really helping me see the world in a more photographic way.



I'm trying to figure out how to do that and have been struggling. I've been really jonesing for a wide-angle lately, so I'm planning on trying to do that in a few months, which is hopefully when I'll be able to get a 70D and the 17-55/2.8. I could do it with the kit lens, but I really want that f/2.8.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> I'm trying to figure out how to do that and have been struggling. I've been really jonesing for a wide-angle lately, so I'm planning on trying to do that in a few months, which is hopefully when I'll be able to get a 70D and the 17-55/2.8. I could do it with the kit lens, but I really want that f/2.8.



2.8 is basically required when I'm shooting indoors with no flash. Sad but true 

This book has also helped immensely. It's learning to see from a Buddhist perspective and not to be pithy, it was truly enlightening. Lots of great thoughts in there. 

The Practice of Contemplative Photography: Seeing the World with Fresh Eyes:Amazon:Books


----------



## Rook

17's not ultra wide on a crop, it's just a normal wide, photojourn look. You need like a 10-14 sort of range to unleash the lolz.

Found a whole new little inspiration for my UW the other day but it's not my focal lengths, framing, exposure, even how to use a flash or meter contrasty situations, technique's nothing, I'm utterly lacking any interesting light or creative use of light.

That I think has to be the next step. I was explaining to Tom, I find something I wanna take a picture of, I frame it in a perfectly acceptable way, check my edges, expose (manually) for my highlights and/or skin tones keeping my ISO low and shutter fast enough to avoid camera shake then use my reciprocity if I change the aperture from what results from the previous two variables (which I undoubtedly do). I catch focus, or am prefocused on the UW, am getting a great hit rate for focusing on the right thing and....
*snap*

There's a step missing there. Maybe two. I'm gunna go practice those now.


----------



## Tang

Rook, I think the study and comprehension of light is one of the hardest things to learn about photography. I wish you luck on your .jpg month


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> I'm utterly lacking any interesting light or creative use of light.



This 
This is the main killer for me. I do all the other things you've mentioned but I'd consider them pre-flight checks 

But finding something interesting through the use of light only is a challenge.
I don't care what the subject matter is. But the light needs to be interesting, hopefully enhancing the subject in some way, creating mood, highlighting textures etc.

I hate taking photos in doom & gloom conditions (super cloudy with no shadow cast anywhere). I find it sucks the life out of me and even things I would consider interesting I won't actually shoot due to the lighting.
I'll leave all pissed off knowing I could have had an awesome shot if only the lighting was different. Ideally I'll come back when the conditions have changed.

If I think the lighting could be better I'll make an active attempt to work with it. Change angles and whatnot in order to exploit the light. If I'm not feeling it I won't hit the shutter release. I'll only disappoint myself later when going to edit it and end up deleting it.


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> This
> This is the main killer for me. I do all the other things you've mentioned but I'd consider them pre-flight checks
> 
> But finding something interesting through the use of light only is a challenge.
> I don't care what the subject matter is. But the light needs to be interesting, hopefully enhancing the subject in some way, creating mood, highlighting textures etc.
> 
> I hate taking photos in doom & gloom conditions (super cloudy with no shadow cast anywhere). I find it sucks the life out of me and even things I would consider interesting I won't actually shoot due to the lighting.
> I'll leave all pissed off knowing I could have had an awesome shot if only the lighting was different. Ideally I'll come back when the conditions have changed.
> 
> If I think the lighting could be better I'll make an active attempt to work with it. Change angles and whatnot in order to exploit the light. If I'm not feeling it I won't hit the shutter release. I'll only disappoint myself later when going to edit it and end up deleting it.



Agreed 100%, though I'd still try to make use of an overcast day. Some days it works, some days it doesn't. I've become increasingly fascinated with how light and shadow can just make a picture, and trying to incorporate those elements. It's just finding the light (if you're not naturally attuned to it) can be a real ....ing pain. Find the light, find the picture?

Anyways, I imagine it must be pretty drab up there in Sweden these days, and there are only so many ways of taking atmospheric black album cover pictures.


----------



## Whammy

I agree. You can't always have ideal lighting conditions  That would make it boring after a while.

There are loads of different ways of working with light.
I'll give this photo of mine as an example.
Now first off, I'm not saying it's a good photo. I'm just stating what went through my head as I took it.

It was doom & gloom out. 100% Cloud cover. The sun just looked like a faint moon cutting through the fog.
So needless to say no strong shadows were being cast.
So for this photo I used the reflections on the dirty water surface as some sort of contrast to the background trees, rather that having the trees cast a shadow.
Also the main portion of leaves from the tree in focus I intentionally made placed atop of the cloudy bright background in order to not have them lost, and again act as a contrast.

If I took the photo from a different height or side, but framed the main tree the same way it would look completely different.
I tried to work with what was given me.







Compare it to this photo I took in the same place...
Everything gets lost. A different angle exploiting any natural light sources as backgrounds could have made this better.





Live and learn 

It's pretty drab here at the moment but it started to snow so hopefully that acts as a change of scenery for me.


----------



## Rook

I'm glad you guys are on the same track as me and you're not all thinking, 'lol, _that's_ what he thinks is wrong with his work?'


----------



## capoeiraesp

Not exactly an amazing subject but I thought it turned out pretty sweet.


----------



## Tang

To further expand of what Rook just brought up, what do you guys think I could be doing better with my shots? At this point I feel like I've mastered (loosely) the technical aspects of the camera and its time to really focus on light, shadow, and composition.


----------



## Whammy

Just try different things.

Try making your subject as small as you can while capturing as much of the environment as you can, be it with a wide angle or standard.
Doing this changes the way you think of framing as a lot of different factors come into play which include photographing stuff you generally wouldn't.

Just try and think outside the box and shoot things from a different mind-frame.

Even lets say taking a photo of your dog. Well how many completely different photos can you take from one scene?
If your dog is lying down somewhere take photos from as many different angles and distances as you can with the same lens.

Doing so will result in some crappy photos and some good ones  but the main point is to push yourself out of your comfort zone and see what happens.
Did you see something from a different perspective while doing it. If so, Win


----------



## Rook

Don't know if I ever posted this here but I just re-jigged the edit and I really love how it came out.




Pigeons 1 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

I like the light source and how it falls. 

Rook, I'm going to sell off my 7D and get a 6D in the coming weeks. After using a friend's 6D with my 35 and 135 lenses and seeing the high ISO results I was sold. I appreciate you backing these camera with great shots. 
What should I look at for a wide angle lens?


----------



## Rook

Thanks bro 

How wide? Journalistic wide or scary fit the whole world in wide? What do you plan to do?

With a 35 and 135 honestly I'd be looking at an 85 myself


----------



## Tang

And remember the learning curve with ultra-wide lenses. It can be fairly taxing to compose a shot with such a wide FOV. It's easy to end up having way too much empty space when you go that wide. I'm not saying empty space can't be used artistically, but it is worth noting.

I went on a prime only photo walk today with my 43mm f/1.9 and found it to be a wonderful focal length. Pics soon!


----------



## Tang

oops, replied to myself.


----------



## Whammy

So after taking photos of my Strat it got me thinking of doing the same with my other guitars 

So I'm doing a little project where I photography my guitars in natural settings.
I took photos of my Strat for a NGD and was happy with how the scenery brought out the character of the guitar.
So it got me thinking about how I could try and bring out certain qualities of my other guitars.

I intentionally waited for the weather to get snowy/icy (I waited two weeks for the snow) as I though the grey/white would really bring out the blue of the guitar. I also scouted an area beforehand to display the guitar.

Trying to find a setting which brings out the character of the guitar is an interesting process 

I only have two other guitars (Ibanez UV & Warwick Thumb) so it's not a huge project  but I'm now thinking of a setting for both of these instruments. Don't know if I'm going to go with an outside/woodland area yet. I kinda wanna use natural light though.

I might stick up one of these photos in the RAW thread.


----------



## feilong29

Whammy said:


> So after taking photos of my Strat it got me thinking of doing the same with my other guitars
> 
> So I'm doing a little project where I photography my guitars in natural settings.
> I took photos of my Strat for a NGD and was happy with how the scenery brought out the character of the guitar.
> So it got me thinking about how I could try and bring out certain qualities of my other guitars.
> 
> I intentionally waited for the weather to get snowy/icy (I waited two weeks for the snow) as I though the grey/white would really bring out the blue of the guitar. I also scouted an area beforehand to display the guitar.
> 
> Trying to find a setting which brings out the character of the guitar is an interesting process
> 
> I only have two other guitars (Ibanez UV & Warwick Thumb) so it's not a huge project  but I'm now thinking of a setting for both of these instruments. Don't know if I'm going to go with an outside/woodland area yet. I kinda wanna use natural light though.
> 
> I might stick up one of these photos in the RAW thread.



DAT..... BOKEH and DOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Amazing shots Whammy.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Haven't gotten to shoot much over the past few weeks, so here's something so I don't feel like I've been entirely unproductive.


----------



## Whammy

^ I like this so I do 

24mm f2


----------



## Tang

Whammy, you're like the desaturated, moody, large dog version of me.


----------



## Rook

Day one of my JPEG month and my inner control freak is already verging on nervous breakdown. Thankfully this X Pro1 *appears* to be chucking out some AMAZING JPEG's, I'll post some samples when they're on my computer though.

Here they are, some straight out of camera JPEG's. This was a little unfair because it's the first time I've ever actually used the camera haha, I'm still looking at these thinking IF THIS WAS RAW THIS WOULD BE AWESOME. Ah well.

These are untouched except one which I straightened haha. The colours and dynamic range coming out of this thing are crazy. The lens isn't the sharpest I've ever seen but for something of this size and form factor it's extremely impressive, very very much enjoying this and look forward to actually producing stuff I like. Don't know how long I'll be able to resist shooting RAW though while I'm still getting used to the thing...




Kensington Fence by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Kensington Stairwell by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Kensington Doorway by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Boy on steps by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




V&amp;A Lights by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Plant Behind Wall by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Winter Sky by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Window and Reflection by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Wing by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Turbo Jet by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Engine Electronics by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Flight Deck by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Eight Cylinder Prop by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Cylinder Head by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Turbo Prop by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Photo Walk: Day 2. Beer edition. 







dat Bells Two Hearted Ale. dat Pentax. dat.. aperture ring  dat 43mm f/1.9 pancake.

Rook, the less processed look suits you well.


----------



## Philligan

Alright, guys. New Camera Day is imminent (aka probably just after tax return season haha). I want a 6D and 24-70/2.8, but I know I can't afford (or justify) a $2k camera and a $2k lens. I want the zoom and aperture because it looks like I'm officially going to be a second/assistant for some weddings this summer  so I'm gonna go with a 70D + 17-55 f/2.8. 

I'm keeping the 50/1.4, but the 17-55/2.8 covers 40mm and f/2.8, so I'm putting the pancake up for sale.

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/ge...557-canon-40mm-f-2-8-pancake.html#post3877341


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> Alright, guys. New Camera Day is imminent (aka probably just after tax return season haha). I want a 6D and 24-70/2.8, but I know I can't afford (or justify) a $2k camera and a $2k lens. I want the zoom and aperture because it looks like I'm officially going to be a second/assistant for some weddings this summer  so I'm gonna go with a 70D + 17-55 f/2.8.
> 
> I'm keeping the 50/1.4, but the 17-55/2.8 covers 40mm and f/2.8, so I'm putting the pancake up for sale.
> 
> http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/ge...557-canon-40mm-f-2-8-pancake.html#post3877341



Congrats man! That's still going to be a HUGE upgrade for you, but..

Seriously though, I've seen the 6d as low as $1,400 and you already have the 50 1.4.. I'm just sayin'. You could always rent a 24-70 (Canon or Tamron version.. they're honestly about equal) for the weddings.


----------



## Rook

^that, buy a version 1 24-70 2.8 used for less than a grand too.

Can't justify a 6D and a 2k lens when you actually have paid work coming? What the hell's my excuse then! MY gear list consists of:

Canon 6D
Zeiss 85 1.4
Zeiss 18 3.5
Canon 50 1.2
Fuji X Pro1
Fuji 18 2
Fuji 35 1.4

And I've been offered jobs but never taken them (I probably will this year). I've made zero pounds and zero pence from my work but fuck em, I can spend my hard earned cash on whatever the hell I like, and I sure as hell appreciate it.


----------



## Tang

Yeah, and I'm not trying to change your mind, but I think you might regret not getting the body you REALLY want especially since you do like a lot of low-light stuff.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Speaking of the 6D's low light performance, I walked out of my apartment into what looked like Silent Hill this evening.


----------



## Tang

That first shot...


----------



## capoeiraesp

My boy, Winston.





And another strobe of a hip young fella I know.


----------



## Rook

Jeff those are pretty great haha! Very creative, love it.

Also Capoeira I really like how you've exposed that portrait, great job!

I've spent this morning figuring out the in camera RAW processing options and have basically managed to recreate my LR settings (except clarity) in camera and have just been shooting random crap this morning getting some astounding images. I heard it said 'this camera sees what I see' - I couldn't have said it better myself, and I've managed to get the BW settings to *pop* which is all I try to do in post, I don't like a lot of dynamic range and grey in BW images.

I basically have 3 custom options set up now, it's like loading a set of film in, love it, control freakiness steadily declining. This thing does actually handle it's own RAW files much better than LR5, I hasten to add. For random shots anyway, I'd shoot RAW for a job still haha.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Cheers Rook. I tried to focus on getting really nice skin tones primarily.


----------



## Whammy

JeffFromMtl said:


> I walked out of my apartment into what looked like Silent Hill this evening.



These are great man 

I love seeing photos as sets. It would have been great having the last two with the same color processing as the first three. Still they work great together 

We need to do more of this here. Groups of photos that belong together and can be displayed as related work rather than a bunch of random photos with the same processing.

IMO working on sets is the next logical step in showing consistent work as a photographer.
Your theme of creepy trees in a misty urban environment is a great set


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Thanks, guys. I'm actually going to re-visit those two I processed in B&W and make them consistent with the others. I'll probably do a couple of others while I'm at it, if not just for the practice.

In the mean time, here's an unbearably sexy Instax photo of me from last night 






Inspired by the Jesus.


----------



## soliloquy

Whammy said:


> ^ I like this so I do
> 
> 24mm f2



how are you getting your background to be moving while your foreground is still? 
your other guitar pics also look like the background was a long(er) exposure than the foreground 

looks cool


----------



## JeffFromMtl

^ I've wondered that as well.

It actually kind of reminds me of the sort of bokeh the Petzval lens shoots.
Digital Gallery &mdash; New Petzval (D)SLR Lens


----------



## JeffFromMtl

alright, made those two consistent with the others and added a couple more to the set


----------



## Tang

S'more than likely a combination of wind and how that lens renders OOF areas.

EDIT: hanging tree branches with light behind it rocks!


----------



## Whammy

soliloquy said:


> how are you getting your background to be moving while your foreground is still?
> your other guitar pics also look like the background was a long(er) exposure than the foreground
> 
> looks cool



It's all the lens and the type of bokeh it creates. Nothing in the photo is actually moving (high shutter speed)
I tend to choose lenses with a particular type of bokeh. All lenses render out of focus areas differently.

The most common bokeh you see is the standard bokeh balls which is fairly consistent throughout the entire frame (it gets a bit oval near the edges). I find lenses with that bokeh style to be lacking in character 

Some of the faster lenses tend to distorted the bokeh the further it is from the centre. The more it moves from the centre the more the bokeh (which normally is a circle wide open) turns into a parabola shape pointing towards the centre.
They normally call it bokeh swirl as it can give a swirl like look to the image which really helps point to the centre of the shot.

Some people find it distracting but I generally like that style.
Here are two older examples using my 55mm.











It's really important to get the right distance from your subject and camera along with the distance from your subject and the background.
Otherwise the bokeh will be too big or not exaggerated enough.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Edited a photo from my August shoot:


----------



## Decreate

Tang said:


> And remember the learning curve with ultra-wide lenses. It can be fairly taxing to compose a shot with such a wide FOV. It's easy to end up having way too much empty space when you go that wide. I'm not saying empty space can't be used artistically, but it is worth noting.
> 
> I went on a prime only photo walk today with my 43mm f/1.9 and found it to be a wonderful focal length. Pics soon!



Love ultra wides, the pic below was taken in Tokyo using a 12mm


----------



## Rook

^12mm full frame?


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Rook, your shots really make me want to get a wide-angle prime. What would y'all recommend for ~$500 or less?
FWIW, I'm using a Canon 60D.


----------



## Tang

Ocara-Jacob said:


> Rook, your shots really make me want to get a wide-angle prime. What would y'all recommend for ~$500 or less?
> FWIW, I'm using a Canon 60D.



I know you're wanting a prime, but I urge to check out the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Pretty small zoom range and DAMN sharp and the closest you'll get to FOV he has with his Zeiss 17mm. I wish they made it in Pentax mount. 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0014Z3XMC


----------



## Rook

I've seen a lot of recommendations for the Samyang (Rokinon) 14mm which will give you an equivalent FOV of 22mm give or take. Not quite as ridiculously ultra wide as mine but that's a tricky thing to get. I've never gotten the same ridiculous image quality out of an ultra wide zoom myself, ultra wides are some of the most complex lens designs for a number of reasons and I've never seen it translate well to a zoom.

All that said, if you just want the range then that Tokina will get it. Sadly though, most of the ultra wides I know or covet are £1000+ or Leica M or Fuji X mount. Voigtlander, Fuji, Leica and Zeiss all coming to mind, a Zeiss 18mm costs about a grand here and the 15mm about £2600.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> I know you're wanting a prime, but I urge to check out the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. Pretty small zoom range and DAMN sharp and the closest you'll get to FOV he has with his Zeiss 17mm. I wish they made it in Pentax mount.
> 
> Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X116 Pro DX Digital Zoom Lens (for Canon EOS Cameras):Amazon:Camera & Photo



That's an awesome price, I'll seriously check that one out. I'm jonesing for something really wide, I love how dramatic they look.

Thanks for the suggestions guys, but it's partly saving and partly just having more responsible things I should be spending my money on.  Going full frame means I lose out on all the EF-S lenses and a bunch of the affordable DX lenses from Sigma/Tamron/etc. I'd love a full frame, but I'm not at a point where I can really justify the extra money, and after seeing what you do with a crop Pentax, Tang, I probably don't even need a full frame.

I'm not actually getting paid for these weddings, either, or else I'd wait a few and use the money I make to help me upgrade. I'm okay with not getting paid, though - it'll be a lot less stress, and I'm doing it for the experience, not the money.

In other news - one of my shots might be getting featured in the art section of the university paper soon.  Not sure which yet, the editor's apparently picking from a couple.


----------



## Philligan

So the guy was interested in a couple shots I never would have expected, but I hadn't looked at them in a while and was shocked at how bad my editing was back then. 

I redid one, figured I'd show you guys the difference so far.

Old:





New:


----------



## soliloquy

JeffFromMtl said:


> alright, made those two consistent with the others and added a couple more to the set



what settings are you using to get that dreamy touch to your pics? they turned out awesome!


----------



## Tyler

Caught my dog mid yawn today out of luck before going over to a small trail by my house with the lady friend.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Dang Tyler, those are some sharp shots! 

Thanks Rook and Tang for the suggestions, I'll look into that Tokina for sure.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

soliloquy said:


> what settings are you using to get that dreamy touch to your pics? they turned out awesome!



Thanks man, honestly the softness is almost entirely due to the combination of the fog and shooting wide open at f/1.4. Other than that, I bumped down the clarity just a bit in lightroom.


----------



## feilong29

Here's a shot I took with my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8; not the best example of it or best edit.


----------



## Tyler

I love the vignette on that ^ thats a great shot for it


----------



## feilong29

Tyler said:


> I love the vignette on that ^ thats a great shot for it



Thanks! I'll have to redo it so I can get it sharper


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

That's a rather cool lookin' shot...


----------



## Decreate

Rook said:


> ^12mm full frame?



Yup, full frame. Voigtlander 12mm F5.6 lens.


----------



## Rook

What the living shit have you got that lens, that I go to bed weeping and dreaming of, strapped on to?

If you say Leica I'll punch a kitten.


----------



## Rook

I found your flickr, kitten's getting punched.

I want that lens, gunna whack it on my Fuji when I stop spending all my money on shit. I'd love to adapt to my 6D and enjoy the full framiness of it but dat flange distance could be a problem.


----------



## Whammy

I've been relying too much on my standard lens along with a shallow depth of field so I decided to get out and get some practice in with my 24mm and I made sure to keep it stopped down to f4.


----------



## Decreate

Rook said:


> I found your flickr, kitten's getting punched.
> 
> I want that lens, gunna whack it on my Fuji when I stop spending all my money on shit. I'd love to adapt to my 6D and enjoy the full framiness of it but dat flange distance could be a problem.



I'd rather you come and punch me instead coz I love cats.


----------



## Rook

I hate the buggers but I won't be punching anything I'm all talk.

How are you finding that f/5.6? My 18 (FF) is f/3.5 and that can be testing at times.


----------



## Tang

The worst part about shooting lens that were made for film bodies?

Muh chromabs. Chromabs everywhere. It's worth it for the image quality though. Make no mistakes. I'll take some chromabs in exchange for killer 'personality'.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Damn Whammy, that's some dramatic B&W.

------

More dark, foggy shit from the hood.


----------



## Whammy

JeffFromMtl said:


> Damn Whammy, that's some dramatic B&W.



Cheers man. I shot with a polarizer to get the sky as blue as I could and then processed the photo as if it had a red filter on it to completely darken the blues to blacks.

I was going to shoot with the red filter attached but it was the wrong thread size


----------



## Decreate

Rook said:


> I hate the buggers but I won't be punching anything I'm all talk.
> 
> How are you finding that f/5.6? My 18 (FF) is f/3.5 and that can be testing at times.



Its actually quite fun to play around with during the day and I find that I'm able to shoot at 1/6sec handheld with this lens. However it does require a bit of time trying to get the framing right and there is a slight hint of colour shifting on the sides of some of the pictures.

I find that I stick with my 21mm lens more often now when I'm shooting wide...


----------



## Whammy

Two more photos from the same set today.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Here's my 'selfie' for the 2013 hype.


----------



## Tang

I feel like I've gone to the dark side, gentlemen. I took more than one shot at f/13 today. 

Bokeh none of the things


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> I feel like I've gone to the dark side, gentlemen. I took more than one shot at f/13 today.
> 
> Bokeh none of the things



Nice. I still need to try that.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> Nice. I still need to try that.



Well, the context of the shot I was trying to get (another goddamn chihuahua picture!) just didn't work with the background completely washed out so I just went for it and diffraction be damned!


----------



## Rook

Now buy an ultra wide 

I only have the 18mm f2 for my Fuji at the moment so unless I play with the RIDICULOUS minimum focus distance and close region - where on an 18, or even 27eq, most things look utterly weird - there's not much seriously buttery out of focus stuff, just enough difference in focus to either clearly show when I've missed focus or give the subject a weenie bit of separation.

Seriously though, if my Canon is like a Mesa Mark IV, this Fuji is friggin Axe FX. The underdog rep, the amazing quality but innovation in the underlying technology that seems to cause arguments (dat x-trans), built in processing to replicate the old-school (dem films)... It's cool to hate but hard to ignore, haha. I've spent some more time playing with my JPEG settings today, haven't caved and started shooting RAW yet, I have a vibrant, contrasty, sharp setting, a high contrast POP black and white and a soft, rich, warm portrait setting. If you're not familiar with the Fuji setup, you get 9 slots for settings for each you can set film simulation, colour (saturation, all settings -2 to +2), sharpness, shadow tone (soft to hard), highlight tone (soft to hard) and noise reduction. It's great! I've basically dialled 2 or 3 of my key 'looks' into the camera, great for snapping and opportune shots and people genuinely look less terrified of this thing compared to my 6D.

Regardless of what anyone says however, the Canon files do still slaughter this. X Pro1 wins on creative JPEGs every single time but for RAW files there's no competition.

Also also, I've found a cheap(isn) Zeiss ZM 50/2 which would be a nice portrait lens on a crop sensor, eyeing it up as we speak but I really don't think I can afford it. Or think about thinking about affording it haha.


----------



## capoeiraesp

I agree with you on the Fujis having the best in camera processing for JPEGs.
I've posted this before but this was done with my X100 all in cam.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Whammy said:


> Cheers man. I shot with a polarizer to get the sky as blue as I could and then processed the photo as if it had a red filter on it to completely darken the blues to blacks.
> 
> I was going to shoot with the red filter attached but it was the wrong thread size



Note to self: get a polarizer to go with my ultra-wide when I pick one up.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

JeffFromMtl said:


> Note to self: get a polarizer to go with my ultra-wide when I pick one up.



Not all ultrawides will accept a CPL, pay close attention to lens construction.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

ThePhilosopher said:


> Not all ultrawides will accept a CPL, pay close attention to lens construction.



Yeah, that's one of the main factors that's swayed me away from the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8. The price is incredible and reviews have given it top marks in optics, but the construction doesn't allow it to take filters, plus it's fvcking HUGE. Size is one of the things I've come to hate most about DSLR's, since I like being able to take my camera anywhere as well as shoot discreetly. The Canon 17-40mm looks like the choice for me instead. They're far more common, so I should be able to find one for $600 or less on the used market, too. I would have liked the wider aperture, but the cons outweigh the pros for me as far as the Tokina goes.


----------



## Decreate

JeffFromMtl said:


> Yeah, that's one of the main factors that's swayed me away from the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8. The price is incredible and reviews have given it top marks in optics, but the construction doesn't allow it to take filters, plus it's fvcking HUGE. Size is one of the things I've come to hate most about DSLR's, since I like being able to take my camera anywhere as well as shoot discreetly. The Canon 17-40mm looks like the choice for me instead. They're far more common, so I should be able to find one for $600 or less on the used market, too. I would have liked the wider aperture, but the cons outweigh the pros for me as far as the Tokina goes.



This was one of the main reasons I stopped shooting with dslrs and switched to using a rangefinder. The camera and the lenses are much smaller and lighter.


----------



## Whammy

JeffFromMtl said:


> Yeah, that's one of the main factors that's swayed me away from the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8. The price is incredible and reviews have given it top marks in optics, but the construction doesn't allow it to take filters, plus it's fvcking HUGE. Size is one of the things I've come to hate most about DSLR's, since I like being able to take my camera anywhere as well as shoot discreetly. The Canon 17-40mm looks like the choice for me instead. They're far more common, so I should be able to find one for $600 or less on the used market, too. I would have liked the wider aperture, but the cons outweigh the pros for me as far as the Tokina goes.



I'm an old skool Zuiko fanboy so if I was going ultrawide I'd go with this little guy.
Zuiko Fisheye 16mm f/3.5 Fisheye Lens

It's got a few built in filters too  No polarizer though 

They have an 18mm too which I think is cheaper.


----------



## Rook

Also FYI, a bunch of DSLR (long flange) ultra wides I've tried vignette with basically any filters, CP's are quite long at that, my Zeiss is particularly notorious for this but it gets worse as you get wider. Except a full frame 14mm or something which will have a bulbous front element anyway haha.

My 18 sucks for it though heh. I'm definitely for rangefinder form ultra wides.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Great news, Rook. My wife said I can buy the 6D!


----------



## Rook

Awesome, literally the ONLY thing I'd change about my 6D is I'd make the set wheel bigger like the 5d2, the 5d3, any 1d etc etc, the 60D style smaller plasticky one can feel a little clumsy. I'm completely used to it but the 6D feels a little like it wasn't designed with full manual in mind. All that said though, I've spent a few afternoons with one of the 5D3's from work and though it corrects my set-wheel complaint, I dislike basically everything else about it. It's physically bigger, heavier, it's more of a struggle to turn the set wheel and click wheel (on your trigger finger) at the same time - or have your finger on the shutter - the mount for the lens doesn't protrude as much as on the 6D so you have to hold the lens itself which isn't ideal with a manual focus 85 at 1.4 where the focus ring takes up most of the lens... 

Yeah. You made a great choice, I honestly believe if I had any other full frame camera I wouldn't use it as much; the weight, the simplicity of the layout, the ridiculous quality and it's relative compactness just keep me carrying it round. Ask Tom (etherealentity), when we shot in London together I carried it in my right hand all day without a strap, no complaints, there's just no way you could do that with a 5D2 or 5D3.


----------



## capoeiraesp

I'm quoting this and showing it to my camera store guy so he can use it to other customers when selling them on it. Well done!


----------



## Tang

Hey Rook, have you seen this new camera size comparison site? Totally kick ass. I loaded up a few comparison of my camera and various members cameras. Mah tiny DSLR and that unexpectedly small 6d. 

Compare camera dimensions side by side Pentax and 6d b

http://camerasize.com/compare/#372,192 Pentax and 5dii

http://camerasize.com/compare/#372,98 <-- Pentax and Canon T3

http://camerasize.com/compare/#372,378 Pentax and d600


----------



## Decreate

Apparently there's a photo competition and the prize is a trip for 2 to Norway... Lovers of Light | blipfoto.com


----------



## Tang

I found this shot that I took back in the day with my old Canon T3 taken at 12mm to give ya'll at idea of what an ultra-wide looks like on a crop sensor. These are straight out of camera jpgs cause I thought RAW was only for pros back then . 













Alex, I'll take what are straight lines for $1,000, please.

EDIT: that inside cathedral shot is shockingly straight and well composed. Nice job, younger self!


----------



## Whammy

What's the deal with the Voigtlander 12mm. It says the field of view is 121 degrees.
But the Zuiko 16mm I'm looking at has a field of view of 180 degrees on the horizontal 

I know the construction of the lens can affect the field of view but I would have assumed that a 12mm would be wider than 121 degrees (which still obviously is plenty wide).

Just curious.


----------



## Rook

No way a 16mm should have a 180 degree FOV, that doesn't sound right to me. As you double focal length, field of view decrease by *sort of half* (isn), actually just under, in all 3 quoted planes. 25mm will be about 70 degrees horizontal, 50 about 38, 100 about 20 and so on. By that logic, a 12mm should be 120-130 degrees, to get 180 you'd need about 8 or 9mm and it would almost certainly be curvilinear at that range. You shouldn't get huge field of view discrepancies from one copy to another, or one brand to another, because then a 50mm wouldn't always be a 50mm, a 35mm a 35mm etc, they wouldn't have the distinct 'looks' we chase.

All quoted in 135 terms, but the inter focal-length relationship should remain the same.



Tang said:


> I found this shot that I took back in the day with my old Canon T3 taken at 12mm to give ya'll at idea of what an ultra-wide looks like on a crop sensor. These are straight out of camera jpgs cause I thought RAW was only for pros back then .
> 
> 
> Alex, I'll take what are straight lines for $1,000, please.
> 
> EDIT: that inside cathedral shot is shockingly straight and well composed. Nice job, younger self!



Straight lines are much easier to achieve on crop sensors, particularly with full frame lenses (not that I know what lens you used here) because you lose all the discrepancies toward the edges where things can start getting a little shifty - it's easy to make an image with too big an image circle that you don't have to 'maximise coverage' of the circle to keep lens size down or focal length up - or need to make a big a lens.


----------



## Decreate

Whammy said:


> What's the deal with the Voigtlander 12mm. It says the field of view is 121 degrees.
> But the Zuiko 16mm I'm looking at has a field of view of 180 degrees on the horizontal
> 
> I know the construction of the lens can affect the field of view but I would have assumed that a 12mm would be wider than 121 degrees (which still obviously is plenty wide).
> 
> Just curious.



I believe the Zuiko 16mm is a fisheye lens. The link below may help to answer your question:
Field of View Calculator - Rectilinear and Fisheye lenses - Bob Atkins Photography


----------



## Whammy

Decreate said:


> I believe the Zuiko 16mm is a fisheye lens. The link below may help to answer your question:
> Field of View Calculator - Rectilinear and Fisheye lenses - Bob Atkins Photography



Ah yes. That's where I was getting confused. It's a full frame fisheye


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> I found this shot that I took back in the day with my old Canon T3 taken at 12mm







My wide angle GAS is getting brutal.  I should see if I can rent something like the 10-22 for a day and see how I get along with it.


----------



## Tang

Rook, all of that assumes that the photographer in question knew what he was doing and he most decidedly did not!

Your point is well taken, however.

Another from the T3, this time with the actually-pretty-good 55-250.


----------



## Whammy

Still using the wide angle and sticking to B&W. It was a bit dark out so I shot wide open. Wish I had it stopped down looking back.


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> Still using the wide angle and sticking to B&W. It was a bit dark out so I shot wide open. Wish I had it stopped down looking back.



How high are you willing to take ISO on the 5dii? I've heard a few photographers don't like to take it over 3200 but surely 6400 is useable.


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> How high are you willing to take ISO on the 5dii? I've heard a few photographers don't like to take it over 3200 but surely 6400 is useable.



Personally I never go to 3200  Mainly because I don't like using noise reduction so I'd prefer not to push any camera that far.
But yeah, 1600 is grand and 3200 is usable. 6400 starts to take the piss a little so I'd prefer not to use it. The camera can go one higher if you enable the iso expansion but the 12800 value sucks.


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> Personally I never go to 3200  Mainly because I don't like using noise reduction so I'd prefer not to push any camera that far.
> But yeah, 1600 is grand and 3200 is usable. 6400 starts to take the piss a little so I'd prefer not to use it. The camera can go one higher if you enable the iso expansion but the 12800 value sucks.



Dude, I feel you on the noise reduction thing but I really don't mind it too much these days.

I did a small comparison on dpreview of a few our different bodies in high-ISO land and I was seriously impressed at the magic that Pentax and Nikon are squeezing out of their APSC bodies. 

Anyways, here's that high-ISO test between my Pentax K5ii, 5dII, t5i, and 6d. You can clearly see that despite the noise, both full-frame bodies render way more fine detail and the t5i just turns into mush, while the 6d slaughters all 3. Apparently Pentax applies noise-reduction to their RAW files whenever you push it to 6400 and above and it's honestly disappointing. I'd rather try and preserve detail and have a hair bit more noise, but I digress. It's still seriously impressive for a crop body.

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

Regardless of all that technical shit, I'd be happy with any of those cameras (well, maybe not the t5i.. I require two scroll wheels!) and they're all capable of taking great photos in the hands of a talented photographer.

EDIT: I got to play with a 6d + 50 f/1.4 the other day and it was a beautiful shooting experience. Loved, loved, loved the viewfinder. In fact, I'd say it was a true, "holy shit!" moment.


----------



## soliloquy

JeffFromMtl said:


> Thanks man, honestly the softness is almost entirely due to the combination of the fog and shooting wide open at f/1.4. Other than that, I bumped down the clarity just a bit in lightroom.



what about its exposure/shutter speed?


----------



## Rook

I just spent this evening playing with some flashes, I need an umbrella though...

X Pro1





All 6D













Then I had a faff about using just one canon speedlite on the X Pro1 and playing with film sims, touched up the blacks in post, shot JPEG using Velvia.


























Please excuse all the silly crops, don't know what's up with me today.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

soliloquy said:


> what about its exposure/shutter speed?



For the most part, they were shot at 1/50 sec., but a couple were at 1/40.
ISO was a lot more varied. Some as low as 400, some as high as 3200 (such as the photo that you quoted).


----------



## Tang

Finally, finally getting my ass in gear and working on some photos.. so soon!


----------



## Philligan

Oh man, so it's been a crazy week. On top of getting asked to be featured in the school paper, I got asked if I'd be interested in being the paper's permanent photographer, to take photos for a yoga gym's website, and a complete stranger (from MG.org haha but still) asked if he could buy a print from me. 

The gym thing is for free (I've never done something like that before and wouldn't be comfortable charging money to basically wing it, and the manager who asked knows Dawn so it's sort of a friend thing), but I'm totally okay with that - I'm just thankful for the opportunity. 

I turned the school paper thing down, sadly, because I have to work around school, and they said it would be a lot of last minute events, and that wouldn't be fair to the paper or to my part-time job. I told them that, and they asked if I'd still be interested in volunteering when I was available, and I said most definitely. 

And I still have to work the print thing out.  I feel really weird about charging money, but hey haha. My dad actually asked me for a print of a different photo that he could hang up in his office, so I've got a couple I'm looking at printing.

Just out of curiosity, if I do get set up to do a couple of prints, would anyone be interested? If so, I'd basically charge enough to help me pay for the printing, and I could either do a frame or just mail the print. Once everything is for sure, I'll post the two shots it's probably gonna be.


----------



## Tang

Wide array of processing tones going on today..




IMGP4063-Edit-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP4051-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Just sold my 30mm, and I've got a guy coming to pick up the 7D on Friday morning. This weekend might be the weekend I finally go ultra-wide. The cool news is that I think I'm going to have more money to spend than I initially thought, so I'm looking at lenses I can pick up for around $1,000 on the used market. Initially I was looking at the Canon 17-40mm, but now I'm also considering the 16-35 f/2.8 and (I'm sure Rook would approve) the Zeiss 18mm.

I like the idea of the 18mm because of how much more compact it is than the others. I'd normally stay away from manual focus, but 18mm should be plenty forgiving. All reviews also state that optically, it's easily the best of the bunch.

Does anyone have any other suggestions?

Edit: also just found a Canon 20mm f/2.8 locally for only $300. Love the price, I might just go with that to ease myself into ultra-wide territory for now.


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review



That link is fairly sweet. It's nice being able to pick and choose different cameras.




Tang said:


> EDIT: I got to play with a 6d + 50 f/1.4 the other day and it was a beautiful shooting experience. Loved, loved, loved the viewfinder. In fact, I'd say it was a true, "holy shit!" moment.



Ah the pleasures of a full frame viewfinder and fast glass. The light just pours in.

I've actually put in a super precision matte focusing screen into my 5d.
It's designed for people who frequently use manual focus with fast lenses. Areas that are slightly out of focus appear more out of focus, making it easier to tell when focus is right on.
It makes the viewfinder a little darker but it really doesn't matter with a fast lens.
I'd always be missing focus without the screen 




Philligan said:


> Oh man, so it's been a crazy week. On top of getting asked to be featured in the school paper, I got asked if I'd be interested in being the paper's permanent photographer, to take photos for a yoga gym's website, and a complete stranger (from MG.org haha but still) asked if he could buy a print from me.
> 
> The gym thing is for free (I've never done something like that before and wouldn't be comfortable charging money to basically wing it, and the manager who asked knows Dawn so it's sort of a friend thing), but I'm totally okay with that - I'm just thankful for the opportunity.
> 
> I turned the school paper thing down, sadly, because I have to work around school, and they said it would be a lot of last minute events, and that wouldn't be fair to the paper or to my part-time job. I told them that, and they asked if I'd still be interested in volunteering when I was available, and I said most definitely.



Congrats man  Just be careful about working for free.
I also feel weird about charging money for something I enjoy doing but if you don't push yourself as a professional photographer (i.e. charging for your service) then you'll be walked all over.
I've seen a lot of people be used up and spit out because when they decided to charge money the person "hiring" decided to get someone else in who will work for free.


----------



## Wretched

Loving seeing you guys amp each other up!


----------



## Rook

JeffFromMtl said:


> Just sold my 30mm, and I've got a guy coming to pick up the 7D on Friday morning. This weekend might be the weekend I finally go ultra-wide. The cool news is that I think I'm going to have more money to spend than I initially thought, so I'm looking at lenses I can pick up for around $1,000 on the used market. Initially I was looking at the Canon 17-40mm, but now I'm also considering the 16-35 f/2.8 and (I'm sure Rook would approve) the Zeiss 18mm.
> 
> I like the idea of the 18mm because of how much more compact it is than the others. I'd normally stay away from manual focus, but 18mm should be plenty forgiving. All reviews also state that optically, it's easily the best of the bunch.
> 
> Does anyone have any other suggestions?
> 
> Edit: also just found a Canon 20mm f/2.8 locally for only $300. Love the price, I might just go with that to ease myself into ultra-wide territory for now.



After I read this I had a look at what Zeiss costs over there, they nearly cost the exact same over there as they do here, just a tad cheaper (except the AMAZING 35 1.4 which seems to be quite a lot cheaper there  ) which probably to you guys makes them feel a hell of a lot more. Here Zeiss is much cheaper than L glass, easily.

That Canon gets a lot of good press for the money and would probably be a lot of fun, it really depends what you're after to be honest. You talk about easing into ultrawides, but in terms of dipping a toe I generally consider losses rather than the amount of cash I'm actually handing over. The fact that my 18mm is full manual and my first exclusively manual focus lens and using the DoF scale and knowing your settings and F stops all the time, using hyper focal ranges etc... I've learned a shit load from that. I paid £900 for mine and in the 5 months since I got it the prices have gone up so it's now £1150 in stores here and they're selling for about £850 used. If I had to sell it today, all the fun and learning I've had from that lens has cost me £50 which is a price I'm willing to pay.

I'm not saying you won't get that from the Canon, but honestly any full manual ultra wide which is designed *with manual focusing in mind* and thus has a 'throw' optimised for that, a proper depth of field scale and so on will provide an excellent learning experience as well as add that extra touch of consideration to your shots. You're not worrying about bokeh and the like with a FF 18mm, actually unless I'm literally focusing as close as possible I usually end up using smaller apertures, but stuff being a little out of focus more often looks wrong than cool haha, particularly blown up.

Sorry, I'm waffling on, I'm very passionate about my ultra wides aha. That Canon would be a corker, but forgetting my obzeission, I do suggest looking into a full manual lens.

EDIT: If you do use manual, make sure you get one with a hard stop at infinity, you'll learn to appreciate that pretty quickly haha.


----------



## capoeiraesp

I've had my advert up on Gumtree for my 7D for 12 hours. The low-ballers, demanders, and people wanting me to cross town in 42 degree heat just so they can try it is ridiculous.


----------



## Tang

Alright, I'm about to go full spam mode. Hit me! Bokeh all the things!


----------



## Rook

I like the light on the starbucks cup haha.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> I like the light on the starbucks cup haha.



It's what I do in between customers and making coffee. Just waiting patiently for awesome light.


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> EDIT: If you do use manual, make sure you get one with a hard stop at infinity, you'll learn to appreciate that pretty quickly haha.



Haha this 
I grew up on manual focus lenses and the first time I used a lens with no hard stop was my dad's digital slr. I was immediately confused and annoyed at something that I had taken for granted being taken away from me


----------



## Philligan

Whammy said:


> Congrats man  Just be careful about working for free.
> I also feel weird about charging money for something I enjoy doing but if you don't push yourself as a professional photographer (i.e. charging for your service) then you'll be walked all over.
> I've seen a lot of people be used up and spit out because when they decided to charge money the person "hiring" decided to get someone else in who will work for free.



Definitely, thanks man.  If this gym thing goes well I'm definitely going to start charging, like you said, purely out of principle.


----------



## Tang

Phil: I'm gonna look through your Flickr and get back to you on the prints. If others are interested I'd definitely be down with a print exchange. 

A few more..


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Rook said:


> After I read this I had a look at what Zeiss costs over there, they nearly cost the exact same over there as they do here, just a tad cheaper (except the AMAZING 35 1.4 which seems to be quite a lot cheaper there  ) which probably to you guys makes them feel a hell of a lot more. Here Zeiss is much cheaper than L glass, easily.
> 
> That Canon gets a lot of good press for the money and would probably be a lot of fun, it really depends what you're after to be honest. You talk about easing into ultrawides, but in terms of dipping a toe I generally consider losses rather than the amount of cash I'm actually handing over. The fact that my 18mm is full manual and my first exclusively manual focus lens and using the DoF scale and knowing your settings and F stops all the time, using hyper focal ranges etc... I've learned a shit load from that. I paid £900 for mine and in the 5 months since I got it the prices have gone up so it's now £1150 in stores here and they're selling for about £850 used. If I had to sell it today, all the fun and learning I've had from that lens has cost me £50 which is a price I'm willing to pay.
> 
> I'm not saying you won't get that from the Canon, but honestly any full manual ultra wide which is designed *with manual focusing in mind* and thus has a 'throw' optimised for that, a proper depth of field scale and so on will provide an excellent learning experience as well as add that extra touch of consideration to your shots. You're not worrying about bokeh and the like with a FF 18mm, actually unless I'm literally focusing as close as possible I usually end up using smaller apertures, but stuff being a little out of focus more often looks wrong than cool haha, particularly blown up.
> 
> Sorry, I'm waffling on, I'm very passionate about my ultra wides aha. That Canon would be a corker, but forgetting my obzeission, I do suggest looking into a full manual lens.
> 
> EDIT: If you do use manual, make sure you get one with a hard stop at infinity, you'll learn to appreciate that pretty quickly haha.



I recently shot some video for a friend's music project, and had my Canon 50mm 1.4 on the 6D and the 30mm 1.4 on the 7D. I'd never noticed the difference in the hard stop before, but definitely noticed it then. Working with the Sigma was much nicer because of it (not to mention the focus ring was smoother and had a much shorter travel distance). I'm still bummed that lens isn't compatible with the 6D.

That said, I'm assuming the 20mm wouldn't have the hard stop since it's from the same line. However considering it's n AF lens, I'm not sure how often I would be using MF. Are there any other MF lenses out there to consider aside from the Zeiss?


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> Phil: I'm gonna look through your Flickr and get back to you on the prints. If others are interested I'd definitely be down with a print exchange.



I really dig the bike one.  I think it's on my Flickr, but the one the guy wants is the Rock Bottom one, which I'm not crazy about.  My dad wants a print of the people/guy walking on the street (it's a recent one), so I'll be printing that one for sure if anyone's interested.

This one:


----------



## Whammy

Had a go at some macro.
I don't have a macro lens so I took a manual lens, flipped it around and held in the depth of field preview on the lens so I could get f16.
A lot of light was needed 






EDIT:
Just realized how long I've owned this coin. Feeling old now...


----------



## Rook

JeffFromMtl said:


> I recently shot some video for a friend's music project, and had my Canon 50mm 1.4 on the 6D and the 30mm 1.4 on the 7D. I'd never noticed the difference in the hard stop before, but definitely noticed it then. Working with the Sigma was much nicer because of it (not to mention the focus ring was smoother and had a much shorter travel distance). I'm still bummed that lens isn't compatible with the 6D.
> 
> That said, I'm assuming the 20mm wouldn't have the hard stop since it's from the same line. However considering it's n AF lens, I'm not sure how often I would be using MF. Are there any other MF lenses out there to consider aside from the Zeiss?



No, the Canon won't.

The reason manual focus, whether it's full manual or not, is useful in ultra wides is because so much is in focus and when stuff is out of focus it's not 'good bokeh', it's just a bit bleary and looks a bit off, particularly in the foreground. Say you went to take a picture of a building 40ft away, you use AF and the lens will say you're in focus when the point of sharp focus is at the distance the building is away, which will be near enough the infinity mark on an 18mm (or 20 for that matter), which means you get up to about 10-20ft in from tot you in focus and your point of sharp focus is sitting in the middle of a huge range. Anything in the foreground of your pic that's closer than 20 or so feet will be not-sharp, possibly distracting in the foreground. What do you do, take off two stop and shoot at f16? Nope.

If you have the light to shoot at f8, prefocus your hyper focal range (the amount in focus both in front of and behind the point of sharp focus) so that the back end of your focus range is at or ever so slightly beyond infinity and immediately your point of sharp focus is now only 20ft in front of you, and anything up to about 3ft away is in focus. 

Or for the same range as having the PoSF at the subject you can achieve the same usable depth of field for that subject distance by halving your f stop and let four times as much light in then using your hyper focal range again - if you don't need anything 20ft or closer in focus I mean.

These are arguments for using manual focus by the way, not necessary a MF lens or that Canon or Zeiss or whatever. This is why I wanted a lens optimised for manual though, it makes setting shots like that up infinitely easier and more precise.

I don't know of any other full manual lenses that aren't Leica, which won't work. ultra wides are surprisingly hard to come by, I only know of a handful that are even compatible with my Canon.


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> I don't know of any other full manual lenses that aren't Leica, which won't work. ultra wides are surprisingly hard to come by, I only know of a handful that are even compatible with my Canon.



Don't know if these would fall into your idea of an ultrawide but all are old manual focus lenses and all have adapters out there that will allow for it to fit to an EOS mount.

Soligor 3.5 / 17 mm
Tamron SP 3.5 / 17 mm
Nikon Nikkor (AIS) 3.5 / 18 mm
Sigma widerama YS 3.5 / 18 mm
Olympus Zuiko 3.5 / 18mm
Yashinon DS 3.3 / 20 mm
Yashica ML 2.8 / 20 mm

There is more out there but I never saw one under 17mm that wasn't a fisheye.


----------



## Khoi

Not photography again!

but here's another wedding video I shot over the weekend. This time I just shot in standard (no RAW video).

I need to invest more stabilizers  SO MUCH $$$$!!! 


anyone know how to embed Vimeo?

https://vimeo.com/84241485


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I get the feeling that I'd find myself wishing that the 20mm was just a little wider. I think the smart thing to do would be to go with the 17-40 I was originally planning on. Just because I'll have the money, doesn't mean spending it all is the smart thing to do, so I might pass on the pricier options. I'm used to fast primes, so the f/4 aperture makes me grumble a little.


----------



## Khoi

too many chihuahuas in here


----------



## narad

Khoi said:


> A portrait of my girlfriend's dad. I really like how this shot turned out, not sure what about it sticks out to me, but I like it.



"Does he really think he is worthy of my daughter?"


----------



## Tang

Khoi said:


> too many chihuahuas in here



There are more chihuahua pics coming 

Those are really nice, Khoi! Taken with the 135?


----------



## Philligan

Khoi said:


> Not photography again!
> 
> but here's another wedding video I shot over the weekend. This time I just shot in standard (no RAW video).
> 
> I need to invest more stabilizers  SO MUCH $$$$!!!
> 
> 
> anyone know how to embed Vimeo?
> 
> https://vimeo.com/84241485



That was awesome.  I'm in the middle of planning a wedding, so I might have to steal some ideas.


----------



## Tang

Guys: Rent Kubrick's Insane Zeiss f/0.7 Lenses | Popular Photography

I wonder what else this could adapted to mount on..


----------



## Khoi

Tang said:


> There are more chihuahua pics coming
> 
> Those are really nice, Khoi! Taken with the 135?



Yea, the 135mm at f2.0. It was a bit hard to get the focus right with such a fast moving subject, as it would typically focus just before the eyes



Philligan said:


> That was awesome.  I'm in the middle of planning a wedding, so I might have to steal some ideas.



go for it! I was just there to film it, I didn't know the couple or anything


----------



## Tyler

This may be minmal, but what is the difference between the Nikkor 35mm 1.8 DX and the FX?


----------



## feilong29

Tyler said:


> This may be minmal, but what is the difference between the Nikkor 35mm 1.8 DX and the FX?



Crop size, if anything. DX 1.5 vs FX 1.0 but usually FX/DX is dependent on the camera sensor. A nikon D3200 has a crop sensor of 1.5 whereas the D600 has a sensor of 1.0. 

On a DX format camera (D3200), a 35mm lens will actually be about 52mm, but 35mm on a full frame (D600), and a 50mm lens would equal 75mm on a crop sensor camera but 50mm on a full frame. I think Canon's crop sensors are 1.6


----------



## Philligan

Tyler said:


> This may be minmal, but what is the difference between the Nikkor 35mm 1.8 DX and the FX?



I'm curious, too. Why buy the DX one and be limited to a crop sensor body when you could get the FX one and be able to carry it over if you upgrade? 

Is the DX one just a bit cheaper overall, or does a 35mm DX lens look like 35mm on the crop sensor?

This is why Nikon confuses me.  With Canon, off the top of my head, all of their crop-only lenses are more or less adjusted equivalents of FF lenses. i.e. The crop version of the EF 24-70 f2.8 is the EF-S 17-55 f2.8. IIRC they don't have any crop-only primes, other than maybe one macro lens.


----------



## feilong29

Philligan said:


> I'm curious, too. Why buy the DX one and be limited to a crop sensor body when you could get the FX one and be able to carry it over if you upgrade?
> 
> Is the DX one just a bit cheaper overall, or does a 35mm DX lens look like 35mm on the crop sensor?



Well, when I had my 35mm f/1.8 G which is a DX lens, it put my D610 into crop sensor mode; which made it look like a 50mm... I was able to toggle that off and it opened it up to full 35mm in focal range. The 35mm will look different on the DX sensor vs full frame; it'll look bigger on a full frame OUT of crop sensor mode. It's odd. I sold my DX 35mm though; it had a nasty vignette on my full frame when wide-open


----------



## feilong29

Philligan said:


> I'm curious, too. Why buy the DX one and be limited to a crop sensor body when you could get the FX one and be able to carry it over if you upgrade?
> 
> Is the DX one just a bit cheaper overall, or does a 35mm DX lens look like 35mm on the crop sensor?



Pricing on 1.8 shouldn't vary; it's when you get into the bigger apertures (1.4 or 1.2) that they start raising in price.


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> Guys: Rent Kubrick's Insane Zeiss f/0.7 Lenses | Popular Photography
> 
> I wonder what else this could adapted to mount on..



No way it will fit on any 35mm SLR or smaller camera.
Nasa only used Hasselblad film cameras, either medium or large format.
However for the early moon landings they actually left the camera bodies on the moon and only brought the film back to save weight.

Although it's well know that they used the 0.7 lenses there is not really any documentation online saying what camera it was used on.

But yeah, due to the size and flange focal distance it's a very safe bet it can't be fitted onto any 35mm x 24mm (or smaller) camera.

I have seen massive old cine lenses adapted to fit full frame cameras. However the camera needs to be gutted (mirror ripped out along with other stuff) it order for it to be adapted.
I'd imagine if the 0.7 is in any way compatible with a full frame dslr then the camera would have to be gutted.


----------



## Rook

For the FX vs DX lens debate. A 'full frame' lens compared to a crop APS-C lens of identical f and aperture requires a larger image circle and suffers from longer flange distance, and thus will be bigger.

That's sorta it.

Compare any full frame 35 1.4 to Fuji's 35 1.4, 1.4 35's are usually pretty big because there's quite a lot of correction needed in there IIRC, Fuji mirrorless is one of the shortest flange distances and the image circle doesn't need to be so big hence little tiny 35 1.4.

If the Nikon DX isn't smaller, cheaper or at least lighter than the FX version then yeah it's pointless, but it could in theory be any of or all three.


----------



## Philligan

Sorry guys, I should have done my homework first.  I thought Nikon had more essentially identical lenses, only both FX and DX versions, and I was wondering what was up. I was just confused and should have looked at their lineup more closely. 

I will say, Canon needs to release a ~$200 35mm f/1.8 or something along those lines. I dig the size of my 40mm pancake but need more bokeh.


----------



## Rook

If you're on APS-C get the Sigma 30 1.4 dude.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> If you're on APS-C get the Sigma 30 1.4 dude.



I've seriously thought about it - for the about the price of the Canon 17-55 2.8, I could probably get the Sigma 17-50 2.8 _and_ the 30 1.4. I'm just nervous about the AF accuracy - I know it'll be tonnes better on a 70D than my T3/1100D, but I'm still nervous, especially if I end up taking more jobs/weddings.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> I've seriously thought about it - for the about the price of the Canon 17-55 2.8, I could probably get the Sigma 17-50 2.8 _and_ the 30 1.4. I'm just nervous about the AF accuracy - I know it'll be tonnes better on a 70D than my T3/1100D, but I'm still nervous, especially if I end up taking more jobs/weddings.



Dude, the 70d should have autofocus microadjustments for just this purpose. It'll be hidden in the custom functions most likely. If your gonna be doing paid work I'd consider at least renting a focus calibration tool if you're going to be using the 30mm wide open. It's a tremendous help and resource. 

The zoom lens is a bit more complicated due to the nature of zooms. There's really no way to calibrate for both the wide end AND the tele end. If you get lucky, the focus will be dead on as you buy it (like in my case), otherwise I'd google calibrating zoom lenses. Everyone does it differently!


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> Dude, the 70d should have autofocus microadjustments for just this purpose. It'll be hidden in the custom functions most likely. If your gonna be doing paid work I'd consider at least renting a focus calibration tool if you're going to be using the 30mm wide open. It's a tremendous help and resource.
> 
> The zoom lens is a bit more complicated due to the nature of zooms. There's really no way to calibrate for both the wide end AND the tele end. If you get lucky, the focus will be dead on as you buy it (like in my case), otherwise I'd google calibrating zoom lenses. Everyone does it differently!



Definitely.  It's mostly Sigma's reputation for mis-focuses that worries me, though. Even the good reviews I've read of them mention that the focusing isn't the best.


----------



## Tyler

Interesting. I might just get the FX then for later. Im planning on upgrading my body to a d7000 sometime in the summer.


----------



## Whammy

Taking too many photos of trees lately. But that's the only thing around me


----------



## Tang

Back to wide open shots? Love it. 

It's also about to get real chihuahua in here.. just a warning


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> Back to wide open shots? Love it.
> 
> It's also about to get real chihuahua in here.. just a warning



Cheers. Actually it's stopped down to 1.4 from 1.2


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I'm standing outside the camera shop right now. Spent a little while trying out all my options. The Tokina was way too huge for my liking, the canons were really nice and I was torn between the 17-40 and 16-35, trying to decide whether the wider aperture was worth the extra $$$. Then I tried the Zeiss 18mm... Everything about it was beautiful, fvck everything else. And it just so happens someone's got one for sale second-hand locally. My wallet fears.


----------



## Rook

YESSSSS DOOOOO EEEEEEEEEEEEEEET

ZEISSMASTERRACE


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Rook, you're to blame for this


----------



## ThePhilosopher

New Lens Day:


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> Try making your subject as small as you can while capturing as much of the environment as you can, be it with a wide angle or standard.
> Doing this changes the way you think of framing as a lot of different factors come into play which include photographing stuff you generally wouldn't.



I took this advice quite literally. Great advice, man.




IMGP4465 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Been tryin' some different finishing approaches. Quite 'hip'.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

So buddy guy that was supposed to buy my 7D bailed. He was supposed to be here at 8 this morning, so I woke up at 7 to get out of bed with a pretty girl and come home on my morning off just to get an e-mail from him at 8:02 saying that something came up and he can't buy the camera anymore. Cool move dickhead, I appreciate the heads-up.

Looks like the lens will have to wait.


----------



## Rook

Sad panda. eBay?

I sold the work ones and they literally went inside of a day.


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> I took this advice quite literally. Great advice, man.



Glad you liked the advice man. A completely new perspective on something 


I'm starting to get tired of only viewing photos on a computer screen.
Sometimes I take photos with very fine details that would come into life printed out huge.
But it's depressing when those details get lost on a screen 

Directly under the sun all the way down the photo are tiny snow flakes reflecting the light. No matter how I process the photo it doesn't bring them to life. The only way is to view it massive.






Here's the photo at the full size if anyone's interested.
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5517/11998759453_1e22748318_o.jpg

Stopped down my 85mm to f8 and I still needed the iso on 50.
Shutter speed was 1/8000 of a sec


----------



## Tang

More and more I'm beginning to feel like the only way to get 'true' context in your work is to see it printed and that's a whole 'nother world that I haven't even set my tippy toes in. I would love to start, though. 

Whammy, I just looked at that shot on my 50' TV (with the PS3 browser!) and it was glorious. Love the little snowflake sunray.


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> More and more I'm beginning to feel like the only way to get 'true' context in your work is to see it printed and that's a whole 'nother world that I haven't even set my tippy toes in. I would love to start, though.
> 
> Whammy, I just looked at that shot on my 50' TV (with the PS3 browser!) and it was glorious. Love the little snowflake sunray.



Nice  Wish I didn't sell my ps3 

I've had my portfolio printed out when I was applying for college. Around A3 size. I used Hahnemuehle Photo Rag Pearl paper. I wasn't sure what paper to use so I asked my printer guy to suggest what he thought would work with my photos and he went with the above. I was super happy with the results.


----------



## Tang

I've decided to delay the doge pics and focusing on.. other stuff. I'm just taking pictures and seeing what sticks. I love the feeling of going out and actively developing my style.




IMGP4349 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP4398 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP4102 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP4396 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP4404 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP4355 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Khoi

Tried something a little more different, and first time faking a sun flare, I don't even know if it makes sense, but it's there LOL


----------



## Tang

Just took this and it's a straight OOC .jpg. Trying to get things right in camera is a big focus for me right now, so I'm pretty proud of this. What I was trying to capture was the juxtaposition of the horizontal lights being cast from the blinds and the vertical lines that are part of the sheet. I really like how I'm using the odd numbers of each element to play off each other.




Blind Light. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

My buddy Kris and I shot video for a dance/audio performance at my University a couple of nights ago. Unfortunately I don't have any photos of the performance, but here are a couple of random snapshots from the night that I like.


----------



## Tang

JeffFromMtl said:


> My buddy Kris and I shot video for a dance/audio performance at my University a couple of nights ago. Unfortunately I don't have any photos of the performance, but here are a couple of random snapshots from the night that I like.



I like your b&w processing, dude. Using Lightroom?


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Tang said:


> I like your b&w processing, dude. Using Lightroom?



Thanks, man. Yup, I'm using lightroom. I actually had a really hard time finding my groove with B&W, but now that I've been able to establish a preset that I really like and I think gets my style across, I just want to B&W everything


----------



## Tang

JeffFromMtl said:


> Thanks, man. Yup, I'm using lightroom. I actually had a really hard time finding my groove with B&W, but now that I've been able to establish a preset that I really like and I think gets my style across, I just want to B&W everything



I went through a period of b&w'ing everything, so don't worry  It usually passes!

I met this cool looking cat walking around the neighborhood this afternoon. She was quite friendly and walked up to me and let me take her picture. I shot this wide open to really focus on her face.




Street cat by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Whammy said:


> Glad you liked the advice man. A completely new perspective on something
> 
> 
> I'm starting to get tired of only viewing photos on a computer screen.
> Sometimes I take photos with very fine details that would come into life printed out huge.
> But it's depressing when those details get lost on a screen
> 
> Directly under the sun all the way down the photo are tiny snow flakes reflecting the light. No matter how I process the photo it doesn't bring them to life. The only way is to view it massive.
> 
> aHere's the photo at the full size if anyone's interested.
> http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5517/11998759453_1e22748318_o.jpg
> 
> Stopped down my 85mm to f8 and I still needed the iso on 50.
> Shutter speed was 1/8000 of a sec



I would buy a print of that. I didn't think that until I viewed it full size (and scrolled a lot ). But I really, really dig that photo. 

I need to get out and shoot, I haven't really since Ireland. I get out of work at 4 tomorrow, which at this time year is right around the golden hour I'm pretty sure. Dawn's gone home for the weekend and I have nothing to do - I should take pictures instead of playing Call of Duty all evening.


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> I would buy a print of that. I didn't think that until I viewed it full size (and scrolled a lot ). But I really, really dig that photo.
> 
> I need to get out and shoot, I haven't really since Ireland. I get out of work at 4 tomorrow, which at this time year is right around the golden hour I'm pretty sure. Dawn's gone home for the weekend and I have nothing to do - I should take pictures instead of playing Call of Duty all evening.



Ha that's awesome 

I have to actively force myself to get out with the camera.
If I don't feel like I've been productive with the camera I get annoyed at myself. That includes when I take loads of photos and delete them all cause they're crap


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> Cheers. Actually it's stopped down to 1.4 from 1.2





Trying to use compositional concepts with very active dogs is.. interesting. 






and here's that f/13 shot and there's still more DOF than I wanted.  at least it's not FF


----------



## Whammy

Walked up a crazy hill in deep snow just to take a few photos at sun set.
Tired now...

Not actually a fan of these photos. A bit too gold for my liking. But I need to do something to feel productive 
If it looks like the sensor needs cleaning it doesn't. That's just falling snow out of focus haha

EDIT:
I couldn't do it. The gold was too much and I like the B&W vibe I'm currently on.
Pics swapped for B&W ones


----------



## Tang

I prefer the B&W versions, definitely.

I apologize, but I feel I've gone art mode. My favorite are the first who. The first I love the shadow play, and the second I love how it looks like a rudimentary aperture mechanism.




IMGP5281-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr




f/1.fence by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP5090 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP5178-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Top one is nice. The contrast is very natural, not too much.

I think I may have taken my own advice about placing your subject as far away as possible a little too seriously


----------



## Philligan

I got out of work and beat the sunset, but it's smoggy and grey today - .... Windsor.  It was also a pretty shitty day at work, and pyjamas and beer sound pretty good right now haha.

Even though I didn't go out and take pictures, I did something: got "published"! 





Here's the link to the issue:

ISSUU - Issue 19, Volume 86 - The Lance by The Lance

It's just the school paper, but it's cool that the editor got a hold of me and asked me if I'd be interested in submitting something.  And it's a start at least. We'll see how many handfuls of hard copies I take on Monday. 

In other news, my 70D and Sigma 18-35/1.8 GAS are killing me. Tax season needs to friggen hurry up.


----------



## Rook

So I went shooting today, and I have to say I didn't shoot JPEG. Sorry. Instead, having spent a few weeks reading and looking at the work of my peers and of far better known artists in my genre, I imposed a different set of rules on myself. I shot pretty much all of today at f/8 and aimed for people shots. Now a whole bunch were shot from the hip, it's one of the best ways of getting more candid shots of people right up close with a 27mm equivalent, all using the X Pro1. I also used this as an opportunity to put this thing through it's paces a little more.

Also keep in mind I have quite the tremour, so my shutter speed was set at 1/125 and even then you can see some motion blur in my pictures every now and again. This meant if I wan't outside in good light the ISO got very high very fast. Let me state this now, shooting RAW anything above about 3200 is pretty bad, the 6D absolutely drowns this thing when you get into that range. The grain and loss of detail picks up much quicker on the Fuji and by 6400 its comparable to the 6D at 12800. Shooting JPEGs? Fuji's the clear winner. It turns out Fuji's great at killing their own noise in camera and Lightroom really can't compete. For low light stuff though, my 6D and with my 1.2 and 1.4 primes is the obvious choice.

Anyway, some shots. The point of this exercise was not to rely on bokeh or over-processing to make my photos look all cool, the subject matter had to be there - either an interesting person, and interesting view, an intimate view and so on. Some of these I'm proud of purely because of how daring I felt when I got them hahaha. Processing kept to a minimum though.


This guy was great. He must have been in his 60's and he was sitting in a full Nike tracksuit, zipped all the way up to the top, and wearing football shoes with his socks pulled up. He was stern faced, clean cut, quiet, but had an air of confidence with a hint of severity about him. I didn't get to hear his voice sadly but I imagine him being a proper London gent, and I like to imagine not one you'd want to mess with.



Sporting Gentleman by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

I caught this just as a very low winter sun peered out from my right and seemed to light this up. The scaffolding along with the words in the sign made this I think worth shooting, I love the contrast in the end result.



Friends Meeting by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

There was your typical Covent Garden Square street act to my left shouting away, rousing the crowd, and I noticed this chap just sat there. He smelt a bit off, and despite being dressed 'his age' he was wearing trainers and had a curious, if not slightly confused expression on his face. He didn't seem to be watching the show, more just looking around and taking in the area.



Foot of Column by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

And this is the street showman, Matthew. He had 'SHOWTIME' tattooed across the top of his back and the crowd hung on every word he called, enthralled. A few moments after I shot this he dislocated his shoulder and passed his entire body through a de-strung tennis racquet. 



Showtime by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

This gentleman, behind the one in the foreground, had told his daughter he was picking he up so she could see, however neither before he had nor once she had ascended did she seem entirely interested in the show, spending more time staring at the gentleman in front of me...



On Shoulders 1 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

This young lady seemed rather bored by the whole affair too; understandable though as Matthew's dark sense of humour was better suited to an older audience.



On Shoulders 2 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

In Covent Garden Market, you can hardly walk past a stand without an unoccupied tender coming to tempt you to whatever they're selling. Except this chap. Obviously he'd given up for the day.



Market Salesman by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

This guy was shouting down his phone at the top of his voice in a thick cockney accent and happened to catch my eye, for some reason he held my gaze as I walked past, though I assume he wasn't thinking, distracted by his audible phone conversation. It was almost rude not to photograph him at that point, we were basically family.



Mod by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

This is an american chap, though he seemed very at home on the underground, with his friend (my right) seeming the more out-of-place of the two, despite having a more commonly-found-in-London accent.



Underground with Friend by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

This one was tricky. The girl noticed I had a camera in my hand straight away, she wouldn't stop turning around and while her mum dragged her along the road, not listening to anything the girl was saying, though thankfully I was and can confirm she wasn't saying 'Mum, the tall guy behind us is pointing a camera at me'...



Small in Pink by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

This guy was literally in the middle of a song when this young man confidently and without hesitation strolled over and said 'Is that just an oil drum?', at which point the player stopped, smiled and answered 'No, well, yes, it's a steel pan', and let the bold boy have a go.



Yes, It's a Steel Pan by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

This guy was just sat in the corridor of a museum. He was dressed in official-looking clothing, but wasn't wearing a logo or name badge of any kind. He seemed to be looking for someone but at the same time just kept making eye contact with people - not something people do in London - and he said hello to me. Again, almost seemed rude not to get a shot of him waiting in the dark...



Waiting at the Window by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

This chap seemed to be having quite a vigorous text conversation and it wasn't about to go away it seemed. Waiting at the lights for the whole two minutes the took to let us cross he angrily tapping and typing, I could have done anything and he'd never have known.



Brown Coat by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

Don't have a story for these guys, just an opportune shot and I like how it came out haha.



Three for Coffee by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

I took a photograph of this lady because of how ridiculously South Kensington she is. If you know London, that makes sense. I also quite enjoyed sticking my camera in her face apparently without her noticing.



South Kensington by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

And here are some photos of random crap.



Library Wing by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Staircase and Hand by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




62-63 Princes Gate by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Blue Bike by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Hoge post, Rook. I love how engaged in your surroundings and with your subjects you were. Great work! It's stuff like this that really makes me wish I owned a more compact/discreet camera.


----------



## ghostred7

Playing w/ Lightroom for the 1st time...


----------



## Philligan

Nick. The street performer, three guys at the table, and the old lady are all ridiculously awesome.


----------



## Tang

Guys.. guys.

I think I want a medium format film body.

....

I knew this would happen eventually.


----------



## MrYakob

So after owning the 17-40 for about 2 weeks, I came to the conclusion that while it's a fantastic lens, it doesn't really suit my needs at the moment so I returned it and picked up a 24-105. I've been doing a lot more video work with some friends so the IS and increased range was a big deal to me. Today was the first day that I could use it while the sun was out. (Damn winter... )


----------



## Taylord

A lot of incredible stuff in this thread. Whammy, that forest shot is awesome. Sorry to drop things down a notch. Had my T3i for about a month now.


----------



## Whammy

Taylord said:


> A lot of incredible stuff in this thread. Whammy, that forest shot is awesome.


Cheers man 


I thought I share this experience with everyone...

Both these two photos were taken within a minutes of one another. More or less the same setting on the camera and lightroom.

The only difference was that I turned 180 degrees to take the second shot. Both were taken from the same location.
I was amazed the difference that cloud cover made to both of these photos.












EDIT:



Tang said:


> Guys.. guys.
> 
> I think I want a medium format film body.
> 
> ....
> 
> I knew this would happen eventually.



I've been like this for years. Always wanted a medium & large format body. If I was to do so I would invest in a good quality scanner which I was going to be before turning digital.
If cash was flowing freely I would get an awesome film scanner, a medium & large format camera, a copious amount of B&W film (Efke is my fav - lovely mid tones) to stick in the fridge and all the materials I need to develop the film myself. Sorted 
Just need money


----------



## Rook

^Yup, I'm gunna pick up a 500C/M this year for sure, my dad has a pretty epic Canon scanner I can steal as and when. No space for developing at the moment though.

EDIT: Just saw some of you guys' posts, thanks


----------



## Decreate

Went to see Havok last night and tried to take some pictures but I guess not having auto focus and zoom really doesn't help in these sort of situations...guess I really need more practice...


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> ^Yup, I'm gunna pick up a 500C/M this year for sure



I love seeing 6x6 shots, but I hate taking the shots myself.
I'd prefer to shoot 6x7 so for that reason I'd probably go with a Mamiya 7 or Mamiya RZ67.



I'm shooting a lot more landscape than I ever thought I would, and for the first time in my life I think I want a 300mm+ lens


----------



## Tang

I'm leaning towards a 6x7 Pentax myself. Same SLR ergonomics with a huge ass negative? Yes please. Medium format chihuahua pics?


----------



## flint757

Love that last pic Tang.


----------



## Tang

flint757 said:


> Love that last pic Tang.



Thanks! I just happened to had dropped a whole picture of milk at work and the splatter created a beautiful curve so I had to run to the back to grab my camera and take a shot.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

More dags.


----------



## Whammy

^
I've actually been playing with this sort of thing lately.
Trying to capture my dogs in a very aggressive manner. They're not actually being aggressive but it's amazing what a photo at the right time can convey.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Whammy said:


> ^
> I've actually been playing with this sort of thing lately.
> Trying to capture my dogs in a very aggressive manner. They're not actually being aggressive but it's amazing what a photo at the right time can convey.





In this one, she was standing beside my bed whining for me to let her up, and I caught her in the middle of a yawn.

The gritty black and white one I posted a few pages back in which she looks like she's getting super-territorial, I was out in the back alley behind my apartment playing "tag" with her, essentially getting her to sprint after me back and forth. Luckily, I was able to capture just the right second.


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> ^
> I've actually been playing with this sort of thing lately.
> Trying to capture my dogs in a very aggressive manner. They're not actually being aggressive but it's amazing what a photo at the right time can convey.



That's actually a great idea..


----------



## Whammy

JeffFromMtl said:


> In this one, she was standing beside my bed yawning and whining to for me to let her up.
> 
> The gritty black and white one I posted a few pages back in which she looks like she's getting super-territorial, I was out in the back alley behind my apartment playing "tag" with her, essentially getting her to sprint after me back and forth. Luckily, I was able to capture just the right second.



Awesome.
I just love the idea of bending the truth in a photo.

I didn't put up any of the photos on my page as I felt that only I would appreciate it 
I'm trying to make a set of them.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

If she were any better with other dogs, I'd try taking her to the dog park to get photos of her play "fighting" with other dogs. I came across a book that a photographer published of those sorts of photos a couple of years ago and while in each picture, the dogs are simply playing, all of the images came across incredibly aggressive and visceral. Ever since then, those types of images have really appealed to me. I can't think of his name right now for the life of me, though.

edit: I love it, man. I'd also like to try compiling a good set of them. I've got 2 that I've liked so far, though


----------



## Tang

Really want to get into street work. I used to love it with my iPhone, but its different with an SLR..

Here's an iPhone shot I love especially.


----------



## Whammy

Dog parks can be a bit weird. You have no idea of the temperament of the other dogs.
I have a 50kg male ridgeback who hates other males  Needless to say he doesn't come to the dog park.
What you can do is do dog meetups with any friends of yours that have dogs.
It'd be easier for you to control if it's a one to one dog meetup. Plus less stressful for your dog.

Here are two of mine "playing"


----------



## Rook

Tang said:


> Really want to get into street work. I used to love it with my iPhone, but its different with an SLR..
> 
> Here's an iPhone shot I love especially.



Why do i have it in my head that you have an x100...


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> Why do i have it in my head that you have an x100...



I had one but ultimately did not get along with it as much as I thought I did.. if I go the compact route again it'll definitely be the Ricoh GR.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Tang said:


> I had one but ultimately did not get along with it as much as I thought I did.. if I go the compact route again it'll definitely be the Ricoh GR.



There's a Ricoh GR1 for sale in my city for only $280. I was so tempted, but I have to focus on my war with UWA glass GAS first 

In other news, it's looking like tomorrow is the day that I end that war. Since the 7D still hasn't sold and the guy I messaged about the Zeiss never responded, I tracked down a Canon 17-40mm for a pretty nice price. I finally decided that I really don't need to spend top dollars on a lens in order to be happy with it. Given how much grain/grit I tend to add in post-processing, extra sharpness might not be all that important for me. I just need it to be wide is all, and 17mm is pretty fvcking wide.


----------



## feilong29

Got a new (well used) Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D (old school manual focus baby) and put it to use! Been waiting on this, along with my 85mm 1.4 (which still isn't here) so I could resume shooting.


----------



## Tang

Found a new color processing that I'm quite enjoying..




IMGP4797-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP4715-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

alright y'all. 2k or so to spend, need image quality gains. The only thing keeping me from grabbing a 6D and disappearing into the wilderness to take all of the pictures is that I would like something stealthy. Unfortunately, I want my image quality, DOF, and low light capability with that. I'm hesitant on the A7 mainly because of the lack of 1st party lenses for it right now, I don't want to buy my way into a system doomed to fail upon arrival. Other than that, it seems to be the best compromise between the cropped fujis and comparatively gargantuan 6D.

1. 6D body plus 35 f2 IS or 6D kit

2. Fuji X100s or X-Pro 1 + Ricoh gr1v or Contax T2

3. Sony A7 plus voightlander m-mount lens of some sort.


----------



## capoeiraesp

6D!


----------



## MrYakob

My vote also goes to the 6D!


----------



## Rook

I own a 6D and X-Pro1.

If you're shooting JPEG the X-Pro1 holds up perfectly against the 6D for low light, reaching ISO's up to 6400 comfortably. Shooting RAW, Lightroom just can't handle the noise reduction as well as Fuji's built in processing BUT even Fuji's built in reduction does degrade sharpness, looking as soft as the 6D's ISO's do in the 10,000-12,800 region.

BUT BUT. I tend to use faster than average shutter speeds, and you gain a whole stop with the 35 1.4 which I haven't received yet (despite sending off for it a month ago now...) over the f2 glass I have now. I was shooting in a dim restaurant last night on the X-Pro at f2 1/125 at ISO3200 and the RAW files look great, they'll be back to fantastic when I get that extra stop back. So point here is, the noise performance is good enough on the X Pro (and thus X100S, XE-2, all similar performers) that you can shoot as dark as you'll ever need to as long as you can use fast glass, like the super affordable 35 1.4 (or the less affordable 23 1.4 or 56 1.2, yummy). If you need something wider or more tele you're going to suffer whichever route you take.

BUT BUT BUT. For stealthiness.... I'm a street photographer. Or I profess to be. I have spent ages taking out SLRs and pointing them at people and I have been stopped and called out so many times or lost shots from people I'm perving on noticing me - from a human perspective it's usually fine, most people assume I'm photographing whatever's behind them (top tip, don't make eye contact haha) or take it as a compliment, but as someone trying to get a great picture it's pretty creepy looking through how many shots I have of people cowering in fear at my camera like it's going to fire something ballistic at them. 

There's no subtle way of raising an SLR, be it a 600D or 6D, which you cover your entire face with, pointing it at someone, invading their privacy, and flapping that mirror about without someone feeling uncomfortable or staring at you and you only have to look at my shots to see the kinda thing I get. It's possible to get the shot, absolutely, but you have to be bold enough not to mind everybody noticing you as soon as you flip the shutter. I _only_ have an X-Pro1 for the stealthiness and only since I've gotten it have I realised just how stunning some of the images could be, frankly I didn't really believe it til I started making my own files. It's truly a stealthy people shot machine.

With all of that said, my 6D is still my baby. For arranged shooting where people expect to see someone with a big black lump of plastic, metal and glass strapped to their face it's unbeatable. For outright image and RAW file quality I have not tried a single thing that beats it - including 5D3's - particularly when taking money into account.

So after that long, thinking aloud rant, here's a breakdown, tl;dr *tl;dr*

Advantages of 6D:
-Stunning images
-Stunning glass
-Stunning low light performance
-Wi-Fi's pretty great
-Stunning video
-Proper Phase Detect AF (contrast detect is still finicky at best, but if you're looking at the X100S it doesn't matter, X100S is PD)
-Well established, market leading support and accessories

6D Disadvantages:
- Everyone feels uncomfortable having a DSLR pointed at them, even members of my family, I can see them feeling awkward and out of place through my viewfinder and it's not something you can shoot subtly. This is exacerbated somewhat in the street when you're trying to get shots of people's _faces_ (if you shoot candidly or just of architecture or scenes, this is irrelevant really).
-Big and heavy
-Expensive, top quality full frame glass is not cheap either, and is also big and heavy.
-Long tele's get really big and really expensive really fast, the 300mm f/4 is over a grand, Fuji do a zoom of similar range and transmission for 500.

X-Pro1 Advantages
-More than good enough low light performance, class leading for sure
-Short flange distance and smaller sensor means: Smaller like-for-like lenses compared to FF SLR's, cheaper like-for-like lenses than (etc), next to no vignetting, much closer focussing possible, and much less complex and thus lighter and potentially brighter lenses.
-I have literally stood 5 feet in front of an absolutely stranger and pointed this at their face without them really taking a lot of notice. It looks like a dodgy old film camera and makes me look like a tourist, it's also small and black so people really don't think twice about it.
-Cheaper body
-Much cheaper lenses
-Adaptable to all M-Mount lenses (of which there are tonnes of makers)
-Fuji listen to their customers and constantly send out firmware updates giving people the features they want, it's quite endearing I have to say.

X-Pro1 Disadvantages:
-Iffy RAW files above about ISO 3200. Fine on screen but I wouldn't print them particularly big with any confidence.
-Still a young system (though personally I think it's established and adaptable enough now for that not to ever matter)
-Shitty video. No two ways about it, the video sucks.
-Shitty battery life. Well. Compared to the 6D. We're talking 400 shots from the X-Pro (per charge) compared to about 2000 out of the 6D.
-Expensive accessories (£100 for the X100S HOOD, £700 for a plastic grip, £120 for a crappy little flash, just wow).

There goes my lunchtime, enjoy my rantyrant.


----------



## Tang

Excellent write-up Rook, and as much as I'd like to recommend Pentax gear I'm going to have to agree with the others here and say 6d. I know for a fact you get can just as good IQ out of a Pentax but it's a commitment in terms of glass. Equivalent Pentax glass is sadly more expensive than the Canon/Nikon alternative and I hope that's something they address soon. 

Anyways, it finally happened. I was walking to and fro around the in-laws house taking pictures of randomness. I had just walked outside and the lighting and the shadows were just perfect on my oldest chihuahua, Sid. Snap, snap, snap. Get home, open up Lightroom with much excitement, and all the highlights are blown to hell.  Apparently I left the ISO on 800 and ISO800 in broad daylight does not work. The camera tried it's best to fix my user error by taking the shutter speed all the way to 1/8000s, but it still wasn't enough. Despite the fvck-up and blown highlights, I still like the image.

Disregard all the above: I overexposed on purpose. 




Shadow Sid by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Personally I like the literal contrast between bright white dog and dark black shadow, and probably would have edited it to look like that had I not actually over exposed it to begin with.

Quick, delete your comments, say it's meant to be like that because I for one love it.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> Found a new color processing that I'm quite enjoying..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMGP4797-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr



That is ridiculous. I think that could be your photogenic dog, but probably a combo of the thoughtful-looking dog and an awesome shot.

Also, I vote for 6D. I put serious thought into upgrading to a better mirrorless instead of a bigger Canon DSLR, but I'd rather have the build and image quality and a larger camera, at least for my only body.

Get the 6D and work on looking friendly.


----------



## Whammy

Trent Parke (magnum photographer) would overexpose parts of the film on purpose.
Here's an example.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> That is ridiculous. I think that could be your photogenic dog, but probably a combo of the thoughtful-looking dog and an awesome shot.
> 
> Also, I vote for 6D. I put serious thought into upgrading to a better mirrorless instead of a bigger Canon DSLR, but I'd rather have the build and image quality and a larger camera, at least for my only body.
> 
> Get the 6D and work on looking friendly.



I think it's honestly a combo of great light and the lens I was using. Ramona is pretty damn cute too.



Whammy said:


> Trent Parke (magnum photographer) would overexpose parts of the film on purpose.
> Here's an example.



That was really cool, and I'll be checking out this photographer. Thanks Whammy!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A quick test of the 85mm wide open using our lime tree (the fruit left has gone to seed-hence the yellow) - bokehtastic . 
I'll likely be sending this copy back to get one that doesn't front focus.


----------



## Whammy

^ What lens is it?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Nikon 85mm f/1.8 AF-D.


----------



## Whammy




----------



## SnowfaLL

damn you guys are really talented; I was gonna attempt photography someday but after seeing how much work goes into it (or rather, my lack of knowledge being so far beyond what is required) I think I'll give up on that idea lol I rather focus my time on music.. I've been trying to get proper photos done for my website for like a year now (editing logos/etc) but I think it's time I just bite the bullet and pay a professional to do it. 

I bought a Canon T5i to record guitar videos with and potentially get into photography in the future, but it's most likely too much for me.. I got a great price on it used though, so I can easily get what I paid for it back.

How much is the typical cost for a proper logo / basic banner for a website, or even better yet, How much would it cost to buy the rights for a landscape print to use for an album cover/website design??


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Oh wow
So red
Much wide
Such Canon


----------



## SnowfaLL

When it comes to using photos as album covers or even website work, I'm assuming there are laws preventing you from just going online and finding a random photo on google and using that, correct?? You have to buy licensing for the image, no??


----------



## Rook

^Yep.


Jeff, stop taking pictures OF the lens, lets see some pictures WITH the lens.

And by that I mean at 17mm .


----------



## Tang

JeffFromMtl said:


> Oh wow
> So red
> Much wide
> Such Canon



Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to refrain from posting memes or meme like comments.







NickCormier said:


> When it comes to using photos as album covers or even website work, I'm assuming there are laws preventing you from just going online and finding a random photo on google and using that, correct?? You have to buy licensing for the image, no??



I believe you're right. Unless the photo is in the public domain you usually have to acquire the rights to use it.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Rook said:


> ^Yep.
> 
> 
> Jeff, stop taking pictures OF the lens, lets see some pictures WITH the lens.
> 
> And by that I mean at 17mm .



Those are coming up next. I've got a busy week coming up, but I'm hoping to break into the abandoned malt plant some time around the weekend.

Just had to express my excitement. I know you were hoping for some Zeiss, but I got real and decided that the Canon was the smarter choice for me (read: my bank account ).


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Tang said:


> Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to refrain from posting memes or meme like comments.



Were you joking? I don't like that stuff either. Maybe that conversation's for another thread though.

I saw these chairs whilst out on a Daemoness shoot today in a huge church.


----------



## Tang

Joe Harvatt said:


> Were you joking? I don't like that stuff either. Maybe that conversation's for another thread though.
> 
> I saw these chairs whilst out on a Daemoness shoot today in a huge church.



I like the chair shot a lot, man. Very nice.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Thanks, man. It's surprising what you find in these places sometimes. I guess one of the most important parts of photography is - go out!


----------



## Decreate

Paul Reed Shred said:


> alright y'all. 2k or so to spend, need image quality gains. The only thing keeping me from grabbing a 6D and disappearing into the wilderness to take all of the pictures is that I would like something stealthy. Unfortunately, I want my image quality, DOF, and low light capability with that. I'm hesitant on the A7 mainly because of the lack of 1st party lenses for it right now, I don't want to buy my way into a system doomed to fail upon arrival. Other than that, it seems to be the best compromise between the cropped fujis and comparatively gargantuan 6D.
> 
> 1. 6D body plus 35 f2 IS or 6D kit
> 
> 2. Fuji X100s or X-Pro 1 + Ricoh gr1v or Contax T2
> 
> 3. Sony A7 plus voightlander m-mount lens of some sort.



I would vote for the A7 as you could start using lenses from other systems like Leica by adding an adapter. I've actually seen pictures taken by people using an A7 with various lenses which look really good.


----------



## ZakkB

Some more photoshop experimentation.


----------



## Philligan

This came out today, and is now residing on our fridge.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> This came out today, and is now residing on our fridge.



Niiiceee! Congrats man! 

I know you guys are probably getting sick of the chihuahua pictures, but they're one of my main inspirations. I imagine people with human children feel the same about them!




IMGP4856-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP4808-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP5428-Edit-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Is that second one Ramona?


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> Is that second one Ramona?



Yes sir.


----------



## feilong29

Got my Rokinon 85mm 1.4 in today; took a few test shots with my handy dandy Danbo! Haven't quiet mastered manually focusing a lens yet lol but, DAT shallow DOF! 









Oh, and sorry for the dog hair in the photo... welcome to my world!


----------



## feilong29

If anyone has tips on achieving super sharp focus with an all manual lens, hit me up! My Google searches have returned with nil and I found a YouTube vid that proposed some attachments that I don't feel like buying...


----------



## Rook

JeffFromMtl said:


> Those are coming up next. I've got a busy week coming up, but I'm hoping to break into the abandoned malt plant some time around the weekend.
> 
> Just had to express my excitement. I know you were hoping for some Zeiss, but I got real and decided that the Canon was the smarter choice for me (read: my bank account ).





Hey, Zeiss or no Zeiss it's what you do with it that counts, I'm just a huge slut.

Really looking forward to seeing you work that ultra wide dude 



And we're all brothers here, we should all respect each other's meme-speak  













feilong29 said:


> If anyone has tips on achieving super sharp focus with an all manual lens, hit me up! My Google searches have returned with nil and I found a YouTube vid that proposed some attachments that I don't feel like buying...





Use your AF Confirmation if you aren't sure, otherwise get a split prism or matte focusing screen and you'll be on your way. I use a matte 'high precision' screen because KatzEye don't make a split prism for the 6D yet which also makes the viewfinder brighter on fast primes, as a result it also makes the viewfinder darker for anything slower than about f2.8, my 18/3.5 is a struggle sometimes, I have to use live view in low light.

Looking great though dude, looks like you got the hang of it.


OH and my free 35 1.4 arrived from Fuji today, holy shit! I think I'll stick to the 18 on the street but the 35 rounds the total range I have perfectly for street and every day stuff, love it!


----------



## Tang

feilong29 said:


> If anyone has tips on achieving super sharp focus with an all manual lens, hit me up! My Google searches have returned with nil and I found a YouTube vid that proposed some attachments that I don't feel like buying...



Check the Internet or your manual for focus confirmation. I would hope the d600 has it!


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> Awesome.
> I just love the idea of bending the truth in a photo.
> 
> I didn't put up any of the photos on my page as I felt that only I would appreciate it
> I'm trying to make a set of them.



Both of these were pushed 3 stops in post because I ....ed up my ISO again.. thankfully in the low-ISO direction!




IMGP5568 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP5563 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP5544 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

A couple of sneak peeks at our photo shoot with Jesse Palmer's 1G-powered Toyota Celica. These images are a composite of four shots each using a light painting technique. I use a 300-LED light panel through a 60cm softbox, walking around the car with the light source.

The motion shot was created using a Rig Pro camera rig.


----------



## Tang

Wretched: damn man.. damn. Your work is inspiring, and I don't even shoot cars!

Here's something a bit different from me.. the rainbow looking thing in the middle was actually there in the clouds, as someone might mistake it for lens flare.




clouds and stuff by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## feilong29

First selfie for this thread 






And ya, the car is dirty as hell; wasn't planning on doing any car shooting, but I felt inspired to test out my Rokinon 85mm f/1.4  I love it! I'm gonna give her a good wash and go back out and do some more shoots. I think I caught her at a good angle; what y'all think???


----------



## Tang

feilong29 said:


> First selfie for this thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And ya, the car is dirty as hell; wasn't planning on doing any car shooting, but I felt inspired to test out my Rokinon 85mm f/1.4  I love it! I'm gonna give her a good wash and go back out and do some more shoots. I think I caught her at a good angle; what y'all think???



That 85 is looking real nice. Reallll nice.


----------



## feilong29

Ya I'm really blown away by it. I finally learned about the focus confirmation of my camera so, that REALLY helps being that it's fully manual. Best lens purchase yet! OH, and I guess I never really caught onto this, but the focal length of the 85mm is like that of the naked eye. VERY CLOSE to what you are actually seeing, distance wise. I love that. It was like, I won a million dollars when I realized that yesterday, hehe. Silly me.


----------



## Rook

LOL I love you Cullen hahaha. 

*Buys 85mm*

*Realises it's natural perspective*


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I still haven't had a chance to really get out with the 17-40mm, but here's a photo of my roommate. I can already tell I'm going to have a ton of fun with this lens.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Super wide on FF is pretty fun when you get the hang of it.


----------



## Tyler

Okay so my filters froze in CS5 a couple days ago. And now they just arent working at all. For example, if I try to vignette my picture or anything in the filter tab I can drag the slider but nothing will happen


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

I'm definitely leaning towards the 6D body, thanks guys! also, new obsolete format day & thread selfie (Fuji Instax Mini Neo 90) : 




4fbca080814911e39823128a5804f62f_8 by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr




Untitled by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr




Untitled by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr


----------



## feilong29

Rook said:


> LOL I love you Cullen hahaha.
> 
> *Buys 85mm*
> 
> *Realises it's natural perspective*



Ya, I'm a total airhead some times haha! But I'm glad you guys don't judge


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Paul Reed Shred, I love the Fuji Instax line. I've got a 210 and love the wide format. The Neo Classic is actually the next one on my list. There ain't nothing like instant film


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

JeffFromMtl said:


> Paul Reed Shred, I love the Fuji Instax line. I've got a 210 and love the wide format. The Neo Classic is actually the next one on my list. There ain't nothing like instant film



Jeff, B and H had the Neo for around $165 down from $250 when I got mine. Adorama was like $177. Not that I would ever encourage terrible financials, but the difference covers quite a lot of ground in film cost.

aside from poor influencing, I love the thing. I've spent a lot of time with the previous instax "flagship" the 50S, and the options and functionality of the Neo blow it away. I didn't think there was really all that much you could do to the exposure of instant film, but you clearly can & it clearly works.


----------



## Tang

Accidentally uploaded low resolution versions of the shots I wanted to show you. Oops  I guess I'll post them tomorrow.


----------



## Wretched

Woo! 100 pages! Big thread!

Here's a sneak peek from another of my shoots last week. I don't normally spend much time on wide angle exterior shots, but this one just sang to me:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Wretched said:


> Woo! 100 pages! Big thread!



I'm only seeing 62 pages . Nice shot, man.


----------



## Wretched

Mmm... that's odd. Perhaps it's a browser thing. I'm using Firefox.

And thanks!


----------



## flint757

Mine says I'm on page 124.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Chrome user here, pg. 100/100.


----------



## Tang

You can go into your forum options and change the amount if replies per page. Mine is only at page 63 now.


----------



## ghostred7

Wretched said:


> Woo! 100 pages! Big thread!
> 
> Here's a sneak peek from another of my shoots last week. I don't normally spend much time on wide angle exterior shots, but this one just sang to me:



OMG....that shot is amazing!


----------



## Tyler

I got some shots out yesterday when had a huge snow storm. I had a hard time getting what I wanted but this is one of the few that came out pretty good.


----------



## Tang

A small preview of what I've been working on. The theme was f/8 and I tried to stick to it.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Paul Reed Shred said:


> Jeff, B and H had the Neo for around $165 down from $250 when I got mine. Adorama was like $177. Not that I would ever encourage terrible financials, but the difference covers quite a lot of ground in film cost.
> 
> aside from poor influencing, I love the thing. I've spent a lot of time with the previous instax "flagship" the 50S, and the options and functionality of the Neo blow it away. I didn't think there was really all that much you could do to the exposure of instant film, but you clearly can & it clearly works.



I'm really interested in experimenting with multiple exposures on instant film. The only issue I've had with the Instax 210 is how difficult getting proper framing is. I guess I'm just so used to SLR's that I'm used to getting exactly what I see in the viewfinder. If I'm not looking directly through the viewfinder and making sure its angle is perfectly straight, I've ended up with images framed substantially differently than they were in the viewfinder. The viewfinder's got two little circles that need to be aligned to get framing right, but they're so faint that if lighting isn't perfect, it can be really difficult to see one or even both of them. It's even more of a crapshoot with the close-up lens.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's one of the best things about medium and large format, multiple exposures with any film are a snap (especially large format), assuming you're comfortable with your camera.

My students started darkroom work today; 4 successfully developed rolls of film - too bad some forgot how to use the exposure meter. Hopefully they can salvage them on the enlargers and I can scan some of their prints for you.

I sent my 85 in to get replaced; hopefully my next copy will be issue-free (PS: I highly recommend KEH for any used gear-great CS and slightly higher prices than eBay, but the piece of mind is worth it and they underrate their equipment).


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> That's one of the best things about medium and large format, multiple exposures with any film are a snap (especially large format), assuming you're comfortable with your camera.
> 
> My students started darkroom work today; 4 successfully developed rolls of film - too bad some forgot how to use the exposure meter. Hopefully they can salvage them on the enlargers and I can scan some of their prints for you.
> 
> I sent my 85 in to get replaced; hopefully my next copy will be issue-free (PS: I highly recommend KEH for any used gear-great CS and slightly higher prices than eBay, but the piece of mind is worth it and they underrate their equipment).



TP, what do you recommend for someone wanting to start in the medium format world? Budget is around $500-600.

A man and his seagulls:


----------



## Joe Harvatt

That first shot is rad, Tang!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

It really depends on your intended format and desired upgrades. If you're even considering a digital back go Hassy or Mamiya; otherwise, let format be your guide. I have a Bronica ETRSi system because it's modular, has metered prisms and is fairly cheap (though it's 6x4.5).

I would recommend you thoroughly research the entire system: lenses, bodies, film backs, prisms, format, grips, etc...


----------



## Rook

I'm going 500C/M, I just at least want a proper light meter, a waist level view finder, a spare film magazine and a Zeiss 80 f/4 (dat low light performance, lol), that's pretty much me set. 

Oh and some Fuji Astia 100.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Are E-6 film labs readily available in UK?


----------



## Rook

There are some mail order places, available enough. I also know a guy who knows a guy. I think.

Tbh I was semi kidding about the Astia, I'll likely shoot black and white and develop it myself.

EDIT: I dunno, I could probably do E6 myself, right?


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> There are some mail order places, available enough. I also know a guy who knows a guy. I think.
> 
> Tbh I was semi kidding about the Astia, I'll likely shoot black and white and develop it myself.
> 
> EDIT: I dunno, I could probably do E6 myself, right?



That's a positive. 

Developing Color Slide Film (E-6) at Home | Film Photography Project

Astia and Velvia are my two most emulated films. Love that slide look!

Ouch, my eyes!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I develop E6 at home, but I do have a Jobo setup.


----------



## Wretched

Last week was a big one for me. Here's the third of my shoots... again, light painted and composited.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

That is *quite* the FD. Sweet christ. almost doesn't look real.


----------



## Winspear

The lighting on that car and background is killer!

Depends how many posts you have showing per page guys, it's a setting on your account  It actually screws up linking pages to other people (and from Google search) haha - took me a while to realise that.


----------



## Wretched

Thanks for the comments guys! Yeah, the light painting technique can really make the cars look a little surreal, but I kinda like that. I am inspired by and really appreciate the work of the advertising/high-end pros who create completely surreal and uber-clean looking images, but don't really aspire to get to that point because I know the level of work involved and I just don't think it would suit the modified cars I work with. They need to exude some level of character, unlike new cars with no mods, which in my mind can be as CGI-looking as you like.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Since I've gotten the 17-40mm, I've found that switching to M has been necessary. I've traditionally shot AV with my 50mm, but I just wasn't getting the exposures I wanted with the UWA. I'm surprised how quickly I've gotten the hang of it. I guess I was always just a little needlessly intimidated by it.


----------



## Philligan

I have no idea if you can do this on the 6D, but I started shooting in manual all the time on my T3. Usually, if the light's changing a lot (like when I went to the parade last month), I'll shoot in manual and set the ISO to auto. I'll pick the general aperture range I want (usually pretty wide haha) then set a shutter speed that balances with that, and let the auto ISO take care of any light changes.

Since it's a T3 and I usually shoot in the late afternoon and evening, I'll keep the aperture relatively wide, leave the shutter speed at the slowest I can get away with (1/80 with my 50mm) and the ISO pretty much always has enough range to deal with anything (bright-wise, at least. In the dark, the T3 sucks haha). If I need a darker exposure, it's quick to shorten the shutter speed.


----------



## Tang

This is a reedit of a picture I took in NYC last year. I much prefer this crop..







And something a bit more recent.


----------



## feilong29

Anyone here own the following brands and/or combinations?

Samyang/Rokinon 24mm f/1.4
Samyang/Rokinon 35mm f/1.4

Or own both a 24 or 28mm 1.4 and a 35mm 1.4? I REALLY want a 35mm 1.4 next because I like the added width of the picture I can capture over a 50mm, but I'm wondering, for landscaping needs, if a 24 or 28mm will be a better choice. I know that the 35mm can be use for pretty much everything, which is appealing, but maybe not ideal for wide angled shots (even for street photography). 

If any of you own both of those focal lengths, which do you prefer? I'm selling my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 DX for Nikon (if any of you are interested) to fund my next lens purchase, as I don't use the Tokina as much as I thought. Thanks in advance!


----------



## capoeiraesp

Rook.... Guess what I bought?
Seeing my 135mm L at true F2 for the first time is such a joy.


----------



## Rook

So proud of you all 

In other news I'm on my way to Paris and I accidentally used up 10kg of my 12kg baggage allowance (I'm in a hand baggage only fare) on Camera gear. I was weighing it last night, and I literally thought, 'hmm, gunna have to leave something behind...'


'I don't need more than one sweater, right?' 

6D, Zeiss 18, Zeiss 85, Canon 50 1.2, X Pro1, Fuji 18, Fuji 35, chargers, a spare 72mm UV filter (it weather seals my 50, I don't use filters otherwise), leans cleaning fluid, spudz cloth (look em up) and my MacBook Air and a card reader haha.

At least I have my priorities right.



Philligan said:


> I have no idea if you can do this on the 6D, but I started shooting in manual all the time on my T3. Usually, if the light's changing a lot (like when I went to the parade last month), I'll shoot in manual and set the ISO to auto. I'll pick the general aperture range I want (usually pretty wide haha) then set a shutter speed that balances with that, and let the auto ISO take care of any light changes.
> 
> Since it's a T3 and I usually shoot in the late afternoon and evening, I'll keep the aperture relatively wide, leave the shutter speed at the slowest I can get away with (1/80 with my 50mm) and the ISO pretty much always has enough range to deal with anything (bright-wise, at least. In the dark, the T3 sucks haha). If I need a darker exposure, it's quick to shorten the shutter speed.



You can do this on the 6D if you trust it's metering and Canon's tendency to expose for hard shadows rather than blown highlights, the bloody exposure compensation dial DOESNT WORK. I MEAN COME ON CANON. Yeah, I just chose an ISO that's high enough I shouldn't have to change but low enough it'll come out nice, often about 400, it's a quick easy change on the 6D though compared to the ham fisted layout of the 600.


----------



## Tang

Is it worth it? I think so, but I think that might change as I get older. For now though, I enjoy carrying most of my gear with me.

I has pictures. More from the f/8 adventure.




IMGP5748 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP5795 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP5790 by nrrfed, on Flickr





IMGP5821 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Canon 50 1.2









Rook said:


> You can do this on the 6D if you trust it's metering and Canon's tendency to expose for hard shadows rather than blown highlights, the bloody exposure compensation dial DOESNT WORK. I MEAN COME ON CANON. Yeah, I just chose an ISO that's high enough I shouldn't have to change but low enough it'll come out nice, often about 400, it's a quick easy change on the 6D though compared to the ham fisted layout of the 600.



When I have enough time, I'll do full-blown manual, but the manual with auto ISO is sorta my new version of aperture priority, where it's fast but I still have more control. It does seem to blow out highlights a lot, but thankfully I've been able to save most of them in Lightroom if they aren't already useable.

So is the fully available (i.e. in any mode) auto ISO that rare? I was reading up on the Pentax K-3, and they were saying there's a mode called "Aperture & Shutter Priority" that lets you choose the aperture and shutter speed and the camera handles the ISO. I was wondering why you don't just throw it in manual and set the ISO to auto. Is that something that's only on Canons - or worse, is it only on Rebels? Because I've gotten pretty attached to shooting this way, and would be really bummed if I have to leave it when I upgrade.


----------



## Rook

I've never used a camera that doesn't allow you to auto-ISO on full manual I don't think but AT LEAST THREE IVE TRIED GIVE YOU EXPOSURE COMP. COUGH FRIGGIN COUGH. The 50 1.2 is one of those lenses that surprises me every single time I use it, it's nuts. 

First day in Paris today and I just carried the X Pro round, it's a great camera for just snapping and then going back and looking at your files and going 'holy shit that's actually a great shot' hahaha, I love that about it.

And yeah, Tang, if I can keep my ISO at 2-400 and shutter speed at 125+ I'm on a real f/8 hype when I'm on the streets at the moment, makes me feel like a photojourn lol. I'll post some Paris pics when the piss poor internet picks up a bit.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Rook, this 6D is amazing! This is using my Sigma 35 at 1.4. It was so much darker than this outside. Can you guess the ISO? Kinda pointless I guess given this is a FB link, not the original. 
Again, straight JPEG via phone wifi transfer. Love that feature.


----------



## Philligan

I'll go! The blacks look pretty clean - I think I can see some noise peeking through the table slats, but not enough to take away from the photo IMHO.

12800.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Damn you, Phil! Well done.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> And yeah, Tang, if I can keep my ISO at 2-400 and shutter speed at 125+ I'm on a real f/8 hype when I'm on the streets at the moment, makes me feel like a photojourn lol. I'll post some Paris pics when the piss poor internet picks up a bit.



I know it'll likely never happen, but you'd be perfect with a Pentax body. I too have a pretty gnarly tremor and the in-body stabilization is a godsend. I'm talking 1/5s handheld exposures with a 50mm f/2.8. 4 stops of stabilization will take your from what would've been an ISO6400 shot to an ISO800 shot. Huge, huge godsend, and it works with any lens you can mount to it.. Pentax all day every day


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Since I've been way too busy since the semester started and it's been way too cold out to go out with the sole intention of taking pictures, I've started forcing myself to take my camera absolutely everywhere with me, whether I'm going to school, work, dinner, to a friend's place or wherever.

So tonight, I was walking to a friend's place and since I've been shooting in manual since I got the 17-40mm, I decided to do something I've been wanting to do for some time and experiment with long exposures.

This first one was shot at 17mm but unfortunately needed to be rotated/cropped because I didn't have a tripod and was balancing the camera on a railing somewhat more precariously than I was comfortable with and it resulted in a slanted image. I fixed this as well as I could.





And since that went reasonably well, I decided to try light painting when I got to my friend's place. Given my complete and utter lack of any sort of artistic ability, my frustration with that was all I could really express. This is the true 17mm focal length, since the image didn't need to be cropped.


----------



## Tang

One more? Ok.




IMGP5239-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

I haven't been taking any photos lately.
I was put on yet another preventive medication for my migraines. None of them seem to work at reducing the amount I get and I always get the rare side effect of depression 
This time it was pretty bad. I've stopped taking them but it is taking a while to return to normal.

Anyways some photos that I took before the medication. Haven't taken any since.

55mm f1.2






85mm f1.2 (shot at f4)





I'm always super happy with how this lens renders.
He is a 1:1 crop so you can see all the detail. Again I want to view my photos printed out massive


----------



## ThePhilosopher

JeffFromMtl said:


> This first one was shot at 17mm but unfortunately needed to be rotated/cropped because I didn't have a tripod and was balancing the camera on a railing somewhat more precariously than I was comfortable with and it resulted in a slanted image. I fixed this as well as I could.



Manfrotto 035RL solves many of these problems.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

^I'm going to look into that.

Also Whammy, Love the tones in the second one.


----------



## Whammy

It's snowing...
...again.

85mm f1.2 (shot at f8)


----------



## Rook

From Paris with SPAM.

I tried not to go for the obvious shots, or at least in too obvious a way. Here are some of my picks of the last 2 days. Points for anyone who guesses which is Fuji and which is Canon without just looking at my EXIF.




Steel Seating by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Natural Light by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




RER C by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Liberty and Clouds by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Dégage by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Eiffel Pillar by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Couple on Bridge by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Cyclists at Crossing by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Waiting to Go by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Carrera by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

with the exception of "Natural Light" I guessed them all correctly. Good stuff Rook.


----------



## Khoi

ooooo I really love that pillar one!! nicely done


----------



## Tang

Totally just had a homeowner turn their sprinklers on me for shooting next to their dock. It'd be funny if it weren't stupidly cold out!


----------



## feilong29

Decided to keep my Tokina; ISO might have been a little too high but I found these trees that I really wanted to take pics of. Taken at f/2.8


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang said:


> Totally just had a homeowner turn their sprinklers on me for shooting next to their dock. It'd be funny if it weren't stupidly cold out!



I had neighbors of some land owners call the cops on my shoot once. We had everything in writing, but the sun was already falling and we had packed it all up and by the time they rolled by we were driving away.

From 2010 - possibly NSFW:
http://www.bartkophoto.com/StacieN/StacieN_0061.jpg
http://www.bartkophoto.com/StacieN/StacieN_0091.jpg


----------



## Tang

I wish this were more symmetrical, but I really like the implied diagonal lines.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Nice pier; I've got one from when I went to Daytona - B&W HDR lol:


----------



## Whammy

I'm finding this very interesting. I'd watch the introduction first to see the methodology behind the comparisions. It's not the average comparasion.

Canon Lens Wars | SLR Lounge

They compare a load of Canon EOS lenses with each other, sub-grouped into relevant focal ranges, and also primes & zooms.
A lot are seeing how the non L ranges hold up to the L range and seeing if the extra money is equal to the jump in quality.
They keep adding more videos & reviews up so there are more to come.
Actually I'll just stick a load of the videos here. This should kill an hour for anyone interested 

*Be warned*, some lenses I expected to do better than the cheaper equivalents didn't hold up too well.
But in most cases you normally get what you pay for, along with expensive zooms being awesome at being versatile and expensive primes being awesome at specializing.


Introduction


17mm Focal Length - Episode 1


24mm Focal Length - Episode 2


35mm Primes - Episode 3


35mm Zooms - Episode 4


35mm Conclusion - Episode 5


50mm Primes - Episode 6


50mm Zooms - Episode 7


50mm Conclusion - Episode 8


70mm Shootout - Episode 9


85mm Primes - Episode 10


----------



## Rook

*phew*

Another day goes by that I manage justify owning that 50mm 1.2 to myself hahahaha.

Thanks for checking out all my shit by the way duedz.

EDIT: 'the 1.2 being almost a full stop brighter than the 1.8'

...errrr it's more than a full stop brighter, 1.8/1.2=1.5...


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> *phew*
> 
> Another day goes by that I manage justify owning that 50mm 1.2 to myself hahahaha.
> 
> Thanks for checking out all my shit by the way duedz.
> 
> EDIT: 'the 1.2 being almost a full stop brighter than the 1.8'
> 
> ...errrr it's more than a full stop brighter, 1.8/1.2=1.5...



Yeah his wording is a little off there 

I'm glad as well I managed to pick up my 85mm 1.2 when I had the cash. Haven't had near that money since. As far as justifying it. Well I just need to use it more 

I am leaning towards a few other lenses now though. Not that I have the money. I just like window shopping


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Rook said:


> *phew*
> ...errrr it's more than a full stop brighter, 1.8/1.2=1.5...



It's only 1 stop brighter (both being 1/3 stop brighter than the nearest full-stop f/2 and f/1.4 respectively). There's a lot of rounding in the formula but, f-stop = 2^(EV/2)


----------



## Rook

1.2 is more than a third stop brighter than 1.4 though...

(f/x)*&#8730;2 is 1 stop increase, no?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The values should read as: f/1, f/1.122, f/1.260, f/1.414, f/1.587, f/1.782, f/2. 
These are rounded to: f/1, f/1.1, f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.6, f/1.8, f/2


----------



## Rook

Ah, no I just noticed what you mean.

Is it that the markings are rounded or that the actual dimensions are?

Either way, 1.2 isn't 'almost a stop' brighter than 1.8.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The markings, if you calculate the area of the openings they better follow the doubling/halving paradigm (for full stops).
Sure it is, 1.26*sqrt(2)=1.782


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

That 85mm episode makes me feel good about my 85mm 1.8. 
Somehow having other people justify owning what you do is really awesome XD


----------



## Tang

Ocara-Jacob said:


> That 85mm episode makes me feel good about my 85mm 1.8.
> Somehow having other people justify owning what you do is really awesome XD



Poor Team Pentax 

The images speak for themselves 











And you know I had to do at least one shot wide open while I was at the beach.. Smoooooth bokeh alert! I love how the lens rendered the out of focus waves in the background.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Actually had some time to shoot my favorite subject again today- my beloved doge Yahtzee. She's a sweetheart. 





Also took this as a promo shot for my band's upcoming debut EP:


----------



## Rook

Here's some more spam because you guys love it. Black-and-Whiting again today.




An American in Paris by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Candles in Notre Dame by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Tours de Notre Dame by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Man on Spiral by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Lost Shoe in Rain by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Two in Tunnel by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Some of the dock stuff I was talking about yesterday..




IMGP6189-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP6201-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP6166-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Whammy said:


> 50mm Conclusion - Episode 8




Man haha poor 50/1.4.  There wasn't a whole lot of blown out blur in that comparison, though - I've got the 1.4 and Dawn has the 1.8 (and I owned a 1.8 before), and you can see a noticeable different in the 1.4, especially with things like blown out lights. It just looks smoother and rounder.

Also, it's ridiculous that he suggests the 24-70 2.8 II as your first lens. Maybe for those guys who decide they wanna learn photography on a 6D or 5D.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Philligan said:


> Man haha poor 50/1.4.  There wasn't a whole lot of blown out blur in that comparison, though - I've got the 1.4 and Dawn has the 1.8 (and I owned a 1.8 before), and you can see a noticeable different in the 1.4, especially with things like blown out lights. It just looks smoother and rounder.
> 
> Also, it's ridiculous that he suggests the 24-70 2.8 II as your first lens. Maybe for those guys who decide they wanna learn photography on a 6D or 5D.


The 50 1.8 was my first lens, and I still use it a lot. I can't stand the crazy noise it makes when focusing though. Also sometimes it can't decide where to focus XD my 85mm focuses flawlessly.


----------



## Wretched

So stoked! fstoppers.com just chose the image of the red RX7 for their Picture of the Day for January 26! A total honour. It's a big website!
For anyone wanting a better explanation of how I took it, the following link will help:
Robert&#8217;s Mazda FD RX7 | Fstoppers


----------



## Philligan

That's awesome dude!


----------



## Khoi

Wretched said:


> So stoked! fstoppers.com just chose the image of the red RX7 for their Picture of the Day for January 26! A total honour. It's a big website!
> For anyone wanting a better explanation of how I took it, the following link will help:
> Roberts Mazda FD RX7 | Fstoppers



that's huge man, congrats!!

How'd they choose it? Did they just happen to come across your photos, or did you have to submit it?

regardless, I bet that feels pretty good!


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Nice one man! That's really cool.

Do you guys use personal websites to feature your photos? I have www.joeharvatt.co.uk which is a blog posing as a website with my choice cuts on it.


----------



## Tang

It was a reasonably foggy morning here and b&w seemed to fit the bill..




IMGP6259 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP6261-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

Joe Harvatt said:


> Nice one man! That's really cool.
> 
> Do you guys use personal websites to feature your photos? I have www.joeharvatt.co.uk which is a blog posing as a website with my choice cuts on it.



Thanks guys! Yeah, pretty excited by that. I usually post a pic from each shoot onto their Facebook group page for some CC from other photographers. Man, some amazing stuff gets posted on there. Anyway, one of their writers posted a link to their Picture of the Day entry information into the comments of my photo, so I went through all the submissions steps and they picked it. I've also got one of my other pics in this week's Reader Photos Roundup on photographybay.com. With them, I just post new pics into then Flickr group as I'm adding my pics to all the other Flickr groups I'm a member of.

Joe, in terms of posting pics, I house all my pics on Flickr, then make a blog post on my company blog, taking the pics from Flickr. When I post pics here, I simply grab the direct URL of the image/s and use the Insert Image prompt. I also post images onto Instagram, Tumblr and my own Facebook page.


----------



## Rook

I got half way through making one and stopped. I'll finish it soon. Maybe. It has my music, a bloggy area, a photo area, all sorts. I'll post it when I'm done with it probablement, gunna use it to tout for mixing/recording services and maybe see if I can get someone to pay me to take some pictures just so I can say I've done it haha.

Question, for tang mostly but for everyone, Fuji are releasing a 50-140 2.8 (as a 70-200 lite for their crops), have you tried the Pentax 50-135 2.8? How is it in terms of weight and balance? I imagine Fuji's will be a similar design in that sense.... It's something I'm very curious about it but feel like it might be a bit of a weird balance, straight up too big or heavy or whatever else. I do however like using my Fuji for portraits, it works great, nice skin tones, and wouldn't mind a little extra range out and about that actually meaningfully contributes to my current setup - which, say, a 56 1.2 wouldn't as I have an 85mm full frame. Just powering it is all. No point buying it for my Fuji if it's a grand and too big though, might as well get a 70-200 (non-IS) for that money and enjoy the 6D's crazy RAW files.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> I got half way through making one and stopped. I'll finish it soon. Maybe. It has my music, a bloggy area, a photo area, all sorts. I'll post it when I'm done with it probablement, gunna use it to tout for mixing/recording services and maybe see if I can get someone to pay me to take some pictures just so I can say I've done it haha.
> 
> Question, for tang mostly but for everyone, Fuji are releasing a 50-140 2.8 (as a 70-200 lite for their crops), have you tried the Pentax 50-135 2.8? How is it in terms of weight and balance? I imagine Fuji's will be a similar design in that sense.... It's something I'm very curious about it but feel like it might be a bit of a weird balance, straight up too big or heavy or whatever else. I do however like using my Fuji for portraits, it works great, nice skin tones, and wouldn't mind a little extra range out and about that actually meaningfully contributes to my current setup - which, say, a 56 1.2 wouldn't as I have an 85mm full frame. Just powering it is all. No point buying it for my Fuji if it's a grand and too big though, might as well get a 70-200 (non-IS) for that money and enjoy the 6D's crazy RAW files.



If the Fuji is specifically designed for APS-C, they can get really get the weight down kinda like what Pentax did for their 50-135 f/2.8. On a DSLR, the 50-135 feels just right, but I'm not sure how it's going to feel on the smaller Fuji.

Hopefully Fuji achieved a small miracle and really got the weight down, but I guess we have to wait for the announcement.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Some recent cell phone snaps.




Untitled by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr




Untitled by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr




Untitled by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr




Untitled by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr




Untitled by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

A shadow and his human. This (and those dock shots) were the first time I've used my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and using the 17mm end of it was like learning to shoot from scratch. I can't even imagine how you guys with those 17mm lens on full-frame are managing. Yikes!

Regardless of all that, this Tamron is just a joy at f/8. It has pretty damn good performance at the wider apertures, but it's truly excellent at f/8. Everything I've posted lately was all f/8.




IMGP6571-3 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I like how juicy and contrasty that looks man. 

How's the AF on the Tamron? I was looking at that along with the Canon 17-55 and Sigma 18-35 (because 1.8). 

In Ireland I really used the kit lens for the first time (I pretty much only use the 50mm), and as much as the aperture and sharpness weren't the greatest, using the 18mm end was like you said, it felt like getting a whole new camera. It's a lot of work to make shots look good, but getting up close and personal is good for me, and I like how dramatic it can start to look. I'd really like something like an 10-35, because you could get that super wide look and still get a standard FOV on the same lens.


----------



## Rook

You think 18mm on a crop is dramatic, that is a street standard (25mm), try using it full frame hahaha.

It's a different shooting experience, great for architecture.




Tomb Under Dome 2 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Window-light on Staircase by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Tomb Under Dome 1 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

And I have a tonne more architectural shots done using my 3.5/18, they just aren't ready yet haha. Gunna print them HUGE though, you have to with ultra wides IMO, that's how you really carry across that feeling of space. Long tele's printed large just make everything look humungous and a bit unnatural.

NB That's 18mm full frame, 18mm crop is most of my street shots from the last month or so.


----------



## Whammy

Feck I've been doing nothing with the camera 
Behold the one photo I didn't delete after I took it. Think I'm being too critical lately.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> I like how juicy and contrasty that looks man.
> 
> How's the AF on the Tamron? I was looking at that along with the Canon 17-55 and Sigma 18-35 (because 1.8).
> 
> In Ireland I really used the kit lens for the first time (I pretty much only use the 50mm), and as much as the aperture and sharpness weren't the greatest, using the 18mm end was like you said, it felt like getting a whole new camera. It's a lot of work to make shots look good, but getting up close and personal is good for me, and I like how dramatic it can start to look. I'd really like something like an 10-35, because you could get that super wide look and still get a standard FOV on the same lens.



I'm not sure how it'd be on Canon since the Canon mount uses an in-lens focusing motor while the Pentax version uses the screw-drive focusing which is powered directly by the camera. All of that to say the focusing is fine on Pentax. Another thing you have to look out for is that there are two versions for Canon, one with image stabilization and one without. If you don't need the stabilization I would definitely recommend the non-stabilized version as the two have different optical formulas and the non-IS is visibly sharper. 

It's also every bit as sharp as the Canon L alternative, but the build quality really isn't in the same league. It's to be expected for the price, though.


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> It's also every bit as sharp as the Canon L alternative, but the build quality really isn't in the same league. It's to be expected for the price, though.



On a note regarding the Canon L quality.
I dropped my Canon 5dMKII & Canon 85mm 1.2 yesterday. There is a dent in the floor but the camera and lens are fine. Everything works, no marks.


----------



## Rook

^Did the same with a 6D and 50 1.2, the floor came off worse haha.


----------



## Philligan

Whammy said:


> Feck I've been doing nothing with the camera
> Behold the one photo I didn't delete after I took it. Think I'm being too critical lately.



I know the feeling. I haven't really shot since Ireland. I partly blame the cold - it's -30 degrees, and I've been too lazy to brave it to wander around and shoot. 

Still, that's a really great shot. I like how busy the branches are, so you can really see the focus fall off. I feel like one of your more matte B&W edits would look great on this, too.


----------



## Philligan

Whammy said:


> On a note regarding the Canon L quality.
> I dropped my Canon 5dMKII & Canon 85mm 1.2 yesterday. There is a dent in the floor but the camera and lens are fine. Everything works, no marks.





Rook said:


> ^Did the same with a 6D and 50 1.2, the floor came off worse haha.



I did that with my T3 and nifty fifty and it ended with me buying the the 50 1.4.


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> I know the feeling. I haven't really shot since Ireland. I partly blame the cold - it's -30 degrees, and I've been too lazy to brave it to wander around and shoot.
> 
> Still, that's a really great shot. I like how busy the branches are, so you can really see the focus fall off. I feel like one of your more matte B&W edits would look great on this, too.



Cheers man 

EDIT:
Do you mean like one of these? I've been really pissed off with my processing lately.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> I know the feeling. I haven't really shot since Ireland. I partly blame the cold - it's -30 degrees, and I've been too lazy to brave it to wander around and shoot.
> 
> Still, that's a really great shot. I like how busy the branches are, so you can really see the focus fall off. I feel like one of your more matte B&W edits would look great on this, too.



I've been forcing myself to go out and shoot at least 30 minutes a day. Is it helping? I'm not sure but I feel like I'm improving a little bit.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> I've been forcing myself to go out and shoot at least 30 minutes a day. Is it helping? I'm not sure but I feel like I'm improving a little bit.



Your more recent shots have all been awesome, man. I really want to do this, and at the very least am gonna start making myself once the weather gets better. I still haven't explored much of the downtown here, and there's a brewery not far from where I live that should be pretty awesome to shoot. 

Also, there's a space right below this post for your gas pump shot.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> Your more recent shots have all been awesome, man. I really want to do this, and at the very least am gonna start making myself once the weather gets better. I still haven't explored much of the downtown here, and there's a brewery not far from where I live that should be pretty awesome to shoot.
> 
> Also, there's a space right below this post for your gas pump shot.



By popular request 






And here's some ISO1600 action. Noise? What noise  this was shot at 1/15s handheld @ f/2.8. 






Rook, you and a Pentax body would be a match made in heaven. I'm just dreaming about a full-frame Pentax with 4-stop in-camera stabilization. Like you, I have a pretty constant tremor and the in-body stabilization saves my life and my shots.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Something we don't see much of in Houston:





















And playing with zooming while long exposure:


----------



## Tang

I feel like this is a fusion of Rook'ish and Whammy'ish processing. Gotta love that vignette! I was driving home from work and I saw this tree that I see every day and the light and fog just screamed for a picture. So I stopped on the 10 and snapped away. Hope you guys like it.


----------



## Philligan

Whammy said:


> Cheers man
> 
> EDIT:
> Do you mean like one of these? I've been really pissed off with my processing lately.



Exactly.  I think I like the first one more. It feels a bit thicker, if that makes any sense haha.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Finding a way to stay within my usual processing style while complimenting the qualities of the ultra-wide lens has been pretty difficult, but think I'm starting to get the hang of it. This one's more saturated than my usual stuff, but I loved the whacked out colours and the flaring, so I just went with it.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> I feel like this is a fusion of Rook'ish and Whammy'ish processing. Gotta love that vignette! I was driving home from work and I saw this tree that I see every day and the light and fog just screamed for a picture. So I stopped on the 10 and snapped away. Hope you guys like it.



The space at the bottom is my favourite part, that looks like a book cover or movie poster.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> The space at the bottom is my favourite part, that looks like a book cover or movie poster.



Thanks! My original crop actually had the bottom bit cropped out. Glad I changed my mind!

Might post that one in the RAW thread and get it going again.


----------



## Whammy

JeffFromMtl said:


> Finding a way to stay within my usual processing style while complimenting the qualities of the ultra-wide lens has been pretty difficult, but think I'm starting to get the hang of it. This one's more saturated than my usual stuff, but I loved the whacked out colours and the flaring, so I just went with it.



That's cool. Like it 



Tang said:


> Thanks! My original crop actually had the bottom bit cropped out. Glad I changed my mind!
> 
> Might post that one in the RAW thread and get it going again.



Do it! I wanna go whammy on it.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Some photos I took las night, some of which I'll probably use for a photo set I'm thinking of doing called _Il Fait Chaud Dans l'Métro_, which is a sort of joke amongst Montrealers about how nothing in our transit system really works properly.

It seems that my B&W lends itself quite a bit more nicely to wide angle photography than my colour processing does. I find the grit really suits the character of the subject matter in these as well.


----------



## Wretched

Just a few shots from the Helmet and Melvins gig at Sydney's HiFi last December. Forgot to post them to my Flickr! Oops!

Shooting Periphery and Animals as Leaders on Saturday night. Can't wait! Misha and the guys were awesome last time I got to photograph them.


----------



## Tang

I've started approaching my shots in a different way. I'm starting to see how I want the end result to be as I'm shooting. That tree shot above I knew I would process that way as I took the picture. It's definitely a different way of looking at things, but I feel it only really works with more artsy (for lack of a better term) shots. 

Here's a train I found behind a gas station.


----------



## Whammy

JeffFromMtl said:


> Some photos I took las night, some of which I'll probably use for a photo set I'm thinking of doing called _Il Fait Chaud Dans l'Métro_, which is a sort of joke amongst Montrealers about how nothing in our transit system really works properly.



Nice set. I'd like to see the final set when finished.
You need to put some space between the photos thought haha. All the photos merged into on super long one 

I need to work more on sets. All I have out here is trees and I'm sick of looking at them  


Two photos I took today. Not related it any way. But whatever. At least I'm taking photos again and not deleting them straight away


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Thanks man, it'll probably take me a while to get them together, but I plan on exploring parts of the metro system that I never have before, getting off at stops I wouldn't normally in my daily routine, etc. Also, I put a space between each of the photos so that they weren't all merged together in overwhelming blacks


----------



## Philligan

Whammy said:


> I need to work more on sets. All I have out here is trees and I'm sick of looking at them



I was gonna say, you really live out in the woods eh?  What's close-ish to you? I feel like there could be some awesome old towns.


----------



## MoshJosh

So I bought my first DSLR a couple days ago figured I'd post a few of the shots I've taken and ask if you more experienced photographers had any advice for me?





 
Be gentle for I am a noob

EDIT: Haven't gotten out of the house for a while so lots of pictures of the dogs

My attempt to capture the crazy snow we were getting


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> I was gonna say, you really live out in the woods eh?  What's close-ish to you? I feel like there could be some awesome old towns.



What's close to me?
Trees 

Seriously though, trees.

There are a good few run down houses but not towns. The place is full of lakes. So many of them it's crazy. However once you've seen one lake you've seen them all. There are not too many vantage points where you can get in a lot of the landscape and lakes from an elevated position and if there is it's a long walk cause a car isn't making it up there in the snow.

I hiked up one close to me only to get to the top and not find a single break in the trees to view the landscape.
I'm normally not a landscape person but it's all I got now 

My fiancee and I are due a baby in a month. I can't drive so I need to rely on her which isn't ideal at the stage she's at so most days I just sit in the house.
The closest thing remotely interesting is a few hours walk away, and that's on snowy roads with no sidewalks


----------



## Khoi

MoshJosh said:


> So I bought my first DSLR a couple days ago figured I'd post a few of the shots I've taken and ask if you more experienced photographers had any advice for me?



Keep eyes in focus, keep your horizons straight, and study composition


----------



## Philligan

Khoi said:


> Keep eyes in focus, keep your horizons straight, and study composition



Also, start getting into the manual modes. And buy yourself a fast prime (35 1.8 if you have Nikon, 50 1.8 if you have Canon). And look at lots of pictures and shoot a ton.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Two oldies I found flicking through my library Lightroom.


----------



## Wretched

We shot a beautiful, big-dollar custom Harley Davidson chopper last night and for most of the shoot used a combination of up to six Speedlite flashes to light the bike, along with a long white sheet as a reflector to light up the chrome and polished alloy parts. When it was finally dark enough in the workshop to pull out our trusty LED video light panel and try light painting the bike instead, we were almost at the end of the shoot.

So, with the camera already setup for the last shot, I moved the flashes away and walked around the bike with a 15sec shutter, lighting the bike in two passes: one across the front and another behind. Below you'll see how different the same shot looks using the two lighting techniques and a third showing the combination of the light painted background, foreground and panels, with the engine and wheels lit by the flashes.


----------



## Philligan

That's cool, I didn't realize how much of a difference the combo makes. It's not glaringly obvious right away, but once you really look at it, it's literally the best of both shots. 

Once I pick up a flash and one of those cheap portrait kits with the always-on lamps (forget the name) I wanna have a go at that.


----------



## Wretched

I'm using a $60-80 LED video light panel and an eBay softbox for the light painting.


----------



## flint757

How many LED's come on it?


----------



## Wretched

Mine in a Yongnuo brand 300-LED panel, the second generation one. Remote control, variable colour temp and everything. Great price for the money. The softbox is a no name 60cm thing


----------



## Tyler

I got to use a Broncolor Scoro S at the photo studio at my school, and this thing seriously rocks


----------



## JeffFromMtl

More dags. This time at 17mm and in 16x9.


----------



## Whammy

More trees. Trees everywhere 






40mm f2


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

I just picked up a GoPro for a ski trip I'm going on with my friends tonight. This is gonna be lots of fun.


----------



## Tang

Street is hard  I just need to grow some balls and not worry about what people think.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang said:


> Street is hard  I just need to grow some balls and not worry about what people think.



Here's a file I stumbled across about street.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> Street is hard  I just need to grow some balls and not worry about what people think.



Or turn that worry into rage, and unleash the rage via street photography.

In all seriousness, I still get weirded out now and then, but you get used to it really quickly. I find that first blatant shot of someone gets you warmed up pretty quickly. And Jacksonville's a decent size, eh? I've had way better luck when I'm out in larger cities. My home town's pretty small (80k people) and I've gotten some weird looks, but no one's been mad at me yet.


----------



## Whammy

An older photo I found on my hard drive. I love shooting RAW. I was able to re-process this and feel like I did the photo justice this time 

I love shooting landscape with a standard lens (55mm).


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> An older photo I found on my hard drive. I love shooting RAW. I was able to re-process this and feel like I did the photo justice this time
> 
> I love shooting landscape with a standard lens (55mm).



The symmetry. Yes.

RAW thread now!


----------



## Tang

Gentlemens, a sneak preview of where my head is at right now. I've been enjoying the wider angles quite a bit. 




IMGP6698-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Had a lot of fun around Melbourne yesterday. Got to shoot a good friend's reception. Snapped this on the way.


----------



## MrYakob

Haven't been out shooting at all lately, it's been way too damn cold! Went out the Winterlude festival in my city last night but didn't get much in the way of good pics.


----------



## Whammy




----------



## Tang

A couple more from the past few days.. really enjoying the wider, more photojournalistic angles. I don't think I'm quite ready for ultra-wide (10-15mm on crop) but I'm getting there. These are all my K5ii + Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. For the more landscapey ones, I deliberately tried to bring out the texture in the sky and water. For most of these I was at f/5.




IMGP6677 by nrrfed, on Flickr




Pylons? Pylons. by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP6869 by nrrfed, on Flickr

And here is my first attempt at street work! I really love how the advertisement behind the smoking lady seems to be looking down in judgment. Really proud of this one..




IMGP6958 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

I finally got around to finishing the second volume of my photo book series, covering my favourite car and bike stuff from the last 18 months or so... Was a huge job, but there's nothing like having high quality prints of your work around to look at and check your progression down the line. It's 160 pages, hard cover with dust jacket and printed on Blurb's best quality paper. My copies of volume one are amazing and I can't wait for my first copy of volume two to get here!







You can see a full preview of it here: Automotive Photography Vol. 2 by Ben Hosking: Arts & Photography | Blurb Books


----------



## JeffFromMtl




----------



## Tang

Removed because of a strange color cast. Will repost later!


----------



## marshallH

I don't really consider myself a photographer, but I did take a cool picture of my guitar.






But one of my friends who IS a good photographers should be taking some pictures at my next gig. This is a great thread and I think i may find a picture worthy to post


----------



## marshallH

Hopefully they aren't too bad, just some stuff in my room


----------



## Winspear

Wow Whammy, those photos are amazing. Having landscape as my main photography interest and living in south UK ....ing sucks hahaha


----------



## Whammy

EtherealEntity said:


> Wow Whammy, those photos are amazing. Having landscape as my main photography interest and living in south UK ....ing sucks hahaha



Cheers man. Those two last photos I uploaded were taken in Ireland. I lived before in inner city Dublin so needless to say, nice landscape photos wasn't on the top of my list 
I traveled out to another County to take those photos. I was actually there for another reason but took the opportunity to snap some landscape.

You need to find nice areas yourself. Generally getting up high helps a lot, of course it means hiking but needs to be done. Being at sea level is also cool but unless the surrounding area is high you'll have a lot of skyline in the frame.

Waiting/timing is the most important thing you can do.
No point hiking up to the top and take a photo when the lighting sucks.

Some times I've found a prefect view but didn't take any photos because I wanted the weather to be a certain way. I'd come back another time and take a photo when the conditions were right.

I think I just waffled there for no reason 

Random photo time...


----------



## Tang

EtherealEntity said:


> Wow Whammy, those photos are amazing. Having landscape as my main photography interest and living in south UK ....ing sucks hahaha



As someone who's getting into landscape in a VERY flat area I have to say: lighting is everything and make the landscapes work for. Good lighting can make an average landscape excellent.

Obligatory railroad shot:






This shot I tried something very different processing wise. Highlights to -100 and shadows to +100. Originally did it as a bit of a joke just to see how far I could take one RAW file. Then I started enjoying myself and how the picture was turning out. To my eyes this looks like a more natural HDR. dat Pentax dynamic range  definitely throwing this one up in the RAW thread because there are so many ways you could edit this file.


----------



## Whammy

I cropped a photo 

Just took the top and bottom off for 2:1. Still though. Feel kinda dirty now...


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> I cropped a photo
> 
> Just took the top and bottom off for 2:1. Still though. Feel kinda dirty now...



You're allowed one dirty crop per month. What's a dirty crop? You'll know.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> Obligatory railroad shot:



Since we're doing railroad shots...


----------



## feilong29

Hey guys! 

Here are some photos I did for a session over the weekend, and then some random shots; all with my 50mm 1.4 































My dog is a little blurred out :/ I took those with my 85mm 1.4

For the couple's shoot, I learned a few things; when you have something in the backdrop, try to capture the WHOLE backdrop! I should have had the whole windmill in the pic. Lesson learned!


----------



## Antwill

I love this thread. Nice work everyone


----------



## Wretched

I've been restraining myself from doing this for ages and will probably cop a ban for it, but I've emailed sso four times about advertising rates and never received a reply... so:

Early in 2013 I picked up a gig running a new photography magazine for the iPad, called InFocus Australasia. I'm now working on issue 12, which marks the end of the first year and things are going great with it. Over 13,000 subscribers in 10 issues (issue 10 is the latest on Apple newsstand).

Anyway, I had been hoping to share it with you all the right way, by advertising and having permission to discuss it. if you've got an iPad and are interested to check it out, *CLICK HERE*.

As Tang already knows, we've also got a Flickr group and from that I have begun taking my favourite member photos and featuring them in a monthly image gallery in the magazine. I'd love to be able to feature some of you guy's work, as shown here, to a wider audience.

Oh, and I should mention it's completely FREE!

Thanks.


----------



## feilong29

Wretched said:


> I've been restraining myself from doing this for ages and will probably cop a ban for it, but I've emailed sso four times about advertising rates and never received a reply... so:
> 
> Early in 2013 I picked up a gig running a new photography magazine for the iPad, called InFocus Australasia. I'm now working on issue 12, which marks the end of the first year and things are going great with it. Over 13,000 subscribers in 10 issues (issue 10 is the latest on Apple newsstand).
> 
> Anyway, I had been hoping to share it with you all the right way, by advertising and having permission to discuss it. if you've got an iPad and are interested to check it out, *CLICK HERE*.
> 
> As Tang already knows, we've also got a Flickr group and from that I have begun taking my favourite member photos and featuring them in a monthly image gallery in the magazine. I'd love to be able to feature some of you guy's work, as shown here, to a wider audience.
> 
> Oh, and I should mention it's completely FREE!
> 
> Thanks.



Not sure if any of my pics are worthy, but I'd love for you to use mine if you saw some that interested you. If not, tell me what I can do better!


----------



## Wretched

A shot from my latest shoot last week.

It's light painted with two simple passes (one past the facing side of the bike and one behind) with my LED video light panel through a Westcott Apollo 28in box in a 15sec exposure. Blended a couple together to remove any evidence of me from the top half of the image.


----------



## metal_sam14

Wretched said:


> I've been restraining myself from doing this for ages and will probably cop a ban for it, but I've emailed sso four times about advertising rates and never received a reply... so:
> 
> Early in 2013 I picked up a gig running a new photography magazine for the iPad, called InFocus Australasia. I'm now working on issue 12, which marks the end of the first year and things are going great with it. Over 13,000 subscribers in 10 issues (issue 10 is the latest on Apple newsstand).
> 
> Anyway, I had been hoping to share it with you all the right way, by advertising and having permission to discuss it. if you've got an iPad and are interested to check it out, *CLICK HERE*.
> 
> As Tang already knows, we've also got a Flickr group and from that I have begun taking my favourite member photos and featuring them in a monthly image gallery in the magazine. I'd love to be able to feature some of you guy's work, as shown here, to a wider audience.
> 
> Oh, and I should mention it's completely FREE!
> 
> Thanks.



I read every issue front to back, you guys are on to something amazing here. 

Can we get a link to that Flickr group? I would love to check it out/maybe submit some of my stuff


----------



## Philligan

Joined.  It seems like a pretty close group, which is awesome. I'll go through and look for some photos to add.

Can I get the magazine on my iPhone, or is it iPad only? I don't own an iPad.


----------



## Wretched

metal_sam14 said:


> I read every issue front to back, you guys are on to something amazing here.
> 
> Can we get a link to that Flickr group? I would love to check it out/maybe submit some of my stuff



Thanks Sam! Sure: Flickr: The InFocus Australasia Pool


----------



## Tang

It certainly looks like I'm developing a 'style'.. interesting.




IMGP7019 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I picked your shots out of Ben's group purely by look.


----------



## MetalBuddah

I was lucky enough to shoot Skeletonwitch, Enslaved, and Amon Amarth this past Friday. Here are some shots from the shoot!



























You can check out the sets in full here: Nick Budosh Photography Flickr

Also, feel free to follow my Facebook page as well!


----------



## Wretched

Philligan said:


> Joined.  It seems like a pretty close group, which is awesome. I'll go through and look for some photos to add.
> 
> Can I get the magazine on my iPhone, or is it iPad only? I don't own an iPad.



Cool. Only iPad, I'm afraid.


----------



## Tang

It reached a very comfortable 85* F (29C) today.. ya'll jealous? 




IMGP7139 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP7233 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP7241-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP7217-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy




----------



## Tang

You could hear a pin drop in this place  anyways, I'm heading to New Orleans tomorrow so I'm bound to shoot a metric shitton, or st least I'm planning on it!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Go reshoot pylons with an ND and a minute+ exposure. I'd buy a print of a good shot of that.

My take on the photo I posted in the RAW challenge thread - no skin retouching at all here:


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Go reshoot pylons with an ND and a minute+ exposure. I'd buy a print of a good shot of that.
> 
> My take on the photo I posted in the RAW challenge thread - no skin retouching at all here:



Cheers! Yeah, that shot was handheld because my cheap Best Buy tripod bit the dust. Definitely gonna pick up a new tripod and a nice ND filter when my tax money comes (hopefully before/while I'm in New Orleans). I'd love to redo that Pylon shot with a longer exposure to bring out the motion in the water.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Got to shoot a friend's reception the other night. T'was a blast!


----------



## Whammy

Getting stuck for creative ideas out here so here's a fast moving dog with a shallow depth of field. I stopped down to 1.6 
Framing is not the best but i had to act quick. Too much foreground for my liking. Would have preferred if I got the subject more too the left of the frame too. Ah well. Live and learn 

It's interesting to use a shallow depth of field with fast moving objects. (I'd recommend to use manual focus haha)






Here's a full crop of just the focused area. I thought it was funny


----------



## Decreate

Here's a couple of pics I took in Taipei a couple of days ago.


----------



## Philligan

Decreate said:


>



I really dig this one. 

So it turns out my B&W rolls aren't C-41, and Walmart can't develop them. I found out after stocking up on a few. 

Apparently there's a local shop here in Windsor that specializes in film and film cameras. When I have some time I'll go down and get my B&W developed. I think I'm on my second roll, and have one or two to go. I hear the guy refurbishes film bodies, so I wanna make sure I have a bit of cash available in case I see something awesome haha.


----------



## Wretched

Oh god, Doris Yeh. Mmm. Nice live shot. Plenty of atmosphere by getting back a bit.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> I really dig this one.
> 
> So it turns out my B&W rolls aren't C-41, and Walmart can't develop them. I found out after stocking up on a few.
> 
> Apparently there's a local shop here in Windsor that specializes in film and film cameras. When I have some time I'll go down and get my B&W developed. I think I'm on my second roll, and have one or two to go. I hear the guy refurbishes film bodies, so I wanna make sure I have a bit of cash available in case I see something awesome haha.



Just get some rodinal and fixer and do it yourself.


----------



## Khoi

I just took a snowboarding trip with my friends for the past week, and I discovered this nifty website called Exposure that formats your pictures in a sweet gallery with a photonarrative feel



Check it out: https://briannguyen.exposure.so/broboarding


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Great stuff Khoi. So sharp!


----------



## Tang

This is a straight out-of-camera B&W jpgs.. laptop is being a little weird and can't run Lightroom without overheating, so I'm stuck doing in-camera RAW conversation for now. There will be a real Tang-edit soon! Can't wait to give this a proper conversion.

I'm spending a good bit of time with my new tripod trying to get everything straightened perfectly, but I still need to practice and work on my eye in that area.




IMGP7349 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Decreate

Philligan said:


> I really dig this one.
> 
> So it turns out my B&W rolls aren't C-41, and Walmart can't develop them. I found out after stocking up on a few.
> 
> Apparently there's a local shop here in Windsor that specializes in film and film cameras. When I have some time I'll go down and get my B&W developed. I think I'm on my second roll, and have one or two to go. I hear the guy refurbishes film bodies, so I wanna make sure I have a bit of cash available in case I see something awesome haha.



Thanks, when I took the pic it was one of those moments when I saw the scene and immediately thought that it would look nice in black & white...if that makes any sense...


----------



## Decreate

Wretched said:


> Oh god, Doris Yeh. Mmm. Nice live shot. Plenty of atmosphere by getting back a bit.


Thanks, was there watching them perform with Babymetal. Unfortunately I couldn't take more pics because as soon as I or anyone else lifted up the camera or cell phone, someone would rush over and tell us that photography was not allowed...


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I'm shooting the first set of 2014 for work today, and I'm really looking forward to trying out the 17-40 in that context. Will post results.

Edit: In the meantime, here's an Instax from today.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Ok, here's a couple I liked from today.

@ 17mm





@ 50mm


----------



## MemphisHawk

From Rocktoberfest Okinawa.

Nikon D4
200m f/2


----------



## metal_sam14

I was roady-ing for a mate of mine last night so I got to take some snaps during their set, this was my favourite shot: 




Festivale by TasmanSam, on Flickr


----------



## MetalBuddah

Some of you may know of the band, Carthage, which features our very own Tre Watson and Nayon. Here are a few shots from their show today. The morph suits were just for fun.














The rest of the set is here!


----------



## mikemueller2112

Been a while since I posted here, glad to see there's still some deadly shots being posted. I just finished my website and launched it this weekend. Would be cool if you guys took a peek and gave me a Like on Facebook if you're into that sort of thing.

MIKE MUELLER Photography

www.facebook.com/mikemuellerphoto

Cheers!


----------



## Philligan

I joined a couple iPhone groups on Flickr to see some of the crazy stuff people are doing and to get myself using my phone more, instead of throwing an Instagram filter on a shaky picture and calling it a day. 

Here's one from Kilkenny that I edited with Snapseed.


----------



## Wretched

A few pics from Periphery's show in Sydney on Feb 1, supported by Animals as Leaders. Great show!

You can see all 26 photos and read my review here: *CLICK HERE*

The lighting was woeful, but I managed to pull some decent ones out.


----------



## Tang

Nice Periphery and AAL shots, dude!

Finally back from vacation and currently culling my shots.. took 567 pictures on this trip and if I get at least 15 really good keepers, I'll be happy. Here's one of the first shots I took this trip.. had my good friend Rook in mind when I saw this 




IMGP7373 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tried some ISO3200 stuff with extra film-style grain added in post:


----------



## feilong29

Not my typical edit, but just wanted to test out my new Rokinon 35mm 1.4. This... THIS is my favorite lens


----------



## Tang

Some more from New Orleans. While there I continued my more photojournalistic style of shooting keeping at f/8 when possible. So without further blabbering..


----------



## MrYakob

It's a New (Old) Lens day for me! I was digging through the basement storage a while back and I uncovered my Mom's old Pentax Spotmatic F and all her old film gear.. Score! So I got a couple M42 to EOS adapters (Decided to order another one with the chip on it today) and now I've got 4 old manual focus lenses to play around with now 

SMC Takumar 55 1.8
28 3.5
200 4
135 2.5





And a couple quick snaps with the 55 just to make sure everything was working.


----------



## Philligan

I don't have any pictures, but I picked up a 75-300 (non-IS, non-USM) basically brand new for $80 yesterday. I haven't run into any specific situations where I wished I had a tele zoom, but I'm going to Florida next week and I think we're gonna be going to a zoo, so I wanted to have one on me. And I can see how much I use it before spending like $600 on the 70-200 f/4 L. 

I've got a crazy busy couple of days before we leave, but worst case, expect some NatGeo-style monkey portraits in a couple weeks.


----------



## Khoi

I just bought a man's monopod in preparation of my upcoming trip to Costa Rica. I'll be renting a Canon 400mm f5.6 L lens as well. 

Needless to say, I'm pretty stoked to try out this combo!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's not a Gitzo.


----------



## Philligan

Here's a shitty cell phone picture because I'm not shooting enough lately.  I was playing with it today. It's only gonna be good for bright daylight stuff - at best (75mm) I get f/4 and can maybe get away with a 1/100s shutter speed. That's alright, but even inside my house with the lights on (lighting's not great) I get either a lot of noise or an underexposed shot. Still, it was $80, and I mostly got it for the day at the zoo, where it should be fine.





Man, this thing weighs a tonne though.  I'm glad I've got a decent strap, because my fingers were getting sore after a few minutes of holding it. I'm like 1/3 of the way to a 70D, and I've got my tax return, work bonus, and guaranteed buyer for my T3 to help me get there, so I should have it around April or so.  It'll be a good day, because T3's front-heavy enough with the 50/1.4 haha. The Sigma 18-35 1.8 should weigh around the same as the 75-300, so I'd hate to shoot an entire wedding with something that unbalanced.


----------



## Tang

I'm trying to refrain myself from totally spamming this thread 

This might be my favorite shot from New Orleans out of the 600 odd shots I took. I saw the reflections on the tile floor and just waited until someone walked by and snap!


----------



## Joe Harvatt

MrYakob said:


> It's a New (Old) Lens day for me! I was digging through the basement storage a while back and I uncovered my Mom's old Pentax Spotmatic F and all her old film gear.. Score! So I got a couple M42 to EOS adapters (Decided to order another one with the chip on it today) and now I've got 4 old manual focus lenses to play around with now
> 
> SMC Takumar 55 1.8
> 28 3.5
> 200 4
> 135 2.5



I'd like to see some photos with the 135 2.5

I was away in Budapest last weekend and had my camera with me. The weather wasn't great unfortunately, and I would have liked a wider lens than the 35 1.8 as all the buildings were huge and old.































Full set here.

Thinking of pulling the trigger on a Zenitar 16mm f2.8 soon. I'm craving a wide angle lens, but can't afford anything from the main dudes. Anyone had any experience with it?


----------



## JeffFromMtl

^ Love these, man. Great set! 
I might be going to France/Belgium in a couple of months, really looking forward to getting some shots there.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Thanks Jeff, I appreciate it! Is it your first time to Europe?


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Joe Harvatt said:


> Thanks Jeff, I appreciate it! Is it your first time to Europe?



I went once when I was younger, but I don't feel I really appreciated it as much as I should/could have. I'm actually in the process of getting my EU citizenship because my grandmother is from Poland, and it's the easiest country to get citizenship through lineage for. So if that all goes according to plan, I'm hoping to spend a lot more time there in the future.


----------



## Wretched

A couple of sneak peeks at a shoot we did this week for Heavy Duty magazine.

I lit the bike using speedlites: two flashes in a 50in Westcott Apollo to camera left, a single flash in a 28in Westcott Apollo to the rear of the bike to the right, a HONL-gridded flash at ground level lighting the rear tyre... THEN, with the basic exposure done, I took several other exposures using a speedlite through a white umbrella lighting smaller sections individually to highlight the chrome etc and composited it all in PS.

The light painting was done with a 56-LED programmable strip on 1 1x2in timber length. While the LEDs are red, I changed the colour in Lightroom.


----------



## Tang

Alright, lets do this! Over the next few days (unless I shoot something else I really, really like) I'm going to try and post my 'vacation photos'; tang style.  Gonna start from the beginning..

Right when we arrived at the hotel I knew it'd be a good trip. When I look over the balcony opposite my door this was my view. It was hard getting the perspective just right, but I like how it turned out.




IMGP7295 by nrrfed, on Flickr

The view across the balcony:




IMGP7317 by nrrfed, on Flickr

There was a huge, old abandoned hotel next to our that was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. I've never really explored abandoned sites, so I was pretty nervous walking over there but it turned out ok. I never ventured inside the hotel (it was too dark for my tastes) but there were some cool shots on the outside.




IMGP7438 by nrrfed, on Flickr

Obviously having way too much fun with my new tripod:




IMGP7505-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr

The next morning we took a trip over to the French Quarter and wandered into this really old and rundown cemetery. At first I felt awkward shooting in a cemetery, but seeing all the other tourists happily snapping away I gave in. I'm glad I did.




IMGP7357 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP7359 by nrrfed, on Flickr

Stay tuned sometime tomorrow for more!


----------



## MetalBuddah

Here are a few glamour shots of my sexy new RG7420 














The rest of the shots are on my flickr in my NGD thread


----------



## Tang

I decided to group the rest of the vacation shots by theme. Today's theme is street. Definitely getting braver.. I'm on my phone or otherwise I'd go into more details, but I digress. On to the shots! Note: apologies if I posted some of these before but I personally think they work well together. 

As you can see, I've pretty much abandoned my bokeh-all-the-things style of shooting. Honestly, shooting 'street' has invigorated my photography and it might be my new love. 




































Sorry for spamming but i was so excited to share these with you guys that I can't help myself.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Took this a number of weeks back but it didn't jump at me for an edit until today.


----------



## MrYakob

Took the camera out to see the ice sculptures last night, the lighting situation wasn't great and I only had my 40mm 2.8 but I got a few decent shots. 

Trying to capture the ice sculptures was a bit of a bitch though and the crowds didn't help that.


----------



## JeffFromMtl




----------



## Tang

Nice work Jeff and MrYakob!

Todays theme is .. random stuff.




IMGP7783 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP7756 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP7724 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP7810-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP7919 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

^ Really dig that last one.


----------



## Tang

JeffFromMtl said:


> ^ Really dig that last one.



Thanks a lot man!

Had a great time hanging out with Philligan and showing him and his better half around St. Augustine. Lots of pictures were taken.


----------



## Philligan

He speaks the truth.  

I probably won't get any up til we're back, but I think we got some good ones.


----------



## capoeiraesp

My Valentine's night out.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Tang, really like the bike rider in front of the green doors shot a couple of posts ago. I think I need to use shutter speed as a more creative tool for movement.


----------



## feilong29

Well, when the weather is nice again, I'll have some "real" pictures to put up; until, my Danboard duo will have to make for inside entertainment!

Done with my Rokinon 35mm 1.4 and various stuffed animals 

Inspiration:






Nailed it!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Went out to shoot a few spots in my hood with a friend who's working on putting together a photo essay on urban form in 7 of Montreal's neighbourhoods. The ultra-wide is inspiring me to add a lot more clarity and sharpness to my processing.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'd buy that third shot. We really should organize a print exchange.


----------



## Tang

Awesome shots, Jeff! Nice texture in those. 

Guys, please allow me my one guilty pleasure. f/8 bokeh makes me happy.


----------



## MrYakob

I love those shots Jeff! It's really making me regret returning my 17-40


----------



## JeffFromMtl

ThePhilosopher said:


> I'd buy that third shot. We really should organize a print exchange.





Tang said:


> Awesome shots, Jeff! Nice texture in those.





MrYakob said:


> I love those shots Jeff! It's really making me regret returning my 17-40



Thanks guys, I appreciate it!

I'm totally down for a print swap. How could we go about organizing one?


----------



## Tang

A color version of a shot I posted earlier..


----------



## ThePhilosopher

JeffFromMtl said:


> I'm totally down for a print swap. How could we go about organizing one?



I'll start a thread this weekend after I get a chance to talk to a friend of mine who has run multiple print swaps successfully.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> I'll start a thread this weekend after I get a chance to talk to a friend of mine who has run multiple print swaps successfully.



Speaking of prints, I reshot that Pylons shot a few days ago at dusk and with a longer exposure. There weren't any birds this time but the water turned out perfect. I'll be posting it later tonight.


----------



## soliloquy

got my polerizor filter for my pentax k5, also got a new back pack for it. waiting on its timer control to start doing some light painting


----------



## Tang

Hanging with Philligan and getting way more comfortable with street. 






Music:






Busy sidewalk:






Dichotomy:


----------



## capoeiraesp

This is probably a stupid question. Is there a way to use a 600ex speedlight off camera without a speedlight trigger or another flash mounted to the horseshoe on a Canon 6d?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Use the pop up flash as a trigger, set it to the lowest flash power.
Well that wasn't helpful - you could use a PC sync cable (I'm assuming it has a sync port); otherwise, you'll need to invest in some sort of wireless triggering setup.


----------



## MrYakob

ThePhilosopher said:


> Use the pop up flash as a trigger, set it to the lowest flash power.



The 6D doesn't have a pop up flash  As far as I know you need a trigger of some kind of another speedlite on the camera


----------



## capoeiraesp

Too easy. Looks like I'll be getting the trigger. Thanks guys.


----------



## Wretched

YN603C triggers are so cheap, it's hardly worth talking about. I use them at every shoot. Reliable and they work! It means your flash will only be operating in manual mode, but who cares? Will help you learn more about your flash


----------



## JeffFromMtl

A few from some look book stuff I shot today:


----------



## Tang

My Sigma 35 f/1.4 should be arriving tomorrow! Looking forward to finally using a 1.4 lens!




IMGP8038 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP7975 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## feilong29

JeffFromMtl said:


> A few from some look book stuff I shot today:



Awesome photos Jeff!


----------



## Dalcan

I've been known to take a few photos... Some are NSFW...


500px / Dave Alcan


----------



## capoeiraesp

Tang, you're gonna love the sigma 35 1.4. I've not taken mine off in weeks. Just awesome.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Pulled the trigger on the black X100S


----------



## MrYakob

Damn... I've been dying for one of those Sigma 35's and I think I'm running out of self control quickly. Can't really justify selling one of my current lenses for it so I may just have to take the hit!


----------



## Tang

MrYakob said:


> Damn... I've been dying for one of those Sigma 35's and I think I'm running out of self control quickly. Can't really justify selling one of my current lenses for it so I may just have to take the hit!



do it 

here's my first attempt at shooting the moon.. it was surprisingly difficult to get the exposure right and had to stick with manual. You don't really think about how bright the moon is, but it was VERY easy to accidently blow the highlights on the Moon. So here ya go:




moon? by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## MrYakob

Tang said:


> do it



I'm already checking stock levels at my local shops  My only concern is that it will be too similar in focal length to my 40 2.8. but I suppose I could use the 40 for times when I can't or don't want to bring a heavy kit (Trying to rationalize this to make the pain easier )


----------



## Tang

MrYakob said:


> I'm already checking stock levels at my local shops  My only concern is that it will be too similar in focal length to my 40 2.8. but I suppose I could use the 40 for times when I can't or don't want to bring a heavy kit (Trying to rationalize this to make the pain easier )



Here's the first shot I took with mine.. using such a fast lens is going to take some learning. You can see that I just barely missed focus. But wow, what a beautiful piece of glass, and hefty too!




Mona (Sigma 35 1.4) by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

^ Sigma's upping their game hard. I'm actually so bummed that the 30mm 1.4 isn't compatible with full-frame. That lens was awesome.

-------

More stuff of the metro. Guy-Concordia station this time.


----------



## capoeiraesp

More Sigma 35mm @1.4 love right here!


----------



## Tang

Looks like that Moon shot from above got an Explore on Flickr. That makes it my second


----------



## Tang

capoeiraesp said:


> More Sigma 35mm @1.4 love right here!



Dude, I can't wait to take this lens out into the street. I know it's very conspicuous but the results will be worth it.


----------



## Rook

That's the problem with fast FF 35's, not only are they nearly always huge, they're just wide enough that you actually have to get up closer to people too. It obviously depends on the kind of shots you wanna get though. 35 is my ideal street length I think.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> That's the problem with fast FF 35's, not only are they nearly always huge, they're just wide enough that you actually have to get up closer to people too. It obviously depends on the kind of shots you wanna get though. 35 is my ideal street length I think.



Welcome back, man! Can't wait to see what you shot while you were away.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

JeffFromMtl said:


> A few from some look book stuff I shot today:



I'd look out for things like the watch being turned the wrong way (this especially effects the last image where it looks almost too tight and amputates the hand - so to speak).

Also, the last image is my favorite of that set; however, if it weren't shot up her nose I feel it would be stronger and I'd take out the lighter line bottom right of the frame. Good set sir.


----------



## Rook

Missed you guys


----------



## JeffFromMtl

ThePhilosopher said:


> I'd look out for things like the watch being turned the wrong way (this especially effects the last image where it looks almost too tight and amputates the hand - so to speak).
> 
> Also, the last image is my favorite of that set; however, if it weren't shot up her nose I feel it would be stronger and I'd take out the lighter line bottom right of the frame. Good set sir.



Thanks for the input - definitely a couple of things I'll be keeping in mind going forward.


----------



## feilong29

Some edited photos of the JP100 










Rokinon 35mm 1.4


----------



## Philligan

I'm back dudes! Had a great time hanging out with Tang and shooting. Nothing to post from Florida yet (I literally just got home an hour ago and have gotta write two papers for Monday and work 9-6 tomorrow), but I shot 40+ gigs of raw files, so hopefully I get some decent ones.  

A lot of them are just like vacation-style snapshots that no one outside of my immediate family would be interested in, but I tried to get some real photos each day. I really think I got some good ones with Tang, and we spent a day at the zoo and I hope I got some cool shots of animals. 

I really need to start shooting in JPG for the snapshot stuff; really not looking forward to culling/editing ~1k raws haha.



MrYakob said:


> I'm already checking stock levels at my local shops  My only concern is that it will be too similar in focal length to my 40 2.8. but I suppose I could use the 40 for times when I can't or don't want to bring a heavy kit (Trying to rationalize this to make the pain easier )



I owned the 40 2.8 and found it super boring - it was perfectly fine, but the only really unique thing it had going for it was the fact that it was small. If that helps sway you at all. 

I'm really torn between the Sigma 35 1.4 (or 30) and 18-35 1.8. I love primes and am used to walking around to frame, but the 18-35 actually has a higher score on that one pixel-peeping site (whose name escapes me right now), and I like the idea of having the option of 18mm to get a bit of wide-angle distortion to photos. And I feel like that bit of zoom would be handy for when I'm doing weddings, and it's more about getting the shot than forcing myself to be creative with limitations.

Like I said, nothing from Florida yet, but I went through my folder of edited Ireland shots (still gotta really dig through those raw files again, I've been putting it off haha) and found some good ones I forgot to post.





And a selfie I forgot I had!


----------



## Tang

Honestly Phil, while I'm loving the 35 1.4 I might end up getting the 17-35 instead. Haven't made my mind up yet. I plan on staying with Pentax long term, so having a crop only lens is fine with me. Need to give the 35 another week or two to make up my mind. I'm totally loving it, but I might prefer the wider range the zoom has.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Tang, I always really liked the 35mm on my 7D. When I got my full framed 6D though it became a different story. I love it. So yeah, I reckon you may be better off with the 18-35.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> Honestly Phil, while I'm loving the 35 1.4 I might end up getting the 17-35 instead. Haven't made my mind up yet. I plan on staying with Pentax long term, so having a crop only lens is fine with me. Need to give the 35 another week or two to make up my mind. I'm totally loving it, but I might prefer the wider range the zoom has.



I was gonna reply to this, but I just got some news. My tax return is probably gonna be more than double what I was expecting, and it might put the 6D within reasonable reach if I can find a good sale.

If I do the 6D, I definitely wouldn't be able to afford any zooms, so I'd be stuck doing weddings with all primes (or really shitty zooms haha). I've got the 50 1.4, and I'd probably grab the Canon 35 f2 IS - maybe the Sigma 35 1.4, but after a 6D, that would be a while away, so I'd be spending most of the summer with just the 50.

The other option is stick with the 70D, and be able to grab the Sigma 18-35 1.8 that much sooner. 

The other thing I'm not sure about is the focusing - using the centre point only on my T3 was a nightmare at the zoo (focusing and recomposing @ 300mm is brutal ), and I might be shooting some sports this summer. I feel like the 70D AF and the extra reach would come in handy.

Thoughts? I'm brutal for making decisions, but at least this is win-win.


----------



## Tang

Dude, if I were in your shoes I'd be getting the 6d and the 35 f/2 IS. I wouldn't even think twice! The center point on the 6d blows away the entire AF system of the T3, so even for weddings I think it'd be fine. I believe that center point is rated down to -3EV which is DARK!



That's a good point though. All the good 2.8 FF zooms cost an arm and a leg. Doesn't the 6d come with the 24-105 f/4L? That might be good enough considering the great low-light performance. You Canon/6d guys can better judge how well that would work.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> That's a good point though. All the good 2.8 FF zooms cost an arm and a leg. Doesn't the 6d come with the 24-105 f/4L? That might be good enough considering the great low-light performance. You Canon/6d guys can better judge how well that would work.



That's where I'd get way over budget.  Even if I can find a good deal on the 6D, like that $1500 one on eBay a while back, I'm gonna have trouble getting it over the border without import fees, which would end up running me another $200-300. That would basically eat through my entire camera fund, and the cheapest I'm seeing 6Ds right now is around $1700 + shipping. The 24-105 would put me over $2k for sure, and that's definitely out of my budget.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm kind of leaning towards the 70D. Both would be nice.  But I like the AF system on the 70D (specifically, having cross-type points all over the frame, because I change the focus point about as much as I focus and recompose with the centre), and I like the live view AF for focusing manually. 

The 70D does open up a lot more cool lenses for me, too. Obviously there's the Sigma 18-35, and the 30 1.4 Art is only like $450 and would be a perfect walk-around lens (way smaller than the 35 and a bit wider). 

I'm used to working with a crop camera, and from what I can tell, the 6D gets around a stop or so of extra low light performance over the 70D, which isn't a huge huge amount. If I was just doing street stuff on my own I'd probably go with the 6D and less lenses, but because I've actually gotten a few requests to do shoots, I'm tempted to go with the more versatile AF and lens system.

I found a deal on Amazon that has the 70D and the new 18-55 STM kit lens for $1230 ($70 cheaper than the body alone normally), and the STM goes for $200+. I might pull the trigger soon.


----------



## Tang

Hey man, get what's best for your needs! I have no problems with a crop body (and hopefully my shots speak for themselves!) and I think you'd get on swimmingly with the 70d. 

Or you could sell all your Canon gear and go Pentax.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> Hey man, get what's best for your needs! I have no problems with a crop body (and hopefully my shots speak for themselves!) and I think you'd get on swimmingly with the 70d.
> 
> Or you could sell all your Canon gear and go Pentax.



Don't tempt me.  I really dig the Pentax gear on paper, and your shots look killer (another reason why I'm not so scared of the 70D's crop sensor), but when I tried yours, it felt a bit awkward in my hands. That could just be because I'm used to Canons - Nikons feel really uncomfortable to me.

The Pentax stuff is awesome. Great weather sealing, in-body shake reduction, access to the Sigma lenses... there's a lot of stuff I wish I knew before I started spending money on camera gear, but I probably wouldn't have learned it without buying that gear.


----------



## capoeiraesp

6D!!!!! BECAUSE?

High ISO performance!


----------



## capoeiraesp

White Night in Melbourne.


----------



## Ed_Ibanez_Shred

Some long exposure shit in Toronto, no tripod though so a bit blurry


----------



## MrYakob

Tried something new for me yesterday, I went out with the intention of not shooting wide open at all, which I realized is the majority of my shots. It was definitely a step out of my comfort zone but I got some cool shots from it.


----------



## Tang

Some random street stuffs. 






I really, really like the contrast between the tourist snapping pics of the statue and the homeless man chilling on the bench. I've been trying to capture street shots that tell little stories like this.


----------



## Ed_Ibanez_Shred

Some urban exploration from this summer 


























I love me some old quarries


----------



## Rook

I'm not usually the kind of person to say those 'OMG SO GOOD CANT EVEN EXPLAIN' things that shill musicians say when trying to sell kit because there genuinely is nothing notably good about what they're shifting BUT

This 'noise performance' measurement thing... My Fuji is supposedly one of the best low light performers in crop sensors, and from a sensible viewing distance it does perform extremely well, I started shooting my 6D more again recently and the 25600 files have about as much noise as the 800-1600's off the Fuji, and the extra colour definition and sharpness and tonality... THAT is what you shoot full frame for. The colours and tones and the ridiculous ability of the 6D to recover highlights and shadows you thought were long dead is genuinely unmatched by any cropped sensor. The 70D in fact has significantly physically smaller pixels than the 600 and MUCH smaller then the 6D, looking at RAW files (most people show you JPEG's for noise comparisons, after the camera's had it's way with it) the 70D will inevitably be a noisier sensor because smaller pixels = more noise becUse physics!

A few points.
- The 35 f/2 sucks, avoid it, it's a rip off
- The Canon 70-200 f/4 L and 17-40 f/4 L are two of the cheapest L lenses, and used they sell for next to nothing comparatively - sell everything you currently own, buy them and shoot all the weddings and sports you like.
- The AF system on the 6D is infinitely more powerful than that of the 600, you will notice the difference and you're still taking control of your focus rather than leaving a camera to chose and frankly if I were shooting a wedding and the precise focus mattered that much (thin DOF for example) that's not a decision I'd leave to the camera, if your DOF isn't so thin the all-areas focus of the 6D will do fine. It's an updated version of what's on the 5D2 and that 5D changed the digital SLR market forever; it wouldn't have done if the focus sucked!


...well, the focus sucks a little but the 6D's way better haha.

Buy a 6D. Don't argue, just do it. Get your 70-200 on credit or something.


----------



## Philligan

False alarm, guys. Turbo Tax messed up and more than doubled my tax return, which turned out to be wrong when I filed it.


----------



## Tang

Rook, you talking about the old or new version of the 35 f/2? The new version has consistently great reviews. 

Oh yeah, since you were gone forever I took the trouble to create a small set of what I believe was my best work from that small time period for your viewing pleasure  let me know what ya think, man!

best of (for rooooooooook) - a set on Flickr

If I know you you'll probably like that statue/mausoleum best.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> Rook, you talking about the old or new version of the 35 f/2? The new version has consistently great reviews.



That's what I was gonna say. Every time I see it mentioned people say it's great and a hidden gem among the "cheaper" Canon lenses. 

As much as I'd love the 6D and some L lenses, it's not even a matter of using some credit or saving longer - at this point in my life, I can't justify spending that kind of money with a clean conscience. I'm paying my way through university on a shitty part-time job, still have a year of undergrad plus teachers college, and I'm getting married next year. Even spending a couple grand on a new body and a lens or two is a stretch when that could go towards my student loans or the wedding.

If I got the tax return I thought I was, I'd seriously consider a 6D because I'd pretty much have the cash for it in total already, but I'd literally be limited to another cheapish prime for lenses. I'm trying not to go too far above and beyond my tax return for this. If I start getting paid for weddings this summer I'll definitely keep most of that money for camera purchases, but I don't want to make decisions now and have to rely on getting paid for photography down the road. (Although if that does happen, I'd gladly get a 6D to compliment the 70D and basically be a permanent home for my 50mm.) The 70D gives me a much more versatile selection of lenses for my money, and honestly, it's gonna be more than good enough for my realistic needs. 

/whiney rant. Sorry guys. 

On a lighter note: The tax return is filed very early, so it should show up soon, and I see new gear on the horizon. I'm jonesing for a 70D and 18.35 1.8 something fierce haha.

How much would you guys trust Amazon? The 70D typically sells for $1299 in stores in Canada. I found a 70D with the 18-55 STM kit lens on sale on Amazon.ca for $1232 with free shipping. That's $70 off the body plus a ~$200 lens for nothing. 

Does that sound too good to be true?


----------



## Tang

If it's being sold by Amazon themselves I imagine it'd be safe.

Physics is a bitch:






Left is a 35 2.4 designed specifically designed for crop sensors and right is the Sigma 35 1.4. Oh god, this thing is ridiculous. Kinda looks ridiculous on the relatively small K5ii. Please excuse my messy coffee table! As far as IQ is concerned, it's no contest. The Sigma is visibly sharper at 1.4 than the Pentax is at 2.4. This is a damn scary lens.

Due to the crappy weather recently, the only pictures I've taken with the Sigma have been of my pets.. well.. shit!




Mona hiding from the camera. by nrrfed, on Flickr




smokey by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Been neglecting photography lately 

My baby boy was born on Thursday. Pretty much been in the hospital since. Still here actually.
It's just all standard routine when the mom is a type 1 diabetic and required a c-section.

Needless to say I haven't taken many photos so here a a few non-related shots.

Taken less than an hour after birth.





Yeah I know, another photo of my dog. I'm just trying to wait for nice lighting conditions so it's all practice.





At least it's not just a photo of a tree 






My old film SLR with the 40mm f2 attached (The baby photo was actually taken with this lens)


----------



## capoeiraesp

Awesome stuff, Whammy. 
My cousin is type 1 diabetic and had a baby recently. So many complications. All healthy now. Next is my turn because my wife is type 1 as well. 

Love that smooth baby face look. Incredible.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> If it's being sold by Amazon themselves I imagine it'd be safe.
> 
> Physics is a bitch:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Left is a 35 2.4 designed specifically designed for crop sensors and right is the Sigma 35 1.4. Oh god, this thing is ridiculous. Kinda looks ridiculous on the relatively small K5ii. Please excuse my messy coffee table! As far as IQ is concerned, it's no contest. The Sigma is visibly sharper at 1.4 than the Pentax is at 2.4. This is a damn scary lens.



It looks amazing though.  I'm pretty sure the 18-35 is even bigger. 

I've got work after class and have to get a presentation started for Thursday, but I'll hopefully have some photos ready to post tonight or tomorrow.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

another false alarm to report- I ended up canceling my black X100S order and i'm now looking at the Fuji XT-1... Now I just need to decide whether I want the kit zoom or the body and the 35 1.4. $1700 is my upper boundary on price this go around. I've heard the kit zoom is almost too good to be associated with the typically negative connotation that the term "kit" implies, any other Fuji guys have any input? Rook, I know you have an XP1, that's about as similar to the XT as it gets in terms of intended function.


----------



## Rook

ello ello

The 35mm - you mean the IS? Here it's like £600 and that is NOT a six hundred pound lens, no way. It has IS, big deal ITS A 35. It's a step up from the 2.8? Anything is!

Not fussed, for that money you could get a used Zeiss 35/2 or Sigma 1.4.

Anyway.

With regards lenses for the XT-1. The 35 1.4 is a good lens, it's not as great as everyone makes out, but when you take how much you pay to get it it's pretty awesome to be honest. A lot of people shoot it JPEG with their Fuji's though and Fuji's sharpening and noise reduction is second to none, but shooting RAW I'm yet to be able to yield the same results. Close, but not quite. The 35 1.4 I'd basically treat as the same kinda deal as the 50 1.8 from canon only a little less plastic and a little more fantastic, the IQ I'd say isn't far off, thought the 35 is definitely better in the corners where the Canon 50/1.8 really starts to flop.

I've actually sold my 35 1.4 since I have a 50mm on my Canon, I recently tried the Fuji 23mm and _that_ is a lens to write home about. I'm even going to sell my 18mm to pay for it (the Fuji, not my Zeiss). It's a fantastic lens. Go with that.

If you can't afford that, the 35 1.4 will hold you over just fine! The 35 1.4's are so sought after in the EU I sold mine for more than I would have paid if I'd walked into a shop and bought one, there are some £100 cash back deals here that aren't available in the EU haha.

Go 23 if you can, I hope to end up with the 23 and 14 as mu super duper light travel kit. Both lenses are bigger than the 18 and 35 but they're both genuinely excellent lenses, price considered or not.

@Tang, I like the whole set! Particularly the bike, the lamp and the mausoleum. I also like the colours of the sleeping guy but I tend not to go for the homeless guy shots myself 

Finally, here's some of my shitty shit. A lot of it's the dregs from my Paris trip but there's some newer stuff in there too.

Good to be back 

Forgive me if some of these are reposts, I can't find my last reply haha.




White Hat by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Tree and Wall by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Winter Sun on Tree by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Ribbon on Barbed Wire by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Parisian Corner by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Avenue by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Bookseller by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Undergrowth by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

I had a bit of a crisis re: taking pictures of the homeless but I knew the colors would turn out great so I went for it. Glad you liked those, man!

EDIT: it almost seems like low-hanging fruit, y'know? I really wish I would've got him smoking his pipe. If you zoom in you can kinda see it but I didn't want to push my luck.


----------



## Wretched

A sample from a shoot I did this week on a spectacular '67 Fastback in the vein of Ring Bros cars... Gorgeous!


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I've made a Flickr group for us to share more photos on there...

Flickr: The www.sevenstring.org Pool


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Thread for print exchange: http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/art-media-photography/263749-first-sso-print-exchange.html


----------



## Rook

Guuuuuys.

Can you guys give me some names of camera shops in US or Canada that might sell Fuji?

I want to ship a Fuji 23mm over here they waaaaaaaaay cheaper in the states!


----------



## Tang

Will B&H do international shipping?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

They do:
Shipping | B&H Photo Video


----------



## MrYakob

+1 for B&H


----------



## Philligan

-1 for anything in Canada.  The most competitive places we get are Blacks, Henry's, and Best Buy/Future Shop. They all maintain the same prices, and they're all 10-20% over pricing in the US.

I'm watching a 70D on Amazon.ca, and even they're getting it from an American seller.


----------



## Wretched

I've had plenty of stuff delivered here to AUS from B&H. Fast shipping man. It can take longer to get things from here in AUS!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Another edit from a shoot last year:


----------



## Rook

Thanks for your replies!

The only advantage of Canada is that the 23mm is 700CAD instead of 750USD and the pound is stronger on the Canadian dollar so it works out about £350! They're £800 here!

I emailed every large canadian camera store yesterday though and they're all out of stock on the 23mm. B&H looks like a good fallback but one's just come up on eBay UK, even though it's a little more than importing from the US he has the original receipts and it was bought inside the UK so I get the warranty etc.

If prices are still so low, I will be buying the 14mm next month which is frickin incredible because the 14+23 setup is EXACTLY what I wanted for the X Pro, in the UK that's like £1600 worth of lenses but buying in from US or Canada we're immediately down to about £5-800 for both!

How long is international shipping from B&H? I'm gunna mail them now and ask if they'll UPS it to me, if they will I'll flip a coin haha.

EDIT: They will, in 3-5 days apparently, but it's $60 (fine) plus a security fee ($28) plus a handling fee ($15) plus duty ($80 - my country, not UPS) plus the usual VAT of $160 and all said and done it works out £30 cheaper than buying a brand new one in the UK :/

Nobody in the UK has them in stock but eeeeeeeh.


----------



## Wretched

I've been getting to know the Fujifilm X-T1 this evening. I have a loaner from the company to review for InFocus. It feels very nice and quite familiar after having used my X100S for a while now. They sent it with a 55-200mm telezoom and both feel really sturdy in the hand. The zoom mechanism is quite tight, so you won't be making any speedy focal length changes like you can with the Canon L series zooms, but all I can say right now is that they both feel, and look, really good.

The X-T1 body is magnesium alloy with scores of weather proofing seals and the buttons all have a nice, assured click to them. The three primary dials on top make using it nice and easy with everything at close range. There's the Fuji Q button, too, which makes quick changes a snap.

Will try and get some real-world pics for you over the next couple of weeks that I've got it for. 

Oh, I did some more editing to my last image, too. Cleaned up the BG a bit more. I think it helps put more focus on the car.


----------



## MemphisHawk




----------



## ghostred7

Whammy said:


> My baby boy was born on Thursday.


Congrats!!! The feels in that shot  Very awesome. Hope Mom & baby do fine and get home soon.

I've decided that I want to use my 300D for skeet shooting....as one of the clay pigeons lol. That thing is horrid. I still need to get new glass/body/etc.

Went to a friend's wedding and took several shots only to find out that I was slightly out of focus or it was focusing on the wrong thing (thanks to my glasses/eyesight...need to rely more than I'd like on auto-focus). Lack of focal points in-cam, n00b technique (forgot most of what I used to know  ), etc. Here are a couple. I *just* got Lightroom so still learning it...but these are treated with it. Only had the kit 18-55mm EF-S lens, too. My better zoom lens (28-105mm Asphyerical Macro Sigma) is dead and the 75-300mm Quantaray is a POS that errors out every other shot.

My lady:





The stunning bride (my lady's bff from childhood):


----------



## Tang

street, tang style.




IMGP8444 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP7572 by nrrfed, on Flickr

Doing a long-exposure on Bourbon Street on a Friday night was.. interesting.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

More shots from the underground. The Cavernous Lucien-L'allier station.


----------



## bulb

Lighting happened to be just right in the room today and I saw my guitar peeking at me, so decided to try a SOOC shot:


----------



## capoeiraesp

Do you use VSCO, Bulb?


----------



## Wretched

bulb said:


> Lighting happened to be just right in the room today and I saw my guitar peeking at me, so decided to try a SOOC shot:



You guys back home a little while now? Would love to get that interview happening!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I had to write 2 midterms today so naturally, I decided to go to the gym and shoot a couple more stations on my way back last night instead of studying. I was happy with a lot of these, so even the ones I finally settled on sharing are pretty plentiful. Sorry for the big dump.

Peel Station

























Lionel-Groulx


----------



## Rook

Some of those particularly wide shots are amazing, Jeff!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Thanks a lot, man! I've been a little obsessed since I got the 17-40


----------



## Rook

It's good, I've been going out recently only taking the 18mm, you can see form my Flickr I've not deemed anything worthy of keeping yet but hopefully soon haha.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Just taking a break from the B&W for some throwback '70s vibes at Lionel-Groulx.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'd forgotten all about this site: You Are Not a Photographer | Exposing fauxtographers since 2011


----------



## Rook

^aha someone at worked showed me that recently hahahaha


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Seriously increasing workflow lately.

Some quick snaps from today.













-------------

And one more from my Metro set. Station 6/68. Only 62 more to go


----------



## Philligan

JeffFromMtl said:


>



This one is ridiculously awesome.


----------



## Tang

sometimes you have to bokeh all the things just for the sheer joy of it:




pencil by nrrfed, on Flickr




microphone kid by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Went to the zoo today. So many boss animals.


----------



## Wretched

JeffFromMtl said:


> Seriously increasing workflow lately.
> 
> Some quick snaps from today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -------------
> 
> And one more from my Metro set. Station 6/68. Only 62 more to go



Yeah, really captures a mood. Nice one.


----------



## capoeiraesp

FU&K! Someone broke into my house whilst I was home tonight (I disturbed him) and stole my 135mm L!!!!! So freakin' annoying! I had such a blast with it today at the zoo too.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Philligan said:


> This one is ridiculously awesome.





Wretched said:


> Yeah, really captures a mood. Nice one.



Thanks guys, I really appreciate it!


----------



## Rook

capoeiraesp said:


> FU&K! Someone broke into my house whilst I was home tonight (I disturbed him) and stole my 135mm L!!!!! So freakin' annoying! I had such a blast with it today at the zoo too.



Oh shit dude! So sorry to hear that, *f*uck.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Such a shit of a thing. Thankfully insurance should cover it. Phew. Just sucks to be without it for a number of weeks.


----------



## Rook

That's a relief! Hope it all works itself out swiftly.


----------



## Wretched

A few pics from the Clutch show in Sydney at the Metro Theatre on Feb 20. Amazing show!


----------



## Tang

Those are awesome, Wretched! Did you a speedlite for all of them?

I fuucked up and underexposed this shot and I absolutely could not process it in a way I was happy with so I'm just gonna post what I have. 






This one I am happy with. Perfect timing.


----------



## Rook

Canon vs Fuji!

For some reason I expected the differences in results to completely blatant. It is probably obvious which is which based on lenses but looking at the quality of the pictures - both processed the exact same way, made sense to me as I'd never published a RAW file so why would I test the differences between them? - They're both pretty great.

In ideal light there's not much in it, except for the Canon being better able to control the thinner depth of field because of it's smaller AF points and phase detect. Either photo is a complete keeper, particularly at internet size IMO. I'm gunna do some ISO tests later and keep the constraints closer haha, this was just me messing around, not a serious test.











PS Excuse photo bucket absolutely bumming the JPEG quality, it'll have bummed them both equally though.


----------



## Wretched

No, no flash, Tang. All stage light. Cheers.


----------



## Philligan

Hey guys. I finally have some photos to post.  Just uploading them now.

Also, I should have something exciting arriving sometime this week.


----------



## Philligan

An appearance by our good friend Tang! (below, not above )


----------



## Philligan

And here's the animals post.


----------



## Philligan

And the bike post! 





Trike. 





And I'm counting this as a bike.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> [url=http://flic.kr/p/kDug1p]



I knew that wheelchair one was going to turn out great! Much better than my version of it, for sure.. and it's a great example at how great glass can absolutely make a shot, no matter what body you have.

Also really love the solo wheelchair in your bike post. Niceeeeeeeeeeee.

A few random shots:




IMGP8919-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP8527 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP8343 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP9406 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP8810-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I like the direction you're going in with your processing, Phil. Nice textures.


----------



## tank

some pics of my buddy diego


----------



## Faine




----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> I knew that wheelchair one was going to turn out great! Much better than my version of it, for sure.. and it's a great example at how great glass can absolutely make a shot, no matter what body you have.
> 
> Also really love the solo wheelchair in your bike post. Niceeeeeeeeeeee.



Thanks man.  That one was a weird one to edit. The processing really changed the feel of it. I was torn between feeling a lot of depth between the guy and the crowd, or making it more muted. Muted won because I'm working on getting a more natural-looking matte.



JeffFromMtl said:


> I like the direction you're going in with your processing, Phil. Nice textures.



Thanks dude.  That's what I was going for exactly. It started with all the b&w's. I made them black and white if the colours didn't add anything and tried to work on the texture, and dug how they were turning out and am trying to translate it over to my colour edits.


----------



## Philligan

Oh, yeah. I can't remember why I did this in b&w, but I caught a pretty awesome picture of a photobomb in action.


----------



## Whammy

Not doing much photography at the moment.
I'm still hanging around enjoying everyone's photos 

But for the moment I shall leave this here.


----------



## Philligan

I really like that one, man. It seems really flat but has a lot of depth at the same time.


----------



## Rook

Well I came home to my 23mm 1.4 today from Fujifilm (bought direct from their 'refurbished' line, crazy deals there) and ahahahahaahwawahwhawawawhwhawhaaaahaaahahahahhahahahaa.

This thing is friggin nuts! I was a bit hesitant to be honest, the other lenses I've owned from Fuji have been decent but I think most of that decent-feelingness comes from how much metal they used in building them which for lenses at their price point is an appreciable amount to be honest! The IQ was perfectly good, again for the money, and they were a joy to use because frankly the whole system is - _that's why you buy Fuji_.

This lens is like something from a whole different brand! First of all it's BIG. Well. Fuji big isn't really life big big but holding it in one hand with my 18 in the other... It just makes the 18 feel like a toy in comparison. Then there's the focus ring which feel lovely and has a hard stop at infinity (woo). It's focus by wire, as indeed is the aperture ring, but they both feel beautifully mechanical and the lens response to changes of those settings much snappier than the 18 or 35. This lens is £900 new (before rebates or whatever deals Fuji is running at any given time) and for the first time it actually feels like it.

Don't get me wrong, the 18 and 35 aren't bad, but they really do feel like toys by comparison. I'd hold this lens up with my Zeiss lenses for quality, it even makes my Canon 50 1.2 feel like a lump of silly plastic.

Usage; it weighs more than the camera itself but that's common with Fuji, you'll get used to it. You can also see it plain as day hanging out in the corner of the OVF, again, nothing new for Fuji. You don't use the OVF if you want perfect view, it's a different shooting experience altogether. It's snappy to focus but Fuji don't seem to have integrated ultrasonic motors to their lenses yet, or they have and they're just too harsh. It doesn't whiiiiiiiiiiiiiir like the Canon 50 1.8 but when you half hold the shutter it very quickly goes 'clicklicklicklick click' like someone rattling a kids toy with a grain of rice in it or something. It's not cheap or toy-like, just a little odd. ALL Fuji lenses do this however, so if it's gunna be a problem, again, don't buy Fuji. The only minor irritation I'm having with using this lens in fact is that the AF-L button doesn't seem to work under any circumstances, and you don't seem to get the DoF meter on screen like you do with other lenses. You also lose the use of the MCS switch but that's no biggie, I prefer having it on-lens.

Oh, one final point before pics... The hood is frankly a bit of a joke. It looks like a baby bird calling it's mother for food, mouth wide open, and it's bloody massive. I'll probably use it when I'm shooting buildings and flowers (the two other things I shoot apart from street) but wouldn't dream of pointing it at someone...

If the size of this lens is what makes it so great however, I'm willing to accept that. I only have a few slightly poo shots because it's pretty dark here these days, but you'll get the jist of this thing's bokehbility, and the tulip is shot at f/1.4, 1/6 at ISO1600 - you wouldn't guess, would you?

LOOK AT DA BOKEH AND COLOUR SO DREAMY OOOO




Leaves and Sky 1 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

MORE DREAMY BOKEH AND COLOUR (last 5 minutes of the blue hour), and I love how sharp the only bit of leaf in focus is - it is actually bloody sharp.




Leaves and Sky 2 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

Nice sharp lines on these branches, no unexpected flare or fringing on the edges, nice.



Creeper and Sky by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

Love how this turned out, this is a 1600 shot. Forgive the processing, my previews on the camera show up in whatever JPEG settings you're using despite not giving you that JPEG and mine's set to Velvia at the moment which I replicated in LR. You can see a little noise in the bokeh balls on the back but I added some grain in post to make it look like it's supposed to be there haha.




Tulip and BArs by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

Again, grain added in post, I like the bokeh/foreground balance. The OOF parts on my 18 a bit a poop really unless you can get right up close, this is much much nicer. ALL of these photos are manually focused by the way, something this lens and the X series is pretty darn good for with a bit of patience.




Church Arch by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> I really like that one, man. It seems really flat but has a lot of depth at the same time.



I only shot it at f4. I wanted the falling snow to be mainly in focus but still wanted the foreground to blur. Wide open and the bokeh snow was stupidly distracting and stopped down more made the snow look lifeless.

It's also misty in the background.
The combination of the mist in the background and subtle blur of snow in the foreground helped a lot with adding texture and depth.

Plus I like how the snow is white in the bottom half and back/grey in the top half


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Hey dudes, I just made an impulse buy and grabbed myself a slightly belated (by 3 days) birthday gift. If it arrives in the mail before my trip, I'll be able to bring back some images of Paris through the lens of an original Soviet Lomo LC-A (or rather &#1051;&#1086;&#1084;&#1086; &#1051;&#1050;-&#1040 from the first-ever batch produced in Leningrad in 1983-84! Pretty stoked about it.


----------



## Rook

Almost forgot a size comparison.


----------



## Philligan

JeffFromMtl said:


> Hey dudes, I just made an impulse buy and grabbed myself a slightly belated (by 3 days) birthday gift. If it arrives in the mail before my trip, I'll be able to bring back some images of Paris through the lens of an original Soviet Lomo LC-A (or rather &#1051;&#1086;&#1084;&#1086; &#1051;&#1050;-&#1040 from the first-ever batch produced in Leningrad in 1983-84! Pretty stoked about it.



That's awesome, and happy birthday dude.


----------



## Tang

Speaking of Velvia'ish shots.. I love the blue so much. This is a play on a vsco preset, but with MUCH better skin tones. In their Velvia presets, skin tones tend to favor an orange cast, much like I heard the real Velvia did.


----------



## Faine




----------



## Philligan

Here's a proper (read: colour) shot of the photobomber haha.





And here's our mutual friend Tang in action!


----------



## Tang

^^^ ha, I look goofy as hell..


----------



## eddygdk

I cant believe i just found this thread, ill be posting some pictures later!


----------



## eddygdk

I took some long exposure shots this weekend






Steel wool is fun to play with


----------



## eddygdk

More long exposure! 
















Flickr


----------



## Tang

Nice light painting, man! I've always wondered how you guys did crazy shit like that!

Here's a recent one:




IMGP9275 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

on that last one, Tang, moody colors and interesting shapes


----------



## Philligan

I don't want to be hasty, but I may have something new to post later today...




It's gonna be a long class. 


edit: Also, Tang, that last photo looks super sharp.


----------



## Faine




----------



## JeffFromMtl

Shit luck, bun bun.


----------



## Tang

Some sad news.. the glorious Sigma 35 had to go back  maybe one day we'll be reunited, but circumstances conspired against me this time.





















I think Phil took that exact same shot^^


----------



## Tang

Paul Reed Shred said:


> on that last one, Tang, moody colors and interesting shapes



Inspired by P.T Anderson's The Master. Great film. 

Thanks for the kind words. I'll remember the Sigma by this shot.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> Some sad news.. the glorious Sigma 35 had to go back  maybe one day we'll be reunited, but circumstances conspired against me this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think Phil took that exact same shot^^



Pretty much. 





Are you still thinking about the 18-35? 

Also....................








New camera day.  NCD thread coming soon. The battery is charging as we speak.


----------



## Tang

SO HAPPY FOR PHIL! Enjoy dat autofocus and dual control dials.


----------



## Rook

Some more silly 23mming, looooove this.

Sorry for more garish, it's I dunno what why at the moment haha.




Barrows by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Plane and Clouds by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Cart in the Undergrowth by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




First Daffodil by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## eddygdk

Thanks Tang! 

i made one of these light strips 
portable and wrapped it around a PVC pipe

im going out this weekend to take some more


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> NCD


Nice camera.



Tang said:


> SO HAPPY FOR PHIL! Enjoy dat autofocus and dual control dials.



Almost as good as the D3.  I kid.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Nice camera.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost as good as the D3.  I kid.



Better than my Pentax.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The F4 is better than your Pentax.


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> Nice camera.
> 
> 
> 
> Almost as good as the D3.  I kid.



Better than the T3. 




I just tried the 7fps burst for the first time. Oh god.


----------



## Philligan

Anyone have any experience with the 28mm 1.8? From what I can tell, it was discontinued in favour of the 28mm 2.8 IS. I'd rather have the 1.8 and faster shutter speed than the IS, and the 28/1.8 came out a couple years after my 50, so I'm expecting the build and use to be pretty much identical. And the 28 should have the full USM motor, not the micro one my 50 has.

Also, I should be able to get one for around $400, compared to $650 for the 35mm. It looks like it's the only thing really competing with the Sigma right now for me.


----------



## elnyrb10

eddygdk said:


> More long exposure!
> 
> 
> Flickr



honestly some of the coolest pictures I've seen. so ....ing cool


----------



## Tang

bokeh time:


----------



## Khoi

Well, I have no pictures to post (yet) but I'm in Costa Rica right now and just had my camera backpack stolen out of our car. It was actually broken into from the driver's side.

Fortunately, I had my camera and rented lens on me (400mm f/5.6), but they stole my nice camera backpack, my beloved Canon 135mm f/2.0, Canon 24-105mm f/4.0, GoPro Hero 3+ Black edition, and a bunch of other accessories. Overall, over $2500+ worth of gear. 

Needless to say, I feel pretty shitty and am going to have to figure something out to try to replace this equipment. I did not have travel insurance either, which I didn't even know was possible until today.


----------



## Tang

Dude, I'm so sorry


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Fuuuuck, sorry to hear that, man.
Looks like there's a rash of bad luck running through this thread


----------



## Rook

I always get travel insurance but I don't think it's ever covered stuff like that; you couldn't have seen it coming dude, don't beat yourself up.

Seriously shitty news bro, wishing you all the best!


----------



## Philligan

Shit dude, hope you can figure something out.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Khoi said:


> Well, I have no pictures to post (yet) but I'm in Costa Rica right now and just had my camera backpack stolen out of our car. It was actually broken into from the driver's side.
> 
> Fortunately, I had my camera and rented lens on me (400mm f/5.6), but they stole my nice camera backpack, my beloved Canon 135mm f/2.0, Canon 24-105mm f/4.0, GoPro Hero 3+ Black edition, and a bunch of other accessories. Overall, over $2500+ worth of gear.
> 
> Needless to say, I feel pretty shitty and am going to have to figure something out to try to replace this equipment. I did not have travel insurance either, which I didn't even know was possible until today.



Man.... I know the pain. Some ....er stole my 135mm f2 on Saturday night. So sorry you much more stolen than me.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Happy with the way this one came out from the shoot yesterday.


----------



## Philligan

Awesome.  That guitar looks great, also.


----------



## Tang

Over the Sigma now and ready to go out shooting again. I feel like an asshole complaining about having to return a lens after hearing about all the recent thefts in the thread so this is the last I'll talk about it.


----------



## Faine

Took this today. 







Thinkin about pickin up a Canon 7D this weekend. Should I ? ( I'm using a Rebel T3i now )

Flickr: tomfainephotography's Photostream

Faceb: https://www.facebook.com/Tomfainephotography


----------



## Rook

A new 7D? No way, that thing's nearly EoL, I'd go for a newer design or wait for the now imminent 7DMkII


----------



## Tang

I honestly don't think you'll see a huge increase in image quality. However, the 7D will be a much more advanced camera in regards to controls. Dual control wheels, top LCD, and an incredible autofocus system. 

I guess I'd he asking myself if your t3i is actively holding you back? Personally, I'd prefer a 7D just because of the more advanced controls.


----------



## Faine

Rook said:


> A new 7D? No way, that thing's nearly EoL, I'd go for a newer design or wait for the now imminent 7DMkII



No its not new. It's a couple years old. A friend is selling one with these.

7D body with 25k shutter clicks. 
2 Canon LP-E6 batteries
4 Off brand batteries
1 Mieke 7D Battery Grip
1 Battery charger
1 Canon EOS 7D camera strap

And these two lenses...

35-80mm f/4-5.6 
75-300mm f/4-5.6 

For $700. Should I?


----------



## Faine

Tang said:


> I honestly don't think you'll see a huge increase in image quality. However, the 7D will be a much more advanced camera in regards to controls. Dual control wheels, top LCD, and an incredible autofocus system.
> 
> I guess I'd he asking myself if your t3i is actively holding you back? Personally, I'd prefer a 7D just because of the more advanced controls.



I was thinking I wanted one for the build quality, the weather resistant body and of course the other things you were saying. I really like the auto focus it has with 19 point focus I believe? Plus just having a 7D while offering services looks better professionally than a T3i I believe. ( no offence to T3i users, I love mine )


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I loved the 7D. The build quality is outstanding. It also felt noticeably better/more solid in my hands than my 6D does. I wouldn't have upgraded if not for the full frame sensor and insane low-light performance of the 6D.


----------



## Wretched

Still love my 7D! Rumours are that the MkII won't break too much new ground. It'd be nice if it came with the sensor tech from the 70D, though.


----------



## Tang

I'm not sure how good the 7d's autofocus is, but I'd expect the mark II to inherit 1Dx level of autofocus awesome. Imagine that kind of AF on a super quick crop-body.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> I'm not sure how good the 7d's autofocus is, but I'd expect the mark II to inherit 1Dx level of autofocus awesome. Imagine that kind of AF on a super quick crop-body.



The 7D has the same AF system as the 70D.  (The optical AF, not the LV) Different amount of AF points, but I think it's comparable to the 5D3 at least.

It's basically a tougher 70D without the WiFi, articulating touchscreen, and phase detection LV AF. I like having the touchscreen and WiFi, but the 70D's extra stop of ISO was the main reason I got that over a 7D. And the fact that the newer tech should be supported longer for firmware updates. I'd prefer the 7D body, though - it's a bit meatier and super tough.



Faine said:


> No its not new. It's a couple years old. A friend is selling one with these.
> 
> 7D body with 25k shutter clicks.
> 2 Canon LP-E6 batteries
> 4 Off brand batteries
> 1 Mieke 7D Battery Grip
> 1 Battery charger
> 1 Canon EOS 7D camera strap
> 
> And these two lenses...
> 
> 35-80mm f/4-5.6
> 75-300mm f/4-5.6
> 
> For $700. Should I?



I would. Jeff was selling his 7D for $800, which was a good deal. If it's in good shape, I'd say do it. 

I'd keep the two Canon batteries and the grip (I'm not sure how good Mieke is, but if you like the grip you can get a reputable 3rd party one like Vello for 1/4 the price of the Canon grip). But I'd ditch the 3rd party batteries. I heard a couple stories of them frying bodies.

Neither of those lenses are great (I own the 75-300 because I saw one on sale used for super cheap and wanted to see if I liked tele zooms before dropping $400+ on one), but that's not a big deal. That's a pretty good price for the body alone, so if you don't dig those lenses, you could probably get about $120 or so for the two of them and essentially pay that much less for the camera itself.


----------



## Faine

I would love a 70D instead.. Maybe I'll just save up a little more and get a brand new 70D.
I'm not entirely sure if I want another crop sensor or full frame. 

If I sell my T3i and my two kit lenses ( 18-55mm and 55-250mm) , I could probably get $500... and the 7D will only cost me $200 out of pocket. Only problem is, Id be stuck with those crappy lenses the 7D comes with... haha.


----------



## Philligan

If you'd have to sell the T3i to do it, wait. It's a perfectly capable camera. The images themselves wouldn't look that much better (if at all) on a 7D - you're paying the premium for the UI, basically. It's a tougher build for sure, but other than that you're paying for the AF speed, burst mode, and extra buttons, more or less.

You'd be better off getting better glass, first. Get the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II, no excuses. It's so cheap and the image quality is great. It's literally perfect for portraits and people photos, and lets you shoot in like 1/4 of the light that the 18-55 or 55-250 would. I have two lenses right now - the cheap 75-300 and a 50mm. I use the 50mm for probably 95% of my photos.


----------



## MrYakob

I'm still banging my head on a wall over here about my next prime lens purchase. I was pretty set on the Siggy 35 but the more I think the more I'm looking at the 50 1.2L (most likely used). Does anyone have any experience to share on that lens? I think Rook has (Had?) one if I remember correctly!


----------



## Philligan

MrYakob said:


> I'm still banging my head on a wall over here about my next prime lens purchase. I was pretty set on the Siggy 35 but the more I think the more I'm looking at the 50 1.2L (most likely used). Does anyone have any experience to share on that lens? I think Rook has (Had?) one if I remember correctly!



The 1.2 would be awesome (I use a 50 1.4 right now) but if you're gonna do that, wait and see what the new Sigma 50 1.4 looks like. The Siggy 35 apparently spanks even the Canon 35 L, so unless you want the weather sealing the Canon has, I'd wait and see how people like the Sigma 50.

I was playing with Dawn's kit lens - man, these STM lenses focus instantly and silently on the 70D. First time I tried it I didn't think it was working.  I was messing around with focal lengths, and really need something wider than 50mm in my life. If I can't afford the Sigma 18-35 1.8, I'm gonna go with the 30 1.4. 

If I had to go prime, I'd love a 24 or 28, but the Sigma looks so good, and apparently focuses a lot faster than the older Canons.


----------



## Whammy

The 50mm 1.2 is really in it's own league.
I own the 85mm 1.2 II and I saw comparisons of it against the sigma 85mm 1.4.
While the sigma was nice it just didn't have the same vibe.
The bokeh on the canon was more eye pleasing on every setting. Even when matching them both at 1.4 the canon still had more and pleasing bokeh.
The canon was also sharper wide open compared to the sigma.

Obviously Rook will chime in here but I would imagine the canon 50 1.2 would act the same as the 85mm 1.2 when comparing it to the sigma.
I'm speaking of the old sigma lens though.
I don't know what the new sigma 50mm 1.4 is meant to be like.




Philligan said:


> The Siggy 35 apparently spanks even the Canon 35 L


The Canon 35 f1.4 is known for not being good value for money so I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of other lenses surpassed it.


----------



## Faine

Philligan said:


> You'd be better off getting better glass, first. Get the Canon 50mm f/1.8 II, no excuses. It's so cheap and the image quality is great. It's literally perfect for portraits and people photos, and lets you shoot in like 1/4 of the light that the 18-55 or 55-250 would. I have two lenses right now - the cheap 75-300 and a 50mm. I use the 50mm for probably 95% of my photos.




True, I have one of those on my wish list on ebay. It was either the f/1.8 ( cant beat that price ) or the f/1.4 50mm I wanted to get. 

I would like to get a 55-300 As well... Theres been plenty of times where I wish I just had a little more zoom haha.


I'm getting into automotive photography... so I'm lookin into a short zoom wide angle lens like the Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 or the tokina 10-16mm f/2.8 . Both are kinda in the same price range. Cant decide which one I want.. probably the tokina for the f/


----------



## Tang

Whammy, apparently the new Sigma 1.4 surpasses all other 50's except Zeiss' new 50 1.4 Otus. That's incredible to me.

Faine: get the Tokina. You won't be disappointed.


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> Whammy, apparently the new Sigma 1.4 surpasses all other 50's except Zeiss' new 50 1.4 Otus. That's incredible to me.



Yeah I was just reading up on the lens. It does seem incredible, but a little too good to be true 
A lot of the hype (ignoring Canon & Nikon as competition) is coming directly for Sigmas mouth and not independent reviewers.
So I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

But for the price is seems to be selling for it's bound to be a good lens.
It may be super sharp but I'm more curious to know how the bokeh compares to the 1.2.

If I had to choose which to prioritize on a 50mm lens (because there is no such thing as a prefect lens), sharpness or aesthetically pleasing bokeh, I'd go for the bokeh. I can always add a bit or sharpening in post. I can't change the quality of the bokeh 
But yeah, I'm talking high end lenses so generally the weaker link of the two is still fairly strong.


----------



## Tang

I think most people who compare it to the Zeiss are just going on pure sharpness. I'm pretty sure the Zeiss and the Canon 50 1.2 will have more pleasing bokeh. 

I did see a few MTF tests for the new Sigma on reddit, but I'm on my phone so I can't really link it.


----------



## Whammy

It'll be interesting to see what it can do.
The lens looks a bit weird  It's really long


----------



## Philligan

The guy I'm seconding for this summer uses the Sigma 35 1.4 Art on a D600. I haven't used that lens yet (I'll bug him about it next time we hang out), but he loves it. Another guy we know (used to shoot weddings with him) does band photography, I think for a living now, and uses the Sigma 35, too.

This is the band guy (not the guy I'm shooting with).

https://www.facebook.com/JoelPilottePhoto


----------



## Tang

Phil, if lensrentals.com does shipping to Canada you should try out that 35 for a week. You'll be depressed when you send it back, but it's worth a try. I think everyone should shoot with it once.


----------



## Faine

I ended up going with a Sigma 10-22mm


----------



## capoeiraesp

Joe, what sort of apertures do you like using for shooting guitars? Preference for focal length?

edit: browser was showing Joe's shot of Daemoness as most recent post so excuse this for looking out of link.


----------



## Wretched

My shoot of Brett's VY SS wagon came out in issue 221 of Street Commodores last week. It runs consistent 10.4sec ETs with a ProCharger-equipped LS1. Brett's in a wheelchair and operates the wagon with hand controls. Great guy and a great car.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> Phil, if lensrentals.com does shipping to Canada you should try out that 35 for a week. You'll be depressed when you send it back, but it's worth a try. I think everyone should shoot with it once.



Man, I want to, but I don't wanna get used to something so awesome.  That's the same reason I didn't let myself play with a 5D or 6D at Henry's... I know I can't afford one, and I don't wanna know what I'm missing out on haha.

That's a good idea, though - when I'm getting closer to affording it, I'll see how much it is to rent the 18-35 for a week or so, so I can try it out for a while and see what the AF is like.


----------



## Tang

Trying to find stuff I haven't posted yet:


----------



## Whammy

The middle one is great.
The sun light on the wall really helps with highlighting the tree. Plus the placement of moon helps to counter balance the tree. Nice.


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> The middle one is great.
> The sun light on the wall really helps with highlighting the tree. Plus the placement of moon helps to counter balance the tree. Nice.



Thanks Whammy! I tried to get Philligan to stick around and get the same shot but his family was waiting for him. Alas.


----------



## Faine




----------



## Tang

Faine said:


>



While I'm really enjoying that shot, I have to ask.. did you add grain in post? That seems WAY too damn noisy for an ISO100 shot. Like, I was visibly confused. No offense man, because I do love the shot! Just curious..

Speaking of noise, I wanted to repost an image I believe I posted sometime last week because of the story behind it..

I was hanging out with Phil in sunny Florida and we were having a great time taking shots. Somehow we ended up in a pretty dim hotel and I had to jack up my ISO to 1600 to get a proper exposure. Many shots were shot and all was well. After that we walked outside and I saw this lady sitting on a bench smoking a cig and I knew I had to get a shot of it so I snap, snap, snapped and was happy with the preview on my LCD. Well, I get home, load it it LR, and what do you know? Fffuuccckkingg ISO1600. In broad daylight. The camera had to compensate by going up to 1/5000 at f/8. Damnit! The shot was ruined.. unless.. unless I used the ISO noise to my advantage. So a quick conversion to B&W and presto! A shot I really enjoyed, and probably my favorite shot of the year so far.




IMGP8343 by nrrfed, on Flickr

Let's be real though, even for ISO1600 there isn't much visible noise which was why I was confused by Faine's post.


----------



## Faine

I had a chance to shoot this Lexus Nurburgring LFA today.. breathtaking. 
Check it out on my facebook page! 

Facebook.com/tomfainephotography

Flicker.com/photos/tomfainephotography


----------



## Faine

Tang said:


> While I'm really enjoying that shot, I have to ask.. did you add grain in post? That seems WAY too damn noisy for an ISO100 shot. Like, I was visibly confused. No offense man, because I do love the shot! Just curious..
> 
> .




I cropped it and theres like 60% zoom or so haha. I took it with a 55-250mm. Wasnt far enough. The hawk was like 25-30feet above me.


----------



## Tang

Faine said:


> I cropped it and theres like 60% zoom or so haha. I took it with a 55-250mm. Wasnt far enough. The hawk was like 25-30feet above me.



Ah, makes sense dude especially with the vignette. You normally wouldn't get that level of vignette at f/13!


----------



## Rook

I'd take a used 7D any day, those things are built like brick shit houses, are lightning fast and have excellent, low compression video quality. Awesome cameras. I'll also take my 6D full frame AoV and image quality over it any day, but as a second camera, I'd love one.

I would never ever ever EVER EVER buy a camera because it has an extra stop on the ISO, these 100,000+ settings all look hideously shit and companies have started saying 'extended out upper end means the low end stuff is getting better' but really that's not necessarily the case...

What else was there...

Focal lengths for guitars - use what you like! Just know the lens and the length and know what characteristics of the lens you want to use to your advantage and what qualities of the guitar you want to accentuate or emphasise. Then apply the usual: watch your edges, white balance, rule of thirds is good, and you're good to go. I find myself using my 85 a lot because it doesn't skew or warp the body shape and gives a very honest perspective. Also DAT BOKEH.

Errrrrmmmmmm...

Oh, the 50 1.2. The 50 1.2 is one of the most insane lenses on the market, the more and more lenses I try the more I realise how perfect that lens is. The colour rendition and sharpness wide open is completely unmatched, colours are true and vibrant and that lens effortlessly makes anything (shot properly) just look wonderful. I've tried tonnes and tonnes (and owned a fair handful) of various lenses since, not to mention what I tried before, and so many things suffer from annoying qualities *or* just lack some sort of character.

My 85 for example. Not the sharpest lens on the market, but it's kinda like that awkward quirky cute girl in the movies (usually played by Emma Stone...), it isn't necessarily the brightest but it's balls deep in character and looks just wonderful, literally gorgeous, and it wouldn't hVe the character it did if it were also razor sharp, and that's the choice you make. I've never seen anything render BOKEH like my 85, not even the 85 1.2 despite being a much better all round lens. I will add though if they were the same price it would have been a trickier decision; the Zeiss being half what the Canon costs made that choice pretty simple haha! My dad, who I live with, has one though so everybody wins heh.

The Canon 35 is a pile of shit, and it feels like one too. The Sigma's a better lens but I don't like that either, it's kinda like those musicians that play perfect renditions of tunes but bring nothing to it, I find it very bland. The Zeiss 35 f/2 has a really lovely warmth to it and a nice 3D-ness to the OOF areas for example, I'd take that. I drool over the 1.4 but no can afford...

The 50 1.2 is one of those lenses that combines a wonderful look with a couple of really nice, modern technical excellencies that you can honestly use for anything, I know so far of not a single other lens (except maybe the 85) that does a similar job of combining technical prowess with artistic beauty in my eyes.

I don't approve of all this shit about the sigma, it's a great lens but people take this view that it's pretty darn good and pretty darn cheap therefore all other lenses are null and void, I've argued with some particularly opinionated owners (on the Internet, no I didn't have anything better to do) but 'Image Quality' is, by design, a compromise between contrast and sharpness (and other factors like transmission and colour temperature) and always will be. There can't be a perfect, and certainly not a perfect for everyone and that applies to everything, including my 50 1.2. Even if this Sigma 50 is as much subject of these over-loyal debates on the Internet as the 35, try it, try the Canon, even try the technically inferior Zeiss (which has a really trippy colour rendition and bokeh, it's so much fun) and buy what you like.

At the end of the day a better (or different) lens won't make you a better photographer - oldest argument on the Internet - BUT it will bring your images and the way you shoot them closer to your vision and help you to expand your ideas and use factors you might not have really considered before to your advantage, like Whammy and his busy bokeh and my Zeiss 85 and it wonderful warm colours and ever so slightly soft rendering that really compliments faces and adds a characteristic glow to them.

Just remember it's like guitars. Two guitars being good quality and made of the same woods but one being half the price of the other doesn't mean you'll prefer the cheaper one at all, nobody here thinks of guitars like that, lenses are the same. When it comes to lenses, the Canon 50 will hold it's higher value really well, particularly if you buy used, so you don't lose any more by buying one.

/ranty mcranterson

NB I wasn't referring to anyone here when I was talking about annoying Sigma 35 owners, I'm also not saying it's a bad lens, that people shouldn't buy it, or that all owners are annoying it's just one of those things that crops up a lot. I bit like those super asswipe Sony A7 owners on DPR hahaha.


----------



## eddygdk

i went out to light paint again. I'm feel like i'm in a long exposure phase.


----------



## eddygdk




----------



## Philligan

That last one's awesome.


----------



## Tang

Here's an iPhone shot from my lunch break this morning. I don't need no fancy-ass lenses. 

Light > almost everything else. Seriously though, I've been really lazy about bringing my Pentax everywhere with me so I figured I should at least attempt to shoot with my phone as it's pretty decent in good light. 




Lunch break photography. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Tang said:


> Here's an iPhone shot from my lunch break this morning. I don't need no fancy-ass lenses.
> 
> Light > almost everything else. Seriously though, I've been really lazy about bringing my Pentax everywhere with me so I figured I should at least attempt to shoot with my phone as it's pretty decent in good light.



I feel you on that man, my canon has lived at home given how busy I am with school lately and how much easier it is to carry my iPhone in my back pocket than a 50mm.


----------



## ghostred7

Just came across this one from 2006


----------



## JeffFromMtl

For those of you who shoot film regularly, I need film suggestions. With my LC-A on its way, I already picked up some Lomo Colour Neg 100 and Lomo XPro Chrome/Kodak Elite Chrome 100 (which unfortunately is getting hard to find since it's been discontinued). I might also pick up a couple rolls of Fuji Superia. Do you guys know any films that'll suit that Lomo LC-A character? Ie: strong vignettes, saturation, whacked out colours and big contrast?


----------



## Whammy

I've always preferred the high saturation films offered by Kodak over Fuji.
I always felt that they both emphasized different colors with the Kodak versions being nicer with skin tones.
They stopped production on their "Ektachrome" Color Reversal film. Such a pity. I really loved that film.
Obviously the Fuji high saturation color reversal film is Velvia. Awesome for landscapes, not so awesome with skin tones.
You can cross process color reversal film to really mess with the colors which is probably exactly what you are after.

Kodak offer a color negative film, Ektar 100

I've only used the 1600 iso version of Superia. It was okay. Nothing special.

Fuji Provia is a great color reversal film which again you can cross process.
They do a 400 iso version called ProviaX which is closer to Velvia regarding saturation.

So yeah, high saturation, contrast etc films...

Kodak Color Negative - Ektar 100 iso

Fuji Color Reversal - Velvia (both 50 & 100 iso) / ProviaX 400 iso

EDIT:
Fuji Provia 100F is also a great option. Not as crazy as Velvia but personally I prefer it over Velvia.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Thanks for the suggestions! I think I'm a slide/reversal film kind of guy, as from what I've seen, cross-processed colours really appeal to me and that's what I was planning on doing with the XPro Chrome. I did a quick google search of those you listed, and the Fuji Provia 100F looks like it's exactly my kind of thing. I'll also keep looking into colour negative options such as the Ektar, but it's looking to me like cross-processed slide film is the way to go  Thanks again!


----------



## Whammy

Another thing to try is expired film.
You can buy loads of expired film online for fairly cheap. I did it before where I got 20 rolls of Provia. I stuck them in the freezer in a zipper bag as soon as I got them.
I didn't notice any difference with the film compared to film that's in date (maybe a bit more grain) but it was only out of date by less than a year and sticking it in the freezer slowed down the process going any further.
I used to also go into my local camera store and ask if they had any expired film. Normally got them for half the price even if they were only expired by a small amount.

If the film is a bit out of date it'll still be grand and produce normal results. But you can get some pretty funky looking photos with expired film.


----------



## Tang

My current standbys are Fuji Superia 400 and Kodak Portrait 400. I really loving using 400 speed film do I can keep my shutter speeds a little higher because I have a terrible tremor.


----------



## Whammy

I miss shooting film


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> I miss shooting film



I'm trying to set up a small dandelion so I can process my own b&w film. Really can't wait.


----------



## Rook

I've seen some AGFA films coming up for sale recently but have fun processing that...

That Provia 400X is a lovely film, I have a lifelong attachment to Velvia though, most of my early childhood was shot on Velvia 50 or 100 (I had a Kodak Gold adolescence heh) and I remember looking through those slides over and over again.

Saturation and contrast is undoubtedly Velvia haha. 

I'm going to get set up for developing when I have my own place this year. My dad did it when I was younger but I wasn't interested enough to pay any real attention then haha. I'm shooting HP5 at the moment (dat grain) cos I can get set up for it pretty fast or just get it done up the road from my house, not so good for saturation though


----------



## Tang

Whenever I get into slide it'll probably be Provia. That's a damn good looking film. However, if I know I won't be shooting people I wouldn't mind going Velvia a try. You really can't beat how Velvia renders blues. Truly a sight to behold.

My grandfather was a film shooter and developed his own b&w. Really wish is taken a proper interest in photography when I was younger.  I'd like to think I'm carrying on the family legacy, though.


----------



## Whammy

Managed to get out today with the camera. Unfortunately it's the same old, regarding location and subject.

Another photo that needs to be viewed super large.

Here's a link to the large photo with all the details. All sizes | Untitled | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
I love this lens 
The Zuiko 40mm f2


----------



## Tang

Whammy, I don't give a shit if it's the same old to you, I love your atmospheric landscapes. Wish I had that mind of scenery here, but instead I have 300+ days of sunshine and beaches.

That one you just posted has climbed to the top-5 pics I've seen on ss.org.  actually, I'd be interested in a print of that if we could work that out. Feel free to PM me.


----------



## Whammy

Haha sweet 

By the end of it I should have a collection of landscape/portraits of my dog which I can make into a set


----------



## eddygdk

I was hanging around Malibu yesterday.


----------



## metal_sam14

Heads up, photo dump! Long weekend here in Tasmania so I went snapping. 




Tracks by TasmanSam, on Flickr




1888 by TasmanSam, on Flickr




Tunnel by TasmanSam, on Flickr




Near the Pond by TasmanSam, on Flickr




Beetle by TasmanSam, on Flickr




Tree Tunnel by TasmanSam, on Flickr




Fungi by TasmanSam, on Flickr




Sit by TasmanSam, on Flickr




Old Tunnel by TasmanSam, on Flickr




Orange by TasmanSam, on Flickr




Instax by TasmanSam, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I revisited an image from 2011:


----------



## Joe Harvatt

capoeiraesp said:


> Joe, what sort of apertures do you like using for shooting guitars? Preference for focal length?
> 
> edit: browser was showing Joe's shot of Daemoness as most recent post so excuse this for looking out of link.



Sorry for the delayed reply. This thread is getting popular.

The Daemoness photos are taken 99% of the time with a Sigma 30mm f1.4 lens on a crop sensor. The aperture setting depends on the type of shot. For the more catalogue shots where every part of the guitar is being displayed it'll be f5.6 - f8ish, and for some of the more abstract shots where we want to draw the eye to one area of the guitar it'll be f1.4 (rarely) - f3-ish. I think that one you were referring to might be f5.6 - it looks very shallow, but the lens may well be focused as close as it can in that shot.


----------



## Tang

Here's another from my boat set from a page or two ago. Really going for texture on this one:




IMGP9272 by nrrfed, on Flickr

And Dexter hanging out in some gorgeous window light:




dexter in the light of the window by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

A sneak peek at a shoot we did last night for Xtreme Holdens magazine in Australia.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Going for an 'old' look here. Something different I guess.


----------



## ghostred7

300D 6MP w/ standard 18-55 EF-S 
Tried playing on my deck since it was actually clear out. All of these were near Atlanta around 1130PM onwards 3/10/14. Orion is the visible constellation. Being a total noob, I pretty much kept turning dials until I liked how it looked on the puny viewfinder. If the settings are wonky to you, please let me know how to improve.


30s, F9, ISO800





30s, F9, ISO800





30s, F10, ISO1600


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I've not tried these sort of star shots before, but I would suggest trying your lowest ISO setting (100 probably) to get the smoothest shots.


----------



## Philligan

Joe Harvatt said:


> I've not tried these sort of star shots before, but I would suggest trying your lowest ISO setting (100 probably) to get the smoothest shots.



This.

You've already maxed out your shutter speed (unless you have an external shutter release) but from what I understand, since you're focusing on something so far away, you can get away with a higher aperture. Next time, try keeping the 30s shutter speed, try maxing the aperture out at f3.5, and turn the ISO as low as you can. 

I googled it quickly. Full aperture stops vs 1/2 and 1/3 still confuse me, but it looks like going from f9 to f3.5 should give you at least three more stops of ISO to work with, so I think that means shooting those shots at f3.5 would let you do ISO 100. 

If you weren't doing it already, shoot them at 18mm. The longer your focal length, the faster the star trails start to show up. So 18mm will allow you the longest shutter speed without the stars moving during the shot.


----------



## Faine




----------



## Tang

Faine's got this photography thing on lock down.


----------



## Faine

Tang said:


> Faine's got this photography thing on lock down.



haha. Thanks man. I'm too bored!


----------



## Rook

For the star shots, you'll find that if you're in any sort of suburb, the smoggy glow of artificial light will get too bright before you need to max out any settings.

I shoot as wide as possible at around f8 as that's usually when the lens is at its sharpest, maybe go up to 5.6 for an extra stop, wouldn't go wide open if you like detail though, you'll just get smudges.

Try 5.6 at 1.5s and ISO400, shoot it RAW and see what you can pull back in post from the shadows. Judging by how bright your stars and stuff are though I expect your problem might just be that smog and you need to find somewhere darker.

Oh and use a hood.


----------



## Whammy

I've only tried taking photos of stars a few time. Never been happy with the results hence why I never posted any.

I've been trying different focal lengths and different times of night to just experiment and see the results for myself.

Obviously the shutter speed is relative to the focal length regarding when star trails kick in. The wider the lens, the longer you can have your shutter speed before noticeable star trails appear.

For full frame cameras you can use the "rule of 600".
Basically it's... 600 / Focal Length = Max second before star trail.

So a 300mm lens will allow for a max exposure of 2 seconds before star trails are obvious.
An 18mm lens will allow for 16.6 seconds before star trails appear.

On crop sensors the time is reduced again.

This was one of the first few photos I took at night. It was actually taken at 7pm but at start of January. It got very dark quick here and I live in the middle of nowhere.
Looking back I should have waited another few hours and also used my 24mm lens (I used a 55m for this) and got closer so the house so it would appear the same size as in the original photo, but the overhead sky would have been a lot more overpowering with more stars.

Pretty sure the setting were:
55mm 15sec 400iso
There is star trail in this photo but you can't see it at the displayed resolution.


----------



## Rook

^Doesn't that completely depend on viewing size/megapixels?!

At 300mm I'd want to be exposing for like 1/50s if it's gunna be a big image. At least!


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> ^Doesn't that completely depend on viewing size/megapixels?!
> 
> At 300mm I'd want to be exposing for like 1/50s if it's gunna be a big image. At least!



It depends on a lot of things, more than just viewing size and megapixels.

Of course viewing size and megapixels have a influence over this.
But realistically I don't see the megapixels having a large real world impact compared to the other factors. Sure larger megapixel cameras will capture movement quicker but you would want to be printing _crazy big _to see that difference.
If I'm not printing crazy big I can get away with a bit more.

Plus take into consideration the viewing distance from the printed photo.
The further the viewer stands from the photo the less they'll notice a tiny star trail.

Also the further you shoot away from Polaris the quicker star trail will occur.

Rule of 600 is a general rule not to be followed strictly.
Getting hung up on it isn't a good idea. Trying a few different options (different exposures, different angles from Polaris, different printing sizes) and printing to see what you can realistically get away with is a better method. Let your eyes tell you if it worked, not the maths.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I've done stars a few times (some of these have been posted before), but I'll include EXIF. Astro is one of those things you have to try and get frustrated with before finding a workflow you like - similar to macro.

My first two attempts were quite meh, IMO.





Camera Model: NIKON D3 Lens: 28.0-70.0 mm f/2.8 Image Date: 2010-10-08
Focal Length: 28mm (35mm equivalent: 28mm) Focus Distance: Infinite
Aperture: f/11.0 Exposure Time: 2471.000 s ISO equiv: 200





Camera Model: NIKON D3 Lens: 28.0-70.0 mm f/2.8 Image Date: 2010-10-08
Focal Length: 28mm (35mm equivalent: 28mm) Focus Distance: Infinite
Aperture: f/4.0 Exposure Time: 8.000 s ISO equiv: 3200​
This next set is far more recent and I think I've done a better job here. I like these shot with a wider lens as well.

Neptune




Camera Model: NIKON D3 Lens: 15.0-31.0 mm f/3.5-4.5 Image Date: 2013-12-26 20:00:23 -0600
Focal Length: 15mm (35mm equivalent: 15mm) Focus Distance: Infinite 
Aperture: f/5.6 Exposure Time: 60.000 s ISO equiv: 200

A truck driving up the look out ruined this exposure




Camera Model: NIKON D3 Lens: 15.0-31.0 mm f/3.5-4.5 Image Date: 2013-12-26 20:03:35 -0600
Focal Length: 15mm (35mm equivalent: 15mm) Focus Distance: Infinite
Aperture: f/5.6 Exposure Time: 611.000 s ISO equiv: 200





Camera Model: NIKON D3 Lens: 15.0-31.0 mm f/3.5-4.5 Image Date: 2013-12-26 20:17:34 -0600
Focal Length: 15mm (35mm equivalent: 15mm) Focus Distance: Infinite 
Aperture: f/3.5 Exposure Time: 30.000 s ISO equiv: 800
​


----------



## ghostred7

I can't go over 30s w/out a cable release. The cam is 6MP.

Ya...I knew there'd be light pollution. This was a random "oh look, it's clear out and I've been having a drink.....yerp...lemme set up my tripod at midnight and see what happens" type of things 

Thanks for the EXIF dump! That helps a lot.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Neither can I, I just set my MC-20 and forget about it.


----------



## Rook

Whammy said:


> Rule of 600 is a general rule not to be followed strictly.
> Getting hung up on it isn't a good idea. Trying a few different options (different exposures, different angles from Polaris, different printing sizes) and printing to see what you can realistically get away with is a better method. Let your eyes tell you if it worked, not the maths.



To be fair maths would tell you you'll probably get some movement whatever happens haha!

I wasn't using math anyway, that was from experience, I like it to be clean near-enough circles up to 100% which is entirely megapixels (I mean aside from shutter speed and focal length).

As I think I said, I'm not suggesting that's what anybody or everybody do, just conversing over your introduction of the '600 rule' which personally I wouldn't use


----------



## ghostred7

I think instead of dumping the funds into a new camera (that i still need to do), i'm going to start off w/ the lenses. No secret that's the important thing and well, being stuck with the standard EF-S 18-55 ONLY is driving me nucking futs.

If you see my earlier posts in this thread, i'm tied to where I have credit. This is what they have available in my price range. I'm not ready to pony up the $$$ for the white lenses yet.

Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom Lens
Canon EF 75-300MM f/4-5.6 III USM Telephoto Zoom Lens
Canon EF 50 mm f/1.4 USM Standard Telephoto Lens

The camera i'm looking at comes with a EF-S 18-135mm Lens (70D bundle)

NOTE: As my kid is doing track now, I will probably be doing some fast in-stands shooting (to the limit of the 300D anyway).

Out of that list, which lenses would you recommend or should I go back to re-considering new body? I'm pretty much stuck w/ the Nikon & Canon stuff...so the awesome suggestions of the Fuji earlier in this thread isn't achievable right now. That & I'm mostly familiar w/ Canon's layout/feel.


----------



## Decreate

Here's a shot I took at the Suicide Silence show a couple of days ago.


----------



## ghostred7

Decreate said:


> Here's a shot I took at the Suicide Silence show a couple of days ago.


Mmmmm....lens flare. LOVE


----------



## Philligan

ghostred7 said:


> Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom Lens
> Canon EF 75-300MM f/4-5.6 III USM Telephoto Zoom Lens
> Canon EF 50 mm f/1.4 USM Standard Telephoto Lens
> 
> The camera i'm looking at comes with a EF-S 18-135mm Lens (70D bundle)



For the 55-250 vs 75-300. I own the 75-300 non-USM, and it sucks. If you want a cheap long zoom and can find one for $100 or less, go for it, but I wouldn't buy one new. The 70-300 is a better lens, but apparently the new 55-250 STM looks better, and is cheaper and lighter. The build quality isn't the same, but the STM lenses are great and focus silently (and internally). 

I own the 50 1.4. It's a good lens, but I'd stay away from it now (they're coming out with a 50mm f2 IS USM sometime this year). The 50 1.4 looks pretty good, but it's not nearly as sharp as the newer lenses, and it actually uses a Micro USM motor, which is a lot smaller and more delicate. The internal barrel/front element of the lens move to focus, so between moving external parts and a small version of the focus motor, it's really easy to kill the motor (by say putting the camera lens-down in your camera bag). It looks good and I like it, but if I had known these things, I wouldn't have bought it. 

I know glass is king, but your body is pretty outdated, especially for taking pictures of your kids doing sports. I own the 70D and am really impressed with it, and the 18-135 STM is considered one of Canon's best EF-S lenses. 

In your situation, I'd pick up the 70D + 18-135 STM kit - it'll look way better than your kit lens, has more than double the range, and the STM motor is made for the newer bodies like the T5i and 70D, and it's literally silent and instant. If I wasn't gunning for a Sigma 18-35 1.8, I'd be picking up the 18-135 for an all-purpose lens.

If you pick up the 70D + 18-135, you should get the 50mm 1.8 for $100 as soon as possible after that. The 18-135 looks great and covers your wide to tele needs, and the 50 1.8 covers your low light and portraits perfectly.


----------



## Tang

The 50-250 was my favorites lens on my T3. 

Nostalgia.


----------



## ghostred7

Philligan said:


> For the 55-250 vs 75-300. I own the 75-300 non-USM, and it sucks. If you want a cheap long zoom and can find one for $100 or less, go for it, but I wouldn't buy one new. The 70-300 is a better lens, but apparently the new 55-250 STM looks better, and is cheaper and lighter. The build quality isn't the same, but the STM lenses are great and focus silently (and internally).
> 
> I own the 50 1.4. It's a good lens, but I'd stay away from it now (they're coming out with a 50mm f2 IS USM sometime this year). The 50 1.4 looks pretty good, but it's not nearly as sharp as the newer lenses, and it actually uses a Micro USM motor, which is a lot smaller and more delicate. The internal barrel/front element of the lens move to focus, so between moving external parts and a small version of the focus motor, it's really easy to kill the motor (by say putting the camera lens-down in your camera bag). It looks good and I like it, but if I had known these things, I wouldn't have bought it.
> 
> I know glass is king, but your body is pretty outdated, especially for taking pictures of your kids doing sports. I own the 70D and am really impressed with it, and the 18-135 STM is considered one of Canon's best EF-S lenses.
> 
> In your situation, I'd pick up the 70D + 18-135 STM kit - it'll look way better than your kit lens, has more than double the range, and the STM motor is made for the newer bodies like the T5i and 70D, and it's literally silent and instant. If I wasn't gunning for a Sigma 18-35 1.8, I'd be picking up the 18-135 for an all-purpose lens.
> 
> If you pick up the 70D + 18-135, you should get the 50mm 1.8 for $100 as soon as possible after that. The 18-135 looks great and covers your wide to tele needs, and the 50 1.8 covers your low light and portraits perfectly.


Awesome, thx for the input!

@ Your last sentence...the place I have the credit also has: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Standard Telephoto Lens

Didn't mention it b/c I was under the understanding that the 1.4 was "better." Is this the one you mentioned?


----------



## Philligan

ghostred7 said:


> Awesome, thx for the input!
> 
> @ Your last sentence...the place I have the credit also has: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Standard Telephoto Lens
> 
> Didn't mention it b/c I was under the understanding that the 1.4 was "better." Is this the one you mentioned?



Those are the two I was talking about.  The 50 1.4 is technically better, but it's not 3x the price better. Unless you want quiet autofocus - the 50 1.8 is pretty loud when it focuses, and the 50 1.4 is pretty quiet. But honestly, having owned both, unless you really need a quiet lens, I'd go with the 50 1.8. The image quality is essentially the same, and it's so cheap and light. If you want a higher overall quality lens than the 1.8, I'd wait and pay a bit more for one of the new ones coming out: either the Canon 50mm f2 IS USM or the Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art. Both are supposed to come out in the next couple months or so I believe.

The Canon 50 1.4 is good, but it's also really old. It was one of the first Canon EF mount lenses, and came out like 20 years ago, before digital SLRs were a thing. Newer lenses should have overall better autofocus (faster, more accurate, quieter) and they'll probably look better too, as the technology for getting them sharper and reducing flare/distortion/etc gets better. 

But I'd for sure get the Canon 50 1.8 first, no matter what. It's a cheap way to see if you like using a 50mm prime, and it's worth keeping down the road, because the image quality is amazing for the money, and it's so cheap that you don't have to baby it. Last September my 50 1.8 fell off a table and the barrel got knocked out of whack, so I bought the 50 1.4. Just a little while ago I was messing around with it and managed to muscle and shake it enough that it seems to be working again. So I use the 50 in situations like the weather looking bad or if I'm worried about it getting knocked around, because for $100, it's not the end of the world if something happens to it. On the other hand, I'm planning on using the 1.4 for weddings this summer, because the AF is quiet and the background blur is smoother.

They both have a place, but unless you specifically need the 1.4's few advantages, the 1.8 wins hands-down. 

And the kit lenses get better and better every time a new one comes out. My fiancé has the 18-55 IS STM kit lens (I used to have the 18-55 IS II) and her STM one was better in every way. The biggest differences I found, though, were in the autofocus. It literally feels instant and silent, and it focuses internally, so there are less moving parts you have to worry about bumping. The new kit lenses are great. The 18-55 STM (or 18-135), 55-250 STM, and 50mm 1.8 are the holy trinity of "bang for your buck" setups.

If you want to save some money, a T4i or T5i (they're essentially identical, get whichever is cheaper) has very similar performance to the 70D. Those two and the 70D are the ones that work best with the STM lenses, so I'd really suggest those. The image quality and AF speed will be very similar to the 70D. The main advantages of the 70D are the movie mode and Live View shooting, tougher build, and more physical buttons. If you can live without those, the T4i and T5i are 90%+ for close to half the price.


----------



## Philligan

Just for kicks, I did a quick comparison of the 50 1.8 and 50 1.4. Warning: the photos suck. 

We just got back from class and are about to make dinner, so I literally took one shot on each, JPG, and pulled it straight off the SD card and onto Photobucket. It would have been better to get outside and take some more serious photos, but I don't have time right now. I stuck Dawn in front of our alcohol shelf to get the reflections in the glasses. I was about 3ft away from her, and she was 3-4ft away from the shelf. It would have been cool to blow the background out a bit more, but our dining room's too small haha.

Here's the 50 1.8 at f1.8, 1/80s shutter speed, and auto ISO (I forget what it was at and the exif data didn't tell me). 





Here's the 50 1.4 at f1.8, same settings.





And here's the 50 1.4 at f1.4, same settings otherwise.


----------



## Wretched

A bit pic heavy, but I wanted to share some pics from the Korn and Rob Zombie gig in Sydney last month:

You can see 38 images here, including the support act, Mushroomhead: Korn + Rob Zombie + Mushroomhead @ Luna Park Big Top, Sydney - Feb 24, 2014 - a set on Flickr


----------



## Rook

^That is super cool!

I've been concentrating almost entirely on light this month, as utterly a preposterous that sounds for a photographer.

As a result here's a load of uninspiring in subject matter but more interestingly naturally lit shots.




Bramble by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Dog and Shadow by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Daffodils in Window by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Three Graves by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




A Raise! by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Home Time by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Soiled Sneakers by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> ^That is super cool!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dog and Shadow by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



LOL! Nice, dude.. it's even a chihuahua!




Shadow Sid by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP5428-Edit-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

He's a border collie 

Thanks d00d


----------



## Tang

I was just thinking I don't post nearly enough dog shots these days. 






As you can see, sharpness on the Sigma is not a problem. I'm still iffy about the busy'ish bokeh.


----------



## Philligan

Are you talking about the new 35 1.4?


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> Are you talking about the new 35 1.4?



Yeah, that's the new 35.


----------



## Philligan

Cool. I dig the bokeh, I'm pretty sure haha. Bokeh quality is one of those things I haven't really got an eye for yet.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> Cool. I dig the bokeh, I'm pretty sure haha. Bokeh quality is one of those things I haven't really got an eye for yet.



It's not bad, but compared to some of my Pentax lenses..


----------



## Tang

I've been practicing my manual focusing with my trusty Tokina 135 f/2.8 in preparation for whichever 85 f/1.4 I decide to get.. I'm surprisingly proud of myself for a couple of these.. they might not be great shots but it was great practice, and I had a blast with an all manual lens.




IMGP0988-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP1009-Edit-3 by nrrfed, on Flickr




IMGP1031-3 by nrrfed, on Flickr

Most of these were at f/4, if I recall correctly.

EDIT: removed the bird shot because I made a new crop of it and I'd prefer to post that on it's own a bit later and more people post shots. Cheers!


----------



## Rook

1, 2 and 3 are excellent shots tang, nice!


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> 1, 2 and 3 are excellent shots tang, nice!



Cheers, man! Thanks for the nice words. 2 is my favorite, I think but I'm proudest of 1. I'm starting to love the compression that longer lenses provide and how it can affect composition. And this old glass feels like it has a life of it's own. It's a hard lens to use well, but when it hits, man it hits!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> Cool. I dig the bokeh, I'm pretty sure haha. Bokeh quality is one of those things I haven't really got an eye for yet.



That took me a while to appreciate as well, and it's still something I don't pay too much attention to when shooting. I do know that when it's good  and when it's bad . I'll show some macro I shot with the 85mm f/1.8 and my extension tube later (creamy bokehlicious).

Tang, I'm digging that 2nd shot.


----------



## Tang

Thanks TP! I'm glad y'all are liking those 135mm shots. I actually shot them a month ago and was a little afraid to look at them because what if the focus wasn't perfect or I ....ed up the exposure? They turned out way better than I could've hoped for considering my general lack of experience with all manual lenses.


----------



## Vrollin

Wretched said:


> A bit pic heavy, but I wanted to share some pics from the Korn and Rob Zombie gig in Sydney last month:
> 
> You can see 38 images here, including the support act, Mushroomhead: Korn + Rob Zombie + Mushroomhead @ Luna Park Big Top, Sydney - Feb 24, 2014 - a set on Flickr



Holy shit its a small world! SSO becoming the new streetcommodores forum? 

Swwet shots there, spewing I couldn't get to one of the gigs, no longer in a capital city anymore


----------



## Philligan

The Rob Zombie and John 5 ones are particularly awesome, man.


----------



## Tang

Oh yeah, definitely digging the John 5 shot!

Here's the seagull shot I was talking about a few posts ago. Beyond pleased with this. Those *f*ucking reflections, man!




are there seagulls in alternate universes? by nrrfed, on Flickr

Ugly bokeh, awesome shot? Maybe. 




easy access. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Some macro with the 85mm f/1.8 + extension tube.
f/1.8:





f/1.8:





f/4:


----------



## Tang

That f/4 shot..


----------



## capoeiraesp

Straya!
Anyone else rockin a wifi enable cam and VSCO's free iOS app? Bloody awesome on the go combo.


----------



## Rook

I've done a bit of that, it has loads of tool beyond film sims now too, good stuff.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Yeah man. The latest update adds so many options. Gotta love being able to throw a friend or a client some immediate shots.


----------



## Philligan

Is it the regular VSCO app? I've downloaded it for my iPhone twice, and all I get are prompts to join their social networking. I can't find anywhere to edit photos, and when I try to take one with the in-app camera, it won't save any.


----------



## capoeiraesp

VSCO cam, yes. 

https://itunes.apple.com/au/app/vsco-cam/id588013838?mt=8


----------



## flint757

Moody Gardens - Bat Exhibit by flint757, on Flickr

ISO 640, 40mm, f/2.8, 1/50 second

I still need to go through my photos, but here's one I liked from my trip to Moody Gardens yesterday. UV light bulb so I went with a black and white look. Almost looks like he's posing.


----------



## Wretched

A few pics from Alter Bridge's show at the HiFi in Sydney as part of the Soundwave Festival tour. They were supported by Living Colour. You can see all 33 images here: Alter Bridge + Living Colour @ HiFi Sydney - Feb 25, 2014 - a set on Flickr


----------



## MemphisHawk

Okinawa Botanical Gardens


----------



## xfilth

Wretched said:


> A few pics from Alter Bridge's show at the HiFi in Sydney as part of the Soundwave Festival tour. They were supported by Living Colour. You can see all 33 images here: Alter Bridge + Living Colour @ HiFi Sydney - Feb 25, 2014 - a set on Flickr



Your live shots are amazing! What's your workflow?


----------



## Wretched

Thanks xfilth. I shoot in RAW, always, and process in Lightroom.


----------



## Philligan

flint757 said:


> Moody Gardens - Bat Exhibit by flint757, on Flickr
> 
> ISO 640, 40mm, f/2.8, 1/50 second
> 
> I still need to go through my photos, but here's one I liked from my trip to Moody Gardens yesterday. UV light bulb so I went with a black and white look. Almost looks like he's posing.





That looks familiar.


----------



## Tang

Here're an iPhone shot from today..




Rusty shadows. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Tyler

went to Old Towne Fredericksburg and had a fun time


----------



## Faine

Please like my facebook page!

https://www.facebook.com/Tomfainephotography


----------



## Wretched

A sneak peek at the shoot we did on Mark's gorgeous 1973 Karmann Ghia. What a beauty!

A combination of light painting and strobist in around 5 frames.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Such a beautiful car, your lighting highlights all that superbly.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

The LC-A, she is near!









Also  @ the tab that says Grandma. I'm working on an assignment that involves a track by Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five.


----------



## Philligan

Nice.  Also, that gif.


----------



## loqtrall

Well, this thread has inspired me. I've never owned a camera before, so I went to the pawn shop a few hours ago and bought a used Sanyo VPC-E2100 for $50, nothing fancy, and did my best to obtain some decent shots. Didn't have the manual, too lazy to look it up and read it, so I just turned it on and started messing around with it.

I don't consider myself a photographer by any means; But just wandering around and finding something that's perfect to capture is beyond fun.


----------



## Tang

So guys, I was thinking about doing a 365 Project using my cell-phone camera only.. I think it'll help me focus on composition and light instead of trying to make a perfect shot with my Pentax. Granted, I do take the Pentax almost everywhere, but I'd like to give this a shot.. The iphone 4s is pretty competent in good light, as well.

Logtrall, is that a fuuckking chihuahua? I approve.


----------



## loqtrall

Tang said:


> Logtrall, is that a fuuckking chihuahua? I approve.



It's a Chipoo, Chihuahua bred with a Poodle! Her name is actually Bilbo!


----------



## Tang

loqtrall said:


> It's a Chipoo, Chihuahua bred with a Poodle! Her name is actually Bilbo!



Nice  I have 3 chihuahuas and they're my best friends in the world. They love having their pictures taken! You can see one of them below.. well, kinda. He's a little blurred out but you can tell it's a chi!

New pic! I think this is one of the best pet shots I've ever taken. The composition came together so easily. Lens was my 35mm f/2.4 @ f/4. 1/30s and ISO800. You know Canon has the Nifty Fifty? Us Pentaxers have the Plastic Fantastic 




IMGP0479 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## loqtrall

Tang said:


> Nice  I have 3 chihuahuas and they're my best friends in the world. They love having their pictures taken!



Yes! And they're adorable. Bilbo basically looks like a small, black, fluffy teddy bear. She's a black-haired chihuahua with the hair length and puffiness of a Poodle. Her ears don't stand up, either; they flop down like a poodle. I've had people wanting to buy her from me since we got her when she was a pup.


----------



## loqtrall

After the rain, playing with the focus on this solar-powered light in my front yard. Unedited. I'm really getting in to this. Might have to invest into a better camera soon.


----------



## MrYakob

Apologies in advance for the photo dump. We had a day last week where the temperature was actually nice so I went out on a photo walk with the 85 1.8!

This first one is actually SOOC and I'm really happy with it which is rare


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Cell phone pic, but the LC-A is here! The thing's sturdy as hell, it's like a little black brick. I've got it loaded up with a roll of Lomo CN 100, so I hope to get out there and get shooting with it soon!


----------



## Philligan

JeffFromMtl said:


> Cell phone pic, but the LC-A is here! The thing's sturdy as hell, it's like a little black brick. I've got it loaded up with a roll of Lomo CN 100, so I hope to get out there and get shooting with it soon!



Awesome, can't wait to see those.  Are you gonna develop them yourself?



MrYakob said:


> Apologies in advance for the photo dump. We had a day last week where the temperature was actually nice so I went out on a photo walk with the 85 1.8!



What camera body is that on? I'm not sure if it's because you're shooting from kinda far away (due to the reach of the 85) but they have just a bit of a surreal feel to them that's really cool.  I notice that sometimes when I'm using my 50 (on a crop sensor).


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Unfortunately, I don't have the equipment or resources to develop them myself. Although, I will have to find a shop that does cross processing when I decide to shoot the rolls of XPro Chrome film that I have. I'm not sure if the print shop/lab I normally go to offers x-processing.


----------



## ghostred7

Faine said:


> Please like my facebook page!
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/Tomfainephotography



Done
EDIT: Also...great shot!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

JeffFromMtl said:


> Unfortunately, I don't have the equipment or resources to develop them myself. Although, I will have to find a shop that does cross processing when I decide to shoot the rolls of XPro Chrome film that I have. I'm not sure if the print shop/lab I normally go to offers x-processing.



Most labs use C-41 for color reversal, when you drop off the E-6 slides just tell them to develop it like any other color reversal film.


----------



## MrYakob

Philligan said:


> What camera body is that on? I'm not sure if it's because you're shooting from kinda far away (due to the reach of the 85) but they have just a bit of a surreal feel to them that's really cool.  I notice that sometimes when I'm using my 50 (on a crop sensor).



Thanks! It's a 6D, so about the equivalent of your 50 on a crop. I honestly didn't have much use for this lens until I went full frame, it was just too long on a crop for me but now it's easily the favourite of my lenses


----------



## Tang

365 Project. Day 1. 




art of flight (365 day 1) by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

JeffFromMtl said:


> Unfortunately, I don't have the equipment or resources to develop them myself. Although, I will have to find a shop that does cross processing when I decide to shoot the rolls of XPro Chrome film that I have. I'm not sure if the print shop/lab I normally go to offers x-processing.





ThePhilosopher said:


> Most labs use C-41 for color reversal, when you drop off the E-6 slides just tell them to develop it like any other color reversal film.



If they give you a hard time (one of the local shops here in Windsor did when I brought in a non-C-41 B&W that I got from them ), a friend of mine told me about a place in Toronto that will develop pretty much anything. You just mail them your rolls and they send you 6-10MB jpgs. 

edit: I should have said haha if you want to do that, I'll find out what the place is called. He said they'll develop pretty much anything, and send you jpgs to keep the cost down.



MrYakob said:


> Thanks! It's a 6D, so about the equivalent of your 50 on a crop. I honestly didn't have much use for this lens until I went full frame, it was just too long on a crop for me but now it's easily the favourite of my lenses



Awesome.  I didn't notice the first time, but the reflection of the tree is a killer shot. My theory is the perspective from the longer lens almost gives you a bit of tilt-shift effect? Which would explain why it looks so surreal. I should try and shoot street style stuff on my 75-300 and see if that does it, too.


----------



## Faine

I love this car...







https://www.facebook.com/Tomfainephotography


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Cell phone shot from today


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Lighting information for anyone interested: How to Create a Giant Ring Light with Softboxes | Model Mayhem Education Blog


----------



## Tang

Day 2/365. Refined dinosaurs. 




refined dinosaurs. 2/365. by nrrfed, on Flickr

Guys, I think something's wrong with me. I'm really starting to enjoy shooting with my phone. It's an old iPhone 4S, even!

EDIT: a few bonus phone shots.. shit.. there really is something wrong in my head! Enjoy that 1x1 format! 




pond. by nrrfed, on Flickr




Blue sky Ibanez. by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I finally got out and actually shot today. On the way home from class and a bit at a pub this evening. This one was shot in Live View, with the flippy screen, tapping to focus, and using the wifi to send it to my phone for editing. 70D FTW! 

I'm pretty sure it automatically sends small jpgs in the phone app, because my phone read it right away and I'm pretty sure it's a 2.5mb file.  

Edited with Photogene. I like Snapseed more, but you get more parameters in Photogene. And the tone curve, but it sucks with jpgs haha.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> I finally got out and actually shot today. On the way home from class and a bit at a pub this evening. This one was shot in Live View, with the flippy screen, tapping to focus, and using the wifi to send it to my phone for editing. 70D FTW!
> 
> I'm pretty sure it automatically sends small jpgs in the phone app, because my phone read it right away and I'm pretty sure it's a 2.5mb file.



All dat technology seemlessly working together. That sounds wonderful, dude.

Imagine taking what normally would've been a nice cameraphone shot into something awesome. Take shot, transfer to phone and do a quick processing, then post to your social network of choice. 

I'm a little jelly.


----------



## Philligan

It's pretty cool.  Without raw files, it's not the same, but if there's a way to do that, I could totally live without a computer.


----------



## Wretched

A sneak peek at my photo shoot on Phil's insane 1954 Kombi single-cab drag car. What a machine! Under the unassuming patina lies a 700hp+ Harrop-blown VW four cylinder with custom intercooler, etc etc etc.


----------



## Faine

Please check out my facebook page for the full shoots!

Facebook.com/Tomfainephotography


----------



## Wretched

Some nice cars right there!


----------



## Skyblue

Since we're already posting some cellphone shots...


----------



## Tang

Really enjoying all the phone pics! Here's my latest:

Day 3: water drops




water drops. 3/365 by nrrfed, on Flickr

I've done basically no flower photography ever so this was a fun one.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A little golden hour bokeh





Smoke Stack





Firebox





Oxygenation





Coals​


----------



## Rook

Genuinely considering dropping my entire Canon system and going full fuji


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Why's that?


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> Genuinely considering dropping my entire Canon system and going full fuji



What was I saying about the APS-C masterrace? 



Guys, I apologize for spamming but I'm love with my camera phone. It'll pass. Seriously though, I can't recall the last time I was this inspired as a photographer. When I pick up my DSLR again I know I'll be a better photography for doing this project. 




the red outcast by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Rook said:


> Genuinely considering dropping my entire Canon system and going full fuji



don't be silly.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Did someone say cellphone pic dump? 




Untitled by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr 




Untitled by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr




Untitled by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr




Untitled by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr




Untitled by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr




Untitled by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Paul Reed Shred said:


> Untitled by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr



I believe I did.. love the shot I quoted.


----------



## eddygdk

> Guys, I apologize for spamming but I'm love with my camera phone. It'll pass.



Don't be sorry, your just proving that you don't need a high powered Dslr to take some great shots.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Tang said:


> I believe I did.. love the shot I quoted.



Thanks man, that was more environment than photographer however. If you're using an iPhone, I've found that for some reason VSCOcam is actually great for taking pictures in addition to editing them. Its camera client allows you to split focus and exposure, and that's pretty much what I did here to let the light snowfall look like some sort of morning fog. Aside from the ease of use portion, VSCO's client inside the app is a little quicker than the native camera app, and the SOOC images from it seems to be a little higher in quality and lower in noise as well.


----------



## Tang

Paul Reed Shred said:


> Thanks man, that was more environment than photographer however. If you're using an iPhone, I've found that for some reason VSCOcam is actually great for taking pictures in addition to editing them. Its camera client allows you to split focus and exposure, and that's pretty much what I did here to let the light snowfall look like some sort of morning fog. Aside from the ease of use portion, VSCO's client inside the app is a little quicker than the native camera app, and the SOOC images from it seems to be a little higher in quality and lower in noise as well.



Nice! I use VSCOCam pretty much exclusively.


----------



## Philligan

Woo, I finally really edited some shots on the 70D! The files are almost twice as big as the T3 and Lightroom can feel it, it bogs down more easily.


----------



## Rook

I wasn't kidding.

I just recently was recommended CaptureOne, PhaseOne's in-house processing software originally designed exclusively for handling their digital back files (why when you facilitate/encourage people to shoot RAW would you not provide the software to process them at a standard of quality in line with the rest of the brand, eh Canikon?) because I was complaining on the Fuji forum that while the images I'm getting from my much loved X Pro1 have exactly the 'look' I was after, the quality and the sharpness of the files was just plain poor and I couldn't do anything in post to bring them up to anywhere near the grade my Canon files are. I put this down to the fact that the Canon was full frame and that Fuji haven't really been in the business of creating professional grade sensors for any length of time which frankly is what I was comparing it to - a pro grade sensor in a semi pro body.

I didn't mind, I bought the Fuji because with the lens off I could fit the body in one pocket and the lens in another and put together pull out these good files anytime anywhere. Then it got to the point where the form factor, the manual controls and the portability basically meant it went with me everywhere and was the camera I picked up when I was going somewhere interesting that I *might* want to shoot. All the while however I've clung onto my Canon system just in case I needed or felt the desire for that outrageous quality I've been comparing to the entire time.

So I was complaining about softness and irritating noise that the in-camera noise reduction seemed to deal with like it was no big deal but Lightroom added in spades with any minor adjustment on the Fuji forum. First it turns out the 18mm is just not a good lens, but this became obvious when I recently picked up my 23mm which was pretty night-and-day difference as far as lens quality goes, Lightroom was still smudging details and adding noise though. Then I was told that this smudgery in the files was not in fact a pitfall of the sensor and indeed was Adobe displaying their reluctance to update their X Trans support from the earliest days of it's existence 2 or 3 years ago.

I was told it was garbage and was destroying the files and that I should give CaptureOne a to to really get not just the best but in fact _anything_ out of the files. I downloaded a trial version and holy mother f*u*cking son of a gun, these files are coming out fantastically. At least as good as my Canon files.

I'll post some samples and 100% crops soon, but honestly this has totally flipped my perception of this camera on it's head. I actively want to take this out instead of the Canon because the way Fuji's interpret colour and tones is just wonderful.

Now that the XT-1 is out - smaller, lighter, much much faster, biggest viewfinder on the market, split prism(esque] manual focusing, weather sealing AND an ISO dial (hehe) - I can't imagine a better camera for me. And if I buy an XT-1 I know my 6D will sit rotting in a cupboard, there's no impetus for me to take it out right now.

The jury's still out, but I've been thinking about this for a week now and I'm still feeling good about it.

Ask me again in a week.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'd say a good test would be to have the same shot (shot with both cameras) printed at a lab at various sizes 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, maybe up to 16x20 and see if you notice a difference. I'd recommend keeping the processing minimal to let the cameras show off their strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## Tang

Rook, I noticed the same thing with the X100s. Lightroom just wouldn't play nice with the files so I ended up using the SOOC jpgs for everything I uploaded from that camera.

I think I posted these in the past, but holy shit does Fuji do great jpgs. I'm fiending for another Fuji camera..  look at those skin tones! look at those colors! and that swirly-ass bokeh!




DSCF9935 by nrrfed, on Flickr




DSCF0181 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Batch from today




Old Walker by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Standing on St Martin Steps by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Street Art by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Bicycle and Balloons by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Leicester Square Couple by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Tucking In by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr




Black Coat Blonde by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

So happy with CaptureOne, as far as tonality and colour rendition these are some of the pictures I'm happiest with *ever*, I've basically done nothing to these aside from boost a little contrast and/or sharpness.


----------



## capoeiraesp

My neighbours recently started a mobile BBQ/smoker restaurant called Burn City Smokers.
SENSATIONAL!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Well, just my luck. I buy myself a 30 year-old camera, wait 3 weeks for it to arrive from Moldova and I break it in 6 days. I slipped on a patch of ice on my way to work this morning and bailed with the LC-A in my pocket and now the light metering is entirely ....ed - as in not working whatsoever. I'll have to see if it's fixable. If not, there's money down the drain with only 2/3 of a roll shot, and I won't be able to use it on my trip to France, which I was really looking forward to doing.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The meter in my Bronica stopped worked years ago, try one of those light meter apps to get you in the ball park - film is somewhat forgiving (sometimes). This is why I keep meaning to invest in a good spot meter.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

ThePhilosopher said:


> The meter in my Bronica stopped worked years ago, try one of those light meter apps to get you in the ball park - film is somewhat forgiving (sometimes). This is why I keep meaning to invest in a good spot meter.



The problem is that exposure is the only value that can't be set manually on this camera. Since the viewfinder LED's aren't coming on anymore, I'm assuming that it's not getting any light readings and going on how the shutter sounds when it shoots, the camera's just deciding to fire at its fastest shutter speed by default, regardless of lighting conditions. I'm hoping that it's simply a matter of re-soldering a wire, and that the meter itself isn't totally finished.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Oh damn, that's a bummer.


----------



## Rook

I'd offer to take a look but there's this big thing of water in the way, bummer dude


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Well, upon further inspection, aside from the LED's not lighting up, the shutter seems to be stuck (as opposed to firing on the fastest setting of 1/200 sec, which I originally thought it was doing). I opened it up manually with a pen cap hoping that there was some sort grime on it, and that prying it open would fix the problem, but to no avail. I'm going to get the roll developed after work to see what the last 10 or so shots look like. Unfortunately, it's likely they'll be blank exposures. Montreal's a shitty city to try finding a decent camera repair shop, and I have a feeling finding someone who knows what to do with a LOMO is going to be a nightmare. I'd try to open it up myself, but I'm terrified of doing irreparable damage.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Trying something a bit more fine art:






Yolk​


----------



## Tang

Guys, it's fffuucckkiinnggg sad that my favorite picture I've ever taken was taken with my phone. It just hits all the right spots for me. Reposting it and a few other cell phone shots I've done recently! Please to enjoy.




art of flight (365 day 1) by nrrfed, on Flickr




Untitled by nrrfed, on Flickr




light by nrrfed, on Flickr

EDIT: I tend to go a little overboard when I process on my phone.


----------



## Wretched

A couple of shots from a shoot I did on an incredible Porsche 944 wide-body time attack racer. Just came out on the cover of Zoom magazine.


----------



## Philligan

JeffFromMtl said:


> Well, upon further inspection, aside from the LED's not lighting up, the shutter seems to be stuck (as opposed to firing on the fastest setting of 1/200 sec, which I originally thought it was doing). I opened it up manually with a pen cap hoping that there was some sort grime on it, and that prying it open would fix the problem, but to no avail. I'm going to get the roll developed after work to see what the last 10 or so shots look like. Unfortunately, it's likely they'll be blank exposures. Montreal's a shitty city to try finding a decent camera repair shop, and I have a feeling finding someone who knows what to do with a LOMO is going to be a nightmare. I'd try to open it up myself, but I'm terrified of doing irreparable damage.



That's a bummer dude. 

Try giving these guys a shout - apparently they're good. They specialize in (maybe only do) analog repair.

Welcome to Kominek Camera, for Camera repairs & used photographic equipment sales


----------



## Philligan

Here are some street-y ones.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Philligan said:


> That's a bummer dude.
> 
> Try giving these guys a shout - apparently they're good. They specialize in (maybe only do) analog repair.
> 
> Welcome to Kominek Camera, for Camera repairs & used photographic equipment sales



thanks for the link, man. I dropped it off at a local shop after work today, so I'll see what they can do about it. If they ask too much for the repair or can't figure it out, I'll drop these guys a line.


----------



## Philligan

JeffFromMtl said:


> thanks for the link, man. I dropped it off at a local shop after work today, so I'll see what they can do about it. If they ask too much for the repair or can't figure it out, I'll drop these guys a line.



Hopefully the local guys can. 

Also, I just saw the thumbs up I put instead of the thumbs down, oops.


----------



## Faine

https://www.facebook.com/Tomfainephotography


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Photo dump upcoming...

Now that I've gotten back the 2/3 of the roll I was actually able to shoot with the LC-A, I'm even more anxious to find out whether or not I'll be able to fix it. I'm loving the results, even with a boring film like Lomo CN 100.

























The 100 film was a little slow in some situations, but I dig the results anyhow. The only shot I really wish I had faster film for is the one of my mom and grandma.


----------



## Philligan

Those all look excellent.  The first couple are my favourites.


----------



## Tang

Really need to shoot more film.. I'd love to get my hands on some Neopan 1600. 

Recent works:




it is what it is by nrrfed, on Flickr




shadow stairs. 5/365 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Try Ilford Delta3200 pulled 1-stop as Neopan1600 is discontinued.


----------



## Whammy

^
Yeap 

Plus I prefer the grain on the Delta compared to the Neopan.


----------



## Rook

HP5 (400) master race :O


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm a T-Max, Tri-X, and Plus-X shooter-all in 4x5 though.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

I'm on a budget so I'm an Arista Premium 400/Tri-X guy.


also... I got to spend some time on the A7/A7R at B&H's superstore in NYC yesterday. They're nice, a lot nicer than I expected. Build quality isn't necessarily at the Canon FF level, and is probably on par if not a little below the Fuji XT-1. Image quality wise, wow. The colloquial description of "it's a D610/D800 in a mirrorless body" (depending on whether it's the A7 or A7R) Once these things get some sort of tangible lens ecosystem under their belts, they'll be formidable. Since Sony only has the 35 and 55 right now, the black X100S is still where it's at.


----------



## Philligan

I played around with masking in Lightroom for the first time today. I tried re-editing this picture of Dawn, so I could finally push the blues in her eyes without messing with her coat, and push the greens in the background without messing with her face. 

I'm not sure if I think it's cheating or not.


----------



## Tang

What am I on? Day 6? 7? Shit, I don't even know!


----------



## Faine

I love that cemetery in the background, Philligan!


----------



## Rook

I like your shadows Tang. 

You and I will be just fine, I think...


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> I like your shadows Tang.
> 
> You and I will be just fine, I think...





Thanks friend. I've entered a phase in my photographic career where light is EVERYTHING. I mean, it's always been important but now I'm starting to SEE light differently. Does that make sense? More and more a scenes light is the first thing I notice and then compositional possibilities. Especially now that I'm shootin more with my phone. Unfortunately shooting with an iPhone is almost 100% automatic so I control what I can and that's lighting and composition. 

Sorry if I'm rambling. Just had a brutal 9 hour work day!

EDIT: we'll be just fine? Does that mean what I think it means? I don't want to call it a downgrade, but.. I support your move to Fuji wholeheartedly. 

EDIT2: do any of you guys have one the nicer camera phones? Like the Lumia 1020? So much want. As I've said before, I'm enjoying shooting with iPhone but that Lumia is on another level entirely!


----------



## Rook

Haha no that wasn't a downgrade, I should have included a wink or something.

And I'm literally going through the exact same thing light wise, I'm not even bothering to shoot stuff if the light doesn't fall across it in an interesting way or really add to the mood or composition.

I've not posted much from this mini-era so far but yeah, total same situation, you and I seem to go through a lot of these little phases together haha.

My iPhone has a load of shit on the sensor so shooting with it is a bit of a no-go, I shoot my X Pro and 23mm almost exclusively at the moment.


----------



## Philligan

This is from my first real go with the 70D. I'm still trying to figure out how to bring out more texture in it.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> This is from my first real go with the 70D. I'm still trying to figure out how to bring out more texture in it.



That's a nice start. Finding textures is a bit of a challenge to me because it's beyond how I normally see the world. I'm a little jelly of that 70d, even if our cameras are basically spec'd identically. 

Last shot of the day, promise.


----------



## Philligan

Thanks man.  I notice texture a lot more than colour, so it's partly satisfying and mostly frustrating trying to get it the way I see it haha.

I'm digging the 70D a lot so far. Honestly, as far as pure image quality goes, I'm not sure how much of a step up it is from the T3. I really dig the whole body, though, and interacting with it (AF and all). My dad's got the T3 now, but next time I see him I should take a few shots on each in the same conditions and see how much extra dynamic range I get out of the sensor. 

Also, according to Canon Rumors, Canon should be announcing a 24mm STM prime by this summer, and it will possibly be a pancake. If so, and it's faster than 2.8, sweet lord I'll be buying that as soon as possible. I'm still more than down with the Sigma 18-35 because it fits what I'd like perfectly, but I don't want to get too invested in crop lenses, because I could see myself moving to full frame eventually (either buying a 6D or equiv. to supplement the 70D, or upgrading to a 5D if I can afford it). A fast 24mm prime would be a perfect walk-around lens on the 70D, and would carry over to a full frame really usefully, too.

I really hope it's f2 or faster.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Pet photo dump:


----------



## wilch

Trying something new for a client of mine. I hate the fumes. It's funny, I don't mind the smell of paint (even oil based/mineral turps). But nail polish...gah. 

Glass on white acrylic (glass for easy cleanup). 2 strobes.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Try cropping with the bottle further in the upper right corner. I like the concept, but it would be cool to see this with the "rainbow" of available colors as well.


----------



## Philligan

I dig that shot.  Is the pool of nail polish centred? If so, the framing makes sense. You could crop everything evenly in a little bit to kill some of that space, but I think it works well as-is, too.

And yeah, a rainbow-style shot of a bunch of colours would be killer.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Decided to throw my hat into the ring for the first critique assignment on "Lines" for Zack Arias's new website. (dedpxl.com) As usual, all iPhone.


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> This is from my first real go with the 70D. I'm still trying to figure out how to bring out more texture in it.



I'd correct the white balance first and foremost.

I think the very very small pixels the 70D uses is possibly what makes the images look of a lesser quality to you, which it will in comparison to something like the 6D which, apart from the 1D's or D3/4 etc, has the biggest pixels of anything across Canikon's ranges.

Bigger pixels = higher dynamic range & less noise

Use the tonality of your higher resolution rather than aiming for high dynamic range, both bigger and smaller pixel setups both have their advantages. More pixels means more steps in a transition from one colour to another, that's partly why medium format images are so striking in their 'look'.


----------



## Philligan

I took a look at the flowers today, I think the white balance is actually on point. The main rose there isn't actually white, it's kind of a cream colour. It drove me crazy trying to get it right haha.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Grey cards are your friend. I always have one for any serious shooting and will find a way to sneak it into the lighting situation.


----------



## wilch

ThePhilosopher said:


> Try cropping with the bottle further in the upper right corner. I like the concept, but it would be cool to see this with the "rainbow" of available colors as well.





Philligan said:


> I dig that shot.  Is the pool of nail polish centred? If so, the framing makes sense. You could crop everything evenly in a little bit to kill some of that space, but I think it works well as-is, too.
> 
> And yeah, a rainbow-style shot of a bunch of colours would be killer.




Thanks guys. Yep, the puddle is centred. 

They have a new collection coming out, so I will probably attempt a rainbow-style shot with all the bottles emptying out into a puddle (after I do one of the above for each). 

I'll probably try it with some other polishes first to see how to do it. The rate at which the bottles empty is crazy. Half that bottle above was on the glass by the second shot, which was taken a few seconds later (that was the first hit).


----------



## Tang

Pushing the iPhone cam to its limits. ISO800 isn't pretty, so I had to process the shit out of it. I love the light in this shot, so.. yeah!

More pet pics/random shit


----------



## ghostred7

It's been a good camera...but RIP Canon 300D. You were a good camera and covered at least a decade of pictures of my kids. 

2 pins in the CF reader broker 

Good news is.....
.....EXCUSE TO GET A NEW CAMERA!

There's a trade show w/ free classes and such coming to ATL soon...I'm going so I can put hands on new ones and see what I really like.


----------



## metal_sam14

So I had my first paid work last week! This lovely subject needed some shots taken for a job interview with an airline so I was happy to be given the opportunity:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'd do something about the line across her neck in the studio shot and clean up the floor.


----------



## metal_sam14

ThePhilosopher said:


> I'd do something about the line across her neck in the studio shot and clean up the floor.



Yeah she loves her makeup, bit unfortunate really as I had to edit on a tight schedule.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

New season, new self-p, I guess.


----------



## Faine

Like my photography page! I have so many more car photos! 
https://www.facebook.com/Tomfainephotography


----------



## Tang

Cars don't do much for me, but they are well shot. :thumbsup:

Here's a boring bike for day 9. 






And here's a BONUS IPHONE BOKEH SHOT!






And here's a bonus Ramona shot with cool light/ shadow play.


----------



## Philligan

The last one looks great.  Is that iPhone + VSCO?


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> The last one looks great.  Is that iPhone + VSCO?



iPhone + an app called Mattebox. I spent $5 but it's so worth just for the exposure comp setting. That plus the film emulation is killer and it has a Curves tool!

That particular shot was with a Neopan 1600 emulation.

EDIT: you can also shoot in .tiff format so yo can have (almost) lossless on your phone. It really, really helps when you start screwing with the curve tool.

Here are a few more processed with Mattebox. 










EDIT2: just snuck my SLR into the Protest the Hero show. I am excite.


----------



## Michael

Here's a few photo's I've been taking.










This one was taken with my iPhone 5


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> iPhone + an app called Mattebox. I spent $5 but it's so worth just for the exposure comp setting. That plus the film emulation is killer and it has a Curves tool!
> 
> That particular shot was with a Neopan 1600 emulation.
> 
> EDIT: you can also shoot in .tiff format so yo can have (almost) lossless on your phone. It really, really helps when you start screwing with the curve tool.
> 
> EDIT2: just snuck my SLR into the Protest the Hero show. I am excite.



Nice, I'll check that out.  I've got a few third party camera apps right now, and they're technically good because you can do things like separate focus and metering, but most of the time I just find it easier to use the OEM camera. VSCO has some cool film presets, but I'm not crazy about how it's mostly presets, and I've only been able to get the camera to actually work once (mostly it will take the picture and keep buffering but not save it).

I'll probably buy Mattebox. I like Snapseed for editing, but it's either simple things like sharpening and contrast, or it goes straight to presents. Photogene is decent (and can apparently handle RAW files), but the tone curve sucks and it's not as intuitive.


----------



## Azyiu

I recently bought a Sony RX100ii as a "back up" / causal "walk-around" camera. Sure, it is just a glorified point-and-shoot camera, its picture quality is still pretty acceptable.


----------



## capoeiraesp

6D & wifi + VSCO iOS app + premium ribs =


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Just got in from a loooong day! After going to school and running a bunch of errands, I got to briefly attend the Blue Jays vs. Mets game at the Big Owe before heading out to shoot a show/event I was hired for. I should have some pretty good eye food for you guys tomorrow or Sunday.

I also just checked my e-mail to find out that I won a super cheap ebay auction for a mint Polaroid 250 Land Camera. Pack film FTW!


----------



## Tang

Finally picked up the Pentax again to shoot a bit of The Safety Fire and Battlecross' set last night. Things got a bit hairy during Protest the Hero because there was no press/photographer area and I was getting manhandled up on the rail. After 2 beer dousing I decided to put the camera away an just enjoy the show. 

Also, those goddamn red lights every venue insists on using.. hate that shit!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A rare full length shot from 2012:


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Baseball's back in Montreal for a weekend at the worst building in professional sports.


----------



## MrYakob

Went down to Toronto last weekend with the family for the Monster Energy Supercross. Dad and I spent the afternoon watching the qualifiers so I brought my 70-300 and tried my hand at action shooting. We were in the 24th row so I was kind of limited as to my angles and I didn't really get the hang of shooting action that fast until towards the end, but I think I got some really cool pictures. The whole monster set of 199 photos is here for anyone who's interested 

https://flic.kr/s/aHsjVKWUAn


----------



## Philligan

I took a chapter from Tang's book and shot this beastie on my iPhone. It was actually from my car while I was in the drive-through to get a coffee.  I edited this one in Photogene. Now that I'm getting a feel for it I'm starting to dig it more.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Photo dump from Frequinox 2014, the show I worked last night. There were live bands, DJ's, drag queen acts and some wild performance arts. It was a hell of a time!


----------



## Philligan

Nice shots, I really like the texture. 



JeffFromMtl said:


>



Was this band just a guy playing guitar and a drummer? If so, I just saw them in Windsor a few weeks ago.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Philligan said:


> Nice shots, I really like the texture.
> 
> 
> 
> Was this band just a guy playing guitar and a drummer? If so, I just saw them in Windsor a few weeks ago.



Thanks, man!

Nah, it was a 4-piece. It's actually a guy I've known for a few years. They're called the Ben Cardilli Band.


----------



## Tang

Really nice stuff, Jeff. 

I've started shooting with the Pentax again so I'll be posting those shots soon!

This one is called why are my eyes bleeding?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Car is loaded up for today's shoot, anyone care for a BTS video to be shot?


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Car is loaded up for today's shoot, anyone care for a BTS video to be shot?



Yes please! What're you shooting today?

Hopefully I'll get to work on my Intervals , Te Safety Fire, Battlecross, and Protest the Hero shots today. It was my first doing concert photography so I hope it doesn't suck!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Fashion/Lifestyle-I've never shot a BTS video so it may suck.





A quick outtake shot with the E-PL3​


----------



## capoeiraesp

Big weekend of cooking from Burn City


----------



## Philligan

I'm skipping a couple classes today do assist for a band shoot.  It's with the guy I'll be doing weddings with this summer. The band's on tour and is gonna be in Windsor and asked if he could drive down for the day for a session. Should be a good time. 

This is the band.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A lighting test - SOOC
Nikon D3 w/80-200mm (@130mm) AF-D f/2.8 @ ISO200 1/100 f/2.8
ABR800 with 56" Moon Unit, no front diffuser 1/2 power​


----------



## Philligan

I saw this, I think on reddit a while back. I thought it would be cool to do with everyone here.

What's in your bag? Post a shot of all the stuff you carry regularly.

I've got a Lowepro bag, I wanna say the Transit Sling? It's alright. The bag's solid, I just don't like the form factor. The sling doesn't stay put too well (tends to slide around on my bag) and it's brutally awkward to get on and off. I'd like to switch to a regular backpack to hold all my stuff, and a messenger bag that doesn't look like it holds photography gear for taking whatever I'll immediately need with me.

Next is the 70D with the 50 1.4, the 50 1.8 as a backup, and my AE-1 with the FD 50 1.8. And the battery charger. 

In the top compartment, I've got a rocket blower, Lens pen, chapstick, body and lens caps, and the USB cable. You can't see it, but on the main flap of the bag there's another pocket, and I keep my SD cards in there.

Off to the left is my Blackrapid strap, which lives in the main compartment, and my 75-300, which is a POS and only comes with me when I'm gonna need it. 





Go!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Super unprofessional, especially for someone who actually gets paid for their work:

Herschel Little America. I don't have a camera bag. I don't feel like I have enough gear to need one, and I just like my bag the way it is. I have it with me whether I'm going to school, work, the gym, or to hang with friends, so I _always_ have my gear on me.

Canon 6D
Canon 50mm f/1.4
Canon 17-40mm f/4L
Fujifilm Instax 210 (Soon to be replaced with Polaroid 250 Land Camera)
WD MyPassport 1TB external HD
USB cable
MacBook Pro

Missing: Lomo LC-A, Lomography CN 100 and Xpro Chrome 100 film.


----------



## Tang

Hello.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

And the edit of the light test...



​


----------



## Tang

It's good to back in the warm embrace of an APS-c sensor. 




IMGP0647 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I really like that one. 

Oh, the shoot went pretty well today. I didn't shoot much, mostly helping out Dan, the guy I'll be shooting under. The few times I got the chance to take some shots, the 50 was almost too tight - I really gotta get something wider. 

On the upside, we were talking about the weddings this summer, and apparently I'm starting at $150 a day.  That's more than I'd make in a full 9-hour shift at Home Depot, and it's untaxed. And I won't feel guilty about money I make doing photos going straight into the photo gear fund. 

I think I got a couple decent shots though, I'll hopefully work on them tonight or tomorrow.


----------



## Tang

Thanks!

I think I should've cropped it a bit tighter, but I'm gonna stick with what I've got. $150 as a second shooter isn't awful, but definitely ask for more as you get more experience.


----------



## Michael

Here a photo I took at the Dark Tranquillity show on thursday night. It was taken with my iPhone 5 but I'm really happy with how it came out.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Here's an iPhone picture. Unfortunately one of my batteries has given up on me so all I had on the boat for several days was the iPhone for a camera.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Funny enough, I just uploaded a bunch of photos from the past year from my iPhone today as well, so here's a big dump. All taken and edited with my iPhone 4.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

JeffFromMtl said:


> Funny enough, I just uploaded a bunch of photos from the past year from my iPhone today as well, so here's a big dump. All taken and edited with my iPhone 4.



Some serious dynamic range/contrast/IQ on these, especially for an iPhone! It's reminiscent of the clarity slider almost.. what're you using?


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Paul Reed Shred said:


> Some serious dynamic range/contrast/IQ on these, especially for an iPhone! It's reminiscent of the clarity slider almost.. what're you using?



They were all edited on the older, now-obsolete VSCOcam app. The first and third were preset #5, although I'm not sure what else I might have tweaked. The middle one was present #7 although again, I'm not sure what settings I might have tweaked on it.


----------



## Tang

Don't underestimate the iPhone camera in good light!

Quiz time: Pentax or iPhone? 




grassy reflections by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Pentax for sure.


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> Pentax for sure.





The blacks are super clean.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Any of you guys use instagram? I'm @jeffhenryalex. Hook me up with your IG names.


----------



## Philligan

JeffFromMtl said:


> Any of you guys use instagram? I'm @jeffhenryalex. Hook me up with your IG names.



Followed.  Mine's philbabbey. Anyone else add me if you're down.  I don't post a ton of crazy shots, it's all phone stuff so far.


----------



## Tang

Followed both of y'all. 

Mine IG name is nrrfed


----------



## Faine

mines TomFainePhotos

but I'll warn ya. It's mostly cars. lol


----------



## capoeiraesp

Here are some photos from my iPhone 5s with VSCO cam app.


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

ThePhilosopher said:


> Pentax for sure.



Seconded. To my amateur eye, DOF is too thin for an iPhone, and dat dynamic range. 


Also, hit me up on IG @grandaxstone ,followed anyone else with their names up.


----------



## Tang

Paul Reed Shred said:


> Seconded. To my amateur eye, DOF is too thin for an iPhone, and dat dynamic range.
> 
> 
> Also, hit me up on IG @grandaxstone ,followed anyone else with their names up.



Thanks, and you guys are right. To get iPhone levels of DOF I'd have to stop down to f/16 or so.


----------



## Wretched

Something NOT light painted from me for a change of pace! I shot this VL last night for Aussie Muscle Enthusiast magazine. Beautiful resto job.

It's a composite of two or three frames, using a CPL filter to control the reflections.


----------



## Tang

I think it's pretty obvious which camera these came from..


----------



## Kwirk

Shot Trivium last night. Here's some from the set:


















Full set here


----------



## Tang

Those look great, dude! What gear are you using? Looks like a longer lens to my eyes which works well in show photography. All my recent show pics were done with a 35mm and as close to the front as I could manage. Not an ideal situation. 

Here's one I took of Battlecross' bass player. Dude was intense. I love how ISO6400 looks once you convert to b&w. No noise reduction added. 






Bonus picture of a picture.. erm.. video.


----------



## Kwirk

Yeah, B&W with grain works a lot of the time for concert photography. I used a 6D with three lenses: 24mm, 50mm, and a 100mm. I bought the 100mm literally the day before the show (so Monday), and got it shipped via 1 day. So this was my first time using it, ever. Haha. I had my ISO a littler higher than I probably should have for this show. I was using 8000 and 12800. I definitely could have gotten away with 6400 or lower.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> I love how ISO6400 looks once you convert to b&w. No noise reduction added.



APS-C FTW. 

Honestly, I could be the odd one out, but noise doesn't really bother me. If it's really bad, like maxed out ISO, it's gotta be B&W because the colour noise bugs me, but I don't mind grain at all. I add it most of the time now; a bit on pretty much all my colour edits, and more for my B&W.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Here's some ISO25600 - the only light was seeping under the door:





and one from the shoot as a little preview:


----------



## Tang

I think I just took over 500 pictures during Tesseract's set. 

Holy. Shit.


----------



## Kwirk

Tang said:


> I think I just took over 500 pictures during Tesseract's set.
> 
> Holy. Shit.



Haha, yeah man. I took just under 600 at Trivium. And that was only for the first three songs.


----------



## Rook

Anyone ever play with one of these?

Fujifilm GF670W Professional Rangefinder Film Camera F/S Free Shipping NEW 74101190892 | eBay

I'll post some more stuff soon, I'm having one of those phases where I realise everything I've done up to now is a pile of crap and think I know why, so I'm going to work on some new OMG REVELATION stuff this weekend (going into town to shoot) and I'll throw up an explanation of where I'm at then.

EDIT:
Just found out this exists. All I care about with a MF body is that it can take good glass, the mechanism only has to work. This comes with a Zeiss 80 2.8, sounds pretty great to me! £150!! That wouldn't even buy you a Hassy film cartridge haha.

Pentacon Six TL Medium Format | eBay


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> Just found out this exists. All I care about with a MF body is that it can take good glass, the mechanism only has to work. This comes with a Zeiss 80 2.8, sounds pretty great to me! £150!! That wouldn't even buy you a Hassy film cartridge haha.
> 
> Pentacon Six TL Medium Format | eBay



This lens is from 1970-75. Jena lenses made after the 60's aren't known for being reliable. Heard of a lot with issues. Mainly blade issues.
Plus any Jena lenses made after the War were made in the same factory that made Contax lenses in East Germany.
The DDP on the lens means _Deutsche Demokratische Republik._ In other words the German Democratic Republic who nationalized all of the Zeiss assets within East Germany.

I wouldn't bother with the lens


----------



## Philligan

I took this out and about the other day.


----------



## Philligan

And here are some from the band shoot. I didn't take many photos, I was mostly just doing flash stuff for Dan.  So I pretty much just grabbed some behind-the-scenes stuff. It made me realize that 50 isn't near wide enough - gotta get that Sigma asap haha.













We wandered around downtown looking for some spots that had at least some shade, and ended up finding an alley beside a parking garage that was covered in crazy graffiti. I got a few more shots of the alley, but I haven't had time to really look at them all and see what turned out.


----------



## Whammy

Saw a few people sharing the contents of their camera bag. Thought I'd share mine.






It changes from time to time but currently this is it...

Top:
Canon 5d MKII with an Olympus Zuiko 40mm f2 lens attached. It's a pancake lens. Super small.

Left column top to bottom:
Migraine medication 
Olympus Zuiko 24mm f2
Olympus Zuiko 55mm f1.2
Canon EF 85mm f1.2 MKII

Middle column top to bottom:
Shure Beta 58 (custom paint job)
Sennheiser HD25 Headphones
Microphone cable

Right column top to bottom:
Random cables and connectors
Shure SM7B

I've currently joined a band again as the vocalist hence the camera equipment being replaced with mics 

The bag can be a bit big but so far it has served me very well


----------



## Khoi

hey y'all,

I haven't really been inspired since getting half my gear jacked in Costa Rica, but I finally finished sorting through over 4,500 shots from my trip. 

Now that I look back, losing most of my gear made me really evaluate the stuff I actually use and value the most. I found that I never used my 24-105mm once the entire trip, and because I'd much rather shoot with primes. I also never used my monopod but really enjoyed the tripod a lot more. 

I took some of my favorite pictures I've ever taken, and I'm very pleased with how the colors turned out.

Take a gander at a little photonarrative of my adventure!


https://briannguyen.exposure.so/post-24386


----------



## Wretched

I'm HoskingInd on instagram.


----------



## Tang

Nice shots, Khoi. Some pretty epic waves there, too!

Due to my stupidity, the only band I shot with my Pentax last night was TesseracT, but here's some ok-quality iPhone shots of Intronaut. 











I don't regret not shooting Cloudkicker's set, but I took a few iPhone shots and made a small diptic of them.


----------



## Philligan

Those Intronaut shots are great, as is Intronaut.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> Those Intronaut shots are great, as is Intronaut.



Thanks dude! I saw those lasers they were using and immediately put my Pentax away. I know they probably weren't powerful enough to do damage but better safe than sorry, ya know?

Currently editing the TesseracT shots an while i don't like to to brag, I got some killer shots. Soon.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

This makes me mad that I was screwed by a well-known Houston band on a media pass to shoot in a venue that doesn't allow DSLRs.


----------



## flint757

Yeah quite a few Houston venues are pretty strict about cameras.


----------



## Tang

Yeah, for some reason I assumed all venues barred DSLR's, but the last two shows I shot I walked in with the camera with no problem.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Gotta love that weird iPhone lens flare.


----------



## loqtrall

Tried incredibly too hard to get this with my cheap ass camera. But, I'm no photographer.


----------



## Tang

It's a good start 

I posted this shot earlier but deleted it because I wasn't happy with the white balance. This is the improved version.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

This guy arrived in the mail while I was at work today. It's cosmetically MINT, which is pretty cool for a 47 year-old camera. The battery compartment is also 100% free of any corrosion, which seems to be rare with these. Now I'm just waiting for the weird 4.5v battery that should be getting here monday. I'm not sure if it's functional, but it only cost me $36, so I figured I would give it a shot.


----------



## Tang

Beyond thrilled at how my Tesseract shots turned out. Here's a sneak preview 




IMGP1411 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Kwirk

Exposure and B&W is nice. Try to get the focus on his face though, looks like you were focusing dead center on his bass.


----------



## Tang

Kwirk said:


> Exposure and B&W is nice. Try to get the focus on his face though, looks like you were focusing dead center on his bass.



Thanks man. I consistently kept my focus points on everyone's faces but the autofocus would occasionally loose tracking. In this shot I figured it was good enough for web use. Having all cross-type focus points is a huge godsend in dark venues! I also really like the noise performance I'm getting at ISO3200 and 6400.


----------



## loqtrall

Tang said:


>



Look at the guy in the front row with the red tank top staring at Acle like "How the .... is he doing that?!"


----------



## capoeiraesp

I had the absolute pleasure of shooting Psycroptic last night here in Melbourne. I also had Joe baptise my guitar.
These were all shot on my 6D with the Sigma 35mm. I was really impressed by the performance of this combo and the experience itself was great to test the higher ISO settings. I varied between about ISO800 when at F1.4 1/160 right through to ISO3200 at F4 1/100 or so.


----------



## Tang

capoeiraesp said:


> I had the absolute pleasure of shooting Psycroptic last night here in Melbourne. I also had Joe baptise my guitar.
> These were all shot on my 6D with the Sigma 35mm. I was really impressed by the performance of this combo and the experience itself was great to test the higher ISO settings. I varied between about ISO800 when at F1.4 1/160 right through to ISO3200 at F4 1/100 or so.



I love that though we're all using fairly different bodies we're getting reasonably close results, but I'd say that has more to do with the photographer than the body. That being said, I'm more than a little jealous of you 5D and 6D users. I'd take an extra stop of ISO performance no questions asked!

I was stuck at ISO3200 f/2.8 and 1/30s exposures for most of the Tesseract set with a few ISO6400 shots. Gotta love the in-body image stabilization! Very clean 3200!


----------



## patata

Wonderful mic.True workhorse







Speaking of workhorses,if you're an abusive musician,get a fender bass.





Unedited



I'm using a Canon G9,edited on Ribbet.


----------



## Khoi




----------



## Rook




----------



## Tang

Farking fantastic colors, Khoi. Love it.

Rook, C&C on those Tesseract shots?

And some symmetrical iPhone action.


----------



## Philligan

Happy early birthday to me.  Dawn got me a set of four NOS rocks glasses from the '60s. 

This was another one I sent straight to my phone from the 70D and edited in Photogene. I'm not sure if the 70D sends a raw or jpg, but when I looked at the info through the EOS app it said it was a raw file. I think it was just reading what's on the card, though. I'm trying to get a feel for the wonky tone curve in Photogene.


----------



## Tang

Guys. 

Guys. 

I think we might have a new low light champion. Read it and weep. 12mp full frame sensor. Bigger photosites = better high ISO performance. 

Sony announces Alpha 7S full frame mirrorless with 4:2:2 4k video output: Digital Photography Review


----------



## Rook

Dammit Sony.

Shame I hate their colour and UI passionately.


----------



## Philligan

I shouldn't be looking for a new camera right now, but the A7s sensor's native ISO is 100-102,400.  Boost to 50-409,600.


----------



## Kwirk

Tang said:


> Guys.
> 
> Guys.
> 
> I think we might have a new low light champion. Read it and weep. 12mp full frame sensor. Bigger photosites = better high ISO performance.
> 
> Sony announces Alpha 7S full frame mirrorless with 4:2:2 4k video output: Digital Photography Review


Resize the D800 to 12mp and you could probably get similar high ISO performance, but that's not to say it won't be impressive.


----------



## capoeiraesp

I am excite!
First review of the Sigma 50mm 1.4 art.

Sigma Lens: Primes - Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM "A" (Tested) - SLRgear.com!


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I had the pleasure of recording demos of a vast array of Zilla cabs last weekend at a Studio in Bath, England with Nolly at the helm. I managed to get a few photos in - thanks to Morgan Sinclair for letting me use his D800.





































There'll be videos of the demos released in the coming weeks filmed by Pete Graves of Red Seas Fire. These cabs sound insane.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Oh man... I love the tones! And not the musical tones I can't hear.


----------



## Kwirk

capoeiraesp said:


> I am excite!
> First review of the Sigma 50mm 1.4 art.
> 
> Sigma Lens: Primes - Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM "A" (Tested) - SLRgear.com!


Skeptical about these, or anything Sigma for that matter. I bought two copies of the 18-35 f/1.8 ART and both were faulty. I sent the second copy into Sigma for adjustment. It came back working maybe 70% of the time. I even had the USB dock, which didn't help very much. All I know is it was a few months of hassle that was just not worth it. The only Sigma product that I've owned which worked flawlessly was the 10-20mm. Loved that lens.


----------



## capoeiraesp

I've only ever owned the 35mm 1.4 and it's never skipped a beat. I think their warranty is 3 years in Australia so I'm more than willing to take the plunge.


----------



## Skyblue

Wish I had a few more seconds to make sure everything is aligned- it came out out slightly off... Still like it though.


----------



## Khoi

Skyblue said:


> Wish I had a few more seconds to make sure everything is aligned- it came out out slightly off... Still like it though.



A little post-production does the trick and makes the overall impact of the image a lot stronger:


----------



## Skyblue

Khoi said:


> A little post-production does the trick and makes the overall impact of the image a lot stronger:



Thanks a lot man! I'm a newbie when it comes to filming and everything around it so I had no idea how to do that.


----------



## Rook

Kwirk said:


> Resize basically any full frame sensor to 12mp and stick a modern processor you will get similar high ISO performance, but that's not to say it won't be impressive.



fixed that for ya haha

It's a numbers game, Sony have released the vanilla A7, the super high megapixel A7R and the super high ISO A7S and all of them are Nikon sensors (well, all Nikon sensors are Sony but whatever). It'll undoubtedly be more or less the same family of sensors as the D4S, just with the pixels that bit bigger.

Nobody has yet sensibly combined life changing ISO noise performance with life changing resolution in a 35mm format, when that happens I'll be impressed.

Frankly I don't really ever use much above 400 anyway as when I'm in my element it's usually daylight, and the A7 bodies are big and noisy so I'm out on all counts here (having actually tried an A7 now) but Sony's undoubtedly making a name for itself with a genuinely original product, I've noticed Panasonic sneaking into the scene and popping their head up more recently too.



capoeiraesp said:


> I am excite!
> First review of the Sigma 50mm 1.4 art.
> 
> Sigma Lens: Primes - Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM "A" (Tested) - SLRgear.com!



That review was a little disappointing, they recommend it over other products without knowing pricing, providing any sample images (I couldn't care less how a lens flares in a lab, I have the Zeiss 85 which is probably the most ridiculously poor lab-performing lens on the market!) and just rabbeted on about how sharp it was, despite stating in their review that sharpness is a trade-off against contrast.

It's also a big-ass lens.

Looking forward to reading a proper review...


----------



## Tang

Just booked my first solo paying gig doing work I said I'd never do. Funny how time changes your perspective. 

Family portraits coming soon from Tang!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Khoi said:


> A little post-production does the trick and makes the overall impact of the image a lot stronger:



Some tilt would be even better - love non-converging verticals.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Some tilt would be even better - love non-converging verticals.



non-converging verticals has become a passion of mine recently and it's a damn shame there no reasonable TS options for Pentax.



Even going third-party with Rokinon would set me back $1,000.

http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-TSL24...=sr_1_2?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1396908489&sr=1-2


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Or: Toyo View 45CX 4x5 Large Format Film Camera with RARE Bag Ballon Bellows 411082010069 | eBay


----------



## ThePhilosopher

One from the shoot last weekend:


----------



## Philligan

Can you guys point me in the right direction to learn how to shoot and edit a half decent video?

I'm not too worried about it looking amazing. It would just be for fun to try using the video on the 70D. BBQ season is almost upon us, so I'm thinking I'd like to film my buddy grilling and try and make it as obtusely epic as possible.  60p of course haha. For now, I'm not worried about recording audio; I'd just like to put music behind it.

I've never done this before and am not looking to do a huge pile of processing. As far as picture quality goes, for the first go around, I'm fine with the movie equivalent of jpg, straight out of camera more or less. I'm more worried about learning how to actually edit the clips into a film cleanly and put music behind it.

All I've got is LR and Gimp (both probably useless) and whatever stock programs came with the camera. I'd like to do this for free if possible.


----------



## Tang

I have zero knowledge of the video side. Alas..

And now for the grand finale, the last Tesseract shots I'll post! Again, I'm pleased as punch at how these shots came out. Especially the colors.


----------



## flint757

Philligan said:


> Can you guys point me in the right direction to learn how to shoot and edit a half decent video?
> 
> I'm not too worried about it looking amazing. It would just be for fun to try using the video on the 70D. BBQ season is almost upon us, so I'm thinking I'd like to film my buddy grilling and try and make it as obtusely epic as possible.  60p of course haha. For now, I'm not worried about recording audio; I'd just like to put music behind it.
> 
> I've never done this before and am not looking to do a huge pile of processing. As far as picture quality goes, for the first go around, I'm fine with the movie equivalent of jpg, straight out of camera more or less. I'm more worried about learning how to actually edit the clips into a film cleanly and put music behind it.
> 
> All I've got is LR and Gimp (both probably useless) and whatever stock programs came with the camera. I'd like to do this for free if possible.



If you use windows I believe they have a free video editor you can download.

Movie Maker - Microsoft Windows


----------



## Tang

playing around with the 77mm f/1.8.


----------



## capoeiraesp




----------



## JeffFromMtl

First shot with the Land Camera, I tried MX. Pretty cool.


----------



## Wretched




----------



## Tang

JeffFromMtl said:


> First shot with the Land Camera, I tried MX. Pretty cool.



really like that, Jeff. 

Nice


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Wretched said:


>



Holy gorgeous.


----------



## Rook

This made me chuckle, I know people who do ALL of these hahahaha.


----------



## Azyiu

^ and the video was shot here in Hong Kong, lol!


----------



## Rook

All DigitalRev videos are!


----------



## Tang

Guys, either my enclosure or WD hiss just died. 

Always, always have more than one backup. Lesson learned. I'm extremely glad I had my latest shoot still on the SD.


----------



## Tang

I feel like I'm a thread killer, so I'll just spam it up! Beware!

31 @ f/1.8






31 @ f/5






31 @ f/8





77 @ f/8





31 @ f/8





31 @ f/8





77 @ f/8


----------



## capoeiraesp

I love being able to do what I do. Being able to take advantage of the filtered light in the workshop is something I've only recently learned how to use advantageously.


----------



## Tang

The K5ii continues to impress in low-light conditions. Shot a friends band last night and had a great time. I was the only photographer there not using a speedlite. Work with what you've got!


----------



## MrYakob

A couple snaps from my visit to Toronto. Feeling kinda moody lately I guess 



Bikes by Mr Yakob, on Flickr



Building by Mr Yakob, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Just starting to put all my Canon gear up for sale. Looks like this is actually happening...




Tang said:


> The K5ii continues to impress in low-light conditions. Shot a friends band last night and had a great time. I was the only photographer there not using a speedlite. Work with what you've got!



You're not allowed speedlites in proper venues, and rightly so it drives you nuts!

Good practice I say haha


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> Just starting to put all my Canon gear up for sale. Looks like this is actually happening...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not allowed speedlites in proper venues, and rightly so it drives you nuts!
> 
> Good practice I say haha



I prefer the non-flash look, personally. Gives my shots personality.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Did some location scouting for a shoot in May.


----------



## Tang

APSC up in this. Welcome back to the dark side, Rook! Speaking of Rook, I took a page out of his book by walking around with a longer (77mm 1.8) lens all day and trying to incorporate the compression into my compositions. 






And a shot only guitar players will appreciate.


----------



## Philligan

I was heading out of work today and there was this awesome rat rod in the parking lot. This is my cheater edit, VSCO on my iPhone. 



Ratrod at work! by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Rook said:


> Just starting to put all my Canon gear up for sale. Looks like this is actually happening...



Going the Fuji route?


----------



## Philligan

Dawn and I went for a walk along the water tonight, and I finally got around to taking some long exposures of Detroit from across the river. Man, ISO 100 at night is awesome. 

We have to watch True Detective, but if I have time after I'll process them and post them tonight.


----------



## Philligan

Bam!



Detroit from Windsor by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

How are you liking True Detective, Phil? I was on my second viewing when my external HDD died. Goddamnit. I really, really enjoyed it and can't wait to see what cast hey use next season. 

So, my friends. What's better than twins playing indie rock? Not much  used the 77mm 1.8 for thse two.


----------



## MrYakob

6D WiFi transfer to iPad, Lightroom Mobile to process. Gotta love technology 



Mer Bleu Bog Trails by Mr Yakob, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I've been more or less bedridden since Wednesday, but I got the call a couple days ago saying that my LC-A is up and running again. If I'm feeling the trip to the shop, I might pick it up this afternoon. I've got a roll of Fuji Provia 100F I picked up last week that I'm looking forward to shooting with it.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> How are you liking True Detective, Phil? I was on my second viewing when my external HDD died. Goddamnit. I really, really enjoyed it and can't wait to see what cast hey use next season.



I'm hooked, it's kinda slow but super intense. I dig that, because every line everyone says has weight to it. We're three episodes in. 



MrYakob said:


> 6D WiFi transfer to iPad, Lightroom Mobile to process. Gotta love technology



That looks great, wifi ftw. How do you like LR mobile? Do you need to have the adobe subscription instead of just owning LR?


----------



## Rook

So ALL my Canon stuff sold overnight.

Guys I'm scared...


In other news I picked up a blackrapid strap today, which is frigging great! Also found the 50mm f/2 for my pentax k1000.

Now planning my budget for what gear I want. Don't want to spend it all. Fuji XT1 is first up.


----------



## Kwirk

Rook said:


> In other news I picked up a blackrapid strap today, which is frigging great! Also found the 50mm f/2 for my pentax k1000.



Love my Blackrapid strap.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> In other news I picked up a blackrapid strap today, which is frigging great! Also found the 50mm f/2 for my pentax k1000.



Heh, Rook and Pentax. Is that the k-mount or m42 50?


----------



## Rook

K mount!

It's the short, stubby one.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> K mount!
> 
> It's the short, stubby one.



Nice! Love that old manual glass. 

C&C please, friends. I know my Pentax struggles with low-light AF but it bonk these are mostly good. Pardon any reposts! 





















Bonus 77 pics!


----------



## Philligan

Blackrapid!

edit: C&C so it's a productive post.  They're all solid, but I really, really dig both of the foot ones. It seems like a happy medium between a silhouette and a detailed subject, and they both look pretty unique. Like they were taken by a guitar player, but it's not just a shot of gear.


----------



## Rook

Nice work tang, I like them! The only things that immediately spring to mind are: 
- the trem arm tip on the fender is cut off
- the edges of the caravan (i don't know what you guys call them, the last one) are a little too tight for me, that's entirely my opinion
- the foot on the pedal is nice, I'd like to see some sharpening on that though
- second shot's nice overall, I like that
- the drummer shot could do without all that dead space on the right IMO, it's not symmetrical enough to sit dead centre for me and the subject is looking into the farm from camera right to camera left, so put him on the right would be my move. I also don't think you need the whole drum kit in there as it's distracting and not in focus. Not sure though, I'd have to see it. I'd have his face on the upper right third intersection though.
- On second thought I'd ditch some of the empty space on the right hand side of the foot on the pedal too.

Sorry for the funny order, and none of them are necessary as such I'm just being super fussy.

As for my gear budgeting:

I'm gunna list everything I'd buy in an ideal world, but I want to try to break it down into some sort of priorities list over the next month based on what I'll actually use and how much.

I'm including prices to make it a little clearer how I'm going to be prioritising.

- Fujifilm XT-1 - £1049
- Pocket Wizard Plus III pair - £200
- Wide angle/ultra wide lens for Fuji
- Hasselblad 500C/M and 80mm 2.8 (with cartridge and hip-level finder) - £6-800 depending on condition and reputation of seller
- Portrait lens for Fuji - 60mm 2.4 macro (don't want) £400, 56mm 1.2 £900, 50-140 (70-200 equiv) isn't out yet, £???
- Decent scanner for film - £???
- Big-ass soft box and/or flash bender, umbrella... SOMETHING to make my (430EX) flash bigger. Don't need a big complex setup, I just want to be able to do staged portraiture properly and would like to be able to carry it around reasonably easily. - £??? Less than £100 ideally - no point without Hassy or portrait lens, don't wanna do 35mm (equiv) portraits.
- Guerilla pod - hehe - £70 including ball-head

All prices are new except the Hassy.

I don't _need_ any of this stuff, particularly short term, but I am left with the X-Pro1 and the 23mm and that's it, so next time I travel or when I have time to start building up my portrait portfolio I'm a bit stuffed. I want to pursue portraiture as a 'thing', maybe sell some stuff in a few years, but I want to run that alongside my street 'work' as a defining goal of my photography.

Cheaper stuff I can buy all in one go in replacement of one of the bigger items.

I'm not asking you guys what order I should buy it in, you can't answer that, but maybe you have some comments on the question mark stuff, or have some clever questions you can ask me that you ask yourself when decision making that might help.

I'm not looking to rush to buy all of it at all. I'm a one lens guy, I could nd up buying the 56mm and only using the XT and 56 and XPro and 23mm and that be it for digital for the next 5 years, I like the challenge of working with what I have instead of buying everything I could possibly need.

To expand on the Hassy, I'm desperate to shoot medium format film and I just love Hasselblad SLR's. I'm going to be shooting HP5 and want to use it partly on the street when I can be bothered, I know, HASSEL (hehe), and for portraiture with a natural or one-light setup. I'm open to other MF systems, I love the medium format tonality, but the system itself is part of the attraction, and I *would* use it about a third or a quarter as much as I do the Fuji stuff.

As for the Fuji, however, I'm without a really fast, snappy camera. My X-Pro is great, but the only times I've used the 6D since I got it are for lower light scenarios or situations where I just have to get a shot because it's a faster focus. The XT-1 is super fast to focus and adds phase detection over the X-Pro, it's the solution, but I don't know the next time such a situation will arise, and I also don't know if just the 23mm will suffice for that.

So if you're still reading, I've basically managed using just my X-Pro1 and 23mm (or the 35mm instead when I had it) juuuuust fine, so there's zero urgency, I just want to take the opportunity to really fine tune my setup to something that isn't wildly expensive or excessive and yields maximum enjoyment for minimum cost and space. It got out of control with the Canon stuff so I'm not in a hurry to repeat that!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Rook, if you're going to be doing street photography in low light (sans tripod), you may look into a Mamiya 7-II instead. Be careful with a large modifier and a small battery-powered flash as large umbrellas and softboxes can take quite a lot of light to be effective and then remember you're going to lose at least a stop in a softbox (maybe more). A beauty dish may be the most efficient way to go, then again you run into power issues when you get to BDs that are of decent size (22"+).

Tang, I'll give you a quick run down.
1st image: I like it though the brightness of the drum kit is distracting. I wonder how that should would look shot vertically.

2nd image: This does nothing for me really.

3rd image: I really dig this shot, but I'd prefer the drummer to be on the right side of the frame with the negative space in front of him (this may not have been possible though).

4th image: Not a fan of the centered composition and the focus is on the backdrop not the guitarist.

5th image: Trem arm was already mentioned, clone out the cable and darken that light pole some.

6th image: I much prefer this to the first shot like this above, though it's far more static.

7th image: The cropping is too tight IMO as well. Needs more non-converging verticals .


----------



## MrYakob

Philligan said:


> That looks great, wifi ftw. How do you like LR mobile? Do you need to have the adobe subscription instead of just owning LR?



I've only played with it a bit, but so far it's great. It's nice to have a similar workflow on a mobile device as I have on a PC. You don't need the subscription to use the app as a standalone but if you want to use the sync feature and edit photos on your computer on the iPad then you'll need it. They give you a free 26(?) day free trial of the sync stuff if you own Lightroom though. 

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I had the app for a couple days before I updated my PC's Lightroom so the 26 days I saw was most likely a 30 day free trial from when I logged in to the app. Which means in all likelihood you'll need the subscription to use the app at all, boo.


----------



## Tang

Nick and Philosopher. Thanks! That's exactly the kind of critiques I was looking for. People on Flickr just spout endless praise, which isn't a bad thing but I'd like more meat to my photographic conversations. 

Again, it's really appreciated and I've already gone through and made notes of everything y'all said.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Not a problem, that's why I stopped posting to a photo forum I was a regular on - no one would give any honest feedback and when you did people's feelings got hurt because they asked for critique when they just wanted praise.


----------



## cdf294

Hello gents. 
I just noticed this thread and have only perused the last couple of pages.
There is some beautiful work here and I look forward to going through all 120+ pages. 
I find photography therapeutic and I enjoy it even though I am not very good at it.
I am clearly not as serious as you fellas and still have a lot to learn.
I realize that my skills are weak so please be gentle.


----------



## Khoi

Just pulled the trigger on a Canon 50mm f/1.2L lens! 

Being forced to use me 50mm really made me fall in love with primes -- I don't know if I can own a zoom anymore. But the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 wasn't quite cutting it for me, so I'm selling it to fund the 1.2!


----------



## Philligan

Khoi said:


> Just pulled the trigger on a Canon 50mm f/1.2L lens!
> 
> Being forced to use me 50mm really made me fall in love with primes -- I don't know if I can own a zoom anymore. But the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 wasn't quite cutting it for me, so I'm selling it to fund the 1.2!





If I had a full frame, I'd rock my 50 1.4 pretty much constantly. I do anyway, but it's because it's my only real lens right now. 

Here's a wider one of Detroit. I originally passed it over, because the sky didn't look good that night and there was some long grass sticking up in the bottom corner, but I thought to crop it down to just the stuff that matters and I think it turned out pretty good. It was definitely overexposed, but I pulled it by a stop or so - this one took some more extreme processing compared to the first one I posted, but I think they ended up looking comparable.



Detroit at night by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Khoi: agreed about primes. If I don't need the versatility of my zooms I'll use my primes all day every day. My current favorite is my 31mm f/1 .8 which is pretty close to 50mm f/2.8 on FF. I'd need a 1.2 lens to get a f/1.8 equiv. please give me full-frame Pentax! We'd be able to compete with all the 6d's and D800's out there!

cdf: keep it up! If you look at my history in this thread you'll see that I was awful. Just awful. If it makes you happy do it 

Guys. I just did baby portraits and enjoyed it. Really enjoyed it. My 77mm f/1.8 really stole the show today. Close enough to 85, right Rook?


----------



## Rook

ThePhilosopher said:


> Rook, if you're going to be doing street photography in low light (sans tripod), you may look into a Mamiya 7-II instead. Be careful with a large modifier and a small battery-powered flash as large umbrellas and softboxes can take quite a lot of light to be effective and then remember you're going to lose at least a stop in a softbox (maybe more). A beauty dish may be the most efficient way to go, then again you run into power issues when you get to BDs that are of decent size (22"+).



I have looked at Mamiya but they sell for rather a lot more here than I can pull together a full Hassy system. I also like the idea, with the Hasselblad, of being able to carry around 2 or 3 cartridges and get a Polaroid back too if I feel like being really silly. I take your point, but I'm aiming either to use it in the street at f/8 which, with a 400 film (HP5 or Portra) which I would only really do in decent light (should be able to pull 1/250 in sun or 1/125 in shade no trouble), or for portraits in controlled light.

Interesting point on the lighting stuff by the way. I'm gunna go cheap to begin with, I already have a crappy softbox that takes about a stop, but I still have plenty of spare power, seldom going past 1/16. Beauty dish sounds like fun, if I can get a cheap stand and ST umbrella, maybe I'll pick up a dish as well! I'm living out my strobist fantasies a little at the moment though heh.

Exciting times. I won't be buying anything for a fair while, I really want to take my time, but it's nice to have options.


----------



## Tang

Rook, have you thought about going Pentax medium format? I'd love an SLR style MF body. They are a bit expensive, though.

If I were in the MF market I'd probably get a Mayima 6x7 or a Pentax 645. 

http://m.ebay.com/itm?itemId=151263341861

EDIT: of course I enjoy doing artsier stuff but there's not really a market for that, afaik. Alas. All of these below were the 77 1.8


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm contemplating a Pentax as well - the 645D if I could sell my Nikon gear for a good amount.


----------



## Tang

So team Pentax announced their new digital medium format body and it's dead sexy. Posting some pics of it for y'all. 











and a picture taken with a significantly smaller sensor.


----------



## Philligan

The top LCD on that looks huge. 

Is that an articulating LCD or just the removable back?


----------



## Randy

First real contribution to this thread






D3100, Quantaray 55-200, 135mm, f/4.5, 1/320, ISO-100

Lightroom -> Punch preset -> Vignetting -26


----------



## Kwirk

Anyone shoot the moon last night?

Here's a composite from a few shots that I got:


----------



## flint757

I did, but I haven't had a chance to do anything with them.


----------



## Philligan

That looks really killer, dude. I might have to make that my wallpaper.


----------



## Kwirk

Philligan said:


> That looks really killer, dude. I might have to make that my wallpaper.


Thanks! Here's a 1920x1080 version if you want it.


----------



## Tang

Welcome to the thread, Randy!

So here're some baby pics. Had a great time shootin this, strangely enough. I also don't see many guys doing this kind of work in Jacksonville. Women have a monopoly of family/baby portraits, apparently. 

I really changed up my post processing style on these. Pushed them all a stop and a half and decreased contrast in LR to -40. I found the lens I was using had so much contrast naturally that it was overwhelming. 











EDIT: and actually, I think that baby bokeh shot could probably be a half stop brighter. It looks a tad underexposed on my phone.


----------



## Rook

I did think about a Pentax system, but again they cost about the same as a Hasselblad system and I'd rather have a Hasselblad brick shit house system with all the modular stuff and blah blah.

I want to shoot medium format, yes, but I also want to enjoy the system and the 645 and Mamiya and so on, apart from being incredibly expensive, aren't as easy to get serviced or get parts or accessories for here, and besides the 500 series is a bit of an icon to me.

If anyone here's ever used a Hasselblad slr system, you'll know how rewarding the whole process feels, and I love how beautifully mechanically made they are too.

I dunno, as they're about the cheapest option AND the one I'm most emotionally involved in, as well as best supported, it's gunna be hard to sway me off the 500C/M I think heh.



Khoi said:


> Just pulled the trigger on a Canon 50mm f/1.2L lens!
> 
> Being forced to use me 50mm really made me fall in love with primes -- I don't know if I can own a zoom anymore. But the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 wasn't quite cutting it for me, so I'm selling it to fund the 1.2!



Just sold my 50 1.2!

I'm more of a 35mm (equivalent) guy anyway, and have developed something of a grudge against Canon and Nikon of late, I'm trying not to be too childish about it.

Congratulations though, that lens is an absolute killer, best Canon makes IMO.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang, they both look a bit under to me as well.


----------



## Rook

^Agreed, those are the type of photos I'd 'artistically' over expose, actually. 1/3 or 2/3 above 'correct' just to make the baby's skin go that silky ivory white and add a moody glow to the image.


----------



## Khoi

Rook said:


> Just sold my 50 1.2!
> 
> I'm more of a 35mm (equivalent) guy anyway, and have developed something of a grudge against Canon and Nikon of late, I'm trying not to be too childish about it.
> 
> Congratulations though, that lens is an absolute killer, best Canon makes IMO.



It was either a 50 1.2, 85 1.2, or another 135. I figured the 50 was the most versatile until I can afford to pick up another 135, I love that lens.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> ^Agreed, those are the type of photos I'd 'artistically' over expose, actually. 1/3 or 2/3 above 'correct' just to make the baby's skin go that silky ivory white and add a moody glow to the image.



Agreed with both of you guys. 1/2 to 2/3 stop will be perfect. 

I deliberately underexposed so I wouldn't lose my highlights, but maybe I didn't need to? After doing post and seeing how much headroom I have at ISO80 I could've exposed at 0 or +1 exposure comp without blowing the highlights. The other option is shoot in full manual and just keep my eye on the EV value.

And before anyone says something about ISO80, the K5ii's base ISO has been tested closer to ISO80 than 100. If I recall, it's something like ISO85.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang said:


> Agreed with both of you guys. 1/2 to 2/3 stop will be perfect.
> 
> I deliberately underexposed so I wouldn't lose my highlights, but maybe I didn't need to? After doing post and seeing how much headroom I have at ISO80 I could've exposed at 0 or +1 exposure comp without blowing the highlights. The other option is shoot in full manual and just keep my eye on the EV value.
> 
> And before anyone says something about ISO80, the K5ii's base ISO has been tested closer to ISO80 than 100. If I recall, it's something like ISO85.



Try copying the red channel as a layer set to screen, adjust opacity.


----------



## Randy

Khoi said:


> Just pulled the trigger on a Canon 50mm f/1.2L lens!
> 
> Being forced to use me 50mm really made me fall in love with primes -- I don't know if I can own a zoom anymore. But the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 wasn't quite cutting it for me, so I'm selling it to fund the 1.2!



Out of curiosity, what's the main issue with the 1.4 vs. the 1.2? Is it a matter of the specific lens itself (Sigma's not bad, but I know some people prefer a real Canon or Nikkor lens for build quality) or is it about the extra .2 out of the aperture? I'm far far far far far FAR from an expert, but my brother-in-law's got a shit ton of lenses I've swapped in and out as I've been experimenting, and I haven't encountered any scenarios where the 1.2 made the difference between getting a decent shot or not. 

Not giving you shit, you know more than I do. If there's a scenario where you're lacking and that makes the difference, I'd like to know because I still have a lot of environments I haven't gotten to spend a lot of time shooting.


----------



## Khoi

Randy said:


> Out of curiosity, what's the main issue with the 1.4 vs. the 1.2? Is it a matter of the specific lens itself (Sigma's not bad, but I know some people prefer a real Canon or Nikkor lens for build quality) or is it about the extra .2 out of the aperture? I'm far far far far far FAR from an expert, but my brother-in-law's got a shit ton of lenses I've swapped in and out as I've been experimenting, and I haven't encountered any scenarios where the 1.2 made the difference between getting a decent shot or not.
> 
> Not giving you shit, you know more than I do. If there's a scenario where you're lacking and that makes the difference, I'd like to know because I still have a lot of environments I haven't gotten to spend a lot of time shooting.



No problem at all, I'm glad you asked.

For me, it's all about image quality. The Sigma 1.4 was just too soft for me to be usable at 1.4. The Canon is still sharp and very usable even at 1.2, and for me that's a big deal because I do a lot of shooting indoors where low-light performance is pretty valuable. I'm also just a stickler for trying to have the sharpest possible shots (but many people disagree with that idea). So it really comes down to preference, and just which lens suits my purposes better.

So in all: the Canon 1.2 focuses faster, has a much better build quality (weather sealed), stops down to 1.2, is as sharp as the Sigma at 1.2 than the Sigma is at 1.4, and has a smoother and longer focus ring throw (important for video).

Take a look at this video, it does a VERY good job at explaining the differences between the 3 main Canon 50mm lenses (1.2, 1.4, and 1.8). The Sigma would have been comparable to the Canon 1.4, except just a little sharper.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Rook said:


> I did think about a Pentax system, but again they cost about the same as a Hasselblad system and I'd rather have a Hasselblad brick shit house system with all the modular stuff and blah blah.
> 
> I want to shoot medium format, yes, but I also want to enjoy the system and the 645 and Mamiya and so on, apart from being incredibly expensive, aren't as easy to get serviced or get parts or accessories for here, and besides the 500 series is a bit of an icon to me.
> 
> If anyone here's ever used a Hasselblad slr system, you'll know how rewarding the whole process feels, and I love how beautifully mechanically made they are too.
> 
> I dunno, as they're about the cheapest option AND the one I'm most emotionally involved in, as well as best supported, it's gunna be hard to sway me off the 500C/M I think heh.
> 
> 
> 
> Just sold my 50 1.2!
> 
> I'm more of a 35mm (equivalent) guy anyway, and have developed something of a grudge against Canon and Nikon of late, I'm trying not to be too childish about it.
> 
> Congratulations though, that lens is an absolute killer, best Canon makes IMO.




Dude, I wish I knew you were selling so soon.


----------



## Tang

Taken with my 35mm 2.4. Going for texture.


----------



## MrYakob

Seems like the reviews on the Sigma 50 1.4 ART are coming out pretty positive... May have to reconsider my decision to pick up the 50 1.2 and save a few bucks.


----------



## Tang

MrYakob said:


> Seems like the reviews on the Sigma 50 1.4 ART are coming out pretty positive... May have to reconsider my decision to pick up the 50 1.2 and save a few bucks.



How do you feel about bokeh and general rendering quality? No doubt that Sigma is shaping up to be a wonderful lens, but there's no substitute for that glorious 50 1.2 rendering.


----------



## capoeiraesp

I picked up an 85mm 1.8 recently and have been giving a good burl. Not an amazing lens performance wise (not super fast, misses a bit) but I'm pleased with the results.



Esplanade Youth Plaza, Fremantle. by Mat Hieu, on Flickr



Esplanade Youth Plaza, Fremantle. by Mat Hieu, on Flickr



Esplanade Youth Plaza, Fremantle. by Mat Hieu, on Flickr


----------



## MrYakob

Tang said:


> How do you feel about bokeh and general rendering quality? No doubt that Sigma is shaping up to be a wonderful lens, but there's no substitute for that glorious 50 1.2 rendering.



That's kind of the dilemma I'm facing with the choice. No doubt the Sigma is super sharp and has faster AF (from what I've read obviously), but some of the bokeh I've seen in test shots is downright unpleasant IMO. I'm hoping that the Sigma does well so it drives down the used price on the 1.2 a little bit.


----------



## Rook

^No way, you think all the money that 1.2 costs is because of the quality? It's like 30% badge and 30% 1.2 mojo at least!

Turns out my 1.2 hasn't sold, dude was an ass, so I have to resell ha.


----------



## MrYakob

Fair enough, mostly just wishful thinking on my part


----------



## Tang

Just booked two more sessions on the 'strength' of those baby portraits I did the other day. I'll be able to afford a nice 85 1.4 soon


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Some tests I shot with Astia on my Bronica; this reminds me why I want a digital medium format so badly. Forgive the splotches, I had some issues loading the film (out of practice) and it kinked badly. These are some crappy stock 300dpi scans of the slides (no adjustments in the scanning software).


Bronica ETRSi w/75mm f/2.8


----------



## metal_sam14

Awwwwww yis


----------



## Philligan

Nice! That's hopefully gonna be me soon.  What body?


----------



## metal_sam14

Philligan said:


> Nice! That's hopefully gonna be me soon.  What body?



650D (T4i over the pond)

I needed something better for low light stuff, and while the 6D is calling my name my car was calling it louder  

So this was my compromise, I am playing a gig tomorrow night so I will do some low light tests and upload them on the weekend


----------



## Kwirk

^I hope you got a good copy dude. I went through two of those, plus sent one in to Sigma and I still couldn't get the damn thing to focus. Gave up on it and will be avoiding Sigma whenever possible from now on.


----------



## metal_sam14

Kwirk said:


> ^I hope you got a good copy dude. I went through two of those, plus sent one in to Sigma and I still couldn't get the damn thing to focus. Gave up on it and will be avoiding Sigma whenever possible from now on.



Mine seems fine, here is an F1.8 DOF whore shot (I focused on the turtle's legs):


----------



## Kwirk

metal_sam14 said:


> Mine seems fine, here is an F1.8 DOF whore shot (I focused on the turtle's legs):


Looks good. When I got mine back from Sigma, it would focus about half the time. The other half it would miss. It would mess up at certain distances from the subject as well. Tack sharp when it focused and built like a tank. I went with the 6D route instead though.


----------



## Tang

So despite all the various awesome primes I use on a daily basis, my Tamron 17-50 2.8 is still the workhorse and my most used lens. Sure, it can be a little soft in the corners but it general I love the vibe it gives shots. 

This was taken yesterday with the Tammy.


----------



## MrYakob

Tang said:


> So despite all the various awesome primes I use on a daily basis, my Tamron 17-50 2.8 is still the workhorse and my most used lens. Sure, it can be a little soft in the corners but it general I love the vibe it gives shots.



That lens is the one thing I miss about moving up to full frame, wish I could have kept it


----------



## Khoi

Just ordered some business cards! I'm starting out simple for now, but I just need something to give to people. I always felt a bit silly when people ask me for my business card and I have nothing to give.


----------



## Tang

Khoi, I keep getting requests for business cards too. Guess I should get on that. 

Yours looks great by the way.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'll just leave this teaser here:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Scans of from my trip to the zoo with some of my photo students. All shot with my Bronica ETRSi, 75mm f/2.8, Astia 100 and developed at home.


----------



## Michael

From the Kreator show on Wednesday night.


----------



## capoeiraesp

More good press for the Sigma 50mm 1.4 art. Looks sharp!

DxOMark: The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art Series Lens 'Comes Seriously Close' to the Otus


----------



## Dalcan

I'm getting back into photography, and this poor sap stepped up and let me take some photos of him. Any feedback is ALWAYS appreciated.

Focal Length 35mm Shutter Speed 1/250 secs Aperture f/3.6 ISO/Film 200


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I don't like how close his hands are to the bottom of the frame (and bits chopped off) and the centered composition does nothing for me here (it'd work better if the background was symmetrical).

Do you have a version shot portrait and/or from higher camera height angled slightly downward?

I'd like to see more separation of tones in his face so it doesn't look so flat, try burning in some on his right side jawline and dodging in areas that would be more lit to provide some definition.


----------



## Dalcan

ThePhilosopher said:


> I don't like how close his hands are to the bottom of the frame (and bits chopped off) and the centered composition does nothing for me here (it'd work better if the background was symmetrical).
> 
> Do you have a version shot portrait and/or from higher camera height angled slightly downward?
> 
> I'd like to see more separation of tones in his face so it doesn't look so flat, try burning in some on his right side jawline and dodging in areas that would be more lit to provide some definition.



I wish I did. I was shooting up hill. I tried to get it as level as I could. The reason for shooting uphill was to get the sun behind him.

I will definitely try around the jaw and the neck. Thanks a lot!


----------



## Tang

TP: love the tones in those zoo shots. Especially that giraffe shot. 

Guys, I've joined the dark side.. finally.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I wish I had brought my CPL and monopod for shooting through the glass with the lions and inside the animal houses.

Some from the E-PL3 and Sigma 60mm f/2.8:


----------



## Tang

Really like the shot of the otter swimming! Just the right amount of motion blur!

Here're the first shots with my speedlite. I can't believe how much I needed this in my life.


----------



## Rook

Get yourself a flashbender and see how you like it even more!

Haha.

Off camera flash is big on my list at the moment.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That otter was a pain to capture; lighting is an expensive hobby, good luck.


----------



## Khoi

Tang said:


> TP: love the tones in those zoo shots. Especially that giraffe shot.
> 
> Guys, I've joined the dark side.. finally.



funny you got that, cuz I just got this for my flash today!

Flash is a whole different beast. It's fun! but there will be a lot of frustration and trial and error.


----------



## Tang

Had some fun walking around our downtown just focusing on light and composition. All of these were K5ii + Tamron 17-50. I'm fairly confident this is some of my best work, ever. Well, maybe. 



yellow insect by nrrfed, on Flickr



cheating lines by nrrfed, on Flickr



red fence by nrrfed, on Flickr



the call by nrrfed, on Flickr



fives and threes by nrrfed, on Flickr

HOLY SHIT. It appears I've subconsciously absorbed the rule of thirds into my visual vocabulary. I definitely was not consciously trying to incorporate any 'rules' into these shots, trust me!


----------



## Philligan

Dawn and I hung out with some friends today and went to a greenhouse kinda thing and a park in Point Peelee (most southern part of Canada). I got a few shots at the greenhouse, maybe, but in the park we ended up running into some deer.  and caught the sunset on the beach. 

We're moving back to Sarnia tomorrow morning so I won't have time to go through them yet, but I used the awesome 70D's awesome wifi to do up a quick one on my phone. My buddy and I were creeping through the woods like crazy after we spotted the first deer  and ended up seeing about a dozen before we left.


----------



## Berti_smb

I shot this the other day after a quick spring rain  Canon 550d + Sigma 24-70 2.8 (it wasnt set to raw - dont know why, so it was jpeg but it turned nice). Lightroom processing




Water Drops by -berti-, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Using telephoto compression to my advantage:
















Let me know if I'm posting too much.


----------



## Rook

YOU'RE POSTING TOO MUCH



I found out today that the guy who said he'd be able to process my films has decided he can't do medium format unless it's Portra 160. Forgive me if I'm being stupid, he processes and sells HP5 Plus 135, what difference does it make if it's 120?!! He won't do it though, only 160, and he wants £10 a time (more than the film itself) to do it, which isn't what we originally talked about. He's literally the only guy around I trust, so unless I find a mail order processor, MF film's off the table for now.

That made that decision easier! I'll pick it up again when I have the space to do it myself...


Here's some of my shitty shit that I hate but whatever.

I really liked this til I realised his face was blurred. I'm not a professional though so screw it haha


Laughing on Step by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

This was another one I loved at the time, I don't know how clear it is that he's actually looking at her though...


Street Food by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

What would you guys say is the subject of this image?


Red Hat 2 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

like this one


Chinatown Alley by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

this one makes me chuckle, can't put my finger on why.


Museum Sitters by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Rook:   seriously though I love the reds in that first shot. 

Here's my best Whammy impression. I got soaked yesterday trying to get this shot. Hello, Pentax weather resistance.


----------



## Philligan

I edited a handful from last night, here's what I think is my favourite so far.



Shooting the sunset by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Rook, I always dig your shit 

Phil, I really dig the mood in that shot. Nice, satiny smooth textures, too.

A couple Polaroids from today


----------



## flint757

Rook said:


> This was another one I loved at the time, I don't know how clear it is that he's actually looking at her though...
> 
> 
> Street Food by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Yeah, it isn't really obvious. It looks like he's looking at the food. If your were at a little bit more of an angle it might have been more obvious I think.



Rook said:


> What would you guys say is the subject of this image?
> 
> 
> Red Hat 2 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



The guy walking away. That's what jumps out most immediately to me at least. Second thing that pops out is the dudes hat in the buggy.


----------



## Philligan

JeffFromMtl said:


> Rook, I always dig your shit
> 
> Phil, I really dig the mood in that shot. Nice, satiny smooth textures, too.
> 
> A couple Polaroids from today



Those are both awesome, but the second one especially.


----------



## Philligan

Here are a couple others I dug. Not sure if they're worthy or Flickr or not yet. 













We tried taking some long exposures of skipping stones, but my buddy has an insanely old Rebel with a tiny screen and no live view, so I have no idea how it went haha. I tried doing as fast a shutter speed as I could in the low light and used the 7fps to try and freeze some skipping. A few of them turned out pretty good but this one really stuck out for some reason. I then apparently thought it would be a good idea to make it look like it came from a Holga.


----------



## Tang

I'm taking a 12 hour break from posting more shots, but more I have. 

A lot of great shots on that last page.


----------



## Joose

Hopefully no one minds car photos, as it's the only time I really take pride in what I'm doing with a camera. First photo was with my phone when I first moved to Vegas. The rest I took with a friend's camera while I was living in Colorado. Yes, I find my car photogenic!


----------



## Tang

Some nice shots there, Joose. I shot a car yesterday. Sort of!






EDIT: couldn't make it 12 hours without posting.


----------



## Whammy

Well I've missed a lot over here in the photography section. Gonna take a while to go through all the old posts.

The baby is talking up a lot of time at the moment. And now my fiancee is in the hospital with a sever case of appendicitis. She's going to be in there for a while recovering.

In the meantime I'm on my own looking after the new born.

Here is the only photo I took in the last month.


----------



## Tang

How do you guys feel about taking pictures of children in populated public places? I saw an awesome scene unfolding yesterday and before I could think twice I raised my camera and got this shot:






On the one hand I can understand why parents would defensive, but on the other.. I am on public property. I probably looked like a profession photographer (2 bodies and a speedlite) so people didn't think twice. Anyways, I'm rambling at this point but I wanted to get y'all's opinion.


----------



## Rook

The thing with children is you have to be prepared for two things:

1. Did you just take a photo of my child?
2. Why?

Answer either incorrectly you could get yourself in trouble, I avoid it, not suggesting you should though.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> The thing with children is you have to be prepared for two things:
> 
> 1. Did you just take a photo of my child?
> 2. Why?
> 
> Answer either incorrectly you could get yourself in trouble, I avoid it, not suggesting you should though.



I generally avoid it to, but if asked I would tell them I was shooting for a local magazine (which is true) and show them the shot. If they were uncomfortable I would delete the shot.


----------



## Philligan

Apparently I missed a killer sunset tonight.  I saw a hint of it from my living room window and booked it down to the water, but I was a bit late and picked a bad spot. I didn't get any keepers from that, but I moved a few blocks down and found a nicer spot, just before a freighter drove by.  I wish I'd done a faster exposure so the freighter lights popped more, but I'm still pumped that I got this. Next time I'll plan ahead and make sure I'm by the bridge before the sun goes down.



Freighter in transit by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Joose




----------



## Skyblue

Went to the beach with a friend yesterday.


----------



## Tang

Took this ladybug shot on my phone yesterday at work. Funny enough I had my Pentax with me but I figured if I went inside to grab the camera the bug would be gone. 






The iPhone definitely has decent close focusing ability though it takes some practice.

Taking a break from posting art bullshit. Have some street!


----------



## Rook

Went and got myself a Fuji 56mm 1.2 today.

Never been so instantly happy with a lens, it's small, it's light, its super fast to focus, it's beautifully colourful and sharp. Totally happy.



Gondola Swing by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Drinking Culture by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Family Time by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



On Shoulders by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Trolley Sitter by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Rook: I like those. Especially Family Time. Love that composition!

How do you feel about my street shots above?

P.s. check out this 3d pop! Microcontrast! Fairy dust lens coating! Pretty badass composition too


----------



## Winspear

Damn guys. Just caught up on the last 10 pages or so and there is so much good stuff in this thread. I haven't shot anything in a while but I went away last week and got a few I like. Think I'm definitely going to have to look into postprocessing beyond the standard few slider adjustments though! The character in some of the shots posted here is amazing.
A good number of mine turned out really crap for reasons I cannot tell, however  Bad colour or awful softness even though I was outdoors on super fast shutter speeds with careful focusing at all times! This happens fairly frequently haha. Will post soon


----------



## Winspear

Oook here's some of my favourites with some processing attempts! Harsh C&C please! 



Trees by tomwinspear91, on Flickr



Moo by tomwinspear91, on Flickr


Silhouette by tomwinspear91, on Flickr


Tree by tomwinspear91, on Flickr


Ladybug by tomwinspear91, on Flickr


The Rose by tomwinspear91, on Flickr


Anna by tomwinspear91, on Flickr


Fungus by tomwinspear91, on Flickr


Field by tomwinspear91, on Flickr


Stump by tomwinspear91, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Some nice shots. My preliminary favorite is trees, but I'll C&C when I'm not on my phone!


----------



## Winspear

Thanks! All were taken on my 600D with Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 (aside from the cow, Samyang 8mm). I'm not sure how much sticking with a zoom is hurting image quality, but I must say I think that's my thing. I can't imagine having had to change lenses when walking around on that holiday (Wiltshire, UK btw). Process at the moment is: Spot a shot, walk while adjusting zoom to find desired perspective, then zoom to find desired framing. I can't imagine trying to do this with primes haha. I guess you just get used to knowing what to pull out, but it would have been a real nuisance for me I think. Hoping to move to fullframe with a 24-70 at some point though I do think I'll miss having that extra on the end (112mm equivalent). Really comes in handy sometimes. The focusing distance on this lens is also pretty absurd - almost touching the glass at 70mm which is great for shots like the ladybug. The only thing I dislike about my current setup is that this lens is kinda too slow for indoors most of the time. A camera with better high ISO would be nice but I'm yet to try noise removal in post to be honest!


----------



## Khoi

Nice shots, definitely digging the cow nose one.

Some of the shots are a tad underexposed for my liking, and the vignette is a little too radial and strong for my tastes as well. I typically try to extend the vingette a little farther in the frame and make it thinner to remove that circle-y look to it, I don't really like the rounded edges on them. Try to make it a little more gradual with the fade.

In he cow shot, the top left corner throws it off for me. There's a lot of artifacting in the clouds there, it's a bit unnatural with the whites of the cloud blowing out all of a sudden. That may have happened in your curve adjustment layer, so I'd take a look at that. You could also consider using some spot adjustment and just lowering the exposure to match the other clouds in the sky.

The boat/river/sun shot is really nice too, I really enjoy it. I just wish there was a little bit more exposure and detail on the boat, but other than that, the mood, composition, and colors are great.


----------



## Tang

So Khoi said pretty much exactly what I was going to say so there's that!

Here's a nice reflection:


----------



## Philligan

Tom: I dig your editing. A lot are underexposed, but I think it works for them. You can still see what's going on, but they've got some more character. 

The only thing I really noticed that I didn't jive with is the vignetting, like Khoi said. It's pretty heavy on a few of them, especially the ones where you can see the defined circle. I usually don't do more than the smallest amount in my edits, I find it gets overwhelming really quickly.

edit: The cow nose shot is awesome, though. I really dig the boat one, too, but it's definitely underexposed - it's tough to see what's going in the shadows. Did you pull the exposure down to show the details in the sky? If so, try leaving the exposure and instead pull the highlights and raise the shadows, should even things out nicely. 

On another note, how do you like the Samyang fisheye on your Canon? After the Sigma 18-35, I think a fisheye is next on my list and I was looking at the Samyang/Rokinon.

No pictures for a little while, sadly. My hard drive corrupted on me last night.  I lost a couple small batches of pictures (like the deer), which sucks, but it's not the end of the world if I can't recover them. I'm still a little worried, but I think the only issue is the SSD, so it should be an easy fix. I really can't complain - the 128GB SSD in there was getting too small with the photo processing I was doing, so it's a good reason to upgrade. And this happened right in between finals and wedding season, so I lucked out there.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> Tom: I dig your editing. A lot are underexposed, but I think it works for them. You can still see what's going on, but they've got some more character.
> 
> The only thing I really noticed that I didn't jive with is the vignetting, like Khoi said. It's pretty heavy on a few of them, especially the ones where you can see the defined circle. I usually don't do more than the smallest amount in my edits, I find it gets overwhelming really quickly.
> 
> edit: The cow nose shot is awesome, though. I really dig the boat one, too, but it's definitely underexposed - it's tough to see what's going in the shadows. Did you pull the exposure down to show the details in the sky? If so, try leaving the exposure and instead pull the highlights and raise the shadows, should even things out nicely.
> 
> On another note, how do you like the Samyang fisheye on your Canon? After the Sigma 18-35, I think a fisheye is next on my list and I was looking at the Samyang/Rokinon.
> 
> No pictures for a little while, sadly. My hard drive corrupted on me last night.  I lost a couple small batches of pictures (like the deer), which sucks, but it's not the end of the world if I can't recover them. I'm still a little worried, but I think the only issue is the SSD, so it should be an easy fix. I really can't complain - the 128GB SSD in there was getting too small with the photo processing I was doing, so it's a good reason to upgrade. And this happened right in between finals and wedding season, so I lucked out there.



I know that feel.. so well. If I can't recover my external HDD that's about 10,000 RAWs..  Working on a more robust backup solution now.

Honestly, I think this is the best picture I've ever taken. God, I love photography so much.



IMGP4323-3 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Winspear

Thanks a lot for the comments guys! You're probably right about the vignette - I felt I was perhaps overdoing it haha. I haven't used the Fisheye a great deal - just a few 'novelty' shots where I feel it's appropriate - but I really like it. 

Tang, that pic is fantastic!


----------



## Rook

It turns out Fuji kit is waaaaaaaay cheaper in the US and even more so in Canada, I'm gunna get a friend of mine to send me an XT-1 and 10-24, it's probably gunna cost me only £200 more than just buying the XT-1 on its own here.

Then I'll have the X-Pro with the 10-24 in the bag (because AF doesn't matter at 15-18mm equivalent, keep it at f8) and the XT-1 and 56 1.2 (85mm 135) on my shoulder with the 23 1.4 (35mm 135) in the bag which I'll switch between using on the XT-1 for the fast accurate focus.

And ALL for less than my 6D and 50mm.

such pro. wowe. 

I'll probably then pick up the 50-140 2.8 when in comes out, assuming it isn't horrendously expensive, and honestly that's me done. He says.



Tang said:


> Rook: I like those. Especially Family Time. Love that composition!
> 
> How do you feel about my street shots above?



Thanks bro 

I like them, I think the people at that stand is a good crop and I like the use of colour in all of them!


----------



## Khoi

Tried out some product photography today.. I don't think it turned out too bad!











here's the ghetto rig:


----------



## Tang

Like that high key look, Khoi! Nice job.

Here's one from the car shop by my house.


----------



## Philligan

EtherealEntity said:


> I haven't used the Fisheye a great deal - just a few 'novelty' shots where I feel it's appropriate - but I really like it.



Awesome, thanks man.  Does it talk to your camera okay? I heard from a couple people that it has trouble metering with Canons. I know it's manual focus/aperture, but does it function well on the body?


----------



## Tang

And since you guys are my best friends on ss.org, here's a little diddy I wrote in honor of my Pentax K30 which is dead  the rest of the song is a mix between Electric Wizard and Meshuggah but my iPhone doesn't do well with distortion. 

Pentax Love Song by nrrfed on SoundCloud - Hear the world



Getting an estimate from Pentax on repair costs currently.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Here's a small scan of a photo from a roll I got developed today. The camera is a Nikon F301 with 50mm f1.8 Ai-s lens on to cheap Agfa 200 24 film.






Picked up an old Sigma 28mm f2.8 for Nikon mount for £10 from a bargain bin at a local photography shop in Cardiff. Can't wait to get my next roll developed.


----------



## Wretched

Some pics from Killswitch Engage's show in Sydney a couple weeks ago:


----------



## kaffefilter

johanbackstrom.net


----------



## Philligan

Those are awesome, Ben. 

Nothing crazy today because my computer's still down, but I took this last night and edited it on my phone in Photogene. Canada/US border.



Sunset at the Bluewater Bridge by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Here's more of my shit!



Somewhere Else by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Smoke Break by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Two and a Half Windows by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

Sadly this guy's face is slightly OOF, ah well, I like the rest of it haha, that's my fault for skimping on ISO and trying to do street photography at f/1.4. That said, it's still ISO 1600, I'm surprised my X-Pro even got close to focusing in that light!



Between Two Phoneboxes by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


My XT-1's ordered, they said next day delivery but the postal service tracking won't even work, meaning it probably won't arrive tomorrow, despite it being the 'next day'...


----------



## Tang

That shit is not shitty! I like the girl on the subway the best. 

This is the closest I'll ever get to HDR.


----------



## Philligan

I really dig the phone booth one, Nick. I think it's my favourite of yours. 

Since I'm sans computer at the moment, here's one I took while I was grilling dinner. This was the stock iPhone 5 camera, edited in Photogene.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Rook, lovin' the pastelish red and greens in that last shot with the phone-booths.

Some shots I found on my cards that I'd forgotten about.
















and a shot with my LensBaby transferred via 6D's wifi into vsco.


----------



## Tang

Leica T (Typ 701) First Impressions Review: Digital Photography Review

So how about this new Leica and it's slow as shit $1,700 zoom? It's a pretty camera and the touch screen looks great, but I can't help but think Leica missed the boat on the EVF front.

For that much dough, I'd expect at least a constant f/4 zoom. I know they're trying to keep the size down, but still!


----------



## Rook

My X-T1 arrived today!

Now I've fiddled with one before but I played with it for all office seconds and had to put it down because I couldn't afford it. I bought it on the consistency of the Fuji system across the range and the spec sheet when compared to mine. I also love that it has an ISO dial and switches for drive and metering, you basically never use the menus which is fantastic.

I've heard anecdotally that the focus is OMG SO MUCH BETTER and that it handles high ISO's a little better compared to the X-Pro1, then there's DAT VIEWFINDER - basically this cameras gotten a lot of hype among Fuji fans so being my usual skeptical self I tried to manage my expectations on those fronts.

Having been shooting it this morning, here's a first impression from someone whose actually spent money on this.
- The viewfinder is actually amazing, and if like me you use sensible JPEG settings (they affect the viewfinder even if you shoot full RAW) you can easily forget it's electronic. It refreshes really fast and there's no real lag to speak of, the actual image itself you're looking at just makes you want to shoot. Add onto that you can see your exposure AND with a couple of small tweaks applied at the point of shooting is both increasing my hit rate and inspiring me to see potential in shots I otherwise wouldn't, so I'm shooting more and keeping more. This is the same obviously in the X Pro, but having now bought a 'serious' camera with an EVF, I'm completely comfortable with that. The size is something else, and feels fantastic.

- Focus is a hell of a lot better. The X-Pro would hunt every single time it went to focus. Not in a bad way necessarily but it's process was 'this is too close, that's too far away, that's it' (or sometimes 'that's too close, that's too far, errr wut' and you have to try again...), the most obvious difference is with the PD auto focus it knows if it's ahead or behind so it just snaps straight to it a lot of the time, it feels very reassuring. This is probably the biggest benefit with me and was what I was counting on to make my leap from SLR's to mirrorless... I will add here, for manual focusing you can both get a split VIEW that puts a 100% crop of the centre of the frame to the right and the full, untouched composition on the left meaning you can focus and compose and the viewfinder will accommodate that. The other option is 'digital split prism' which puts a rangefinder style prism in the middle of the image and I looooooove it. Love it love it love it. Nice touch, looks great, works great, good fun. Great for legacy glass and Leica lenses (summicron 90mm f2 here I come).

- Ergonomically it's very surprising. I was worried a smaller camera would be harder to keep a firm grip on, particularly with the shutter flat on the top plate. The X Pro1 gives a decent chunk of body to get hold of but it's quite flat, so despite how grippy the pretend leather is it still feels droppable - not that I've dropped mine yet. In fact having the shutter button on the top plate changes how you grip the body and you find your middle two fingers hooking the grip quite comfortably. In terms of ergonomics I'm finding it easy to forget how small the body is, despite my large hands, and in fact my girlfriend took a picture of me shooting with it; if it were any smaller it'd look like a toy in my hands haha. 3 hours with it now and my hands are more relaxed than with the X-Pro and combined with the light weight, no pain or discomfort at all.

- In terms of build, I had my concerns. My X-Pro1 has a very solid feel, despite being unnervingly light, and Fujifilm keep insisting that even though the X-T1 outweighs it in spec and speed, the X-Pro1 is the flagship. This is driven home by the experience of buying the X Pro, you get the offer to join some silly club and the camera arrives in a very nice, heavy, moulded, foam padded box with a magnetic lid and a big 'X' engraved in it, the X-T however comes in a slightly more consumer-electronics box, it's full of white cardboard and plastic bags and those cardboard things your given in McDonald's when you buy more than one drink. I opened the box, having never discerningly examined the build of the X-T thinking 'have I just bought a cheap piece of plastic?'.
Well no, apparently I haven't. Despite Fujifilm giving up on their beautifully presented boxes, the second you pick the X-T up you notice how sharp the edges are and all that stuff that looks like plastic is in fact metal. You couldn't beat someone to death with it like you could the block aluminium X-Pro, but if you threw it at someone it'd hurt. The general build feels a hell of a lot nicer than any Canon I've ever held, except their pro film bodies pre-EOS, and the knobs and dials are all metal, and all click very rewardingly but without debilitating amounts of resistance. Every panel is metal, and that rubber-leatherish crap is very neatly applied, like my X Pro, and feels great. I'm pretty sure it's heavier than the X-Pro but I don't have it with me. It at least feels more like it's 'heavier than it looks' compared to the Pro's lighter than it looks. Te build is very rewarding and impressive, and with all the dials and controls makes the body actually feel pretty special to use, but like a well made set of chisels rather than a dainty pseudo-Swiss watch. I don't mind dropping this, I know it'll work when I pick it up and this thing's designed to bounce. NB I've seen people complain about the d-pad on the back but mine's totally acceptable. As I said before, I've only had to use it to set up so far, everything else can be done with a function button or dial.

- Image quality. I'd be lying if I said it was any different to the X Pro, if it is it's not really discernible, but it didn't need to improve. The quality of my images has already improved improved in that they're in focus and at the moment I'd intended rather than half a second later! 

- Other highlights; the app's very cool, nice to have the wifi thing again. The burst speed is insane and the focus tracking actually works, you get a shit little flash which is nice - it's crap, so I won't use it, but they didn't have to include that, it's a nice gesture from Fuji, the dials are gorgeous and feel gorgeous, it's tiny, the video - while still not Canon DSLR level AT ALL - is a hell of a lot better than previous offerings and the record button kicks in straight away whatever you're doing - love that. Really this is a 7D that's faster, smaller, cheaper (than new), has nicer looking images IMO and is more solid feeling - and that's saying something - and anyone who's ever used a 7D will know that's a damn good thing hahaha.

This for me is everything I love about my X Pro, with the exception of the OVF, but tighter, faster, cleaner, smaller... I already feel like I can rely on this from day one, whereas I usually start of skeptical and get used to things. The X Pro is absolutely staying with me and will always be in the bag, with the OVF and a wide lens at F/8 focus doesn't matter and it's a lovely camera, and the consistency of image quality between the two (that's a compliment to the X Pro rather than a knock on the X-T) adds an element to it I wouldn't have predicted.

I'm very happy at this point.


----------



## Tang

I hate you Rook. 

*cries his into his Pentax camera bag*

Guys, you have to see that viewfinder at least once in your life. It's so cool.


----------



## Rook

And my 10-24 came today too.

TRANSFORMATION COMPLETE.


----------



## ghostred7

Since I'm camera-less I'm stuck w/ my iPhone 5s. Not horrible if decent light...but digress. Some shots of youngins we've found in one of our bushes...

Day 2






Day 9





Day 13


----------



## Tang

Just explored a supposedly haunted old barn with ye olde Pentax. 

Have me the creeps.

Rook: I'm a little jelly of that 15-48 equiv.


----------



## tank

NO pp here,just my new nikkor 35mm









































and this is my new toy


----------



## Rook

^Fourth image is very cooool.


@Tang Yeah, despite owning the 23mm 1.4 (35 eq), having a wide zoom that covers 10-24 (15-35 eq) is really great. I was thinking about it when I was on the Canon system, sometimes I wanted a little wider, a 15mm rectilinear would cost a few grand, sometimes a little tighter, yep another tonne of money and more stuff in the bag. For standard lengths, I'm totally happy to pick a length and stick to it, same with a short tele for portraits, but with wides where you don't use them so much, and over 3 months you could need an 18mm twice, a 15mm once, a 21mm a few times and the 25mm equivalent is really handy...

I'm happy to go against my usual rants and say a zoom just is more sensible here. It's f/4 but I was shooting at 15mm (eq) earlier handheld using 1s shutter speeds, it's RIDICULOUS. 

This is a 100% crop (from the edge sadly) shot at f/8, ISO200 (lower limit for RAW, thanks Fuji...) indoors:






Despite it being a little fuzzy (the edges aren't amazing...) you can clearly see fibres and spots of dust, I have seriously shaky hands but there's not a faint whiff of camera shake here. Crazy. I'm really looking forward to doing some low light handheld shots with some motion blur on the streets, this has really really impressed me!

I'll post some good shots with it soon, all I have now are some randoms from today.


----------



## Tang

The closest we have for Pentax is a 12-24 f/4 and it's about $800. Really, really wish Tokina made their 11-16 f/2.8 for k mount. 






Really enjoyed this composition.


----------



## Wretched

You're really developing an eye for composition, Tang.


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> You're really developing an eye for composition, Tang.



That means a lot to me, Ben! I try to go out every day and just practice seeing, and I'm glad the results are showing. I've gotten to the point where I'm not afraid to not take a shot if it's isn't exactly right. Before I'd take a shot even in bad light with hopes of fixing it in post but now I don't even bother. I have the end result in my mind when I take the shot!

Sorry if that read a bit pretentious, but it's something that's been on my mind recently. I'm also thinking about moving to a more Photoshop oriented post-process. I think learning how to properly burn and dodge will take my shots to the next level.

As an example, I waited around an hour for the shadows to line up just right for this shot. Would it have been a cool shot without the shadows? Maybe. Just that small addition takes it from an ok shot to a if not good shot, an interesting one.


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> I waited around an hour for the shadows to line up just right for this shot. Would it have been a cool shot without the shadows? Maybe. Just that small addition takes it from an ok shot to a if not good shot, an interesting one.



That's what it's all about. Waiting for that right moment to press the shutter release 


Self portrait. Need to do something to get back into taking photos 
Very awkward when you forgot your tri-pod and decide to shoot wide open.

85mm f1.2






55mm f1.2


----------



## Joe Harvatt

That last image is with an old Sigma 28mm f2.8 manual lens that I picked up for £10!


----------



## Tang

Love the shot of the guys legs on the ladder! Hot shit, my friend!

Tried something very different for me with this shot. I was shooting by a very large window and the light was awesome. I like how the shallow focus puts the top of the French press out of focus and gives it an abstract quality.






I thought this scene was cool because of the security cam leads your eye to the door/red cone thing (totally blanking on what they're really called!) I thin it would be awesome to do a portrait there. 






I'm really on the fence about this next shot. I've really gotten obsessed with the large format look and how you can use movements to keep your lines straight so I tried to emulate this in post. I think it's a strong composition in regards to symmetry and texture but do the ultra straight lines help?


----------



## Whammy

Tang,

Your photo processing is reminding me more and more of color negative film. I mean that in a good way 

If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion. Feel free to tell me to "cram it with walnuts"  I would just love to see you experiment with the black cut off point.
If you made the blacks "80% gray" and pulled back a tiny bit on the overall contrast I think it would add a softer vibe while still keeping a sense of large dynamic range.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying your photo processing needs improving. Not at all.
I would just love to see if it suited your style


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang said:


> I'm really on the fence about this next shot. I've really gotten obsessed with the large format look and how you can use movements to keep your lines straight so I tried to emulate this in post. I think it's a strong composition in regards to symmetry and texture but do the ultra straight lines help?



The straight lines help, but you can see the curvature in the bricks near the bottom and the roof. Try to get your camera back as parallel to the midpoint of the wall as possible and use a lens with almost no distortion and you'll be all set.

Here's a little test I shot trying to master Scheimpflug:


----------



## Wretched

Took this while waiting for the sun to go down...





...before taking this:


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

Wrote a little bit on my creative philosophy for a website of a good friend of mine, feel free to check it out. Young Creatives: Nick Granda Stone | Sprezzatura NY


----------



## Tang

Nice article, man! I might take you up on picking up some single use cameras and just focusing on light and composition. I'm gonna need some better scans than what drug stores give you, though!


----------



## Rook

Night Fox by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

My how far you've come 

15s @ 17mm @ f/8. All the things in focus


----------



## Kwirk

Shots from the Metal Alliance tour (Inquisition, Goatwhore, 1349, Behemoth):


Inquisition:









Goatwhore:









1349:









BEHEMOTH:













Rest of the set here:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.399460983530313.1073741837.370973089712436&type=1


----------



## Wretched

Got bored on the weekend and grabbed the old 100mm 2.8 macro lens.


----------



## Tang

... great shots, Ben!

I didn't know I needed a macro lens.

Now I do.

I took this shot with my Tamron 17-50 2.8 with my iPhone 4S LED light shining on the little frog. A little DIY action  Is it perfectly sharp? Not in the least, but it does have a really cool vibe.



IMGP4767 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

The high contrast helps it looks pretty sharp, Tang. 
I scored my lens cheap, L-series. knew I wanted one, but just kept my ears open and one popped up on Facebook through another car shooter here in Aus.


----------



## Tang

Thanks! I'm glad my iPhone light solution came up with a great result. 

Pentax has two macro options. A 35mm f/2.8 which I imagine would only be good for flowers because to get 1:1 magnification you'd have to be pretty much on top of your subject and a 100mm f/2.8 which is more suited for the work you posted.


----------



## Wretched

I'd definitely go the 100. I'd like to get even longer, like a 1.5 or 2x extender. I can, of course, use my 7D instead, with the crop factor.


----------



## tank

nikon d7000+sigma 24/70 f2.8 cheers


----------



## Tang

Love the color is that bus shot, tank. Just the right amount of desaturation. 

Here's something super colorful..


----------



## Philligan

My computer's still down, and I've been pretty busy (too busy to fix it haha) so I haven't gotten out with the camera lately. 

Depending on my pay, I should be ordering a new lens either tomorrow or two weeks from tomorrow.  They hiked the 18-35 price up again, pushing $1000 (debuted in Canada at $799) and I'm not gonna be able to swing that any time soon. I was talking to Dan (the guy I'm shooting with) and I'm gonna get the Sigma 17-50 2.8, and a speedlite soon after that. While I'm gonna miss the f1.8, I'm looking forward to the range and size/weight of the 17-50.  

Anyway, no SLR shots, but I saw this on the drive to the fiancé's and pulled over to shoot it. This is my iPhone and Photogene.



Firewood by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Definitely consider the Tamron version of that lens. I've heard disputing reports on which is sharper, but you can see how the Tamron looks with most of my shots.

EDIT: I know you've seen most of these already, but they're my favorite shots with the Tammy 17-50. http://www.flickr.com/x/t/0095009/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157644071883766/


----------



## Philligan

I checked it out, man.  Sadly, I'm not gonna get it though haha. This is where your Pentax in-body everything would come in handy.  Because the focus motor's purely in the lens for Canon stuff, the Tamron's super noisy because it uses a brutal motor. IQ seems about on par with the Sigma, but Henry's has the Sigma on clearance for about $450 CAD, so it should run me even less than the Tamron.  At that price, if I end up replacing it soonish, I should be able to almost get what I paid for it.

I'm minutes away from ordering it. Watching a bunch of reviews to make sure I'm not missing anything. 

edit: Done.  Should be here in the middle of next week. I was debating paying more for the Canon version used ($1k new, $750+ used), but the IQ seems really close. The only thing I'm a little worried about on the Sigma is the AF, but since I ordered it from Henry's website, I can take it into the store if there are any issues, and the 70D has micro adjustment. 

The Sigma right now is cheaper than all the other ~17-50 2.8s, Henry's had it cheaper than Amazon _and_ eBay, and they have a promo on for free shipping. I figured that's a sign that this is the one.


----------



## MrYakob

^ The fact that Henry's had ANYTHING cheaper than ebay or Amazon is a miracle in itself  Conrgrats on the buy, hope you dig it!


----------



## Tang

Yeah Phil! Having a constant aperture zoom is gonna blow your mind and honestly, 2.8 is more than good enough with our high ISO performance. Enjoy! It'll definitely open up new possibilities in your shooting.

Ramona just turned two so I'm posting a shot in her honor! Taken with my 35mm f/2.4.


----------



## Philligan

MrYakob said:


> ^ The fact that Henry's had ANYTHING cheaper than ebay or Amazon is a miracle in itself  Conrgrats on the buy, hope you dig it!



Thanks man, I'm pumped to try it.  After I got over the 50 and all the bokeh  I found myself starting to want the kit lens for more stuff, only I didn't get one with the 70D so would have to borrow one, and a bit better IQ and speed would have been nice. I'm really looking forward to indoor portraits.



Tang said:


> Yeah Phil! Having a constant aperture zoom is gonna blow your mind and honestly, 2.8 is more than good enough with our high ISO performance. Enjoy! It'll definitely open up new possibilities in your shooting.



Yeah man.  I might try and sell the 50 and get a faster prime that's a little more useful - the Sigma 30 1.4 would be cool, or Canon's old 28 1.8, but that's the same series as my 50 1.4, so it's getting pretty outdated.

Now all I need is a speedlite, and portraits will be on their way. 

I helped on a shoot tonight, I'll link to them when Dan puts them up. I'm getting better with flashes, and picked up some stuff from his workflow that I want to try out.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I've been slacking hard on photo stuff for the past little while because of my hectic schedule and finals, but here's a portrait of my girl from today. It doesn't follow my usual processing style cuz she likes a cleaner look with more pop, so this is what we ended up with.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Jeff post that up in the RAW challenge thread .

Here's a pair more from the shoot I had last month - damn finals getting in the way of processing:


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I shot it in JPEG, so I'll post up a full-sized version of that


----------



## Rook

Anyone looking at Speedlites, look up Cactus flashes, I'm about to buy a bunch.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Totally impromptu session with the wife that was about 5 mins long. Hmmm sounds too suggestive. 

Feedback please.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The abstraction of the first shot is wonderful (though I'd heal out the shiny bit between her shoulder blades on her dress) - the others are not near as good compositionally, nor does the softness work as well.


----------



## Tang

Monday madness! Lots of different styles explores so I hope something sticks  My favorite of this small set is the first one. Easily.



20140419-IMGP4061 by nrrfed, on Flickr



20140419-IMGP4011 by nrrfed, on Flickr



IMGP4413 by nrrfed, on Flickr



20140419-IMGP3980 by nrrfed, on Flickr




20140419-IMGP4054 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm a fan of the last one, conceptually. If you could get all those to be bisectors in some way to make a string of squares it'd be killer.


----------



## Joose

I love the desert.


----------



## Wretched

Rook said:


> Anyone looking at Speedlites, look up Cactus flashes, I'm about to buy a bunch.



I've been using and abusing Yongnuo speedlites for some time now and they've been very reliable. But I recently found an even better cheap brand in the form of Godox. Their V850 (pretty sure that's the right model number) is more powerful and it uses a single Lithium Ion battery (like a mobile phone etc) that lasts much, much longer than four AAs. You can get them on eBay for around AUS$150 a pop. Cheap as chips.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I've burned up too many Vivitar VH285HVs  to deal with speedlights, they just didn't work for my style of shooting. I should have access to an assistant for all summer so I'll be breaking out my huge umbrellas (60"+) outdoors and overpowering the sun like crazy .


----------



## Tang

Been working on my skin tones from some archive pics. 

Pentax K30
Tammy 17-50 2.8
1/30s
f/2.8
ISO6400






That's a very pleasant ISO6400. No extra noise reduction added.

And here's a handheld 1/5s exposure that slightly out of focus. I promise this'll be the last out of focus shot I ever post.


----------



## Rook

Wretched said:


> I've been using and abusing Yongnuo speedlites for some time now and they've been very reliable. But I recently found an even better cheap brand in the form of Godox. Their V850 (pretty sure that's the right model number) is more powerful and it uses a single Lithium Ion battery (like a mobile phone etc) that lasts much, much longer than four AAs. You can get them on eBay for around AUS$150 a pop. Cheap as chips.



Yeah that's what I was looking at; then I found these 'Cactus' thingumies, $139 and built in wireless transceivers along with 580EX grade features for 1/5 of the cost.

The Godox and Yongnuo stuff is great for the money, the Cactus has me sold on their transceiver stuff.


----------



## Kwirk

Shot Paganfest over the weekend. Here are some from Chthonic's set:


















Full set here.


----------



## Philligan

I really dig the first and last ones.  Before I realized it was a girl, I was wondering why that bass looked so huge. 

So...





Something showed up early. 







First impressions: 

Heavier than I was expecting. Not in a bad way - I like the extra weight because it feels more solid, but I might get a battery grip eventually because I like when the weight is balanced back a bit farther. 

Build feels good. The zoom ring turns about as smoothly as my friend's Nikon 70-200 2.8, and the switches feel really meaty. The focus feels fine, but the throw is insanely short (doesn't really bother me). There's some noise when you shake it, probably the OS, but it feels sturdy. The lens cap feels solid. The only thing is like I've read online - the lens hood doesn't sit on super tightly. Mine isn't nearly as bad as other people make it sound - it has a bit of noticeable click into place, and doesn't seem to shake around when it's on at all, but it's not a crazy tight fit. As it is, it doesn't seem like it will be an issue - and for more than double the price, the Canon 17-55 2.8 doesn't come with a lens hood or case.

Image quality seems good. My laptop's officially dying - it should work if I keep the OS on an external drive and boot from USB, but for the time being, I don't have one, so I've only been going by my phone and the camera LCD screen. Having said that, it looks sharp at each end of the focal length spectrum so far. The background blur seems like it could be a bit edgy, but that could be the in-camera jpg sharpening for all I know. The colours seem juicy and it looks sharp, though.

It seems to focus pretty quickly - maybe as fast as my 50 1.4 or a bit faster? It doesn't seem a whole lot faster so far, but there's noticeably less hunting; it seems to be a bit more deliberate. 

It literally showed up ten minutes ago. Here's one I took of Dawn's dog. He'd hide his head whenever I got close, so I pulled it out to 17mm, leaned back, and stuck it in his face without looking, and this came out. I edited it on my phone with Photogene.


----------



## Wretched

Rook said:


> Yeah that's what I was looking at; then I found these 'Cactus' thingumies, $139 and built in wireless transceivers along with 580EX grade features for 1/5 of the cost.
> 
> The Godox and Yongnuo stuff is great for the money, the Cactus has me sold on their transceiver stuff.



I started out using Cactus V4 triggers before moving to Yongnuo's YN603Cs. Far more consistent.

Godox now has a model with the Li-Ion battery and a built-in transceiver I believe. Not sure on the cost though. No doubt more than $135.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Is that per set or each? If that's $135 each then you're in Pocketwizard III territory.


----------



## Philligan

Got out with Dan today to try out the 17-50. Here are a couple I edited quickly.



Birds on a line by philbabbey, on Flickr



Wetlands - March 2014 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

ThePhilosopher said:


> Is that per set or each? If that's $135 each then you're in Pocketwizard III territory.



I'm talking $135 _per_ 58 guide flash _with_ transceivers built in.

Flash and transceiver - $135.

http://cactus-image.com/rf60.html

EDIT:

I reckon I'm gunna pick one of these up for my K1000, anybody any experience of it? Tang?

Pretty damn cheap so I don't frankly care if it is a big pile of poop, but hey, figured I'd ask.

Pentax 135mm 3.5 on eBay

EDIT EDIT: oops bought it


----------



## Philligan

My computer's logic board is dying, but I rigged it so it still works with the HD running through the USB port. Here's a Lightroom edit of a sunset from last week or so.



Sunset at Bluewater - April 2014 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Rook, I love my 135 f/2.8, but I don't have any experience with the 3.5. I got mine for $20 and it's taken some of my favorite shots. Once you get used to manual everything, that is.

I found this shot on my external HDD and I don't know why I overlooked it. I took this shot about a month after I started shooting seriously and it's inspired me to try and get away from making everything perfectly symmetrical. Can I control my OCD?


----------



## Rook

GET USED TO? MUAHAHAno but seriously it should be cool, the 2.5 version goes for like £100 here so I wasn't too fussed for the sake of a stop.

Developing all my HP5 this weekend (myself GULP) so I'm about to find out if I've been kidding myself this entire time.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

It's not terribly hard to develop B&W. You'll do just fine.

Here's one of my new favorite pick reverse-mounted 85mm:


----------



## Philligan

How do you like that pick on 8? I love the feel of the fatter picks, but for 8 string, I always end up going back to thinner picks (like .73) for the punch on the low strings.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Phone pic from today of my dog going bug-eyed over a stick.


----------



## Tang

Nice dog!

A few from today. I wasn't really in a shooting mindset but I took a couple of snaps that hopefully aren't half bad. 

I really wanted to emphasis the contrast between the windows and the rest of the structure. 






I liked the light and shadow play in this one. 






So this strange. I took the shots above trying to get out of practicing street work but I still managed to get a shot that showed the kind of good time an art walk can be. I feel like there are a couple different layers to this one.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang, that last shot tells so many stories all at once - good job.



Philligan said:


> How do you like that pick on 8? I love the feel of the fatter picks, but for 8 string, I always end up going back to thinner picks (like .73) for the punch on the low strings.



I really like playing with thick picks for almost everything - I'm using my HufPicks for when I play bass (my finger playing is terribly imprecise). I'll use smaller picks (3mm or smaller) if I want that sound, but for the most part I'm using 4mm+ picks for everything. I've even asked Chris if he's going be making anything in the 8-10mm range.  

I do have a 1.5mm Gravity that I use for cleans playing near the bridge to give it a really punchy sound. If I were playing live I'd probably use my 3mm Gravity picks or my Winspear Daggers.


----------



## Philligan

I got to play with a 5Dii quickly the other day when Dawn and I were meeting a guy about filming the wedding. Oh man. I didn't get to shoot much, but it felt so good in my hands - really makes me want to upgrade to a 5D whenever I do. I love the extra size and weight, and the body felt super solid. Despite never picking up that camera before, and having a different generation's button layout, everything still felt so intuitive. I'd love to pick up a used one some day to use in tandem with the 70D.

I've been working on re-editing that photo from the other day, I'm really not happy with it. I tried using the brush this time so I could turn the sharpening off and keep the bushes from looking too scary, but keep it on Dan so he didn't turn into mush. Still not thrilled with it, but I'm getting a better feel for things.


----------



## Tang

Phil, any way you can post the RAW?


----------



## Philligan

Lemme see. File, or just a screenshot of it?


----------



## Philligan




----------



## Tang

File if you don't mind. I'd like to take a crack at it.


----------



## Philligan

Bam! The bushes are absolutely brutal.  Probably the toughest photo to edit that I've taken yet.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t4cumk92t1ps6dn/IMG_6834.CR2


----------



## Rook

I'm waiting for my dad to get a new camera so I can use his 5D2; tedious AF, weighs a tonne, needs huge lenses, takes those waste of time compact flash cards, but probably the best video camera you can get under a grand.


----------



## Philligan

I love the weight and feel of it - can't say anything about the AF. I wouldn't wanna walk around with that and a 24-70 for street haha but I could totally live with the 5D2 and primes. The 70D might be a bit smaller, but if some stranger sees me holding either I doubt they'd be less scared of the 70D or even notice a difference, and the feel and extra space on the 5D are excellent.

In other news: Helped with another shoot today. Didn't take any photos, but I'm comfortable with speedlites now, and got to use a reflector and LED light box. I can't wait to start getting some lights.


----------



## Rook

I'd partly agree that for street, the intimidation factor between the 70D and the 5D2 wouldn't be massive, though you'd be surprised. Appearing to be pointing around obviously pro looking gear compared to the 70 which looks no different to a 600 which everyone and their aunt owns some variant of... In London, a 70/600 looking thing would make anyone look like a tourist because it's what all the tourists have, I did honestly notice myself being checked out _more_ with a 6D and fast prime, particularly when pulling it up to my eye than I did using the 600 I was beforehand.

However, the difference between that and in particular my X-Pro - the difference is much more significant. Most people think the X-Pro is some toy, hipsterific film camera and I can get significantly more intimate and close shots with it than I can even the X-T and particularly any DSLR variant.

I'm not a hardliner who loves to go round justifying decisions I've made when it comes to gear; I can see the merit in anything to a degree, be it a full frame DSLR, half frame mirrorless, a 6x6 TLR or even an iPhone but when it comes down to intimidation on the street I'd say yes there is a difference in perception between something like a 70 and a bigger pro body like the 6/5D though it's nothing like as between any DSLR and a rangefinder or to a lesser extent another small mirrorless.

Unless you want to do tele street shooting in excess of 50mm (135 eq), in which case you can get away with a friggin 1D or whatever because the people noticing you aren't in the frame. People do get rather more annoyed about it if you're trying to keep your distance though, weirdly. I've been challenged with my 6D and 85 and if people feel like you're trying to hide, they assume there's a reason. With the rangefinder and 18 (pancake, 27mm eq) people will look straight at me shooting them and just be like 'what the... ah whatever' heh.

As I say, depends what you wanna do. Smaller counts for a lot if you intend to be in the thick of it, though, as far as my experience goes.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I wish I could shoot street sometimes, but Houston-it's just too massive.

http://imgur.com/a/qjNLm


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> I wish I could shoot street sometimes, but Houston-it's just too massive.
> 
> Beltway 8 - Imgur



Jacksonville is the same way, man! Just too damn big. That's why I usually only shoot street at events or when I drive down to St. Augustine. That place is always packed with people which makes practice easy.

Most of the time I'll camp out and a busy section of sidewalk and just wait. I think I've posted this before, but it's from st austustine so it's relevant


----------



## Philligan

There's supposed to be a monster storm here this evening, so I'm gonna try and shoot it. I'm really hoping it happens after dark so I can drive down to the lake and try and catch some lightning.


----------



## eddygdk

I can't wait until finals are over so i can go out and start shooting again


----------



## Philligan

I was bored, so here's a self portrait.  I shot the reflection in my laptop monitor.



self portrait by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

So today I drove 40 minutes down to st. augustine to shoot some street. I get there and wandered around aimlessly and I just wasn't feeling it. I was almost back to my car when I told myself, "quit being a little bitch. you're not to get better if you don't shoot." 

Activate Plan B. Headphones: check. Meshuggah's Obzen at loud volume: check. 

Guys, I'm so glad I forced myself to go out and shoot because I got some kickass shots, imo. Can't wait to get home and work on them. 

TL;DR don't be a bitch. shoot because you love to shoot.


----------



## Azyiu

Awesome story! This is why I always tell friends who are semi-serious about photography, to invest in top tier equipment; they are reliable like a rock in nearly ANY condition!

Check Out What Happens When the $6,000 Nikon D4 is Left Exposed in a Storm


----------



## Tang

Spent way too recording a 3 minute ambient jam that it took me forever to get these shots. No fear!

Normally, I really don't like taking pictures of anyone that looks homeless, but something about how this shot unfolded just drew me in. Slower shutter speed used on purpose. 






Cool dude. 






Met this cool guy practicing on the river and after I took this shot I had small chat with him. Dude could play. 






EDIT: the ambient jam if anyone is curious. Ibanez hollowbody to iPhone and that's it. I love technology. http://soundcloud.com/nrrfed/pirate-chihuahua/s-1A27u


----------



## Philligan

Here's a shot of the sunset from last night. This one seems kinda weird, not super sharp, and it seemed like there was some noise in the shadows, even though I was at ISO 100 and on a tripod. 





Sarnia - May 2014 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

First world Canon problems.   16x9 works well for that shot. Nicely done, Phil. 

EDIT: trying to get away from all my shots having the subject perpindicular to the lens. It feels way more challenging to get compositions this way.


----------



## Tang

Since it's been over 24 hours without another post I will post more. I went out last night with the goal of shooting some kickass b&w shots. 

Crazy contrast self- portrait. I shot this into the side of a building and used the reflection to take the shot. 






I thought this shot was so ....ing cool. It almost looks the reflection of the statue is a dark, grim reaper version of himself. The light pole even looks like a staff. Proud of this one. 






I don't think shot needs explanation, but it shows how damn good Pentax is at low-light these days. My favorite shot of 2014 so far. Kinda wish I had my film body for this one.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Tang, your stuff is great!

Here's a shot I took of my rig with new cab earlier. I used my £10 manual Sigma 28mm 2.8 - there's a fair bit of distortion but I really like the way it renders tones (the lens, not the cab).


----------



## Tang

Thanks Joe! I'm glad you guys notice how ....ing much I shoot and practice. That shit pays off!

I love using old lenses! Sometimes they just have the best character. That setup looks killer, btw.

EDIT: really embracing being off-center! It's quite liberating when you don't have to meticulously center every shot.



IMGP4929 by nrrfed, on Flickr



IMGP4947 by nrrfed, on Flickr

just kidding! I love symmetry.



chatting by nrrfed, on Flickr

Sorry for going crazy posting.. I'm just really into these shots!


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Tang said:


> Sorry for going crazy posting.. I'm just really into these shots!



That last shot man, that's killer.


----------



## Rook

Took this of my girlfriend earlier, sharing just because I really love how it came out.



Louise by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Cell phone pic, edited with VSCOcam. Looking at it on my computer, I might have lightened up the shadows a bit too much, but ehhh.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

What I've been working on; I wish I could show more, but feel free to ask anything about the shoot. I tried to keep the Metadata a bit larger so it could be read.


----------



## Philligan

What kind of bags do you guys use? 

I'm gonna switch to a messenger/satchel, and I'm not sure what to get. I'm thinking Lowepro (probably Event Messenger 250), Tenba Small Messenger, or maybe a Domke. I like how sturdy the Domke seems, but it could get pricey because you have to buy the inserts. The Domke also looks the least like a camera bag, which would be ideal for walking around with it. The Tenba seems like the most practical and best bet for me at the moment, but the ridiculous amount of pockets is overwhelming.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> What kind of bags do you guys use?
> 
> I'm gonna switch to a messenger/satchel, and I'm not sure what to get. I'm thinking Lowepro (probably Event Messenger 250), Tenba Small Messenger, or maybe a Domke. I like how sturdy the Domke seems, but it could get pricey because you have to buy the inserts. The Domke also looks the least like a camera bag, which would be ideal for walking around with it. The Tenba seems like the most practical and best bet for me at the moment, but the ridiculous amount of pockets is overwhelming.



Right now? A generic, plain backpack.. sadly.

to me, the kid that's looking straight ahead makes this shot. my eye is instantly drawn to her.



left both ways by nrrfed, on Flickr

Another shot that brings me great joy. I love it when it everything comes together perfectly.



in motion, always in motion by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Pelican cases.


----------



## Michael

Here's a couple photos from Children Of Bodom last night in Melbourne.


----------



## Philligan

Came across these at the thrift store today. 



Konica meets lomo by philbabbey, on Flickr

The Konica seems to work except for the flash. I put a couple AAs in (what the flash takes), don't see any spot for a light meter battery, which is weird. Hopefully I can get the flash working. It was $12 with the case, manual, and box. 

The Time camera is a lomo style, pretty much identical to a Holga (but with a glass lens, apparently). The story behind those is pretty cool. In 1985, Time wanted to get more subscriptions, so offered a free camera with a year's subscription. People subscribed, thinking they'd get a decent camera, and got what's basically a plastic toy.  So they're pretty common in thrift shops, because they're cheaper than what people expected, but the hipsters don't want them because the lens is sharper and clearer than a Holga. It's also mint, with the Time bag.  $5 for that one.

edit: Flash works.  Takes regular AAs. I found the battery compartment for the light meter. They make replacements for the mercury ones. I can get two of them for $12 shipped from eBay, so I'll probably do that.


----------



## Tang

light and trees by nrrfed, on Flickr






I started playing with my cameras built-in multiple exposure feature. I could see this being a lot of fun.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang: Jerry Uelsmann did stunning multiple exposures with film, check it out.

Something random I shot after visiting the parents:


----------



## Tang

ThePhilospher: those were incredible. true art, man.

Here's my cat:



let me in, human (recropped sorry!) by nrrfed, on Flickr

street scene:



artwalk by nrrfed, on Flickr



chamblins by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Artwalk - that's rad.


----------



## Tang

Joe Harvatt said:


> Artwalk - that's rad.



Thanks Joe! I've been playing with a new RAW converter (for me, that is) called Photo Ninja and it's absolutely AWESOME. It has a way of getting details and colors right the first time with minimal tweaking. 

Of course, I love tweaking so after I convert the RAW with PN I export it as a 16 bit .tiff file and apply some curves and other things in Lightroom. It's on the expensive side, but I definitely recommend it if you're looking for something a bit different than what Lightroom or Aperture produces.


----------



## patata

ThePhilosopher said:


>



Child pornography eh?



JK


----------



## Tang

Took some shots at a work party today..



invisible harmonica by nrrfed, on Flickr



IMGP5151_v1 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

My shoot on Steve's Falcon was finally published this week, so I can show you some more pics from the shoot.
The exteriors are all done with light painting. The detail shots all done with speedlites.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I've always been jealous of the Ford offerings in the rest of the world.


----------



## Wretched

Well, this is the last of them, so enjoy while you can! Ford Aus is shutting up manufacturing in 2016, same as Holden and Toyota. No more local car industry here.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That makes me sad.


----------



## Wretched

Me too!


----------



## Nats

Taken randomly over the last year and a half since I got the camera.


----------



## MrYakob

So I've decided to look into getting a secondary small camera just to keep on me for those times where I can't bring my 6D with me. I'm not looking to spend a fortune as it's going to just be a lightweight alternative and not my main shooter.

I've narrowed it down to a few different cameras and was hoping you guys could chime in on what your thoughts are. I will likely be sticking to the kit lens for the foreseeable future so that comes in to play as well.

I'm currently considering

-Sony NEX 6
-Panasonic GM1
-Fuji X-M1

I really like the GM1 because of it's size, but I'm concerned it may be too small to handle comfortably. If anyone has experience with any of these or knows of another camera in that ~$600-700 range I would love to hear from you!

Edit: Also looking at maybe the Fuji XE1 as well, although it is a little pricier


----------



## Tang

Do you need interchangeable lenses? The new Sony RX100 mark 3 looks AWESOME.

Here's a small swing 'set'  I think shooting people and trying to incorporate compositional concepts is my calling. Just love it.


----------



## Rook

MrYakob you can get a used XE1 or X-Pro1 for really not all that much these days, I'd go that way personally 

Thought I'd break up Tang's posts a little 



Two in China Town by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Sleep at Seven Dials by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Bach, Handel by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Two on Trafalgar Steps by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Window Shopper by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Bent Pole by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Oxford Circus Exit by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



WAIT by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## shanike




----------



## Tang

Oh, you. 

What can I say? This is my life. 

This iPhone shot is dedicated to you, rooky. Have you noticed how our street work is slowly becoming more and more similar? I'll try and develop my own style soon!






and this Pentax shot is dedicated to the original Tri-X 400.


----------



## Rook




----------



## Philligan

MrYakob said:


> So I've decided to look into getting a secondary small camera just to keep on me for those times where I can't bring my 6D with me. I'm not looking to spend a fortune as it's going to just be a lightweight alternative and not my main shooter.
> 
> I've narrowed it down to a few different cameras and was hoping you guys could chime in on what your thoughts are. I will likely be sticking to the kit lens for the foreseeable future so that comes in to play as well.
> 
> I'm currently considering
> 
> -Sony NEX 6
> -Panasonic GM1
> -Fuji X-M1
> 
> I really like the GM1 because of it's size, but I'm concerned it may be too small to handle comfortably. If anyone has experience with any of these or knows of another camera in that ~$600-700 range I would love to hear from you!
> 
> Edit: Also looking at maybe the Fuji XE1 as well, although it is a little pricier



I'd go Fuji from those. I played with an X20 back when the fiancé was looking at getting a better camera (I won't let myself touch an X100s until I can afford one ) and I thought the menus kinda sucked, but everything else about the camera was great. It felt way more solid than anything else in the price bracket, super physical and tactile. Fuji's got the design bang on, very practical IMHO. 

I've only played with one M4/3, maybe the E-PM1? I forget haha it was one of the more entry-level ones without a viewfinder. All I remember about it is that if focused really quickly. It didn't feel great in the hands (hardly any buttons), but it was one of the entry-level ones, so that's to be expected. If you can swing a bit more, what about the OM-D E-M10 with a 17mm prime?

I played with a couple NEXs with the fiancé, too, and spent a decent amount of time on her sister's NEX (I think it's a 5, maybe a 6). I hate them, very thoroughly. The EVF was really laggy on the one that had an EVF, and they require a bunch of diving through menus to do anything. If you were gonna leave it in program and use it like a good P&S, it wouldn't be too bad, but any more manual settings and it became a nightmare to use. They're great for newbies because they're basically a P&S with a DSLR sensor, but it drove me crazy. They're kind of the opposite of the Fuji; not at all tactile, very electronic feeling.

You could get the new Leica T.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Your Tri-X doesn't even look close , here's some Tri-X 320 pushed to ISO3200:





Before and After on some retouching practice:


----------



## Tang

It's still an enjoyable picture.

Hopefully.


----------



## Azyiu

Downhill skiing ??


----------



## capoeiraesp

Fremantle, Australia by Mat Hieu, on Flickr



Fremantle, Australia by Mat Hieu, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I really dig that second shot.

Shooting into the sun is always fun - 1s exposure:





I did some long exposure HDR today:





















I'm really excited by this photo and its processing:


----------



## Rook

My girlfriend and her sisters went to a local 1940's revival recently and asked me to take some pictures of them getting ready, I like how some came out so figured I'd share.

I love the hands in this


Sisters 3 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

and the light in this one


Sisters 1 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Blonde in Blue by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Shoes on Step by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

really like the composition of this


Sisters 2 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Lipstick by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

shoes. all day every day.


----------



## Wretched

A few from a shoot I did on a sweet custom Harley for Heavy Duty magazine:


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Some more stuff from my iPhone 4 cuz I've been so shit about keeping my camera on me lately. I'll be shooting some lookbook stuff for a fashion app developer again soon, so I should have some actual new material to share.


----------



## Tang

Sometimes band practice turns into photography practice.



rivera and ibanez by nrrfed, on Flickr



double self-portrait by nrrfed, on Flickr



starring by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Damn I love the free VSCO app.


----------



## Tang

Nice b&w, man!


Here's some real fine art shit.


----------



## Khoi

went back and re-edited a shot


----------



## Wretched

The sink shot is great Tang


----------



## Wretched

Some shots from Children of Bodom's gig in Sydney on May 9...


----------



## Paul Reed Shred

you know the drill. 

*mobile musings:*



boxes by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr 



uno a otro by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr 

but a twist this week- I stopped being childish and started begrudgingly dragging along my "real" camera. 

*SOOC:*



IMG_7311 by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr 



IMG_7310 by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr



IMG_7313 by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr



IMG_7312 by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr



IMG_7271 by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr


Not SOOC: 



microcosm by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr



darling buds by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr 



  by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr



Untitled by Nick Granda-Stone, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

Loved this thing, with its butt way up in the air. Total bruiser and an unusual type of shot for me. But I just had to make use of that sunset.


----------



## capoeiraesp

^FREAKIN' AWESOME!!! Need to get you in on one of the runs so you and Perry Ormsby can talk cars all the time.


----------



## Philligan

That's absolutely killer, Ben. I think my favourite of yours yet. 

I'm hopefully gonna order a flash soon (first wedding's June 21st, but I'm poor ) but I've been trying to pay more attention to light. Partly to have more of a feel for it when I do get a speedlite, and partly to work with it better in my natural light shooting.

Anyway, here's one of Dawn from my parents' living room. It looked sharp on the LCD, but I think I was maybe looking at another one just like it, because it wasn't that sharp in Lightroom. I did more sharpening than I usually do, and way more noise reduction, and I think I like how it turned out. 



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

You're very lucky to have a partner who'll let you take their picture...


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Wretched said:


> You're very lucky to have a partner who'll let you take their picture...



It's rare that I'm able to take one of my girlfriend. Here's one from a trip to Budapest earlier this year.


----------



## Khoi

Wretched said:


> You're very lucky to have a partner who'll let you take their picture...



this is the truth! My girlfriend hates every single picture I take of her 



Here's a little idea I've been working with.. I'm still trying to figure out the context in which this works, or for what, but it's pretty cool I think


----------



## Philligan

Here's a sunset we caught at the bridge tonight.



Sunset at the bridge by philbabbey, on Flickr

And here's a portrait of my buddy Chris, same deal as what I did for Dawn earlier.



Chris by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Lads, I'm in need of some advice regarding my next substantial purchase(s).

I'm rockin my 6D + sigma 35mm 1.4, canon 135mm f2 for my personal projects and occassionally using my 85mm 1.8 with my old 7D at my school (way too long of a focal length on a cropped sensor).

Lately I've been experimenting with off-cam flash through an umbrella and having a lot of fun. I still do a lot of non-flash stuff, particularly at my school with fast moving, active kids. So, I'm at a tricky point with upcoming purchases that are motivated by money coming in from work and selling off some gear.

I'm contemplating the following:
- Sell off the 135mm and get a 70-200 f2. II. This will use up all my budget but will leave me covering most focal lengths comfortably when including the 35mm.
- Purchase another nice prime, perhaps the 50mm or 85mm 1.2. Probably unnecessary with the 35mm already being used mainly and having the 85mm 1.8, whose AF bothers me at times.
- Spend more on a lighting rig e.g. quality backdrops, softboxes and go with strobes or an extra speedlight or two. I've been shooting some friends lately with great results using just the single flash/umbrella setup and more and more people want to have some done and I want to explore this avenue more.

Sorry for the rant but your input is really appreciated.


----------



## Philligan

Having a zoom after using a prime pretty much exclusively, I'd say play with a 70-200 and consider it. Primes look great, and you don't have to think as much (I find foot zooming comes more unconsciously than turning a ring), but a zoom can totally save you sometimes. Personally, I'd prefer a prime for my most used length (right now, I'd kill for a 35mm or 50mm equivalent), and zooms for the rest.

I feel like my style's totally different than yours, though, and you're dealing with some gear that hasn't even crossed my mind, so that's all I'll say about that.


----------



## Tang

I'm a glutton for punishment trying to get this shot on my phone. Turned out well though. iPhone 4S camera + Lightroom 5.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Philligan said:


> Having a zoom after using a prime pretty much exclusively, I'd say play with a 70-200 and consider it. Primes look great, and you don't have to think as much (I find foot zooming comes more unconsciously than turning a ring), but a zoom can totally save you sometimes. Personally, I'd prefer a prime for my most used length (right now, I'd kill for a 35mm or 50mm equivalent), and zooms for the rest.
> 
> I feel like my style's totally different than yours, though, and you're dealing with some gear that hasn't even crossed my mind, so that's all I'll say about that.




Cheers Phil.

The 6D + 35mm is my go to setup and has worked really well for flash portraits without skewing/stretching people's faces too much e.g. I LOOK FAT!

The 70-200 is certainly going to be a visually obvious lens but it'll service so many needs for me.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Have you ever looked at a guy and thought "That dude's definitely had to hide a body at some point in his life"?


----------



## Wretched

A couple of pics of Jesse's twin-turbo Celica that's out in the new issue of Fast Fours. Cool car. I have one of the pics entered into the 2014 AIPP state awards which is being judged on Sunday. First time I've ever entered anything, so fingers crossed!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That green would be really sick on a carved top guitar too.


----------



## Tang

Redid the white balance and crop on this one. Turned out much better. 







I tried a very different editing style on this b&w shot:


----------



## capoeiraesp

bit of a crop and perspective correction on this one but I'm glad I got it.



Footscray Faces by Mat Hieu, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

I've been asking our most regular customers if they'd let me to some candid portraits of them. So far it's turning out great!


----------



## Decreate

Haven't posted in a while. Here's a few I took in Osaka and Kyoto last week.


----------



## soliloquy

i'm currently in st. john's newfoundland at the moment. i dont have an capabilities of uploading any pictures yet, but they will come once i'm back to reality. i have to say, polerizor filters are AWESOME!!! they saturate colors so well without making them look too cartoony. on top of that, the city itself is like reliving your childhood, or if you're above the age of 25, fighting that question in you mind 'am i getting too old?'

you know that feeling you get when you look at a child lost in his/her own world of magic and wonder? this city is just like that, only for adults! the colors of the houses are so obnoxious, but they work so well too! when else will you find a house with purple walls, green windows, pink doors, and orange trim? you'd think they look ugly put together as you're taught rules and regulations in 'art' and about 'what is beauty' but this place is so raw, rouged and pure that you really dont care for rules or 'what aught to be'.


----------



## Tang

You guys are making me do all the work around here 

Do I love this shot more than anything else I've ever taken? Yes.


----------



## Wretched

Very nice! Great mood.


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> Very nice! Great mood.



Appreciate it 

Since it's been about 24h since the last post I'll post some more shots from the Jazz Festival yesterday. Did more people shooting than music shooting.



mirror street by nrrfed, on Flickr



jazz fest by nrrfed, on Flickr



you dont need heads where you&#x27;re going by nrrfed, on Flickr



red cones by nrrfed, on Flickr



jazz fest by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Just applied for an internship with a Montreal culture/music/style website. They already saw my work and word is they loved it but I just sent in my official application, so fingers crossed and whatnot.


----------



## Philligan

JeffFromMtl said:


> Just applied for an internship with a Montreal culture/music/style website. They already saw my work and word is they loved it but I just sent in my official application, so fingers crossed and whatnot.



That's awesome man, good luck! 

I've been really busy lately, hence not much posting. I'm roofing a house this week (which sucks ) but I'm getting paid a decent amount for it, and I think I'm gonna preorder this when I get my cheque.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lomography/the-lomoinstant-camera

It's an instant camera by Lomography that uses the Fuji Instax film (the Mini, sadly, but I'll take what I can get).


----------



## Nats

Philligan said:


> That's absolutely killer, Ben. I think my favourite of yours yet.
> 
> I'm hopefully gonna order a flash soon (first wedding's June 21st, but I'm poor ) but I've been trying to pay more attention to light. Partly to have more of a feel for it when I do get a speedlite, and partly to work with it better in my natural light shooting.
> 
> Anyway, here's one of Dawn from my parents' living room. It looked sharp on the LCD, but I think I was maybe looking at another one just like it, because it wasn't that sharp in Lightroom. I did more sharpening than I usually do, and way more noise reduction, and I think I like how it turned out.
> 
> 
> 
> Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr



What kind of post did you do for the colors and effect? I like this style of coloring and whatnot.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I was just looking at the Lomo instant camera too. It looks like it'll be a good alternative to the Fuji neo-classic, and at a lower price. And it really isn't often that you can say a Lomo isn't overpriced


----------



## Tang

Here's an iphone shot.. had some nice light yesterday morning 



steam clean (recropped) by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Y'all killing me  all of these were taken with my old school Tokina 135 f/2.8. Manual focus is fun?


----------



## Philligan

Guys, I need an opinion.

Colour, or B&W?


----------



## Tang

Color. Either that or apply an orange or red filter to the b&w shot.

Quick conversion I did with Snapseed on my phone. 

http://i.imgur.com/1g9g5f0.jpg


----------



## Philligan

I have no idea what those are haha.


----------



## Nats

I like them both.


----------



## feilong29

I haven't posted in a while because I started my MBA again! But I was able to snag a few pics for a Memorial Day cabin experience  Feedback is welcomed (positive or negative)














































































Hope you like a few of them!


----------



## Tang

Nice shots man! Welcome back 

More from the 135 2.8


----------



## Azyiu

Decreate said:


> Haven't posted in a while. Here's a few I took in Osaka and Kyoto last week.



I love Osaka and Kyoto! By the way, this shot of the Ts&#363;tenkaku is my fav!


----------



## Decreate

Azyiu said:


> I love Osaka and Kyoto! By the way, this shot of the Ts&#363;tenkaku is my fav!


Really liked Osaka as well especially after finding a metal bar there that served Trooper beer and Satan beer.


----------



## capoeiraesp

I hired a canon 85mm 1.2 this weekend. Much fun is being had.


----------



## Tang

capoeiraesp said:


> I hired a canon 85mm 1.2 this weekend. Much is being had.



So Mr.85, what are your qualifications? We're looking for a bright and sharp individual with experience. 



Another from the 135 2.8. Love that 200mm equiv!


----------



## capoeiraesp

I work slower than almost anyone else out there and can be tricky at reaching targets, but when I do get it right you will cheer for the day you hired me and let me into your life.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

We got some rain today:


----------



## Nats




----------



## Tang

I think I have a problem.


----------



## Joose

Sunset in New Mexico yesterday.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Cell phone shit again.






I'm heading out for a little trip outside the city in the old Buick in a little while, so I'll bring my camera and hopefully get some decent shots of/with the car. Everything I've taken of it so far has been with my phone and my LC-A, which I haven't gotten developed yet.


----------



## guitarister7321

I'm fairly new to photography. Just got my first camera, a mirrorless Samsung NX300, back in December. Still learning my way around both my camera and editing software. I am currently using Lightroom 4.4 for editing. Below are some of my shots that I feel came out the best. I would greatly appreciate any constructive criticism or pointers!

My Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/


----------



## ThePhilosopher

1) The first shot does a good job of showing of the chromatic aberrations - there's no real subject here.

2) The focus is soft here.

3) I appreciate the look you're going for, but the composition is lacking.

4) It's a tree and some vines - there's not much more to say.

It's not easy to tell why you took a picture of those vines and that tree or the sun through the leaves - I understand there's practice, but like guitar you need practice with purpose.

Try to recreate some of your favorite images, shoot for an assignment-this can be hard if there's not one provided (perhaps we can start this up here), or tell a story with a series of images.


----------



## Nats

Assignments would be cool.


----------



## Tang

recropped and re-WB'd my guy on a bike shot.. I like this so much better.



red shirt (1x1) by nrrfed, on Flickr

one of my co-workers lets me takes shot of her after we close.. she's a great model/subject! I like the concept of portraits of people while they're working or in their natural element.



laugh attack by nrrfed, on Flickr



barista superpowers by nrrfed, on Flickr

after talking to this family for a few minutes they allowed me to take this shot.. really like this one.



fishing by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Have some LF film:


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Have some LF film:



Oooo. That's so good.


----------



## Wretched

ThePhilosopher said:


> 1) The first shot does a good job of showing of the chromatic aberrations - there's no real subject here.
> 
> 2) The focus is soft here.
> 
> 3) I appreciate the look you're going for, but the composition is lacking.
> 
> 4) It's a tree and some vines - there's not much more to say.
> 
> It's not easy to tell why you took a picture of those vines and that tree or the sun through the leaves - I understand there's practice, but like guitar you need practice with purpose.
> 
> Try to recreate some of your favorite images, shoot for an assignment-this can be hard if there's not one provided (perhaps we can start this up here), or tell a story with a series of images.



I agree with most of what you're saying, but don't believe every photo needs a 'subject'. I like the textures in the vines and the exposure is good. I think if something grabs your eye and you find something beautiful or ugly and want to capture it, it's worth capturing and if he's paying attention to exposure at the very least, then he's going to be learning something.


----------



## Wretched

A few pics from a recently published series on an insane supercharged 2.8L forged stroker VW Barndoor single-cab... this thing was truly nuts:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'd never expect that undercarriage given the topside.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

THAT VAN IS NUTS!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Ok, so I didn't get to go out with the car, but hopefully soon. Instead, I explored the abandoned malt plant on the canal with a friend. It smelled ....ing terrible, but getting to the top was amazing. It's something I've been wanting to do for a long time, but getting in can be a real pain in the ass, since entrances get sealed up within days that they appear. I'll probably head back again soon.

Some B&W
































Some instant film vibes
















and some colours I don't usually .... around with, but it felt right.


----------



## mungiisi

Some nice stuff you guys have here! Let me share some of mine.

I do mostly concert and ice hockey photography, sometimes some portraits as well:



James Hetfield by MikkoPylkko, on Flickr



Children of Bodom by MikkoPylkko, on Flickr



Down by MikkoPylkko, on Flickr



Alexi &quot;WildChild&quot; Laiho by MikkoPylkko, on Flickr



Devin Townsend by MikkoPylkko, on Flickr



Steve Vai II by MikkoPylkko, on Flickr



Rise Against by MikkoPylkko, on Flickr



DJ Stuke by MikkoPylkko, on Flickr



Martti by MikkoPylkko, on Flickr



Slovakia-USA by MikkoPylkko, on Flickr



Let's go Connolly by MikkoPylkko, on Flickr

I have some more at my flickr.com photostream. You can follow my photographic journeys at facebook aswell http://facebook.com/MikkoPylkkoPhotography.


----------



## Wretched

Great stuff, mungiisi!


----------



## Tang

Took this for yhr assignment thread. Topic is symmetry 



kitchen sink mk 2 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Ben: Awesome as always. That van is crazy. 

Jeff: I really dig the texture in all those shots, and the colour ones look really muted and cool. 

Mungiisi: Those are all awesome. 

I've been pretty quiet lately, been really busy. I think I've got a couple post-worthy shots that just need processing.

I ordered a speedlite last week. 

A Yongnuo 565 with the trigger set. And I won a bid on a cheap stand and bracket (and I think an umbrella haha) so I'll hopefully be shooting some lit stuff in the next couple weeks or so. Lots of portraits of Dawn on the way.  I'm gonna try and shoot my friends more, too, for practice. I'm really excited - I've been paying a lot more attention to light lately and have really been having fun shooting portraits, so the flash should open up more possibilities there (and hopefully help curb my jonesings for a full frame ).


----------



## Philligan

Here's another one of Dawn from the other day. I'm working on the next batch of photos now.



Dawn - May 2014 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Here are a couple I just processed now.

This one's from Sunday night. I caught a bird flying through the sunset down at the water.



A bird flies through the sunset by philbabbey, on Flickr

And here's an oldie but a goodie from our Florida excursion with everybody's favourite Tang! I posted just the one of the guy on his own because I liked it more at the time, and felt like this one was too similar to get posted in the same batch. I finally hunted the raw file down on my external and had a go at it just now.



Husband and wife by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## soliloquy

view from military road looking southwards in St. John's Newfoundland


----------



## Philligan

I just went to order a second battery, and found out B&H is closed the next two days for Shavuos. 

I got asked to shoot a wedding next year.  I think I'm gonna say yes, but I'm really gonna think about it and talk to them first.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Weddings are no joke - I love/hate them.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Weddings are no joke - I love/hate them.



For real. Have you done any second shooting, Phil? I much prefer second shooting with photographers that let me do my 'candids' thing and let them worry about all the formal portrait. I hate them so much.

Here's some fun with perspective:


----------



## Philligan

I've seconded with Dan a bit, and I'm doing a wedding with him on the 21st. This one would be me solo, and Dawn would probably second. Talking to the girl, it sounds like they aren't doing any formal portraits, she wants someone there looking for moments and shooting that.

I'm still on the fence. It sounds like she's looking to not pay as much because there aren't any specific shots she wants (which is fine), but she apparently has a photography site and is trying to do that for a living, so I'd want to sit down and have a big talk about expectations first.

I'll probably end up saying yes, because I don't have any good reasons for why I can't do it, and it'll put my out of my comfort zone. And it's money I can put in my camera gear fund without feeling guilty.


----------



## Tang

some fresh stuff!



kiss by nrrfed, on Flickr



medium format by nrrfed, on Flickr



st. aug by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Did you check out that field camera at all?


----------



## tank

new lenses day 
I just got my new nikkor 50mm f1.4






















(If you are thinkin': "shit,that place seems from jurassic park" I know that feel)

and here an experiment with lights and some home made reflectors 





ps. this is my father, 63 years old


----------



## Philligan

tank said:


>



I really like this one. 

edit: Embed fail.  It's the skater.


----------



## Tang

Really feel like my style is becoming clear.


----------



## MrYakob

I've been shooting a bunch since the weather has gotten warmer, but I haven't had any time to sit down and actually edit anything! So here's just a few over the past couple weeks/months



IMG_2777 by Mr Yakob, on Flickr



IMG_2813 by Mr Yakob, on Flickr



IMG_2883 by Mr Yakob, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

iPhone 4S + LR5/Silver Efex Pro 2.


----------



## Rook

Wew, photodump.



Global News by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Euston Underpass by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Three Rings by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



London Bus and Evening Glow by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Arches and Commuter by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Northumberland Moped by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tried playing with my Gold and Blue polarizer:


----------



## Rook

That's a cool effect man, I didn't know such a thing existed!

For the next month I'm gunna be shooting 6x2 only.

*spooky music*


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I've amped it up a bit in post (mostly shifted the golds toward red).


----------



## Tang

I've been slacking lately. Here's some iPhone stuff.


----------



## Rook

Here are some examples of why I'm giving a month to 6x2, really enjoying these.



London Transport by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Embrace by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Lost Toy by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Backpack in Evening Glow by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Businessman by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



iPhone Photographer by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Can we go now? by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Centre Point by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Baggage by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Winspear

Holy shit, Nick, that is an awesome format!!


----------



## Rook

thanks d00d


----------



## Tang

Maybe I'll have a go


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Rook said:


> That's a cool effect man, I didn't know such a thing existed!
> 
> For the next month I'm gunna be shooting 6x2 only.
> 
> *spooky music*



That reminds me I have a 2x5 darkslide for shooting 2x5s on my 4x5 camera.


----------



## Rook

Haha, cool! Let's do it!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Here's two unedited shots to show the effects of the gold and blue polarizer, gold on the left and blue opposite. It does have a strong magenta cast that has to be corrected, but sometimes it works out quite well as is.


----------



## Tang

A new one and a edit of the coffee shot I posted above:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Creative Live with my man Pratik: https://www.creativelive.com/courses/art-business-high-end-retouching-pratik-naik


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Cinematic formats are the best. I need to shoot more 16x9.


----------



## Tang

JeffFromMtl said:


> Cinematic formats are the best. I need to shoot more 16x9.



Thanks for the inspiration guys.  Tried to incorporate a common theme with all these.. hope ya'll like them.



pier #1 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

^Makes me wanna play GTA V


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Had to take a photo of a winch for work. Was happy with the way the greys came out.


----------



## Whammy

Well here is my one photo a month 
I really need to take more photos.

See you all again in another month when I take my next photo  






On a serious note though I'm losing interest in my sharp lenses (standard-ish focal length) for casual shooting. Something keeps drawing me back to my old 55mm f1.2 lens even though it's very soft wide open and the flare is awful.
I just feel like I can connect more with the photos I take with this lens. Its flaws help create a view of the world that only exists in my head.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Try vaseline on a UV filter over your sharper lenses.
Here's a composite of some masks:


----------



## Tang

Whammy: once I got out of my 'everything has to be pixel perfect sharp' phase I've been a much happier and IMO, a better photographer.


----------



## Rook

wat yall doing im jus 6x2'n



Garden 4 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Any of you guys have any experience with the Canon 28 1.8? 

Someone's interested in my 50, and I'd like something wider. If she buys it, it should be almost enough for me to get a refurb 28 1.8 directly from Canon.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The results of the above mask and a little more.


----------



## Tang

I've got 4x5's and more!



phone call by nrrfed, on Flickr



bolleyvall by nrrfed, on Flickr



the throw by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Had a blast in south east Victoria recently.



Mornington Peninsula, Victoria by Mat Hieu, on Flickr



Mornington Peninsula, Victoria by Mat Hieu, on Flickr



Mornington Peninsula, Victoria by Mat Hieu, on Flickr



Mornington Peninsula, Victoria by Mat Hieu, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Nice stuff there. I spent the evening working on this one:





and here's a full-sized crop:


----------



## Philligan

My flash and triggers showed up today. Such good trigger, oh wow.


----------



## Rook

Its good that they haven't limited the wonderful, it'd suck if they did.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Another edit:


----------



## Tang

Another from my Pier series:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I feel like it's going to slowly fall over and crush that poor guy.


----------



## Philligan

Good god, flashes are amazing. 

I got some AAAs for the triggers, just waiting on the cheap stand now. I've got Dawn's dog for the weekend, and am playing with the flash on him (he seems to be getting used to the camera haha). I wanna learn interesting lighting, but I just tried bouncing off the ceiling and can't believe how much of a difference it makes, and how natural it looks. I wouldn't guess a flash was used just looking at it. 

These were the same settings. F4, 1/160, 6400. First is no flash, second is flash bounced off the ceiling. No processing, these were straight jpg conversions I sent to my phone using the wifi.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'll just leave this here: ModelMayhem.com - Lighting Setup Tutorials: basic to advanced


----------



## Rook

Bounce flashes are great if you can live with the contrast and casting, my Speedlite's been a lot of fun. Off camera and soft boxes are a big priority for me now.


----------



## capoeiraesp

...


----------



## Azyiu

Smeell toilet papers&#8230; when the smell is so unbearable, you needed an extra "e" for it!!


----------



## Tang

Such highlights. Wow. 

Just wanted to thank you guys. I know I wouldn't the photographer I am today without this thread.


----------



## soliloquy




----------



## Philligan

We found some baby skunks in the backyard today. These are with the über shitty 75-300, wifi'd to my phone. 

I tried shooting Dawn with the flash against the sunset, but I'll have to wait til I can get on the computer and mask her and warm her up.


----------



## MrYakob

They finally came in to stock at Henry's yesterday so I ordered my new toy which showed up today!



Sigma 50 by Mr Yakob, on Flickr

I'll post some sample shots later tonight if I can, I was having a weird colour issue with my first few snaps but it seems to have gone away now.

Also, this thing is fooookin heavy. I was expecting it to have some heft but it's heavier than my 24-105... Atleast it balances nice on the 6D.


----------



## Tang

'composed' this shot upside-down in the viewfinder and flipped it right-side up in LR.. love the result 



impressionist by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## guitarister7321

My girlfriend took me to DC for my birthday this weekend. Got what I feel are some of my best shots yet.


----------



## flint757

I really like that shot of the subway.


----------



## soliloquy

Tang said:


> 'composed' this shot upside-down in the viewfinder and flipped it right-side up in LR.. love the result
> 
> 
> 
> impressionist by nrrfed, on Flickr



care to explain more? i see some ripples in the shot, so how was this shot taken? looking at a reflection of something over head?


----------



## Azyiu

soliloquy said:


> care to explain more? i see some ripples in the shot, so how was this shot taken? looking at a reflection of something over head?



It was a reflection, and he just flipped it upside down; like the picture we are seeing now.


----------



## Philligan

I wrote up a huge post earlier but got a database error, so here's the abridged version. 

First wedding is on Saturday. I'm nervous, but I think I'm ready. I'm just worried about the flash and posing/directing, because I'll be on my own with the groomsmen for the first hour or so.

For the flash, I'm torn between manual and TTL. I'm comfortable enough with manual, but it takes me a couple shots to get my bearings for exposure when I'm in a new place. On the other hand, TTL does that for me, but I lose control. Is the exposure gamble worth the extra speed I'd get with TTL?


----------



## Philligan

And here's one I took Tuesday.



Sunsets by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

FWIW I've never shot TTL, just go manual - know your environment and flash power.


----------



## Tang

Azyiu said:


> It was a reflection, and he just flipped it upside down; like the picture we are seeing now.



This is exactly correct. If you look at the image upside you'll see how it looked to me in the viewfinder. Slightly awkward, but very doable. I also flipped it horizontally in post because it looked better.

I went out today and got exactly 0 keepers.. first time that's happened in a while, but I think that shows that I'm getting pickier about what a 'keeper' actually is.



GOOD LUCK PHIL!

EDIT: here're some themed b&w shots. the theme is my fiancee  this day was MUCH more productive. I've also noticed I really, really need to get in closer. This first shot was taken at 17mm, and honestly it might be a bit too wide for normal street stuff, but I love the way it looks. You really have to get in peoples faces when you're this wide and that makes it feel much more personal. I'm thinking 28mm might be my sweet spot for street and I'm actively looking for an older 28mm f/2.8.




jenn #3 by nrrfed, on Flickr



jenn #2 by nrrfed, on Flickr



jenn #1 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Thanks man! 

Someone else got a hold of me about seconding a wedding in July. It's actually a girl I went to high school with who went to school for photography. She's not as involved with my generation of the local photography scene, which is a shit tonne of people who are marketing themselves before they've got experience, and there's a lot of negativity. She doesn't really know any of those guys, so the fresh perspective will be good and I'll hopefully get away from the shit talking that tends to happen among a lot of the locals. 

I'm not interested in marketing myself as "Phil Babbey: Wedding Photographer", but I'd definitely like to learn what I can from it and get the experience, and if I can make a little extra money seconding, that's a bonus.


----------



## Wretched

Not sure if you guys are aware, but some of the pics you've been adding to the InFocus Flickr group have been published in the magazine. Not sure if you guys have iPads or not. Some great stuff in there!


----------



## Nats

I'm doing a "shoot" with a friend of mine on Saturday. It's more for helping me experiment with light and camera settings and trying to get some kind of consistency in all the shots. Kinda nervous about it because I don't want to make her feel like I wasted her time, but then again she knows I'm using her as a guinea pig while I get more comfortable with doing portraits and stuff. Also kinda excited. She's beautiful and has a radiant personality so it shouldn't be too hard to get a bunch of keepers. We'll see how it goes I guess.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Just a friendly reminder: Aperture controls both ambient and flash brightness, Shutterspeed (up to sync) controls ambient brightness.

Some test shots for the liner notes of my next disc.


----------



## Rook

^SL MkII, good man


----------



## ThePhilosopher

ReMOTE 37SL.


----------



## Wretched

This shoot was finally published last week so I can show you more of it now... nice car!

This first shot scored an 83 in the NSW AIPP (Australian Institute of Professional Photography) state professional photography awards recently (silver award). One judge was fighting for a silver with distinction, but it didn't quite get there. Still stoked! First time I've ever entered anything anywhere. Ended up the finalist in the state commercial category. (Four of the six prints I entered scored silver awards!)


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Too bad it will break on its way out of the garage...lol. FDs are so beautiful though.


----------



## MrYakob

Took a few shots with the Siggy 50 Art, I have no experience shooting at 1.4 so it's a bit of a challenge with nailing such a thin DoF but my god I love this lens. All of these are wide open and SOOC except the leaves shot which was at 1.8



IMG_3036 by Mr Yakob, on Flickr



IMG_3055 by Mr Yakob, on Flickr



IMG_3102 by Mr Yakob, on Flickr



IMG_3071 by Mr Yakob, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I got a decent offer for my 50 1.4 (too tight for me now), and had an offer accepted on a 28 1.8, but the dude's being a dick and is trying to tell me that he'll sell it to someone else if I don't pick it up tonight. He's two hours away in Windsor and I'll be there Sunday night anyway. Not sure if I should just tell him to go f himself or hold out and see if I can get it. It's a great deal, so I'll probably cave and try to sweet talk him.


----------



## Tang

Funny how my processing has changed in just a year..


----------



## Rook

ThePhilosopher said:


> ReMOTE 37SL.



Wow, how long have you had that?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

About a year and a half - got it for a steal.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Shot some stuff at a festival for work yesterday, so here's some 16x9.


----------



## Whammy

My fiancée and my kid


----------



## Tang

nice bokeh and b&w tones, whammy! Cute kid too 

I have no idea why I put that goofy border on this shot, but .... it.


----------



## capoeiraesp

MrYakob said:


> Took a few shots with the Siggy 50 Art, I have no experience shooting at 1.4 so it's a bit of a challenge with nailing such a thin DoF but my god I love this lens. All of these are wide open and SOOC except the leaves shot which was at 1.8



I got the Sigma 50 art too. Feels much like the 35 art I already own 

This is on my 7d at work.


Bokeh test with Sigma 50mm 1.4 art on Canon 7D by Mat Hieu, on Flickr

and on the 6D


Sir Winston. Sigma 50mm 1.4 art on Canon 6D @f1.4 by Mat Hieu, on Flickr



Sigma 50mm 1.4 art and VSCO app. by Mat Hieu, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

I'm gunna leave the film border on my 135 and eventual 120 scans when I get around to doing them.

Cos I'm edgy.


----------



## Philligan

Wedding today. 

Here's the setup. The bag is super ghetto (cheap messenger + camera insert ) but it's quicker to get into and easier to take on and off than my sling backpack (I'm gonna get a Tenba Small Messenger when I have some extra money). 





Left to right I've got the Yongnuo YN-565ii (for when it looks like I'm about to run out of wonderful), 50 1.4, 70D + Siggy 17-50 2.8, and the craptastic 75-300 4-5.6 (I might pull this out during the ceremony). I've got a blower, lens pen, and charger in the side pockets, extra battery and cards in the front pocket, and my Black Rapid straps. 

So pretty much everything I own.  Leaving in about an hour.


----------



## Philligan

Mid-day update: Ceremony down, and I just finished assisting with the portraits and group stuff. It feels more like work than photography.  I'm not too happy with most of my photos, but I was expecting that. I'd probably assist again, but I don't have a huge desire to do this on my own haha.


----------



## Tang

I feel you on that. I'm doing a wedding in October and besides the normal formal shots the bride wants me to capture the wedding in a more candid way. What can I say? She likes my style. 



Seriously though, I wouldn't get too down about your shots. I hated a good 50% of the shots I took at my first wedding.


----------



## flint757

Reception might be more fun.


----------



## Tang

I can't believe I ever dissed the philosophy of 'the best camera is the one you have you'. It's so true. I love shooting with my phone now because composition is everything.





shadow of the dragon by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

End of the night update: The reception was way, way better. Even though they didn't have an itinerary, I was way more comfortable mingling and not running around trying to get money shots in real time. I actually get pretty social when I'm in a group, so I'd get in and get all in people's faces and stuff. 

edit: Also, my knees literally feel like someone tried to kill them with a warhammer. 

Apparently there's another wedding next Saturday. I don't remember Dan telling me, but if I can't get my shift switched I'll just do the reception after. 

I officially want a full frame, fast 35, and a 70-200 - even the f4 non-IS will do.  That 75-300 was a nightmare during the ceremony; until I can get a 70-200, I'll just stick with the 17-50 and get closer.


----------



## Nats

What are all you guys' go-to portrait post processing techniques? I did a quick practice shoot with my friend today and I like a lot of the shots I got but I'm pretty in the dark when it comes to a concrete post processing workflow.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

RAW Adjustments, push any hotspots darker, push excess reds out of skin, heal, heal more, dodge and burn, clean up background, light sculpting, color grading.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCdPuo7dD6mvkW3pCfHcoTA has been helpful along with a lot of practice.


----------



## Philligan

Pretty much the same, only simpler for me. In order, I'll get the exposure where it should be, then get the colours as accurate as I remember, do any sharpening or noise reduction if I need to, then mask off any areas for specific adjustments, and finish off with the tone curve.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I should add I'm using a Wacom tablet and that the kind of work I do is tedious at best with a mouse.

Post up one of those photos in the RAW challenge thread, Nats.


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> I can't believe I ever dissed the philosophy of 'the best camera is the one you have you'. It's so true. I love shooting with my phone now because composition is everything.




I'd really like to believe that. I get some photos I am happy with on my camera phone. That is of course until I think about printing them. I just can't bring myself to ever print photos from my camera phone due to the quality. Postcard size small, maybe. But nothing bigger.
At the end of the day no matter how nice I may think the photo may be, it'll probably just get lost on my hard drive among the many other camera phone photos.

Phone pic






Another phone pic. The dirt track to my house.
That forest is pretty much my back garden 





At least it's all good practice for framing 

From my "normal" camera...


----------



## Azyiu

Haven't been shooting anything lately until today...


----------



## Rook

Still vapidly abusing 3:1 aspect ratios...



Woman in Alley by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Mapreading on Corner by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Covent Garden Selfie by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



1 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Nats

ThePhilosopher said:


> I should add I'm using a Wacom tablet and that the kind of work I do is tedious at best with a mouse.
> 
> Post up one of those photos in the RAW challenge thread, Nats.



Oh cool, didn't even notice we had that. Here's a link to the post in that thread I just made. 
http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/4079769-post142.html


----------



## Tang

still on a 16x9 kick..



smokey and david by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Not man enough for 3:1?

Let's face it, it is a phallic aspect ratio. Freud would have us believe so, anyway.


----------



## Whammy

I attempted doing stuff in a 3:1 aspect ratio years ago. It's a very channeling ratio to work.
I even whet so far as to tape up my live view screen to simulate the ratio. I was able to frame shots better but I ended up abandoning the idea of 3:1 because I felt every photo looked cropped.

After seeing photos from a Fuji GX617 (panoramic medium format film camera in 3:1 ratio) and also some dlsr cameras retrofitted to use anamorphic lenses my opinion of the cropped feel from my own photos was confirmed.

Photos from the above examples were so natural looking. They don't look narrow or cropped at all.
Especially if you have some bokeh in an anamorphic photo. The bokeh will swirl around the frame edges really giving the impression that the ratio is natural.
Stopping down will allow you to place the subject towards the edges.

Of course using an anamorphic lens may not give a 3:1 ratio but it's very close +/-

Here is an anamorphic shot directly to the camera...






Then you resize the photo to display the correct ratio...





examples taken from here
Using an Anamorphic Lens  Sam Hurd Is at It Again!

Here is a photo with a Lomo Anamorphic lens...





Original page here...
Edwin Lee: Video & Photo services - Lomo Anamorphic Lenses


Some food for thought if you really want to push the 3:1 aspect ratio.


----------



## MrYakob

capoeiraesp said:


> I got the Sigma 50 art too. Feels much like the 35 art I already own



I'd be interested to know how you think the two compare, I love the 50 but someone is selling a used 35 locally and I'm tempted to pick it up despite just getting a 17-40 a week or two ago.


----------



## capoeiraesp

So far they're just like the same lens with different focal lengths. Less vignetting at 1.4 on the 50mm but it's negligible. I love both, however 35mm is currently my preferred focal length. 
Got looking at the fuji x100s for the first time since selling my x100 many months ago. Tempted to sell the sigma 35 to help fund it since id love a less conspicuous camera that performs exceptionally for most of the styles I do.


----------



## Rook

Some may disagree but unless you have a pretty well overflowing lens selection, buying a 35 after a 50 is probably not where I'd go.

For standard primes, I think more people tend to consider themselves a 35mm person or a 50mm person haha. If you shoot all sorts and they're 'tools' then a 35 is basically an indoor 50, but...

Yeah, I'd be looking for an 85 or perhaps 135...


And don't let my pictures put you off the Fuji's, they're fantastic, the colours are simply wonderful. I seldom post anything here I haven't moodily processed though.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Too true, Rook. Admittedly it was a tad silly going for the 50 as well but I couldn't resist because I love the 35. 
The fuji's JPEG conversion is so awesome. I was looking at the Velvia shots I took with my x100 and they're just so sharp and rich with colour.


----------



## Rook

Hey no criticism at all dude, I personally am a big 'standard' shooter, I have a 35 equivalent and feel a 50mm hole in my bag, trust me!

I am what you'd call a 35mm guy but full frame went with the 50 1.2 because the canon 35 L is junk and the Zeiss 35 1.4, my dream haha, was manual focus which wasn't practical for a grab and go lens - I felt like I needed one lens that would just do it. I managed great, but prefer the feel of a 35. Now that I have my 35 equivalent I miss the 50 a big. Granted I have a 15-35 and 85 equivalent now too, but yeah. Miss it.


----------



## capoeiraesp

All good, mate!

So, my setup would become:

Fuji x100s as a backup/2nd cam and a less conspicuous, easy going cam day to day. 

6D and keep the Sigma 50mm, Canon 85 1.8 (really want the 1.2 after hiring it), and my 135 f2. I've got my remote trigger, flash and soft box with this too. 

That's all bases covered I think.


----------



## Philligan

After growing up on 50 on crop and getting the 17-50, I'm shooting so much at 17.  After another lens or two (70-200 f4 and a wider fast prime) I'd like to get the x100s for a second and for taking out. I took the 70D and 17-50 out with some friends tonight and it's pretty bulky.


----------



## Philligan

We went to the Windsor/Detroit Summer Fest and saw the fireworks, and I couldn't resist taking this.


----------



## Rook

capoeiraesp said:


> All good, mate!
> 
> So, my setup would become:
> 
> Fuji x100s as a backup/2nd cam and a less conspicuous, easy going cam day to day.
> 
> 6D and keep the Sigma 50mm, Canon 85 1.8 (really want the 1.2 after hiring it), and my 135 f2. I've got my remote trigger, flash and soft box with this too.
> 
> That's all bases covered I think.



Y u no wide angle


----------



## capoeiraesp

That's the other side of things I need to explore 
Apparently the Samyang 14mm manual focus is pretty killer.


----------



## Rook

14mm full frame?!?!

EDIT: Ah yes, it is as bad as I expected hahaha


----------



## capoeiraesp

ewwwwww...

Yep, I think the x100s will be quite alright.


----------



## Tang

Heya Rook. 

This is the most natural 3x1 I've taken so far:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

You just have to know how to use an ultra wide, 15mm on ff:





and 20mm isn't bad at all:


----------



## Nats

I liked the way this one came out even though I was pretty drunk when taking it so the focus wasn't perfect. It also got messed up when editing because one of my 6 month olds was sitting on my lap and kicking my editing arm the entire time. I'll probably re edit it and just make the background solid.


----------



## Kwirk

Did the Guitar Gods show last night in Minneapolis. Such a shame that the audience was so small. There was probably only 100 or so people in the room. Everyone still played like it was packed though. Props for that.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

From a band shoot for some friends of mine


----------



## Skyblue

been to the beach on saturday. phone pic.


----------



## Rook

ThePhilosopher said:


> You just have to know how to use an ultra wide, 15mm on ff:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and 20mm isn't bad at all:



Love dem ultra wides, my 10-24 is of course a 15-36mm equivalent:



1 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Photos of the Floor by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Evening Light on Chair by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

There are some pretty pointless examples of using 15mm 135 equivalent haha.


----------



## Wretched

Hahaha love the damage to the furniture. Well, I'd hate it if it were mine, but it's cute when it's not!


----------



## Rook

More or less how I feel about it hahahahaha


Also, I'm running a photo shoot for an event for Focusrite this weekend. First time I've ever worked professionally on assignment. Life goal complete!


----------



## Tang

I am a fan of boring 4x5 crops.



scenic view by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Shot some headshots for a local lawyer:





and a cat that was interested in 16x9:


----------



## Rook

This month I'm working on my Abstract stuff, still largely in a street context.



7 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Raindrop on Rail by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



10 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



9 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr
^Bit of a cop out but hey lol



5 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Raindrop on rail is awesome stuff.


----------



## Philligan

I got my cards back last night, so when I have some time I'll go through and process a few and post them. I might start on it tonight, but I worked all day and am heading out to shoot a local show in a couple hours, so we'll see haha.

The official feedback: Apparently he liked my shots from last weekend.  He's delivering about 600 photos in total to the couple, and around 150 are mine. He said the day of that for my first wedding, he'd be happy with 20 useable photos, so I'm alright with that.  That means I'm officially on for all his paid second weddings this year, and apparently I'm getting paid for anything else I do with him from now on, such as tonight. 

Tonight's gonna go from about 10 to 1am, then I work 9-5:30 tomorrow, then shoot a wedding reception til 10 or 11, then shoot a battle of the bands after that. It's gonna be a long day.


----------



## Skyblue

a random... thing in the middle of tel aviv. 






I really want to buy a normal camera, I only I didn't have more important stuff to spen money on first... such as rent a flat to live in


----------



## Rook

Normal how?


----------



## Tang

Tang does portraits? Why not. 






and a fun, kinda experimental b&w self-portrait.



self-portrait by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Official update after the 28 Hours ov Death:

Holy balls, I'm tired.  Last night was quiet, more ambient natural light shots to show off the "new" look of the bar (which hasn't changed at all haha). That went well. Some dude got mad because he thought I took his photo and threatened to sue; I showed him I didn't and was friendly and he said he liked my hair. Alright. That was my first confrontation down haha. That night was cool, because I was shooting room layout shots and candids, but most people ignored me because I was the working photographer, so the street photographer hiding in me was in full bloom. 

The reception went great today - I mostly shot during the dancing and partying, and did the club-style shutter drags. They turned out great, and people love them. I dropped one of Dan's SB-600s and killed it, so my first paying gig as a photographer ended with me losing money because I've gotta replace his flash.  It sucks, but it happens. At least it's a mistake I learned from really quickly, and he was cool about it. 

The bar was pure club shutter drags, taking a million photos of girls and having to show them every single one, and reminders that I hate clubs unless I'm trying to hit on girls, which isn't happening with me getting married.  This gets old pretty fast, but it's not awful, and it's money. 

Here's the link to the club's facebook, they should be posting photos soon. Last night I shot Dan's D600 with a 50 1.8, and tonight was his D7000 with a kit zoom and the other (now lonely) SB-600 with a Fong for maximvm svvirly light bokeh. The wedding was the usual, my 70D with the 17-50 and Yongnuo. 

So it turns out I can't copy the link on my phone, so I'll post it tomorrow. Dan's got my cards from tonight, but I'll try and sort through last weekend's soon and pick ten or so that could start a portfolio, and post them.

Bam, here it is. No photos yet. 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Rustic/745142858863342?fref=ts


----------



## Whammy

Being using my camera phone for snap shots lately. I decided I'm only going to use the first B&W preset in Instagram to limit my post processing. Plus it makes me rely more on lighting and framing.

It's actually nice to quickly touch up the photo as soon as you take them, done and dusted 
Makes a change to always shooting RAW with everything set to manual and waiting to get home to do all the post work.






















And here's a photo from my usual camera...


----------



## Whammy

Right, I'm in the market for a new lens so opinions are very welcome. It's for a canon full frame.

I'm normally a 50mm kind of guy. Give or take a bit 
My current workhorse is an Olympus Zuiko 55mm f/1.2 manual lens.
It's an old lens, single coated and a little soft. But it's full of character and abstract/exaggerated bokeh.

My other two main lenses are a Olympus Zuiko 40mm (manual lens) f/2 & a Canon 85mm f/1.2 MKii
I can't really fault either of these lenses so I'm not looking for anything to replace these lenses. I also have an Olympus 85mm f/2 but I haven't used that since I got the Canon.

My two other lenses that I'm not too happy with are both Olympus manual lenses. A 24mm f/2 & a 135mm f2.8

I just never find a use for the 135mm and although the 24mm lens is really good I still haven't clicked with the angle. I can't put my finger on it, I don't know if I'd prefer wider or narrower 

My main idea is to get another lens around 50mm to complement my 55mm.
Because I use bokeh a lot I would be completely happy with two lenses around the same focal length but with different bokeh styles.
Obviously if this newer lens wasn't soft like my 55mm that would be a bonus too.

The other idea would be to fill the gap between 24mm-40mm or 24mm and under.

I would prefer manual focus lenses but I'm open to ideas and focal length suggestions.
My budget is around 500 so I'm currently looking at the Voigtländer 58mm f/1.4 Nokton and the Zeiss Planar T* 50/1,4 ZE

Anyone have any opinions on these lenses?
I'm leaning towards the Voigtländer because the depth of field should be greater being a 58mm lens and from examples online the bokeh also feels a tab bit more organic/natural compared to the Zeiss (which is still nice of course)


----------



## Tang

channeling my inner Wretched.. handheld at f/2.8 and 1/4s... ouch!



bug by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

I've heard of a lot of Voigtlanders now that are pretty seriously meh. Hazy looking, soft as a soft puppy wide open and I don't like their MF rings much but that doesn't matter.

With your current setup I'd really like a Zeiss 25mm f/2 but that's a pricey lens hahaha. It's one of their latest designs (unlike the 50 or 85, more like the 35 1.4, 135 f/2 or Otus stuff) and it is absolutely gobsmacking for street and editorial and documentary looking images. 

Here's a list of some random cool lenses you could try and get for good money used:
- Canon FD 135 f/2
- Zeiss ZE 35 f/2
- Zeiss ZE 18 f/3.5 if you're feeling crazy

Out of ideas now.


----------



## Philligan

Whammy said:


> Right, I'm in the market for a new lens so opinions are very welcome. It's for a canon full frame.



What about an FD 50 1.4 or 55 1.2? Those can be found on ebay for I think around 150 euros, so I think you could find the aspherical versions of those for around your budget. They might be the SSC ones, but they could have another name (I can check in an hour or so).

But yeah, read up on the FD 55 1.2 Aspherical and see how that sounds. 

Also, those Insta-B&Ws look great. Especially the one of your fiancé, the blacks look excellent.


----------



## Tang

Phil, can he even mount an FD lens on his body? If I remember he has a 5dii, right? Without an adapter with corrective glass he won't be able to focus to infinity and some FD lenses can actually interfere with the mirror.


----------



## Philligan

You can get adapters for dirt cheap. 

Vello Lens Mount Adapter - Canon FD Lens to Canon EOS LA-CEF-CFD

Okay. I googled it. For FD 55 lenses:

-55 1.2.

-55 1.2 S.S.C. 
-This one has better coatings (SSC = Super Special Coatings?)

-55 1.2 AL/AL S.S.C
-This is a primitive, handmade version of the Aspherical lens. It's more collectible but I don't think any different than the Aspherical other than the production method.

-55 1.2 Aspherical
-This is allegedly the best one. More elements and groups, etc etc.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

3x1 Crops:














Square Crop:





Boring Crops:


----------



## Philligan

Okay, I finally went through my cards and processed some. I didn't pick as many as I thought I would, because I'm looking at them a week later and realized they aren't as interesting if you don't know the people.  So I picked a few that I think I liked regardless.

Hopefully these work - I've just got them in a private album on Flickr. Also, holy crap the new Flickr sucks.

Father and son of the groom:


IMG_7977 by philbabbey, on Flickr

Groom (with the sunglasses) and groomsmen, Quentin Tarantino-style:


IMG_7987 by philbabbey, on Flickr

Ceremony:


IMG_8202 by philbabbey, on Flickr

More ceremony:


IMG_8323 by philbabbey, on Flickr

Table decoration things and wine:


IMG_8489 by philbabbey, on Flickr

Hugs:


IMG_8571 by philbabbey, on Flickr

Nikon J1 (boooo ):


IMG_8687 by philbabbey, on Flickr

Irish girl and a little girl dancing:


IMG_8907 by philbabbey, on Flickr

Bride and kid having an intense moment:


IMG_8808 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

You can quite easily adapt FD iirc, some people remove the aperture control arm which is quit straight forward. The ring will still work, it just doesn't protrude inwards.


----------



## Wretched

Here's a sneak peek of a shoot I did on Shane's Mazda last week for Hot4s. 

This one's just natural light, using a CPL filter and two or three exposures with the filter at different angles to control the reflections how I wanted them.


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> I've heard of a lot of Voigtlanders now that are pretty seriously meh. Hazy looking, soft as a soft puppy wide open and I don't like their MF rings much but that doesn't matter.


Lame 



Rook said:


> With your current setup I'd really like a Zeiss 25mm f/2 but that's a pricey lens hahaha. It's one of their latest designs (unlike the 50 or 85, more like the 35 1.4, 135 f/2 or Otus stuff) and it is absolutely gobsmacking for street and editorial and documentary looking images.



Just checked out photos from that lens and they are absolutely gorgeous.
Wasn't expecting that. A little over budget though 




Philligan said:


> What about an FD 50 1.4 or 55 1.2? Those can be found on ebay for I think around 150 euros, so I think you could find the aspherical versions of those for around your budget. They might be the SSC ones, but they could have another name (I can check in an hour or so).
> 
> But yeah, read up on the FD 55 1.2 Aspherical and see how that sounds.



I've actually always been interested in the Nikon Noct-Nikkor 58mm f1.2
It's an aspherical lens and is specially corrected for use wide open  But that is one expensive lens.
The FD lenses can normally have that bit that pokes out filed off so it doesn't come in contact with the mirror. But unfortunately a normally adapter won't allow for infinity focus and the adapters which allow for infinity focus have additional optics. I've heard a lot of bad things about cheap adapter/optics converters due to the glass degrading image quality and I don't want to eat into my budget with an expensive adapter. A pity because some of the FD lenses are really nice. But thanks for suggesting the FD lenses 

But checking out the FD lenses again did help me find the Nikon Nikkor 50mm f1.2 which is a little over budget. It would seem to fix my issues with my 55mm (I still prefer the bokeh on my current lens ) although fitting a Nikon on a Canon is probably sacrilegious 


I see loads of amazing lenses around 50mm but most are over budget. I'm starting to think now isn't the time to add another 50mm unless I up my budget. A Leica Summilux-R 50mm 1.4 would be yummy 

Might just use this as an opportunity to get some extra wide glass and experiment a little.





Philligan said:


> Okay, I finally went through my cards and processed some. I didn't pick as many as I thought I would, because I'm looking at them a week later and realized they aren't as interesting if you don't know the people.


I don't know how many photos I have deleted over the years for this very reason 



Philligan said:


> Also, holy crap the new Flickr sucks.


I kinda like it


----------



## Kwirk

The Antonov An-225. Biggest plane in the world! It's parked here in Minneapolis temporarily until tomorrow evening (Wednesday) if anyone is in the area.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Some of you Aussies will hopefully know who this character on the right is.



Save Mylo with Father Bob by Mat Hieu, on Flickr

First ever attempt at astro photography


Yarrawonga, Victoria, Australia. by Mat Hieu, on Flickr

and some others out on the Murray river, both shot with the 135mm L.


Yarrawonga, Victoria, Australia. by Mat Hieu, on Flickr



Yarrawonga, Victoria, Australia. by Mat Hieu, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Nice astro, there's far too much light pollution near me to get a shot that clear.


----------



## Tang

keeping it simple.


----------



## capoeiraesp

I got the x100s, Rook. 
So much better than the x100.


----------



## Rook

You mean you just bought one now?!?!

If so congrats haha!

If you use lightroom and you've not processed X-Trans images before, feel free to hit me up. There's a bit of an art to it which I only very recently fully adjusted to.


----------



## Skyblue

Rook said:


> Normal how?



I'll rephrase myself- *a* camera 

I'm quite lost as to where to even begin- which company, lenses and all that jazz but so far I haven't done any research on the matter, so when I'll get to the actual moment of buying one, I'll probably look into it more deeply


----------



## Whammy

Still on a camera phone buzz. Just noticed that some of the B&W shots have a hint of purple to them


----------



## mungiisi

Some latest concert photography:



Europe by MikkoPylkko, on Flickr



Phil Anselmo by MikkoPylkko, on Flickr



Shagrath by MikkoPylkko, on Flickr



Bring Me the Horizon by MikkoPylkko, on Flickr



Scott Ian by MikkoPylkko, on Flickr



Joey Belladonna by MikkoPylkko, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

speaking of phone snaps.. these two are completely ridiculous.. pushed at least 4 stops each. 



tired by nrrfed, on Flickr



face off by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Noise vs Grain doubters should see these photos.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Noise vs Grain doubters should see these photos.



I feel you on that! If there were an ISO25600 film it'd probably look better than that!







my pentax was charging and I knew if I went to go get it Ramona would've likely finished that lizard off. Is a so-bad-it's-good ISO800 iPhone shot better than no shot at all? These are the questions I ask myself.

EDIT: experimenting is fun. This was 3 tiny solar-powered LED nightlights pointed at various angles to create multiple shadows. Reasonably pleased at the outcome. When I release my Jack Johnson'esqe jam-band album this will be the cover. 



self-portrait #3 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Rook said:


> You mean you just bought one now?!?!
> 
> If so congrats haha!
> 
> If you use lightroom and you've not processed X-Trans images before, feel free to hit me up. There's a bit of an art to it which I only very recently fully adjusted to.



Cheers man! Lovin' this thing. People on the streets never even took a second look.


----------



## Tang

It's so nice to be back.


----------



## Philligan

Woohoo. Here are a couple from earlier this week.

Here's one I took of my cousin's kids. Those are Cousins 1 and 2's kids, and Cousin 3 just had the baby. My uncle's into photography and wanted me to try for a shot of all of them, too, because the three kids are nuts and won't hold still. I got a nice one of the girl laughing, but the depth of field was too shallow and she was out of focus.



Baby by philbabbey, on Flickr

And here's my cousin's dog. They adopted a lab and a lab/chow mix, and I have a soft spot for laid back old dogs, so I tried to shoot them a bit. The other wandered off on me, but I really like how this one turned out.



Daisy by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

capoeiraesp said:


> Cheers man! Lovin' this thing. People on the streets never even took a second look.



Absolutely, my X Pro1 is still the man for the job for stuff like that for me. Te X-T1 is faster and everything but the X Pro with a small lens is the only one I feel really invisible with, despite the X-T1 being smaller...


----------



## capoeiraesp

That's a slightly confusing combo!

Yeh. So much love for the x100s. People just think you're a tourist and don't care.


----------



## Kwirk

One from a few days ago. Not completely satisfied with it but better than any other ones I've done. Was a 6 hour drive to get this, luls.


----------



## Tang

Nice shot, Kwirk!



on edge by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Kwirk said:


> One from a few days ago. Not completely satisfied with it but better than any other ones I've done. Was a 6 hour drive to get this, luls



I'm completely satisfied with it. That looks great.


----------



## Whammy

Starting to appreciate the 40mm a little more. Not quite wide angle, not quite standard 
If I had to pick either a 35mm or 50mm to bring with me for general shooting I'd probably choose the middle ground and pick a 40mm


----------



## Kwirk

Philligan said:


> I'm completely satisfied with it. That looks great.


Thanks man. I just wish I had a better location. I mean the galactic core is basically centered on the horizon. Would be much easier to shoot if it was right in the middle of the sky. I'm definitely gonna go out and try again when I have the chance.


----------



## Wretched

Some pics from a recently published shoot on a nice Softail:






Without the light painting:


----------



## Philligan

Dan got some crazy Elinchrom lights (Quadra I think?) and I got to try them out on Saturday.



Dan by philbabbey, on Flickr



Dan by philbabbey, on Flickr

And here's a white whisky I just got. Apparently it's the only "real" white whisky (aka cask aged for at least three years - the rest just aren't aged so they stay clear).



White Owl by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I was locking the windows to put the AC on this morning and spied this. My house faces west, so I normally don't look out the back. Glad I decided to go around and close all the windows haha. I grabbed my camera and booted it over to the park before work.



July 2014 - Sarnia by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## fwd0120

Great shots guys! My camera sux (was 80$ in like, '08 :smh. My sister and I do some photography-ish stuff just for fun.



100_1332 by fnldrem, on Flickr



100_1325 by fnldrem, on Flickr



100_1308 by fnldrem, on Flickr



100_1038 by fnldrem, on Flickr



100_1037 by fnldrem, on Flickr



100_1028 by fnldrem, on Flickr



100_1025 by fnldrem, on Flickr



100_1024 by fnldrem, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy




----------



## Philligan

^ Those are all incredible, man.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Went to design my new bandcamp banner and a preview of the artwork for my next release.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Bought a Bowens speedring insert to get my PLM to work on axis, and tested it out. It definitely can be focused - much like a maglight style flash parabolic light you can see when it falls off. It took about 15 minutes to get the umbrella just right on the positioning rod.

Some test shots of the cutoff.









Now for output: 1/200 f/5.6





1/200 f/22









Also redesigned my website, link in sig.


----------



## Khoi

been MIA for a while.. but I am back

















[/IMG]


----------



## Tang

Did you ever get that lost gear replaced, Khoi?


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> Bought a Bowens speedring insert to get my PLM to work on axis, and tested it out. It definitely can be focused - much like a maglight style flash parabolic light you can see when it falls off. It took about 15 minutes to get the umbrella just right on the positioning rod.



That's awesome.  That reminds me of the Elinchrom Quadra set that Dan got - I can't believe how bright and concentrated those lights are. In those two shots of him I posted earlier, we were shooting in light shade in late afternoon/early evening sun into a reflective umbrella and had it on the lowest setting, and I was at ISO 100, f7.1, and something like 1/200. It's crazy.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Yeah the 750ws lights are crazy and the PLM is a different beast from my umbrellas, it's far more efficient and can be focused more or less. The parabolic shape helps greatly. I'll take some shots with some subjects soon.


----------



## Philligan

Can't wait to see those.  I'm still a huge noob when it comes to lighting haha but I'm trying to learn. Dan uses lights like crazy, though, so I'm picking things up a lot faster than if I were on my own.


----------



## Khoi

Tang said:


> Did you ever get that lost gear replaced, Khoi?




Nope 

Just have to rebuild again and make do with less gear until I can save up enough.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Pretty much everything I shoot is lit with OCF (usually a 500+ ws strobe). I'm looking to do some more educational style stuff with my front page of my site.


----------



## Whammy

I'm getting bored of Flickr. I rarely even look through other peoples photos as I only really log in to use Flickr as online storage.

Does anyone use anything else (Excluding instagram. I'm a bit late to the instagram game. Just started using my account ) and how do they find it?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I have a server with 3 domains, does that count?


----------



## Philligan

I only post to Flickr out of habit, and for handy online storage. 

It's not as good for high res storage, but I'm using Picsurge for my portfolios for job applications. 

I mostly post here and on Facebook now.


----------



## Rook

Doing my next professional editorial shoot on Monday, super pumped but need to try and get some more batteries, 2 was too fine a margin last time...


----------



## Tang

another odd self-portrait. this time the dogs decided to join in. this is also kind to be submission to the weekly assignment thread.



ghost chihuahua (16x9) by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I'm going through the stuff I shot yesterday. Here's one I really like.



Coffee break by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I got out with the flash today. Here's Dan jumping from things. 



Jump by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

found a frog inside the house and decided to pose for some shots. cool frog.



curtains by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Anyone tried a Metabones Speed Booster?

Metabones®

Tempting to try for sure.


----------



## Whammy

Printer advice needed 

I've put this off for too long. It's time to start printing my own photos rather than getting some one else to do it.

Does anyone have advice on good quality prosumer printers?
I've come across a few but I'm more than curious about what printers everyone else uses and how they find them.

Any advice is greatly appreciated


----------



## Philligan

Whammy said:


> Printer advice needed
> 
> I've put this off for too long. It's time to start printing my own photos rather than getting some one else to do it.
> 
> Does anyone have advice on good quality prosumer printers?
> I've come across a few but I'm more than curious about what printers everyone else uses and how they find them.
> 
> Any advice is greatly appreciated



I've been thinking about this, too. Interested to hear any opinions/advice.


----------



## Tang

iphone self-portrait.. it's like always having a model around!



foggy morning by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy




----------



## Philligan

^ That's awesome. 

Wedding #3 is this Saturday. I'm shooting with a different photographer for this one, she asked me about seconding a while back. Should be interesting haha she's a lot different than Dan, and there's some stuff I've gotta dumb down for this one which will kinda suck (like the shutter drags we do during reception - we worked that one out together).

It's gonna be a busy late summer/fall. So far it looks like I've got three in August, then something like three in September and four in October. Hopefully it'll be enough to buy some gear. 

Priority #1 right now (well, out of the trivial priorities, not counting school or my wedding ) is a smaller camera for every day carry. I'm after a Fuji X-E2 (for the smaller size and wifi) and the 18mm f2. Henry's has a sale on right now where you get the 18mm free with the X-E2 body and not buying it is literally killing me haha.

edit: Probably shouldn't have stolen this from Facebook because I think the bar technically owns it.  But here's one I really liked from the other night there.



Rustic DJ by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Never give away the rights to your own images! haha

I warn you - if you buy an XE-2 you'll never look back. This could be dangerous. It's a fantastic camera, it's basically my X-T1 with one less processor and no magnification on the EVF. The EVF's LCD is exactly the same, the XT just magnifies it into the realms of the ridiculous (awesome). A very close friend and shooting partner of mine bought an XE-2 off the back of trying my X-T1 and X-Pro1 and wanting a combination of the two and has been completely bitten by the bug.

Be advised, we're expecting an X-Pro2 and X200/X100T to be announced in September which will bring a lot of "older" Fuji prices down a lot. They seem to run about a 14-20 month product cycle. There are also some really exciting lenses on the horizon.

Sorry, kinda went off on one there.


----------



## MrYakob

I just got asked this morning to shoot a family reunion on Saturday, this will be the first shoot I've ever done for someone else (and my first paid job obviously) so I'm pretty nervous. Does anyone have any tips? Mostly candid stuff with a few formal shots of grandparents with the grandchildren etc.

I'll have the 6D, 17-40, Sigma 50 art, 70-300 (I don't see a need but I'll probably throw it in the bag) and my Yongnuo flash. Anything else I should pick up before then? (Besides that sweet XE-2 deal that I didn't know about until right now )


----------



## Tang

I was feeling down about not going out and shooting so I went and shot.. in my backyard. Back to my old ways  135mm @ f/2.8. 1/60s and ISO400. 






EDIT: just signed on for my first solo wedding in October.


----------



## Whammy

I hate those days, when you're itching to photograph and you don't manage to get out with the camera. Feels like a day wasted  Got to photograph something to stay sane  

Everyone seems to be getting their wedding photography groove on 

@ MrYakob
Personally I'd just stick with the Sigma 50 Art for something like a family reunion with the 17-40 for bigger group photos etc.
The 50 will give you the best distance to subject ratio imo. Close enough to capture intimate moments while keeping a natural compression to the photo. Far enough away to not feel like you're in their face 
Plus the extra speed is a huge bonus on so many levels.


When out to a lake to take photos. I brought all my camera gear. Ended up only using my camera phone


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Never give away the rights to your own images! haha



There's not much creative about them, it's strictly for the money.  And technically I think Dan's the only one on the contract, and I'm just shooting for him. I'm not too concerned about that, they're generic club photos, and I'm just doing it for a bit of extra cash and the experience.



Rook said:


> I warn you - if you buy an XE-2 you'll never look back. This could be dangerous. It's a fantastic camera, it's basically my X-T1 with one less processor and no magnification on the EVF. The EVF's LCD is exactly the same, the XT just magnifies it into the realms of the ridiculous (awesome). A very close friend and shooting partner of mine bought an XE-2 off the back of trying my X-T1 and X-Pro1 and wanting a combination of the two and has been completely bitten by the bug.
> 
> Be advised, we're expecting an X-Pro2 and X200/X100T to be announced in September which will bring a lot of "older" Fuji prices down a lot. They seem to run about a 14-20 month product cycle. There are also some really exciting lenses on the horizon.
> 
> Sorry, kinda went off on one there.



Yeah, part of my looking at the X-E2 is the money. I'm happy with the specs on it, and unless any new models drastically improve the battery life, I'm still fine with the X-E2. I'd basically be using it as a really expensive point and shoot I can pocket for when I'm just out with friends, because dragging my 70D, 17-50, 50 1.4, and Yongnuo 565ii is overkill.  

I'm happiest shooting wide and only bring my 50 for the fast aperture, so the 18/2 would be perfect, and I'd probably grab the smallest manual Yongnuo I can find, too. Which is another reason for the E2 - the size. I'd like the X-T1, and am gonna try it closer to when I can afford a new camera, but if the X-E2 performs similarly and is noticeably smaller, I'd probably go for that. I could fit the X-E2, 18/2, and a small flash in a decent-sized P&S bag, or the smallest Think Tank Retrospective, which would be perfect for dragging with me everywhere.


----------



## Philligan

Whammy said:


> Plus the extra speed is a huge bonus on so many levels.



 
I've gotten over my nothing but bokeh phase, but I still love fast lenses. I rarely shoot below f4 at weddings, and it's nice when you've got the light (natural or flash), but whenever I use my 50 I remember how much of a difference two or three stops can make. And I still love using a wide aperture to make subjects pop and seem so much sharper in comparison to the background. 



Whammy said:


> When out to a lake to take photos. I brought all my camera gear. Ended up only using my camera phone



I wouldn't have guessed that. I was gonna say, it looks a lot different than your other photos, but it looks great.


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> I wouldn't have guessed that. I was gonna say, it looks a lot different than your other photos, but it looks great.



Everything is in focus, that's why 

EDIT:

Some other photos I took from today. Still trying the 2.35:1 aspect ratio.
It's forcing me to take photos that are different to what I would normally do. Apart from the last photo. That is a bit obviously me 

Still on a B&W buzz too.

The first three are of a water tower.
All are shot wide open @ f2. 40mm lens


----------



## Tang

love these b&w tones.



lizard hunters by nrrfed, on Flickr

and a


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> There's not much creative about them, it's strictly for the money.  And technically I think Dan's the only one on the contract, and I'm just shooting for him. I'm not too concerned about that, they're generic club photos, and I'm just doing it for a bit of extra cash and the experience.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, part of my looking at the X-E2 is the money. I'm happy with the specs on it, and unless any new models drastically improve the battery life, I'm still fine with the X-E2. I'd basically be using it as a really expensive point and shoot I can pocket for when I'm just out with friends, because dragging my 70D, 17-50, 50 1.4, and Yongnuo 565ii is overkill.
> 
> I'm happiest shooting wide and only bring my 50 for the fast aperture, so the 18/2 would be perfect, and I'd probably grab the smallest manual Yongnuo I can find, too. Which is another reason for the E2 - the size. I'd like the X-T1, and am gonna try it closer to when I can afford a new camera, but if the X-E2 performs similarly and is noticeably smaller, I'd probably go for that. I could fit the X-E2, 18/2, and a small flash in a decent-sized P&S bag, or the smallest Think Tank Retrospective, which would be perfect for dragging with me everywhere.



I wouldn't suggest you spend up from the E2 as such, I've gone T1 because it's my working camera and it makes sense that if I want to go the Fuji route, my number 1 be the fastest and most efficient it can.

For the money, the E2 is outstanding, and for all intents and purposes the IQ of the E2 is identical to the T1, the T1 is just a weenie but faster to focus, has a faster processor, 8.5 FPS instead of 7 and so on - little details that you wouldn't need if you have an SLR as well!

Couple things: have you held an X-E2? It's bigger than a point and shoot, particularly with a lens on. The 18's as small as you can get apart from the crappy 27mm but it's *just about* pocketable, if you have big pockets and don't mind looking like you're carrying a weapon haha. It's obviously infinitely more pocketable than any DSLR ever, but yeah, don't underestimate on that if it's important.

My other point was that I'm confident you'll get used to the images and very quickly notice what I'm saying about it being 'DSLR quality'. My X's outgun my other half's DSLR system mostly because you can get lenses designed for a crop (equivalent focal lengths and faster apertures, 23, 35 and 56 for example) and because they have no AA filter, the colours are unbelievable.

I really hope you pick one up, I'm confident it'll change you as a photographer and you'll love it, mine have totally flipped my shooting on it's head and for the better.



Also, I've done a couple of editorial shoots recently for some well known bands and producers and had a few offers off the back of it. It's been a crazy few weeks, super pumped to see where this goes.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Couple things: have you held an X-E2? It's bigger than a point and shoot, particularly with a lens on. The 18's as small as you can get apart from the crappy 27mm but it's *just about* pocketable, if you have big pockets and don't mind looking like you're carrying a weapon haha. It's obviously infinitely more pocketable than any DSLR ever, but yeah, don't underestimate on that if it's important.



I'm expecting it to be someone large, I just mean like a P&S compared to what I'm used to.  Someone I could fit in a backpack pocket or keep with a small flash in a <5lb/2kg bag is what I'm realistically after.

I want the WiFi of the E2, too. My plan is to set it up to shoot small JPGs and do the JPG bracketing, and do a B&W, Velvia, and Astia photo for every shot. Then I can grab whichever looks the best for the shot and throw it online straight from my phone.

That's mainly what I'm after - a smaller, more subtle camera I can keep with me for when I'm with friends, but something with serious IQ that I could take on vacation or use as a second for jobs, too.


----------



## Tang

backyard shooting. 4.5mm @ f/2.4


----------



## Philligan

Hey, I forgot I had this photo.  It's from last Friday, and I found an edited copy on my desktop. I went back to my street ways.  I love shooting wide - unless I'm going for a tighter portrait look, I pretty much keep my Sigma locked (literally haha) at 17mm.

This one was brutal to edit. It was lots of light colours (ground, sky, person) so I had trouble making him stand out without colours.



Sun by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> I'm expecting it to be someone large, I just mean like a P&S compared to what I'm used to.  Someone I could fit in a backpack pocket or keep with a small flash in a <5lb/2kg bag is what I'm realistically after.
> 
> I want the WiFi of the E2, too. My plan is to set it up to shoot small JPGs and do the JPG bracketing, and do a B&W, Velvia, and Astia photo for every shot. Then I can grab whichever looks the best for the shot and throw it online straight from my phone.
> 
> That's mainly what I'm after - a smaller, more subtle camera I can keep with me for when I'm with friends, but something with serious IQ that I could take on vacation or use as a second for jobs, too.



u r gna luv it m8


----------



## Philligan

I finally went through the photos from the last wedding haha Dan had my cards for a while. He posted highlights from the wedding - that was the one where I only did the reception because I couldn't get out of work. I realized that all the party photos in that album are mine. 

Here's the link for that.

Recent Work (2014) - Daniel McQuillan Photography

And here's one that he didn't post there that I processed myself. I really dig this one.



Reception by philbabbey, on Flickr

If I'm feeling particularly ambitious I'll upload more, but I just went through and edited a whole bunch, and have lost my scope of the whole thing. I'll go through them with fresh eyes and see which ones would be interesting to uninvolved parties.


----------



## Tang

trying to incorporate strong diagonal lines in my compositions with my favorite test models!



sid by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

My shoot on Daniel's EH Holden wagon finally came out. I was pretty happy with this one...


----------



## Tang

I can't let anyone take the top poster for the thread


----------



## Joe Harvatt

New guitar. Paul Reed Smith Mira S2. She's a beauty.

For this photo I used a business card held in front of the camera's built in flash to bounce it off the ceiling. I think it works pretty well and was good fun.


----------



## Philligan

That's an awesome looking guitar - great shot.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Thanks very much. I think I might try and put together a budget home made attachment for my built in flash with card and tissue for more bouncing.


----------



## Rook

6x2'd all over Berlin



Hallesches Tor by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Berlinmauer by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Topographie de Terrors by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Holocaust Memorial by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Reichstag 1 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

Not a 6x2 but oh well.


Brandenburg Tor by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Kurfurstendamm 3 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Kurfurstendamm 2 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

I got my photos featured in Melbourne's Timeout Magazine! So stoked!


----------



## Philligan

Have any of you guys used a 5D classic? I found one for $500 I'm seriously considering picking up for the field of view and dof. That with the 50 would make an awesome portrait and walk around camera.


----------



## Rook

The original 5D is a piece of shit hahaha

If you want old and cheap full frame, Canon 1DS mkII's the way to go.


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> Have any of you guys used a 5D classic? I found one for $500 I'm seriously considering picking up for the field of view and dof. That with the 50 would make an awesome portrait and walk around camera.



Personally I think it's a good price for the quality of the camera you are getting.

I used to have one before upgrading to the MKII. Gave it to my dad.

Solid camera. I originally bought it so I could use my old lenses on a full frame digital. When I bought it there weren't too many full frame digital bodies that didn't cost an arm and a leg 

The obvious bad points of the camera.
Screen is ridiculously hard to see in bright sunlight.
No live view mode (or video).
No super high ISO settings

Random good points 
Solid, really solid. Don't know how many times I dropped it.
Shutter sounds better than the MKII 
Grain/noise is nice.

Here are some photos of mine taken with it from years ago.
The B&W ones are 1600 or 3200 iso. Can't quite remember.


----------



## Whammy




----------



## ThePhilosopher

Rook said:


> The original 5D is a piece of shit hahaha
> 
> If you want old and cheap full frame, Nikon D3 the way to go.



Fixed that one for you.


----------



## Tang

A


----------



## fwd0120

Not much, but I was just testing out the panorama on the cam of my new (old) Galaxy Ace II X.


----------



## Philligan

Thanks guys.  I'm still kinda curious, but I just used a D700 tonight, and if I go full frame on the cheap I'm going 5D2. The 5DC still has actually decent ISO performance, but something more modern would be nice. On that note...

Wedding #3 is down. I did this one with another girl I went to high school with. Did way, way better this time. She takes good girly bride portraits, but doesn't do well with guys at all, and really doesn't do party photos. I was kinda nervous working with someone new, but ended up totally stepping up and calling a bunch of shots, and I'm pretty proud of myself. And this is my first paid gig down, too.  I'll upload some decent photos when I get my cards back from her.


----------



## Philligan

Annd of course I ended up shooting the club again. I'm too old for all these late nights.


----------



## Philligan

And I officially got my first paycheque for taking photos.


----------



## Tang

^^ that's a nice feeling!

For this shot, I recommend checking out the full size version. It's not at Sigma 35 levels of wide open sharpness but it's damn close! Check out those individual hairs on Sid's nose and the texture is his fur. Pentax knows how to make a killer prime!

Oh yeah, it's the 43mm f/1.9 wide open. 




sid by nrrfed, on Flickr




Sid 2 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

ThePhilosopher said:


> Fixed that one for you.



I don't have a dog in the Canikon fight, but I'm afraid I'm in the camp that felt that era of pro bodies went Canon's way haha.

If I were buying a pro body now I'd go D4S, I prefer Nikon's prices and standard primes.


----------



## pinky7

Tried out landscape photography a couple of weeks ago for the first time in San Francisco. Let me know what you guys think!




[/url]Marin Headlands Rock by scottpinkston32, on Flickr[/IMG]




[/url]Marin Headlands Stairs by scottpinkston32, on Flickr[/IMG]




[/url]Headlands Path by scottpinkston32, on Flickr[/IMG]




[/url]Golden Towers by scottpinkston32, on Flickr[/IMG]


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I haven't had much of a chance to get out with my cameras lately, but I spent the day in Ottawa today and checked out the natural history museum. I also finished my roll of X-PRO Chrome 100 in my Horizon Perfekt and I've got 2 more exposures left on my roll of Fuji Provia 100 in my LC-A, so I'll have some analog shit to post fairly soon.


----------



## Philligan

Those are great.  I really dig the lighting on her face in the glasses one.


----------



## Whammy

Starting to feel the appeal for the Fuji cameras.
I've always appreciated the cameras but I've always wanted a Leica M camera because of their layout and lens options. Unless I win the lotto I'll never be investing in that range 

But yeah the Fuji cameras are starting to look damn appealing.
I'm just itching for a digital body with an analog style manual control layout.

Silly question about the APS-C coming up. I've only ever owned full frame digital bodies and 35mm film cameras so I've never had to deal with the whole crop factor thingy.
Just want to make sure I understand what's happening. Let's take the 23mm for example...
On the APS-C it will have the field of view and reach similar to a 35mm on full frame, but it will still retain the compression characteristic for a 23mm lens rather than a 35mm lens? Correct?
And although it has the field of view of a 35mm lens does it have the same reach? I'd imagine it does.

And one thing I'm also a bit confused about.
I have a 40mm f1.4 lens from a half frame film camera. So the lens was designed to project the image on only half a frame 24mm x 18mm rather than the full 36mm x 24mm.
What does this 40mm lens translate to on a APS-C sensor? 
If I compare the 40mm on the half frame with a lens on a full frame it would be similar to my 55mm. The 55mm is a bite wider.
My full frame 40mm f2 lens is a lot wider than the 40mm f1.4 on the half frame.


On a unrelated note.
I'm getting married in a few days. We're just getting married in a registry office, nothing big or fancy. In fact the only person we know that will be there is our baby son 
Issues with getting all family members over at the same time so we're going to throw a big party next year when both our families can make it.
Anyways I digress 
We decided last minute yesterday to take a photo for the family. Just one photo.
I took the photo myself. Before we headed out I made up a homemade reflector with tinfoil and cardboard to reflect some sunlight back towards us. Worked better than I thought considering the materials. First time using a reflector of any kind.
The focus was manual. Wide open on the 85mm.
The baby was in a buggy just outside of the frame. I just managed to keep the remote out of the frame haha.
The sun ended up disappearing after this photo (this was the first photo taken). I tried to take more but the lighting just wasn't the same so although the pose isn't ideal we're happy enough with it.






EDIT:
Awesome processing Jeff.


----------



## Philligan

That's a great looking photo man, I'd love to see more like staged portraits from you. And congrats.  

In regards to your first question - yes. 23mm will have the same reach/field of view as a 35mm, but it'll still _look_ like a 23mm lens. After having used full frame for a few nights' worth of shooting, I wish I'd gotten a used 5D2 instead of my 70D.  IMHO, everything looks better about them. You get the wider field of view (which I dig) with less distortion and stuff. I love shooting wide (my 17-50 locks down at 17mm, and I mostly just leave it locked), so with a full frame, I can use a longer lens to get the same wide view with less giant noses and stuff. 

I've only used a full frame a few times, so when I do I'm still surprised by how good photos look. But since you're used to full frame, I'd say try out an APS-C before you buy one - you might not notice it, but if you do you might not like it. 

Regarding the 40mm, I have no idea - that went way over my head. 

So I'm not pumping a ton of money into a small camera. I've got a dozen weddings lined up this year with Dan (and I'm basically his permanent second/assistant), the girl I shot with on Saturday offered me a job (which I basically turned down because I couldn't balance her and Dan with my part-time job, and still can't afford to quit my job), and I had four people ask me for business cards on Saturday (which I don't have ). I have a wedding to pay for, which limits my budget even further, but any serious money I sink into camera gear is going towards a working setup, at least until I have a second body, better glass, and more lighting equipment. If I could afford a Fuji, I'd be getting a 5D2.

Having said all that, after the next wedding, I'm ordering an EOS M (yeah ). I found a kit with the $250 22mm F2 for $399, so I'm getting the body for $150. I've read a bunch of articles and watched a bunch of videos, and with the firmware update the AF has apparently gotten to Fuji speeds, which is fine. My only complaint is the lack of an EVF, but oh well. It's a pocketable P&S body with the 7D sensor that I can easily adapt my existing Canon glass to, with the same RAW files and menus that I'm already used to. That would be the perfect camera for throwing in my pocket before a night out, and that plus the adapter and the 10-18 STM would be the perfect small travel rig. Anyway, Dawn and I decided on it, so I'll probably be ordering it in a couple weeks.


----------



## Tang

I was considering taking a break from posting here.. but then I took these shots. We've got portraits and street on tap today!



boy with the green shirt by nrrfed, on Flickr



robert on the riverfront by nrrfed, on Flickr



20% chance of rain by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Nopenopenopenope.

This looking like other lenses thing is something I battled of for a long time but have long since worked through the math of it and corroborated my conclusion both with my own experience and by talking to similar hocus-pocus free photographers. So my opening statement is:

"focal length" as a metric is, on it's own, entirely meaningless. The only things that dictate the 'look' of a lens are angle of view and subject distance. The further your subject, the greater the compression, and a narrower field of view means they fill more of the frame.

Focal length only comes into play with f-stops because this roughly describes your total transmission and depth of field.

So if you have a 23mm lens of a half frame (1.5x crop), you get the field of view of a 35mm lens and thus it'll 'look' like a 35mm lens. What remains however, the f-stop is still relative to that 23, so you get the depth of field of a 23mm (though increased because of the narrower field of view, I'll come back to this) and a transmission of roughly T1.4 (it's usually a little higher).

As for depth of field, in theory you get the same depth of field as a 23mm 1.4 on full frame, however depth of field is rather an idiosyncratic measurement. All sorts of things affect depth of field that most people don't even think about - print size, viewing distance, pixel size and so on. In actual fact, because your proportional print size (sensor size compared to viewing size) has increased, your depth of field decreases - if you print a photo from a full frame and a photo from an APS-C both with a 23 1.4, the depth of field on the APC image will appear smaller.

A good approximation is to apply the crop factor to the f number. So a 23mm gives a 35mm field of view with the depth of field (1.4) similar to around an f/2.

Your 40mm is stated as a 135, so it's a 60mm equivalent with a depth of field comparable to an f/2.

Size of frame does not affect 'distortion', only a lens or if you mean perspective distortion - subject distance. In fact, if you use a 17mm lens on a cropped sensor you get less perspective distortion because you have to be further from your subject. The same framing on a full frame would increase perspective distortion because the relative distance from say your subject's nose to their ear increases relative to the distance from the subject's nose to the image plane. I.e. With a wider (full frame) field of view, the subject's nose is say 24cm from the lens and his ear 12cm from his nose, his nose is 1.5x further from the camera than the lens, thus n/1.5 times the size. With a narrower field of view (half frame), you have to step back to get the same framing. Say you're now 48cm away, his nose is still 12cm from his ear. The relative distance from nose to ear is now 1.25x distance from nose to camera, this his ear is now only n/1.25 times the size I.e less disproportionate.

There's a lot of hoohaa mumbo jumbo flying around about APSC, the fact is Canikon just make their APSC cameras not as good as their APS cameras and use marketing magic to make you think it's because of the sensor size, it isn't. Full frame has it's advantages, but those are things like resolution and similarly the ability to trade off for bigger pixels for better noise performance but most APS makers do not use significantly bigger pixels, only really on the brick sh!thouse pro bodies, and while people say you can get 'wider lenses', I have a 10mm that's a 15mm 135 equivalent which is about as wide as is possible for a rectilinear lens. 

Congrats on the marriage!

Also, Phil, try an EOS M before you buy, I couldn't get over how awful the focusing was. It was unusable for me. It certainly isn't fuji speeds. Not out of the well lot studio/shop anyway, I've used one in a venue (I mostly shoot in studios and at soundchecks and sound desks) and it was literally unusable. If you're using it in ok light you'll be fine.


----------



## Philligan

Did you try it before the firmware update, or after?


----------



## Rook

Both.


----------



## 6String

I shot this in the front yard of my old place. Maybe shot is a bad word hahaha:


----------



## Whammy

Cheers for big write up guys 
Much appreciated. I just need to try some out now. That fuji 56mm lens looks


----------



## Rook

It is exactly that.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

PLM Test shot #1


----------



## Rook

Great light, love it.

Could we get more info on how you set this up and exactly what you used?


I did a little test. Half of these are shot with the family 5D MkII with 85 1.2 L II (at f/1.8, crop factor n all) and half with my X-T1 and 56mm 1.2. You can probably guess which is which based on things like colour palette, but that aside I think this demonstrates how the two produce identical perspective for (more or less haha) the same framed shots. I took the shots from roughly the same place for each, I hope it's obvious where I've not managed to get into the exact position and where there's a distinct difference that could be put down to the lenses. Spoiler alert, there aren't any of those 

I don't have my tripod to hand. If you don't believe me on that lat point I can set something up at the weekend, didn't think it was necessary though.

Every image was shot RAW, imported to LR5 and exported entirely untouched. No settings have been altered in any way.


----------



## Whammy

Very interesting. Results are very similar indeed. Apart from colors and bokeh of course


----------



## Rook

I'd imagine you'd be able to guess pretty easily which was the 85 1.2 hahaha


----------



## Whammy

I would guess that it's the second of each photo. Mainly because that is the one with a slightly more exaggerated out of focusness and also the bokeh has less of a highlight/sharpness to it which reminds me of my lens. But I'm not 100% sure as I don't see any of the typical characterical bokeh which the 85mm is famous for


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Rook said:


> Great light, love it.
> Could we get more info on how you set this up and exactly what you used?



Nikon D3 with 50.0 mm f/1.8 with two stop ND filter shot at ISO200 1/200 f/5.6. I set the camera up just above eye level and tilted it down just a bit. I used the built-in intervalometer to take 10 shots 4 seconds apart.

Lighting setup is the 64" Paul Buff PLM extreme silver on a Calumet Travelite 750 w/s at 1/8th power triggered by Cybersyncs. I set this up just behind the camera with the light being just above the top of the pentaprism on the camera and slightly tilted upward (so it reflects downward).

I was about 6 feet away from the camera here.


----------



## tank

and something new for me


----------



## Wretched

My shoot on Scott Bamford's hiboy came out in Cruzin recently. It's a more straight forward strobist shoot in open shade. I included a wider shot showing some of the setup for anyone interested. Caption included.

























You can see two of the three flashes I used for these exterior shots. Two on the long side and one on the facing edge (in this case, the front). All three are bare and on full power. This setup is typical of all my strobist exterior shots for both cars and bikes (although for bikes I tend to have the two on the long side diffused with umbrellas). ​


----------



## Rook

Whammy said:


> Very interesting. Results are very similar indeed. Apart from colors and bokeh of course



You would be correct!

This example shows the golden Canon colour cast I've always ranted about too, which comes as a result of the AA filter I believe.


----------



## MrYakob

Rook, if you had to pick only one Fuji lens which one would it be? 

I know focal length is personal preference and whatnot but I only ask because someone is selling an XE-2 body locally for about $600 and if I jumped on it I would only be able to justify a single lens for it at the moment. So it's either XE-2 used with a new lens or I could buy it new and get the 17 F2 included for $1000, what do you think?


----------



## Rook

Best value Fuji lens is the 35mm 1.4 for sure. It's not the fastest focusser but unless you get into 23mm and 56mm territory and up (mooooore money) you won't get a fast focus monster either way.

It's a great quality lens in terms of sharpness, it has nice bokeh, it's obviously nice and fast, and I like 50mm as a standard.

The 18's good, wider which works nicely for street, but not massively sharp a lens and it gets worse toward the edges. Now I'm as much an advocate as anyone for the 'sharpness isn't all that matters' mentality, but between the 35 and 18, I just always felt like the 35 images have a better look.

I sold my 35mm for the 23mm, and that would be my one lens, but it's a shit load more money haha.


----------



## MrYakob

Thanks for the insight!

I was hoping to go a little wider than 50mm equiv. as I just got the sigma 50 but short of the 23 which is out of my range it looks like the 35 1.4 is my best bet.


----------



## Rook

If that's the way you feel, you'll be absolutely fine with the 18. I was just talking overall, fact is I had just my X Pro and the 18 for about 3 and a half months and bought the rest of my Fuji kit off the back of it.

IMO the 35 is the better lens, but in all honesty you'll get all the satisfying Fujiness with the 18, and it's not the only lens you'll ever own haha!


----------



## Whammy

Rook, while you're in a Fuji advice giving mood I have a little dilemma.

I can't quite decide between the X-Pro1 and XE2.

My plan is to buy the body only first as I intend to use my old Olympus Pen F lens (40mm f1.4) on it.

I'm not replacing my 5D MKII rig and lenses. I just want something smaller and discreet with more of a film camera layout. Plus I feel it's such a shame not being able to use this old lens.
Down the line I do intend to get other lenses but not right now.

Because I will be using this body with an old fast manual lens being able to get sharp focus is quite important.

I absolutely love the size and look of the X-Pro1, but I can't imagine the OVF would be used much with the lens I have 
Can you set custom frame lines for any focal length with the OVF?
How is manual focus with the OVF?
The EVF has x5 and x10 magnification, right?

The X-E2 has three different ways of focusing manually via the LCD which looks quite interesting and useful 
But I don't know how I would like the smaller size and build quality and I'm not a fan that you can't disable pictures playing back in the the EVF.

I'm confused  
Any other things I should consider between the two?

The X-T1 clearly is the superior camera but I want to step away from the SLR vibe.
Obviously the is the up and coming X-Pro2 at some stage but the price point for the X-Pro1 & X-E2 are just about right for me 


Random new photo while I'm posting


----------



## Tang

Redid this shot in b&w and it's much more effective this way, IMO.


----------



## metal_sam14

It has been a long time since I picked up my camera, having recently bought a house I have been time poor. My partner and I finally got to relax for a weekend and headed up to Cradle Mountain so I made sure I took some snaps while I was there! Felt a bit rusty looking at the results but there were a few shots I liked: 



Dove Lake Boathouse by TasmanSam, on Flickr


Snowcapped Reflections by TasmanSam, on Flickr


Cradle Mountain Shed by TasmanSam, on Flickr

I might convert one of these to monochrome and see how that goes as well, will post results!


----------



## Rook

Whammy said:


> Rook, while you're in a Fuji advice giving mood I have a little dilemma.
> 
> I can't quite decide between the X-Pro1 and XE2.
> 
> My plan is to buy the body only first as I intend to use my old Olympus Pen F lens (40mm f1.4) on it.
> 
> I'm not replacing my 5D MKII rig and lenses. I just want something smaller and discreet with more of a film camera layout. Plus I feel it's such a shame not being able to use this old lens.
> Down the line I do intend to get other lenses but not right now.
> 
> Because I will be using this body with an old fast manual lens being able to get sharp focus is quite important.
> 
> 
> Obviously the is the up and coming X-Pro2 at some stage but the price point for the X-Pro1 & X-E2 are just about right for me
> 
> 
> Random new photo while I'm posting



Always very happy to talk about Fujifilm, they were the brand which - for me - helped me kick my photography fully into gear and get the images I had in mind and the layout I enjoy using. Having spoken to Fujifilm on a few occasions, I feel genuinely valued as a customer too which is great!

I'll just answer each point one by one.

*I absolutely love the size and look of the X-Pro1, but I can't imagine the OVF would be used much with the lens I have *

You're probably right about the OVF but the size thing is a big deal, it's the best rangefinder shaped Fuji ergonomically IMO.

*Can you set custom frame lines for any focal length with the OVF?*

Yep!

*How is manual focus with the OVF?*

Impossible purely in the OVF, it's pure guesswork. The focus assist button works however, and quickly too. Hit the button and your OVF switches to EVF zoomed in 100% (very fast) - you focus, with peaking too if you want, and hit the button again and you can frame in the OVF.


Unless you have a Fuji lens, which puts a readout of focus distance and depth of field, in that case it's just extremely difficult  I use the OVF mainly when I'm zone focusing on f8 or something, I turn the AF off and just use it to frame - which is fantastic by the way, I adore shooting this way. Particularly in a dynamic environment; it's great to be able to see what's about to walk into your frame or what would happen if you moved your framing up or left slightly, for example.

*The EVF has x5 and x10 magnification, right?*

Yes, it's called focus assist and is available on all cameras. I use manual focus and focus assist for all stock and tripod stuff, it's a fantastic tool!

*The X-E2 has three different ways of focusing manually via the LCD which looks quite interesting and useful *

I LOVE the split prism. It's a little impractical but a joy to use, the X Pro doesn't have it sadly, there's no phase detect on the X-Pro.

*But I don't know how I would like the smaller size and build quality and I'm not a fan that you can't disable pictures playing back in the the EVF.*

You can disable that, if I'm not misunderstanding. I always have image preview turned off, and for playback if you use both screens it'll show up on the back. Looking at images through the viewfinder works well though, it's a much better display than your average rear LCD at 2M dots, let's not forget.

As for the ergonomics, I prefer the X-Pro to the X-E's ergonomically speaking. It's got a bit more meat to the grip and the whole body, while being light, is metal and feels like you could seriously damage someone with it haha. The X-E's however are still significantly better than your average Canikon plastic junk. It's still got a lot of metal in it and they're very hardy little cameras. My shooting buddy and Fuji convert went X-E2 and having used his camera a lot, I've never found it uncomfortable or difficult to adjust to. The weight and smaller size is actually to it's advantage when carrying, the X-Pro's just big enough that it doesn't fit anywhere to easily hahahaha!

*Any other things I should consider between the two?*

The X-E2 is an X-T1 with one less processor, so the burst is a little slower, buffer time a little slower, and in trickier situations focus a little slower - THAT'S IT. The X-T has that massive viewfinder but it's just the X-E2 finder with a magnifier, it's not higher res. The X-Pro on the other hand is pretty sluggish by modern standards and pretty idiosyncratic; I find this quite charming, frankly, but if you don't feel you'll get any enjoyment from the OVF it's probably not worth considering. It's very possible to use it for manual focus in the EVF, but it's easier with the X-E2 and you get an all round snappier camera.

IF however the ergonomic of the X-Pro is important to you, you think you might use the OVF at some point and you want more of the metal construction, get yourself to a store and try one. Hell, I'd let you borrow mine if there were some way of doing so. It's a lovely camera to use! Maybe if you don't have to rely on it and it's just for fun or a backup, like mine was for ages, it won't bother you and you'll be able to enjoy it for what it's good at!

*The X-T1 clearly is the superior camera but I want to step away from the SLR vibe.*

I totally get that, if the X-T had all the same dials and speed but was a rangefinder format I'd weep with joy every day hahaha.


----------



## Kwirk

Some shots from Mayhem Fest this past weekend:

Body Count




Cannibal Corpse




Asking Alexandria




Korn




Avenged Sevenfold


----------



## Tang

looking real moody. 





self-portrait #43 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

In the interest of getting all my Fuji whoring on one page, another thing I love about them (lol) is the way they roadmap their lenses. I think it's great that they respect their customers enough to both give them some say in what's on there and what's important, but also then tell you what's in the works and when to expect it.

Some stuff on here I find really exciting, the 50-140 2.8 OIS and 16 1.4 particularly.


----------



## Philligan

Wretched said:


> My shoot on Scott Bamford's hiboy came out in Cruzin recently. It's a more straight forward strobist shoot in open shade. I included a wider shot showing some of the setup for anyone interested. Caption included.
> 
> You can see two of the three flashes I used for these exterior shots. Two on the long side and one on the facing edge (in this case, the front). All three are bare and on full power. This setup is typical of all my strobist exterior shots for both cars and bikes (although for bikes I tend to have the two on the long side diffused with umbrellas). ​



Are you still stacking exposures, even with that much light? All your photos are ridiculously sharp - is that from the exposure stacking, or purely your lens?


----------



## Whammy

Thanks for the write up Rook. Much appreciated.
I was under the impression that you couldn't have focus assist on the X-E2's EVF. I misread an older comment you made saying that the X-E2 had no magnification on the EVF. I assumed that was the same thing as focus assist  I now know better 

The X-E2 is starting to look like a good option. Especially with the different focus assist options in the EVF 
But part of me dislikes the idea of a rangefinder style camera without a rangefinder viewfinder. Seems a bit, hipster 

But yeah, I'll just have to go to a shop which has them in stock and try them both out. I'm sure I'll make my mind up fairly quickly.

I also love how they are showing their lenses to be. It's still a pity they have a small selection of lenses. I'd love to see them develop a faster 35mm. f1.2 or faster.


----------



## Tyler

Had a pretty fun time at Warped even though I wasnt able to get a press pass and had to snap pics from the front row at the barrier.


----------



## Rook

Some shots from an evening on the streets.

Sticking with the ambiguous/abstract influence.



Lamp and Window by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Passer-By in Tunnel by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Skate by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Step through Light by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Sunset over Skyline by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Bus by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Rings by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Frail by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Some panos from my Horizon Perfekt. Shot on a roll of Lomo X-pro 100. I've got 2 more rolls and a roll of Fuji Provia 100F to take to Guatemala with me in a few days. I'll probably cross-process those ones. I also got my roll of Fuji Provia in my LC-A developed, only to find out that it's still broken so that's a wasted roll and another trip to the shop for that one.


----------



## Rook

Love how you've used that wide format


----------



## Wretched

Philligan said:


> Are you still stacking exposures, even with that much light? All your photos are ridiculously sharp - is that from the exposure stacking, or purely your lens?



No, no stacking in this series. Sharpness is from the lenses, my sharpening process and also from focusing about a 1/3 into the vehicle (not on the headlight or the front of the front tyre, for instance - but usually somewhere between the edge of the rear of the front tyre and the windscreen). Kinda like hyperfocal distance shit, I guess. I just find it works for me, getting good focus from the front of the car to the rear at f7.1 to f9.


----------



## Whammy

Been experimenting with the Brenizer Method.

Stitching together shallow depth of field shots from a standard or telephoto lens to make a wider field of view. It can mimic the look of a large frame camera if done correctly.

A lot of trail and error with this. So far this is my best attempt. Need way way more practice at this 

Quite interesting though if you find you have the prefect depth of field for a shot but need more field of view due to being too close to the subject.
Moving further back from the subject will in turn produce less obvious bokeh.






Oh on a NCD (new camera day) note. Looking like I'm pulling the plug on a Fuji soon enough. Fairly sure I'm going to go for the X-E2 even though the X-Pro1 with a 18mm lens costs the same 
Unfortunately I can't actually try out either camera as no stores near by stock them  so I'm just going to take a chance.
On paper ergonomically I prefer the X-Pro1 (bigger size, all metal, looks cool) but functionality wise I prefer the X-E2 (better sensor, better EVF and better manual focus options)

But the X-E2 can in no way be called a rangefinder. A 'view'finder maybe


----------



## Tang

some superia 400:



out of stock by nrrfed, on Flickr



rainy day by nrrfed, on Flickr



jenn by nrrfed, on Flickr



mirror by nrrfed, on Flickr



menu by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## asher

So on Thursday my office did a field trip out to Richmond which included the Canal Walk, which is pretty gorgeous. I decided to not be lazy and actually bring my nice camera with me, despite having not really shot anything in years. Going through editing them, I feel like I'm at exactly the wall I was at when I stopped right before college... and doing the same thing to every photo, too. Though we were moving quickly and it was overcast so I didn't have much to work with on the shooting end.

I've got a whole folder here: http://1drv.ms/1taT8zO and would love love love some feedback if anyone wants to browse. I haven't culled as strictly as I would normally because I keep getting frustrated and don't have the energy.

Some highlights, I guess:
EDIT: Images are all way too huge to embed, sorry.


----------



## Whammy

Another stitching attempt. This was created with over 30 photos (closer to 40) on a 85mm lens.








This is a crop close to what the original photos looked like. (I stupidly deleted the originals )
This obviously resembles the compression and angle of view of an 85mm.
I think I took around 5 photos panning left to right with around 7 rows.


----------



## Rook

^Note how the depth of field gets bigger in the upper photo as the print size changes with reference to what I said before 

Very nice, I've just started working on some Brenizer 6x2's, starting with two frames but I'm tempted to give a 6 frame (cropped) a go too with the 56 (84 135) which will give roughly the horizontal field of view of an 16mm (24 135) which IMO is a lovely contextual/editorial FoV.

Very cool man.


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> ^Note how the depth of field gets bigger in the upper photo as the print size changes with reference to what I said before



Indeed 
That's one thing I noticed. The stitched files are HUGE and on full screen zoomed in a tiny bit the depth of field looks amazing. When the entire photo is displayed as above 800px x 800px the depth of field is still there but it's just not as impressive.

If I was shooting large format I'd be disappointed viewing scans on screen smaller than the negative 
That stuff needs to be printed big


----------



## Tang

A few quick observations about shooting my first serious roll of film:

1. I cannot get enough of how negative film renders highlights. It's just beautiful, IMO. 

2. I'm kinda on the fence with the Superia 400. I'm not a huge fan of the skin tones and sometimes the greens are a little wonky. I bought a few rolls of Superia 200 to play with until my Tri-C arrives so maybe I'll like the look of the lower speed. From what I read online the 200 is a bit less contrasty and has more pleasing shadows.

3. The viewfinder on this old Minolta (maxxum 7000. apparently this is the first autofocus camera ever made and for a body that was made in 1985 it works wonderfully) is the most glorious thing I've ever seen. Going back to my Pentax is like shooting a Rebel again. So small and sad 

4. DOF. I knew I was going to have less DOF available but hot holy shit. At 1.7 the DOF is almost uncomfortably thin.


----------



## asher

Okay, reduced some stuff to entice people to look maybe


----------



## Tyler

So Ive been using a d3200 for a while and want to upgrade to a full crop sensor so that my 50mm FX will actually be 50 rather than a 75. Whatd be the cheapest full sensor option for a nikon right now?


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Tyler said:


> So Ive been using a d3200 for a while and want to upgrade to a full crop sensor so that my 50mm FX will actually be 50 rather than a 75. Whatd be the cheapest full sensor option for a nikon right now?



I reckon that'd be the D610.

Nikon D610 DSLR Camera Body 1540 B&H Photo Video


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> A few quick observations about shooting my first serious roll of film:
> 
> 1. I cannot get enough of how negative film renders highlights. It's just beautiful, IMO.



Yeap  Color negative does wonders to highlights. The natural compression of the highs is something I miss. Color reversal film, that's a different matter  Very unforgiving if you over expose but normally worth the effort (and extra money ).

I just love the old ways of working with film as opposed to lightroom etc... like slightly under exposing to enhance the saturation and slightly over exposing to wash the colors out a little 



Tang said:


> 4. DOF. I knew I was going to have less DOF available but hot holy shit. At 1.7 the DOF is almost uncomfortably thin.



I started out with a 1.8 lens on film and loved that. Plenty of shallow depth of field. A bit awkward to focus but the split focusing screen made it easy enough, kinda. I remember went I finally bought a 1.2 lens. The extra amount of light in the view finder was crazy and actually really nice but the focusing  So many photos where I misfocused by a tiny amount.


----------



## Khoi

here's one from my GoPro when I went scuba diving in Thailand at the Phi Phi Islands


----------



## Whammy

One more stitch  Starting to get the hang of it a bit now.






This time I didn't delete the original so here is one of the photos from the middle, unprocessed. Again with an 85mm lens. It give you an idea of how many photos are stitched together. A lot 
Going to give these a little break as my laptop doesn't like all the stitching work I'm giving it and I don't like putting my camera through so many additional actuations for one photo.


----------



## Khoi

is that using the Brenizer method?

I tried that with my 50mm 1.2 but the lens distortion was way too apparent with a 50mm. I wish I had an 85mm!


----------



## Whammy

Khoi said:


> is that using the Brenizer method?
> 
> I tried that with my 50mm 1.2 but the lens distortion was way too apparent with a 50mm. I wish I had an 85mm!



Yeap it is. Yeah it works better with a 85mm but you should get good results with a 50mm.
Make sure to correct any lens distortion and vignetting from the individual shots before attempting to stitch the photos otherwise stuff can look pretty nasty.


----------



## Tyler

Whammy said:


> Yeap it is. Yeah it works better with a 85mm but you should get good results with a 50mm.
> Make sure to correct any lens distortion and vignetting from the individual shots before attempting to stitch the photos otherwise stuff can look pretty nasty.



Are you using lightroom for the stitching? Ive only used CS5 for editing up until now and thought I'd pick up Lightroom soon anyways, and might give stitching a go


----------



## asher

The depth those get is just gorgeous.


----------



## Rook

Tang said:


> A few quick observations about shooting my first serious roll of film:
> 
> 1. I cannot get enough of how negative film renders highlights. It's just beautiful, IMO.
> 
> 2. I'm kinda on the fence with the Superia 400. I'm not a huge fan of the skin tones and sometimes the greens are a little wonky. I bought a few rolls of Superia 200 to play with until my Tri-C arrives so maybe I'll like the look of the lower speed. From what I read online the 200 is a bit less contrasty and has more pleasing shadows.
> 
> 3. The viewfinder on this old Minolta (maxxum 7000. apparently this is the first autofocus camera ever made and for a body that was made in 1985 it works wonderfully) is the most glorious thing I've ever seen. Going back to my Pentax is like shooting a Rebel again. So small and sad
> 
> 4. DOF. I knew I was going to have less DOF available but hot holy shit. At 1.7 the DOF is almost uncomfortably thin.



I certainly wouldn't consider superia a 'pro' film, which'll be what you want I'd say. Fuji in my mind = green shadows, but not nice green like Ektar or something, it's a very floral green. I'd go Fuji 400H or Porta 400 (or the 160 equivalents if you want a softer contrast). As a general rule, lower ISO means lower contrast, softer (usually) and obviously less graining.

The viewfinder thing was the big reason for going X-T1 for me, I can't stand the VF on my girlfriend's 600D (rebel), it's like looking through a keyhole.

Why would you think a 50 1,8 wouldn't have a shallow DoF? Haha.


Also, I've always liked shooting flower and got bored this weekend and did this. I love how they came out personally, I think this is gunna be my first print run, 48"x32".



5 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



4 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



3 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



2 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



1 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Whammy said:


> Yeap  Color negative does wonders to highlights. The natural compression of the highs is something I miss. Color reversal film, that's a different matter  Very unforgiving if you over expose but normally worth the effort (and extra money ).



Given that, I'm surprised how well exposures turned out on my panoramics. I had my 6D on me to meter for a couple of shots, but for the most part, exposure and aperture was entirely guesswork. In that respect, I've been under the impression that slide film is quite forgiving, even given its contrasty character. But I haven't tried colour negative without metering yet, so I don't really have a reference point.


----------



## Khoi

Tyler said:


> Are you using lightroom for the stitching? Ive only used CS5 for editing up until now and thought I'd pick up Lightroom soon anyways, and might give stitching a go



Photoshop, as far as I know Lightroom doesn't have a panoramic stitching feature


----------



## JeffFromMtl

A couple more from the Horizon Perfekt. Looking at these, I think my exposures in bright daylight were a little overdone, so I'll probably try shooting at smaller apertures. I think these were likely all shot at 1/250, f/11. I prefer how the most under-exposed shot came out cuz the others are a little washed out and hazy for my liking. I don't think the overcast conditions really helped either, but what can you do.


----------



## Philligan

Dawn and I hung out with a couple friends last night and the plan was hang out and take some photos, and it kinda turned into a free engagement shoot for them. Still, I can't complain, I need the practice haha. This is the first solo thing I've done, and it went well for what it was. The girl is a local "photographer" who was way too difficult to work with haha (mostly bad Sears portrait style posing) and who kept trying to give me advice like "edit photos and change them to jpgs so people can print them easier".  

Anyway, I did a quick run through before work today and edited a handful I like. Gonna go through again and look for a few more, and then go through the ones she said she liked and see if they're any good. 



IMG_1079 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_1079bw by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_1037 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_1122 by philbabbey, on Flickr

And this one I'm not too sure about yet. I played with it a bit and it technically works, but I can't get it to the point where it's like "that's it". Any ideas?



IMG_1169 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

SO MANY WIDE FORMATS


----------



## Winspear

Absolutely stunning flower pics Nick! Can't get over how good that format is.


----------



## Whammy

JeffFromMtl said:


> Given that, I'm surprised how well exposures turned out on my panoramics. I had my 6D on me to meter for a couple of shots, but for the most part, exposure and aperture was entirely guesswork. In that respect, I've been under the impression that slide film is quite forgiving, even given its contrasty character. But I haven't tried colour negative without metering yet, so I don't really have a reference point.



Compared slide film to negative film and negative film will allow you to over expose while still retaining information in the highlights.
I used to shoot a lot with a camera with a malfunction light meter and I got blown out highlights the whole time with slide film 



Tyler said:


> Are you using lightroom for the stitching? Ive only used CS5 for editing up until now and thought I'd pick up Lightroom soon anyways, and might give stitching a go



I use Lightroom to remove any lens distortion and vignetting and also to resize the photos into a smaller resolution, around 2000px on the long side.
Then I use Photoshop to stitch as Lightroom doesn't have a stitching option.

--------

So I tried my best to try out a Fuji X-Pro1 & X-E2. Tried every store that stocked camera (no dedicated camera store around) and only one stocked Fujifilm.
All they had was a X-E1 and it wasn't even able to turn on 
The city wasn't exactly small either so I'm surprised about the options 

At least I got to get a feel of the body as the X-E1 and 2 are pretty much the exact same body wise. I was expecting a 'cheaper' feel because of the metal/plastic body but I was actually happy with the build quality. Felt solid enough for a second camera.
Smaller than I thought. My finger kept overreaching and missing the shutter release button 

I just wish they had a X-Pro1 as I so want to know how that camera feels.

Looking at writing speeds compared between the X-Pro1 (latest firmware) and the X-E2 and the X-Pro1 looks like it would drive me crazy in that regard. Maybe the videos I saw were not using a super fast card 

Probably be ordering off the X-E2 tomorrow. But I keep switching between the two cameras in my head


----------



## Philligan

I worked on this one today, I'm still not sure how I feel about it haha. Thoughts?

It was getting dark and I wanted to keep the ISO low, so this was a 1/4s shutter speed. IS for the win. 



IMG_1217 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

^
I prefer this over the other photos even though the lighting in the sea photos is great. I just think the framing and aspect ratio work really well together in this one. Although I can't help but wonder how it would look square. Pretty good I bet 
B&W could really work if you mess with the green levels.

Buy yeah, overall I think it's a better shot but obviously the lighting isn't as dramatic as the sea photos. But it works in a quaint way. Softning the contrast or lowering the saturation may help add to the subtle nature of the photo. Personal preference of course. I normally prefer wedding/engagement photos when they are softer and velvety especially when the captured mood is already of a delicate, caring nature.
Then again I may be over thinking this


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> I worked on this one today, I'm still not sure how I feel about it haha. Thoughts?
> 
> It was getting dark and I wanted to keep the ISO low, so this was a 1/4s shutter speed. IS for the win.
> 
> 
> 
> IMG_1217 by philbabbey, on Flickr





IS is fun! 43mm, 1/6s (yes, one-sixth) f/1.9 @ ISO3200. I'll take low-light for $100 please. Probably the lowest shutter speed I feel comfortable hand holding with the Pantecks.



grainy cat by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Thanks for comments on my flowers 

Whammy, I wonder if there's a way you could try/borrow my X-Pro1... I can completely understand your debate and I have a really firm attachment to my X-Pro, much more than my X-T1 despite being the better camera.

The X-E2, as I say I borrowed one the other day, is fast, accurate and reliable, but it just doesn't have that extra something the X-Pro does for me. I'll be handing mine down to my children. 

I genuinely think the X100S and X-Pro1 are the first digital cameras to have a unique appearance, functionality (dat hybrid OVF), and look to the images and it's timeless. There was nothing spectacular to me about the 6D apart from sheer efficiency and resolution - it was an awesome camera, but the experience of using it and the images coming out the other end, it could have been any prosumer DSLR.

Maybe I'm just full of shit, but the X-Pro pushes all my buttons haha. Sorry!



Whammy said:


> ^
> I prefer this over the other photos even though the lighting in the sea photos is great. I just think the framing and aspect ratio work really well together in this one. Although I can't help but wonder how it would look square. Pretty good I bet
> B&W could really work if you mess with the green levels.



I agree, the skin tones are a little orange for me right now, though I tend to go too far the other way! I like pale ivory skin.


----------



## Kwirk

Went to the Badlands National Park in South Dakota this weekend. Haven't edited all my pictures yet but these two were first on my list to edit.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> I agree, the skin tones are a little orange for me right now, though I tend to go too far the other way! I like pale ivory skin.



The orange-ness came from the orange gel I had on my flash.  I've been using the flash like crazy lately. I can get away with smaller apertures so photos are sharp, keep the ISO down, and keep my white balance a lot more consistent because the lighting is more consistent. And I typically process my photos a little dark and cool so I'm trying to get out of that rut.

Huge disclaimer: I don't care for this photo. The girl wanted it, and I think it's kind of cheesy. But, I need to show the world. I didn't crop or straighten this at all - those straight lines were apparently done totally in-camera.  



IMG_1047 by philbabbey, on Flickr

I didn't even notice at first. I did my colour correcting and tone curve and such, and went to go straighten it out and realized I apparently didn't need to.


----------



## Philligan

Just did this one - I sharpened the ring, pushed the highlights, pulled the contrast down, etc. etc.



IMG_1034 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

I can't wait to get proper high-res scans on these negatives.  they will be high in resolution and dust-free!



river tree by nrrfed, on Flickr




pale ale by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> Whammy, I wonder if there's a way you could try/borrow my X-Pro1... I can completely understand your debate and I have a really firm attachment to my X-Pro, much more than my X-T1 despite being the better camera.



I appreciate the offer but we both know there is no way that could happen 



Rook said:


> The X-E2, as I say I borrowed one the other day, is fast, accurate and reliable, but it just doesn't have that extra something the X-Pro does for me. I'll be handing mine down to my children.
> 
> I genuinely think the X100S and X-Pro1 are the first digital cameras to have a unique appearance, functionality (dat hybrid OVF), and look to the images and it's timeless. There was nothing spectacular to me about the 6D apart from sheer efficiency and resolution - it was an awesome camera, but the experience of using it and the images coming out the other end, it could have been any prosumer DSLR.
> 
> Maybe I'm just full of shit, but the X-Pro pushes all my buttons haha. Sorry!



Damn you. I'm leaning one way and they you pull me the other way 
I understand where you are coming from though. I'm super happy with my 5d MKii on a efficiency level but it in no way has the enjoyment of shooting my film cameras.

I really would prefer to get the best feeling camera rather than most efficient one. But at the same time I don't want something that's slow and frustrating to use.

Could you do me a huge favor  Would you be able to (roughly) tell me the write speed from one photo on the X-Pro1 with the updated firmware and what speed the card is? Also how long does it take for the image to appear on screen?

I find stuff online but some information is always missing.

Sorry guys for all the Fuji talk. I promise I'll stop harping on about it now


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> Just did this one - I sharpened the ring, pushed the highlights, pulled the contrast down, etc. etc.r



I don't remember the other images, but the skin here is too red/orange IMO (even for some CTO, you use that to balance the flash temperature to ambient).

The tones on her face aren't too bad, but as the exposure drops the intensity of the orange/red is pretty bad (back side of her arm; his neck shoulder transition has a nice tonality to it as well). 

I get you may be going for this tone, but then you should make it more even across their skin and the series. The goofy photo with the half wall has nicely (white) balanced skin tones.

On another note for this last shot you should have switched their poses because her arm looks huge since it's pretty much dead on from the side and probably pushed against her body. Happy flashing,  - soon you'll want something you can use with a Mola Beamm and still overpower the sun .


----------



## Philligan

Awesome, thanks.  I've got the day off so I'll play with them some more. That whole shoot was in the evening, so I had an orange gel on, but I started with a really orange one and backed it off to the palest orange. This was the first thing we did and I'm pretty sure still had the super orange gel.


----------



## Philligan

Man, skin tones are brutal.  I went through and tried to get everything pretty consistent. And here's the working order for all the photos so far. 



IMG_1037 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_1034 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_1047 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_1079 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_1217 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_1113 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_1169 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_1122 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

So I was going through and trying to find a photo from each spot we were at to give them. I'd settled on this one, and did B&W because the water was pretty gross looking. It took me a while to notice the graffiti, and I was thinking about cloning it all out, then I actually read it. It had a couple people's initials, too, so I tried to clone that out. It was tedious  I spent about thirty minutes on it, but I got it to the point where I'm pretty much happy with it. If you know what you're looking at you can see some inconsistency, but I think it just comes across as scuffs on the dividers.



IMG_1183bw by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Whammy, I'll make you a quick video when I get home 




ThePhilosopher said:


> I don't remember the other images, but the skin here is too red/orange IMO (even for some CTO, you use that to balance the flash temperature to ambient).
> 
> The tones on her face aren't too bad, but as the exposure drops the intensity of the orange/red is pretty bad (back side of her arm; his neck shoulder transition has a nice tonality to it as well).
> 
> I get you may be going for this tone, but then you should make it more even across their skin and the series. The goofy photo with the half wall has nicely (white) balanced skin tones.



All of this!


----------



## Tang

Rescanned these 4x6. Why can't my scanner do negatives properly  regardless, even with this shit scans these are the best colors I've ever gotten. I've been bitten by the film bug, hard. Like I said, I can't wait to get my negatives scanned at 4000dpi at a real lab. 



dock colors by nrrfed, on Flickr



smokey by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Tyler

Figured I would try some new editing techniques on my dogs on this lazy day


----------



## ZakkB

So lately I've been experimenting with "Conceptual Fine Art" photography.



The Way Home by Zack Berwick, on Flickr



Fireflies by Zack Berwick, on Flickr



The Seer Returns by Zack Berwick, on Flickr



Moon by Zack Berwick, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

I like dust on film scans personally hahaha.

Whammy, some awful videos showing auto and manual focus with the XT and X Pro. One note on the X-T video, the 35mm gets all pissy if you try and focus closely, and you can see it giving up in the X-T1 AF video haha. I'm in a very very dim room so I'm amazed the X-Pro focussed so well. You'll also notice how slowly I focussed on manual, that's just because I was in a really awkward position and looking through the screen of another camera hahaha. Finally, the lower res of the X-Pro EVF means you can't really see the focus peaking on the video but it's very very visible IRL.


If they don't work, leave it a bit and try again, it might just be that my computer hasn't finished uploading them.

X-T1 Auto
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47095395/DSCF5003.MOV

X-T1 Manual
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47095395/DSCF5004.MOV

X-Pro1 Auto (OVF)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47095395/DSCF5005.MOV

X-Pro1 Manual (OVF and Focus Assist)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47095395/DSCF5006.MOV

These are horrendous but I think you can see the difference in focus speed in different conditions and the lag from one shot to the next on single shot drive mode.

NB This is with the 35mm 1.4, one of if not _the_ slowest focusing lens for X mount.


----------



## Wretched

Seem to have shot a rash of red cars lately! This is a HDT VL SS Group A, which for non-Aussies, was a special edition model of Holden's 1986-88 sedan by the Holden Dealer Team, a race car division started by Australian racing legend Peter Brock (RIP). This one has a few minor modifications from the original HDT SS Group A, like the wheels, but is primarily a very nice resto job.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I've got some iPhone photos documenting the first 24 hours of my trip. I've got my 6D, my Polaroid and my Horizon Perfekt loaded with some chrome, so I'll have some stuff from real cameras to share with you guys eventually.

Connection in Atlanta.






The next 4 are all from the my window seat on the plane between Atlanta and Guatemala. I can't believe how many people get a window seat and just close the shutter.

The Gulf of Mexico/FL coastline





Some cloud porn











Some seriously high clouds, above the Mexico/Belize area from what I gathered. It was really erie flying through this, and I left this photo unedited.






And this was from when I woke up this morning, for my first full day in Guatemala City.


----------



## Whammy

Cheers Rook for going to the effort 

Haha you can hear An Idiot Abroad in the background


----------



## Tang

I'm about ready to pull the trigger on getting everything I need to develop b&w film at home. That being said, how difficult is it to make prints at home? I'd love to give it a shot, but if it's too much hassle I might as well invest in a quality scanner.

Here's another from ultra-low-light series. 1/6s, f/2.8 and ISO800 (pushed 2.5 stops or so. I find my files look better when I can push them in post)


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That depends on if you want to make real prints or inkjets.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> That depends on if you want to make real prints or inkjets.



Honestly? I have a bit of a romantic view of making my own real prints. I'd love to learn the whole darkroom art. If I made real prints and scanned them at 1200 or 2400 PPI I imagine I'd get better scans than what I'm currently getting at walgreens. When I scan the 4x6's they're super soft and only good for low- res web viewing.

Does that make sense?


----------



## Philligan

Holy shit haha. So I finished that set of the couple that I've been posting over the last couple days. They're friends of ours (she and Dawn are pretty close) so it was supposed to be us hanging out, and she kinda turned it into an engagement shoot for free haha. I think I mentioned it already, but this girl's a pretty bad photographer who's had her own business set up for four or five years now.

Anyway, I didn't watermark them because I'm not trying to start my own photography business, and I think it's kind of lame for me to watermark personal photos. She asked me for full res copies of the photos because they wanted to get them printed and framed, so I sent her the files over Drop Box. Dawn just pointed it out to me - she posted the whole set on Facebook in an album of her own photos, with no mention of me at all.  Not really sure how to handle it right now haha I'm pretty weirded out.


----------



## Tang

Common courtesy says that unacceptable. How hard is it to add a "shot by my second shooter, Phil." Prints from her business are a completely different matter since the final product is hers, but social media? Give a credit.


----------



## Philligan

This wasn't shot by me as a second shooter. I've never shot for this girl before, we were just over there for dinner and she wanted some photos. I shot them totally on my own.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> This wasn't shot by me as a second shooter. I've never shot for this girl before, we were just over there for dinner and she wanted some photos. I shot them totally on my own.



Whoa! That's completely different. I'd definitely ask for credit with a link to your FB or flickr. At the bare minimum, she should've asked you first.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang, search Craigslist for an enlarger and/or darkroom setup - it's not bad really in a bathroom without windows, photo paper is like ISO6 or something but it will fog.



Philligan said:


> This wasn't shot by me as a second shooter. I've never shot for this girl before, we were just over there for dinner and she wanted some photos. I shot them totally on my own.



Have FB remove them or start a DMCA claim if that doesn't work. I'd remove them from any location online and I'd also send her an invoice for marketing usage (half kidding on this last bit).

This is one of the reasons I don't take a camera with me to events. If I don't have a contract with you, you don't get photos - very simple.


----------



## Rook

Any time I've had issues with people sharing my reviews/music/photographs, I've never had to give more than a polite 'hey! Awesome that you wanted to share my stuff, it'd be cool if you'd remember my credit. Flickr.com/rookybooky Facebook.com/rookywookie. Thanks, N'.

And I've never received more than an apology and a quick(ish) edit in return.

Be cool, she probably didn't think about it as a formal thing. If it turns out she is a DBag then treat it that way, but never attribute to malice that which can more easily be explained by stupidity.



Whammy said:


> Cheers Rook for going to the effort
> 
> Haha you can hear An Idiot Abroad in the background



Haha, no worries, sorry the videos are utter wank.

And yes you can, and my girlfriend forgetting I was filming and talking poop hahahaha.

@Tang turns out the best way to process Ilford film here is to send straight to Harman (Ilford), who'll do developing, printing of 6x4's and 4000dpi scans by mail order and for less than my local (crappy) lab charges!

I was gunna buy all the junk to develop myself but I never got round to that, this seems a better way to get started with what I wanna do. If it goes well, that 500C/M I've been ranting about might find itself in my life a little sooner hehe.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

When business gets involved I tend to get more upset, especially from people who've been in business for a while. Every person looking at those photos thinking she took them could be booking the real talent (Phil) instead of the shite they'll get by hiring her. If Phil doesn't want the gig then he can point the clients to someone he trusts to deliver quality work.

I had to DMCA a blogger that used photos I licensed for usage with a local magazine after no response to emails about her using them - turns out her entire blog was full of copyright violations and her entire account got closed. It sucks because you lose the exposure, but at the same time if someone else is willing to pay for the work she should have as well.


----------



## Tang

scanned 4x6 to .tif and converted to b&w in LR. Came out better than you might expected. Taken with the 70-210mm f/4 @ 70mm f/8. 



docks in space by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That lack of range, you should be able to pull all that detail in to the image. Is it the negative or the scan?


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> When business gets involved I tend to get more upset, especially from people who've been in business for a while. Every person looking at those photos thinking she took them could be booking the real talent (Phil) instead of the shite they'll get by hiring her. If Phil doesn't want the gig then he can point the clients to someone he trusts to deliver quality work.



 I'll keep an eye on the activity on the photos over the next day or so and make the call from there. If it doesn't get much notice (entirely possible) I'll just chalk it up as a learning experience, but if I see people mentioning it and she doesn't point them to me, I'll do something about it.

It's a little more delicate than I'd like, because she's in our wedding party this spring.  But she's honestly not a good photographer and doesn't have much of a following, so I doubt things will get too crazy. It makes me laugh, because she has a disclaimer on her site and Facebook page saying you can tag yourself in her photos but you can't download them or alter them in any way. Double standards FTW.


----------



## Philligan

I'm going through the photos from the last wedding I did. I think I'm about a third of the way through so far. I really dig this one, I tried to get the colours punchy like I remember them but still go for a filmy look.



IMG_9901 by philbabbey, on Flickr

And I still haven't decided how I feel about this one. I think I like it. I didn't really touch this, other than cloning a staircase out.  The sky blew out on its own when I exposed for them.



IMG_9986 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I'll upload some more. A lot aren't anything too special, but I figured it would be good for me to post some normal photos, like the ones that would be in a package but not a portfolio, to get some feedback on those, too.

I should have spaced these guys out better, and the groom's whole vibe isn't the best in this one.



IMG_9826 by philbabbey, on Flickr

This one's awkward, but it's a crop from literally like 1/4th of the whole photo - the officiator was talking to the bride about something and waving her arms around in the foreground, so I cropped it like crazy.



IMG_0098 by philbabbey, on Flickr

And this one wasn't staged.  I snagged it during family photos, in between the bride's family and groom's family.



IMG_0186 by philbabbey, on Flickr

edit: And here are a couple post-ceremony before I go to bed. This one's nothing too crazy. It was from the animal farm in town, and they were looking at a baby goat walking around.



IMG_0289 by philbabbey, on Flickr

This one didn't turn out quite like I was hoping. I was trying to go for an overly dramatic feel, like a poster for an HBO show or something. I read an article on a photographer who takes family portraits that way and the come out really cool - so serious and dramatic they're almost funny but bad ass enough to be not quite funny. I was going for that vibe, but I don't think it came out sharp enough or with intense enough lighting, so I tried to go for more of an old school western feel with the processing.



IMG_0272 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

ThePhilosopher said:


> When business gets involved I tend to get more upset, especially from people who've been in business for a while. Every person looking at those photos thinking she took them could be booking the real talent (Phil) instead of the shite they'll get by hiring her. If Phil doesn't want the gig then he can point the clients to someone he trusts to deliver quality work.
> 
> I had to DMCA a blogger that used photos I licensed for usage with a local magazine after no response to emails about her using them - turns out her entire blog was full of copyright violations and her entire account got closed. It sucks because you lose the exposure, but at the same time if someone else is willing to pay for the work she should have as well.



I see what you're saying, but in a business sense this really is something I come into quite regularly, both personally and with the company I work for (it's up to me to contact people about this stuff), I've never heard good rationale for going in guns blazing at first contact.

As I say, what have you got to lose from just giving someone the benefit of the doubt and being the bigger man? If they don't respond, you can lose all the shit you like.

Besides, the photos are *of* her aren't they? And surely a very different style to the rest of her stuff?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I agree it's always good to go in politely first, but I (perhaps wrongly) thought he'd already done that.

Here's any interesting read: Crop or Crap :: Math or Moment · DEDPXL


----------



## Philligan

I watched that video. He makes a good point, but I've been kinda bummed by Zack lately because all his videos feel like pure ads. And I've shot and edited photos on crop and full frame, and there's a noticeable difference between the two. Especially with weddings. Zack's either doing street photography or portraits with controlled lighting, but at weddings that extra stop or two of useable ISO and the information the sensor catches can make a big difference. The fast on-chip AF would be awesome for shooting fast lenses, though.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I read the post, I didn't watch any videos except the guy with the 8x10 in Tennessee.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Shot some 4x5 today to shake the rust off of my film work, they are all wide open (f/5.6) except the last two which are at (f/11) and the first (f/8).

Fuji Roids:










Expired Ektachrome 100VS, uncorrected followed by the color corrected version:


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> I watched that video. He makes a good point, but I've been kinda bummed by Zack lately because all his videos feel like pure ads. And I've shot and edited photos on crop and full frame, and there's a noticeable difference between the two. Especially with weddings. Zack's either doing street photography or portraits with controlled lighting, but at weddings that extra stop or two of useable ISO and the information the sensor catches can make a big difference. The fast on-chip AF would be awesome for shooting fast lenses, though.



You've made this comparison before, but really pixels are pixels, sensors are sensor. A good sensor's better than a bad one, and most low end cameras have bad AND cropped sensors and most high end ones good AND full frame sensors. You can go through tonnes and tonnes of files on my Mac through 5D MkII, 5D MkIII, 6D, 1D Mk IV (that was a fun day) and my two Fujifilm bodies and you wouldn't know from one shot to the next what you were looking at, and the Fuji's pull more dynamic range than the full frame bodies for the most part, you expose the highlights properly and keep detail.

People then cite the 7D but that's a five year old sensor with little tiny pixels, no crop should have 20+ MP for me, same reason they don't make full frame sensors with 40+, the D800E comes close and the noise performance is awful and I don't remember anyone complaining about the 1D Mark IV which was only replaced last year.

If you don't believe me, get yourself a full frame, tape off a 5mm border all the way round and see if the bit that's left looks any different!

Zack Arias isn't paid by Fuji and could use what he wants. I don't like how he puts things sometimes, this video included, but I largely agree with him.


----------



## Kwirk

Rook said:


> the D800E comes close and the noise performance is awful


I've never heard anyone complain about the noise on the D800 series to be honest. I know one guy who uses one for concert photography and he loves it. I also know a few guys using it for landscapes. Even if it's high ISO performance isn't great, surely it makes up for it with it's DR. 

Anyway, a shot from last week:





Single exposure taken at sunset.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> same reason they don't make full frame sensors with 40+, the D800E comes close and the noise performance is awful



 The 800 and E are supposed to have some of the best noise performance on the market, because the pixel noise is similar to all the other lower res full frames.


----------



## Rook

Have you used one? It's basically the same as a D7000 in my experience. Ok, it's not bad in the bigger picture, I was getting a bit carried away, but none of them are these days, but it's a mile from 'one of the best', and compared to a D3 or D4, or Canon's 5 or 1D stuff it's noticeably 'not as good' - in my opinion of course.

Interesting that's the only thing you picked up on in my whole post though, and if in fact you think the noise performance of a 36MPx full frame sensor is great, that's kinda game set and match for crop sensors, isn't it hahaha

If D800 images are the full frame quality you're looking for - I don't hold them up as a beacon but who cares - chop the image in half and see if the quality changes. Hint: it doesn't


----------



## Rook

I should make abundantly clear. I seriously don't care about the cropped sensor versus full frame debate, I don't consider myself a 'cropped sensor user', I consider myself a camera user, and all I want to do is enjoy whatever I'm using and for it to work. I sold my frame system for a cropped one not because of sensor size, but because I prefer the look of the images and the subtlety and size of the camera mean I can take it more places and take more personal images with it without sacrificing quality. Good for me, haha.

What twists my nipples a bit is marketing speak and snake oil being spewed out to confuse the average man, woman and child to part with their hard earned cash, and two of the biggest perpetrators use this along with a classic halo marketing model and their heritage to set up and exponentially priced range and make sure you always feel like you need the next model up. 

These people basically make a shit camera blue and a great camera red then try and tell you it's the colour red that's making the other one better, and play on Luddite symbolism to perpetuate that - all the cameras in the 60's were red and someone took a good photo in the 60's!

I really want to make sure nobody feels like I'm being an ass and getting my knickers in a twist over this, it really just frustrates me. Make the decision to go full frame, fantastic, I'll by another 35mm sensor camera one day, but do it for the right reasons and don't be misled by marketing bull hahaha.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> I really want to make sure nobody feels like I'm... getting my nipples in a twist over this





Rook said:


> What twists my nipples a bit is...


----------



## Rook

I meant knickers in the second one. To get one's knickers in a twist has a very specific meaning in England, whereas to have one's nipples twisted obviously is quite painful.

In England, to get your knickers in a twist is to throw a tantrum.

All beside the point really, once again we're not talking about any of the points of discussion I'm trying to address or raise


----------



## Philligan

The groom kept talking about his Cadillac that he wanted photos with, kept saying we need photos with the Caddy. Turns out it was the pile that I walked by showing up at his house first thing.  It was an early '90s Sedan DeVille with cigarette burns on the seats and everything. They wanted photos with it after the ceremony, and Brenna just took a couple of them in front of it, and I had an idea and tried this. It's not perfect (I mostly wish I had something wider than my 50, like a fast 28 or 35) but I'm pretty happy with how they came out.



IMG_0326 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_0323 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_0333 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Kwirk

Rook said:


> Have you used one? It's basically the same as a D7000 in my experience. Ok, it's not bad in the bigger picture, I was getting a bit carried away, but none of them are these days, but it's a mile from 'one of the best', and compared to a D3 or D4, or Canon's 5 or 1D stuff it's noticeably 'not as good' - in my opinion of course.
> 
> Interesting that's the only thing you picked up on in my whole post though, and if in fact you think the noise performance of a 36MPx full frame sensor is great, that's kinda game set and match for crop sensors, isn't it hahaha
> 
> If D800 images are the full frame quality you're looking for - I don't hold them up as a beacon but who cares - chop the image in half and see if the quality changes. Hint: it doesn't


I wouldn't call the D800 and D7000 the same camera at all. For every day use, probably. But the sensor doesn't make the entire camera. The build quality, features, etc. The D800 also has access to a bunch of high quality FF lenses. You can obviously use those on the D7000 too, but the 1.5x crop isn't going to give you the same field of view. For example, the 14-24 on a crop defeats the purpose of that lens. That being said, the D800 can pull a lot more detail out. There's a test somewhere that interpolates a 5D3 to 36mp and the D800 had more detail in the picture. If you're someone doing large prints, that's great to know.

Again, you can make this analogy with Canon stuff. The T2i and the 7D have basically the same sensor (you know, the same one Canon has been reusing for the past 6 or so years ). What separates the two is just about every thing else. Build quality, features, AF, etc.


----------



## Rook

I said the noise performance was similar between the two sensors, that's it.

I have not at any point been discussing the merits of Canon vs Nikon, the quality of the D800 as a camera or anything else you're talking about...

I'll get my coat heh.


----------



## Tang

Philosopher: I did a quick and dirty DSLR scan of that negative (as best I can without a macro lens) and there is PLENTY of detail in the negative. Scanning the prints with HP scanner just gave adequate results because it cannot scan negatives. The prints are overexposed but a decent scan of the negatives should allow me to fix the image like I want. I know those negatives have way more detail than the prints and images on the CD show. 

Honestly, I'm thinking about picking up one of those Epson scanners like the V500 or 600. I just need something that will allow sufficient resolution and also allow me to PP the files.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm using a V500 myself and wish I had gotten V750 instead for scanning 4x5s, now I'm stuck with stitching.


----------



## Rook

Tang, have you considered something like this?

Pacific Image PrimeFilm 7250Pro3 Film Scanner 7250PRO3 B&H Photo

I don't know anyone whose ever used them, 7200dpi for 300 smackers seems pretty darn reasonable. I wonder if they're any good?


----------



## Philligan

On a somewhat related note, are Canon printers any good? I keep getting emails about them being on sale, and I think it would be cool to be self-sufficient that way.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I haven't used one myself either, but they're not able to scan larger negatives (I don't shoot any 35mm film).


----------



## Rook

Myeah, you have a Mamiya 7, right? That particular model doesn't do bigger formats but the cheaper version does. I have a flatbed that claims to be designed to accommodate film but the few times I've tried I've given up, it's just so much hassle.


----------



## Kwirk

Rook said:


> I said the noise performance was similar between the two sensors, that's it.
> 
> I have not at any point been discussing the merits of Canon vs Nikon, the quality of the D800 as a camera or anything else you're talking about...
> 
> I'll get my coat heh.


Ah, well I read it out of context. I do agree to a certain extent that a sensor is just that. I hear a lot of people saying the picture will look better just because it is taken on a FF sensor and I don't buy that. On the other hand, there are definitely advantages to a FF sensor and vice versa.


----------



## Rook

It's cool 

I don't disagree with you, I was just addressing the issue of exactly what those differences are and, more importantly in my opinion, are not.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I have a Bronica ETRSi and Sinar Alpina 4x5, there aren't any dedicated scanners for sheet film-we must use flatbeds.


----------



## Philligan

Here are the last ones from that wedding. There aren't really any party photos - Brenna doesn't really take them to begin with, and her time was up right when the party got going, which I thought was a little strange.



IMG_0638bw by philbabbey, on Flickr

And a few I took from behind the bar. It was a cool idea, but I didn't have a flash modifier (or much time behind the bar haha) so it's definitely something I'm gonna have to work on more the next time I get the chance.



IMG_0739 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_0742 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_0760 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_0762 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Some weather blew in:


----------



## Tang

Philosopher: here's that dslr scan I was talking about.. honestly, despite the 'shoddy' scan, this looks WAY better than the print. It's nice contest. Unfortuantely, I erased the original terrible scan so I can't really show comparisons.



dslr test scan #1 by nrrfed, on Flickr

I honestly find it a little charming  AND a cool composition.

oh man, this is fun.



dslr test scan #2 by nrrfed, on Flickr



smokey scan by nrrfed, on Flickr

.... these files are a joy to work with! Almost makes we want to pick a macro lens for this very purpose.


----------



## Nats

Philligan said:


> The groom kept talking about his Cadillac that he wanted photos with, kept saying we need photos with the Caddy. Turns out it was the pile that I walked by showing up at his house first thing.  It was an early '90s Sedan DeVille with cigarette burns on the seats and everything. They wanted photos with it after the ceremony, and Brenna just took a couple of them in front of it, and I had an idea and tried this. It's not perfect (I mostly wish I had something wider than my 50, like a fast 28 or 35) but I'm pretty happy with how they came out.
> 
> 
> 
> IMG_0326 by philbabbey, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> IMG_0323 by philbabbey, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> IMG_0333 by philbabbey, on Flickr



It was probably the first place he boinked her.


----------



## Azyiu

Took this one earlier tonight.


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> On a somewhat related note, are Canon printers any good? I keep getting emails about them being on sale, and I think it would be cool to be self-sufficient that way.



I just got a Canon Pro-1 yesterday.
Actually the wife ordered it as a wedding present for both of us. She was asking about a printer for hanging our own photos in the house and I just wanted a high quality printer that could print big. I mentioned the Pro-1 to her but didn't know she actually ordered if off. It came to the house yesterday and it's fecking huge. The box weighed 37Kg (105lbs).

I managed to get some nice photo paper today for half price so I'll be testing it out later 
Have some Hahnemuhle photo rag pearl coming in the post.

This gives you an idea of the size. The paper in front is A4 size and the one at the back is A3+ size.






Can't wait to use the Ilford Gold Fiber Silk for B&Ws. I've been wanting to use that paper for ages.


----------



## feilong29

A car I just got in Hawaii
https://flic.kr/p/oxSjQs


----------



## metaldoggie

Whammy said:


> ....high quality printer that could print big. I mentioned the Pro-1 to her but didn't know she actually ordered if off. It came to the house yesterday and it's fecking huge. The box weighed 37Kg (105lbs).



I'll just leave this here.
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=epson%20stylus%20pro%209900

This is the printer I have in my office.

In all seriousness.....I had to change my underwear upon seeing the first photos I printed.
Epson's Ultrachrome HDR inks are fabulous!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Some more iPhone shots from Guatemala yesterday. So far, I've stayed in the city. This week is this thing called Bavic, which is a collection of art exhibitions representing different Central American countries, so I've spent most of my time at those, since the friend I'm staying with is participating in an exhibition, and everyone I've met here so far has been part of the arts community. The first photo is of a ridiculous Panamanian guy who's participating in the festival and also happens to be an Olympic swimmer and something of a celebrity in Panama. The first time I met him, he was dancing shirtless at an event I went to. The photo was taken on the roof of the top photography school in Guatemala. The second photo is of an Exhibition put on by a Salvadoran artist, and in the third photo is this girl I really hit it off with my second night here, who's sort of become my volunteer tour guide.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

An outtake from today's shoot for a friend who is running the Disney Princess Half Marathon - it was quite fun, we did some darker stuff but we got some fun shots to show later. I used my PLM for this shoot, I'm loving the light. 




Details: D3 w/85mm f/1.8 @ ISO200 1/60 f/5.6


----------



## Rook

That's a pretty good hand, no way I could shoot an 85 at 1/60 haha


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> That's a pretty good hand, no way I could shoot an 85 at 1/60 haha



You need a Pentacks for that, sir. I can do 135mm at 1/20s if I'm trying to be as still as my hands will let me be. Maybe Fuji will incorporate sensor shake reduction in the future? Or is their roadmap full of IS lenses?



studying the mundane, in this case PVC pipe. This one was shot @ ISO 80, f/2.8, and 1/5s. 50mm and I have pretty gnarly shaky hand syndrome, Rook.



pvc dream by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Yeah they have a bunch of IS lenses both out and on the way, I have the 10-24 which is IS and will invariably get the 50-140 2.8 which is also IS.

IS has it's disadvantages though, I assume you can turn it off if it's in-body? For how little I'd use it I'd rather save the weight haha.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I didn't like IS the few times I've used it I was unimpressed: none of my lenses have it and my E-PL3 has it in body, turned off.


----------



## Whammy

So I've put the new Canon Pro-1 printer to the test.
Printed out loads for around the house. It came with a few sheets of canon matte paper which wasn't good at all.

Ended up printing a lot on Ilford Gold Fiber Silk. All B&W apart from two that I did in color.
I printed a lot on Ilford Smooth Pearl but again most of these were B&W.
Super happy with the quality. The printer itself has 5 monochrome inks. 2 different Blacks and 3 Grey (dark, medium, light). The 3 grey inks really help with smooth transitions.

Printer is relatively quiet and quick on the highest quality settings.
Obviously the printer will have it's bad points. One is that the inks supplied only came filled 70% which is a little annoying. Also the metering of ink levels isn't accurate.
It works in 30% increments. So It'll only show approximations (100, 70, 40 & 10%).
I've printed a lot ranging from A4 to A3+ which is 329mm x 483mm (13inch x 19inch). Most was in B&W and my B&W images normally have more shadow areas that highlights so needless to say I've shot through the monochrome inks (except matte black which isn't used for glossy material) so I'm going to need to replace some inks soon.

One of the complaints about this printer was that some fine art papers had reduced printable areas with massive borders. I managed to change the profile to allow to print to the paper edge and compared it to the standard profile and saw not differences with the papers I had.

I have to say that printing big has really made me look at my lenses in a different way. My soft lenses really show up as being soft regardless of sharpening etc. But I believe that for certain photos that look can actually have it's place.
I now have new respect (I've always respected this lens but even more now ) for my 85mm f1.2.
The depth of field viewed large and the sharpness is outstanding not to mention other factors too.
My other lens that really impressed me was my Zuiko 40mm f2. I have a good few old Zuiko lenses but this one was one of last of the OM Zuiko system made around the 80's (compared to my others which are 60's 70's). For high quality work I'd be happy with these two lenses.
My 24mm lens was actually not as sharp as I thought and for a wide angle that's not cool. Nice photos but compared to the above printed large there is visible differences.

Here is a photo that does no justice to some printed photos with very reflective glass showing the ceiling 
Most of the photos are family photos for the house. Now it's time to start print more of my favorite ones.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I've always tried to encourage local people that are trying to be more serious about their shooting to get things printed, and to print them large and print them often. Examine them and compare their work to what they see on screen. It's truly a different experience and you can learn a lot from it.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I finally got to go through some photos from my 6D tonight. I've got a bunch more, but for the time being, here's a B&W-only photo dump.


























And something a little different from my usual processing style, but she likes big contrast, so I changed it up for her photos. Plus I wanted to go with a bit of a grittier vibe. I can see myself keeping/playing with this preset for a while.


----------



## Tang

Nice ^^^

I met this guy on the beach and he let me take his pic:


----------



## japs5607

Hi all, 

There seems to be a wealth of knowledge in here. So I thought I would ask a bit of a noob question

I have a Nikon D3100 currently with a kit 18-55 lens and a Tamron 70-300 lens.

My brother in law is starting up a regular roller disco ( I thought it had died out also, seems not)

I went along on Saturday to take some test shots. Seems the kit lens is no way quick enough to capture sharp images. I have been recommended this :-

Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 DC OS Lens for Nikon AF - Jessops - Lenses

Will this help in my quest, or is there a better, if not cheaper way to get these shots 

Thanks


----------



## Whammy

japs5607 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> There seems to be a wealth of knowledge in here. So I thought I would ask a bit of a noob question
> 
> I have a Nikon D3100 currently with a kit 18-55 lens and a Tamron 70-300 lens.
> 
> My brother in law is starting up a regular roller disco ( I thought it had died out also, seems not)
> 
> I went along on Saturday to take some test shots. Seems the kit lens is no way quick enough to capture sharp images. I have been recommended this :-
> 
> Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 DC OS Lens for Nikon AF - Jessops - Lenses
> 
> Will this help in my quest, or is there a better, if not cheaper way to get these shots
> 
> Thanks



It all depends on what the issue is. Under low light conditions it's easy to get blurry, sharp-less photos. But a lot of different camera settings can cause this.

Are you using the camera on auto mode?

In order to get the right amount of light into the camera you need to balance three different settings. Shutter speed, Aperture & ISO.

Normally if photos come out less than sharp it's because the shutter speed was too slow. Generally you want to stay over a certain shutter speed in order to keep moving subjects sharp and not blurred. It depends on the camera, the lens, the focal length etc but I normally find for moving subjects a shutter speed of 1/60th of a second or faster (1/125, 1/250 etc) is needed.
If your shutter speed is too low then moving subjects (or even a subtle movement of the camera) will not render the image sharply.
Cameras on auto settings have a habit of selecting shutter speeds that are too slow in low light conditions so it's good to try and manually control this if you have not tried it.

However if you keep the shutter speed fast enough to render moving subjects sharply then you may find that the images are too dark because the camera is not gathering as much light.

In order to combat this you need to shoot you lens wide open. Put your Aperture setting for the lens on the smallest number possible. This ensures that the lens allows as much light as possible to pass through.

Another setting to look at is the ISO. The higher the number the more sensitive it is too light. Try increasing that number.

Having a high ISO and lens wide open will have certain characteristics but this is normally a trade off when trying to capture moving objects in low light.

TL;DR
Use high ISO settings to make the camera more sensitive to light.
Use the lens wide open (lowest aperture number) to allow the most light to pass through the lens.
Now that your camera is set to take on more light you can adjust the shutter speed until the photo is exposed correctly. You should find that your shutter speed is now fast enough to render moving objects still and sharp.
If this still fails then a new lens may be in order.


----------



## Philligan

What Whammy said.

My two cents:

You could get the Nikon 35mm 1.8 lens for around $200. You won't be able to zoom, but the lens will look a lot better overall than your 18-55, and it will let in 3-4 times as much light as your kit lens (i.e. the room can be 3-4 times as dark and you can still get a useable shot). That will make a huge difference no matter what, but I don't know how dark the rink will be, so it might not be enough.

I think the 35mm would be a good choice no matter what, but if you don't want to spend too much money, I think your best bet would be to buy an off-camera flash. I use a Yongnuo YN-565ex II and I'm completely happy with it. You have the option of auto or manual with it, and you can use it on your camera or on a stand. Your camera would work, but if you really want to get cool shots, you can buy that flash (from the Yongnuo eBay store because you should get free shipping to the UK) with a set of remote triggers (one for your camera and one for the flash) so you can trigger the flash while it's on a stand. That way, you could set the flash up by a good spot on the rink, but still have the ability to move around, and the lighting will look a lot better than if it were on your camera.

I think the 35mm is still a great lens and you should buy it if you want to spend the extra money, but I think the flash would be your best bet if you were to only buy one new thing. It'll let you shoot in even darker situations than the 35mm lens will, and will be more versatile because you can use the zoom on your 18-55 kit lens.

Here's the Nikon version of the setup I use for weddings and portraits, and it works great.

Yongnuo YN-565EX i-TTL Flash Speedlite for Nikon D5100 D5000 D3100 D3000 0847567051317 | eBay

Yongnuo RF-603 II N3 Flash Trigger for Nikon D7000 D5100 D5000 D3100 D90 D600 | eBay


----------



## japs5607

Wow. Some long responses. I will read tomorrow, as it's 00:44 here. 

Much appreciated input.


----------



## fwd0120

Always good pictures here. One question though. It seems that very many (maybe a majority?) seem to move their blackpoint up (LR's tone curve or PS's offset). Is there some explanation about this technique. It is a neat effect for some photos, but sometimes I just want to have the blackpoint closer to clipping like normal. Can somebody enlighten me? Open-minded individual here!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

You mean like this?


----------



## Rook

fwd0120 said:


> Always good pictures here. One question though. It seems that very many (maybe a majority?) seem to move their blackpoint up (LR's tone curve or PS's offset). Is there some explanation about this technique. It is a neat effect for some photos, but sometimes I just want to have the blackpoint closer to clipping like normal. Can somebody enlighten me? Open-minded individual here!



I think there are two points you're talking about, which are black point and black tone (or shade).

Black point is the point at which a shadow becomes 'black', I.e can't get any darker. You can raise the black point meaning shadows get darker and details are lost. People use this technique to make shadows look like a sea of black, which gives them a sense of cohesion I think.

Black tone is the colour of the shadow areas. People like to bring the tone up to a silvery grey because it gives the image a matte look, but it also adds a light glow to an image that doesn't have much shadow content - it looks quite natural really because true black doesn't really occur much in real life, it also reduces overall contrast so can be quite flattering on faces.

A combination of the two gives a vaguely vintage look and seems to be quite popular at the moment, partly for a combination of the reasons given above but also there's a bit of 'this is what x photographer that I like does so I'll do it'. I'm not suggesting that's why anyone here does it, but my Facebook feed is full of people who've decided they're a photographer, bought a DSLR and just done this to hundreds of piss poor images hahahaha.

It's like the Instagram filters trend of the metal world it seems, only it has a real application in *good* photography and can look great haha.


----------



## Tyler

Have any of you guys tried a d800 out? Im stuck between getting that or an eos 6d. I know the d800 has better image quality, but Ive seen a lot of reviews about focusing problems, which for something that would be my go-to camera for a long time, I want it to last as long as possible.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Tyler said:


> Have any of you guys tried a d800 out? Im stuck between getting that or an eos 6d. I know the d800 has better image quality, but Ive seen a lot of reviews about focusing problems, which for something that would be my go-to camera for a long time, I want it to last as long as possible.



If you're worried about the AF on the D800, you shouldn't even be considering the 6D. Coming from a 6D user.


----------



## Tyler

JeffFromMtl said:


> If you're worried about the AF on the D800, you shouldn't even be considering the 6D. Coming from a 6D user.



Im not really worried, thats just what I saw from a lot of reviews. What got me was the bad customer support from Nikon. Just seeing the pros/cons to either. The difference in price isnt something Im taking into account since Im looking for something that will last a while and I want reliability


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Some more photos from my travels. I've only got 2 more full days here, which bums me out. I get the feeling I'll be back, though.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Tyler said:


> Im not really worried, thats just what I saw from a lot of reviews. What got me was the bad customer support from Nikon. Just seeing the pros/cons to either. The difference in price isnt something Im taking into account since Im looking for something that will last a while and I want reliability



I have no experience with Nikon aside from my ex's D3000, so I don't really know much about the interface or performance, but what I can say is that the 6D's AF system really isn't very good. It does the trick if you're photographing landscapes and portraits, but forget about tracking a moving subject. It's just way too slow and indecisive. If the price isn't much of an issue, the 5D mkIII might be what you're looking for.


----------



## Tyler

JeffFromMtl said:


> I have no experience with Nikon aside from my ex's D3000, so I don't really know much about the interface or performance, but what I can say is that the 6D's AF system really isn't very good. It does the trick if you're photographing landscapes and portraits, but forget about tracking a moving subject. It's just way too slow and indecisive. If the price isn't much of an issue, the 5D mkIII might be what you're looking for.



Thanks! Yeah I primarily love doing portrait/landscapes but I'll also shoot some shows from time to time


----------



## fwd0120

Rook said:


> Stuff about my question



Thanks a lot!! Seems like a fairly logical reason - and it does look good most times. I guess my main thing is, and this mostly extends toward the instagram world, is it's odd people tweaking photos when the technology is so advanced now it can look perfect, and some people (subjectively) "mess with it". That said, and as you pointed out, there are many beautiful and flattering examples of that technique in particular - especial in this thread. Just feels like it is overdone as so many trends inevitably become, and there are enough photos that don't really benefit from it, as you pointed out.

So, in conclusion, I declare the next trend to be inverted colors!! ...... Uh never mind.

Thanks again, Rook! Great photography by the way!


----------



## Rook

^Thanks dude! Happy to hep. And yeah, I find it funny that the closer we get to perfect, super high quality image reproduction, lots of people who consider themselves photographers don't want that and just wanna screw with things, hahaha.


I personally _wouldn't_ say the D800 is 'better image quality' than the 6D, it basically only wins out on resolution to be honest, though it does so by some considerable margin. The 6D has a fantastic sensor, it's got crazy dynamic range and fantastic high ISO noise control, which (despite some of the previous responses here) I think beats the D800 outright on a pixel level - bear in mind though, these are all semi-pro bodies, so you won't see any of these differences outside of extreme conditions and/or pixel peeping. If the D800 sensor was as good as some people might have you believe; the ultimate compromise between resolution and noise control, why has it never featured in a pro body? D2X, D3, D3S (not D3X), D4, D4S... All lower resolution, higher dynamic range sensors.

For autofocus, the focus system on the 6D isn't incredibly elaborate, the whole time I owned mine I pretty much used the centre AF point exclusively, however there are a few things to consider when it comes to this, and there's a lot of marketing bullshit out there to cut through to boot.

If you're using fast primes and a thin depth of field, particularly for portraits, even if I had the most insanely elaborate, high speed AF system in the world, I'd still use a single small cross type AF point. You don't want to allow the camera to chose what you're focusing on in that situation, it doesn't know what eyes are or what you're trying to portray and how. The whole time you have time on your side, AF systems like that on the 5D MkIII aren't necessary and can just be a hassle, I find. I use 5D MkIII's at work and still just use the centre AF point. No matter how many times I try, I can't trust the AF system to know what I want to focus on. Now of course this is entirely my preference and shooting style, but it puts the rest of my comparison into perspective.

I shot the 6D for all manner of events and the AF isn't as good as a pro body (1D MkIV etc), nothing like, but when you compare it to a compact, a low end SLR or most mirrorless I've tried, that single cross type AF point in the middle is significantly more reliable. Think of how many people have used 5D MkII's for professional work and for how long, and the 6D is an improvement of that, my 6D was way more reliable in that sense than our 5D MkII.

Moving subjects? Wouldn't risk it. If I were shooting a lot of moving subjects I'd be waiting for the imminent 7D MkII frankly, the 7D's AF system was outrageously good for that haha. I can't comment on the D800's ability in this field having only used one reasonably briefly on stationary frames.

Comparing to the Nikon all round, Nikon I think actually offer a better range of lenses. You can get all kinds of focal lengths and speeds at any price point, and their pro batch is cheaper than the canon equivalent too. The 6D is a big lump of flimsy plastic, but the D800 certainly won't be too, the D800 feels like a military grade weapon by comparison.

There's also that D800 resolution, do you crop much? That could be handy.

Shoot any video? Forget Nikon hahaha.

Can you see the difference in colour cast between Canon and Nikon? Nikon is known for hyper colours and a slight green, Canon for softer colours and a slightly warm/gold cast. Neither you'd ever notice in isolation, but if you compared the two that's often what you'd see. I like the more vivid colours of Nikon personally but many don't.

Words.


----------



## japs5607

Philligan said:


> What Whammy said.
> 
> My two cents:
> 
> You could get the Nikon 35mm 1.8 lens for around $200. You won't be able to zoom, but the lens will look a lot better overall than your 18-55, and it will let in 3-4 times as much light as your kit lens (i.e. the room can be 3-4 times as dark and you can still get a useable shot). That will make a huge difference no matter what, but I don't know how dark the rink will be, so it might not be enough.
> 
> I think the 35mm would be a good choice no matter what, but if you don't want to spend too much money, I think your best bet would be to buy an off-camera flash. I use a Yongnuo YN-565ex II and I'm completely happy with it. You have the option of auto or manual with it, and you can use it on your camera or on a stand. Your camera would work, but if you really want to get cool shots, you can buy that flash (from the Yongnuo eBay store because you should get free shipping to the UK) with a set of remote triggers (one for your camera and one for the flash) so you can trigger the flash while it's on a stand. That way, you could set the flash up by a good spot on the rink, but still have the ability to move around, and the lighting will look a lot better than if it were on your camera.
> 
> I think the 35mm is still a great lens and you should buy it if you want to spend the extra money, but I think the flash would be your best bet if you were to only buy one new thing. It'll let you shoot in even darker situations than the 35mm lens will, and will be more versatile because you can use the zoom on your 18-55 kit lens.
> 
> Here's the Nikon version of the setup I use for weddings and portraits, and it works great.
> 
> Yongnuo YN-565EX i-TTL Flash Speedlite for Nikon D5100 D5000 D3100 D3000 0847567051317 | eBay
> 
> Yongnuo RF-603 II N3 Flash Trigger for Nikon D7000 D5100 D5000 D3100 D90 D600 | eBay



Again. Thanks once again to Whammy and Philigan. 

I took the shots on full manual mode at an ISO of 800. On an aperture of 4 ( although the lens goes to 3.5). Just bought an additional flash, not with wireless commander as yet, there is going to be another one in a couple of weeks, so hopefully give it a go with the new flash and see if that helps. 

I looked into the Nikon 35mm lens and it's considerably cheaper £129 as opposed to the sigma which is £200 more. So maybe go down that route


----------



## Tyler

Thanks man!^ Great stuff right here. I sort of do prefer the softer colours Ive seen from Canon, but still want to try both out and see what would be best for me. The only video I shoot is for play throughs, so Im not needing it for anything fancy at all. Since I use a 16g card, I dont think Id necessarily _need_ a second card slot unless Im going to be shooting at a festival or something. Ive even seen the 6d get pretty good live shots, so I know its not completely out of the question. 

As far as lenses, I use my 50mm more than anything else with occasionally using the stock 18-55, but want to start using a 35, or even maybe a 24-70 to try out. 

What I might end up doing is finding a shop around where I can rent both for a day and go out into the field to test them both out thoroughly. Im lucky enough that I only have my 50mm fx lens right now on my d3200, so I can easily sell it if I do decide to jump to Canon


----------



## Philligan

Alright, guys. I'm about a week away from ordering a camera, and need some guidance. 

My budget is $500. I've been looking at the EOS M - I've watched a bunch if videos and know what to expect as far as performance goes. In this case, size and IQ are my biggest concerns, where it does what I want. 

EOS M pros:
-Sweet 22 f2 does what I want, and it looks like a point and shoot. 
-APS-C sensor, same as the 7D, so I know I like the IQ and I know how to edit the RAWs. I could shoot portraits with it and be right at home. 
-EF adapter in case I need. 

The other thing I'm seriously considering is a Fuji X20. Smaller sensor = less IQ, but I love the handling and feel of it, and it's also tiny. The big draw of the X20 is the awesome Fuji in-camera processing, so I can do the three-shot JPEG bracketing shooting small JPEGs for B&W, portrait, and landscape looks. With an Eye-Fi card I can just send whichever JPEG looks best straight to my phone and onto Facebook. The downside is noticeably worse image quality - this is for vacation, going out with friends, and general carry, but the APS-C IQ would still be nice for portraits when I want it. 

Opinions? Any other ideas?


----------



## Philligan

japs5607 said:


> Again. Thanks once again to Whammy and Philigan.
> 
> I took the shots on full manual mode at an ISO of 800. On an aperture of 4 ( although the lens goes to 3.5). Just bought an additional flash, not with wireless commander as yet, there is going to be another one in a couple of weeks, so hopefully give it a go with the new flash and see if that helps.
> 
> I looked into the Nikon 35mm lens and it's considerably cheaper £129 as opposed to the sigma which is £200 more. So maybe go down that route



I didn't realize the 35mm was that cheap. Set your 18-55 to 35mm and see how you like that view. If you get along with it, that lens should get you the best image quality for your money. 



Tyler said:


> What I might end up doing is finding a shop around where I can rent both for a day and go out into the field to test them both out thoroughly. Im lucky enough that I only have my 50mm fx lens right now on my d3200, so I can easily sell it if I do decide to jump to Canon



Definitely rent them both and try them. I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it a few times, but I've got a 70D, and the guy I shoot for uses Nikon. I've used just his Nikons for a couple nights before, and on the last two weddings this weekend, I used his Nikons for shooting some portraits (with that ridiculous Sigma 35 1.4). 

The biggest difference is how you interact with them. There are differences in colour and dynamic range, but that can vary as much from camera to camera as it can from brand to brand. And that's pretty much all based on sensor tech, which can and will change, so don't get too hung up on that. The IQ on all the semi-pro Canons and Nikons is great, and you should look at it more like investing in a system than buying a camera. Either get the one that has the lenses you want, or the one that you interact with better.

One thing I will say though, is the current Nikons spank Canons and low-ISO dynamic range. It's hard to recover shadows on a Canon without introducing a lot of noise, but you can pull shadows a lot with a Nikon. This is something I'd actually like for weddings, because it gives you more slack with your exposures, but I don't think I want it badly enough to leave Canon.

Check out the section in this review where he pushes shadows, and compares Nikon to the 5D3.

The Nikon D4S - Does It Not Live Up To Expectations?


----------



## Tang

Phil, for your purposes the EOS M seems pretty great. That being said, I'd probably pick up a MF film body ala http://www.ebay.com/itm/Excellent-F...284?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item339338ad84. If not that, for random snaps and outings? Ricoh GR!

I might have a problem because I'm not quite sure I can afford everything that MF entails.



jenn by nrrfed, on Flickr



robert on the river by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Haven't been on the forums much lately. Here's some new shots I took trying out some landscape ideas.


----------



## Philligan

Those look awesome, Joe. I really like the textures. 

For the X20 vs M, it's really down to form factor vs image quality. I like everything about the Fuji more except for the smaller sensor, and am trying to decide how badly I want the APS-C. I downloaded a couple raw files from the X20 and they edit pretty well, though. They get noisy more quickly than I'm used to (I grabbed a matching raw from my T3 to compare) and it looks like I'll lose a stop or two, but converting it to B&W, the grain does look nicer than the Canon. So if I'm doing JPG bracketing, that shouldn't be a big deal.

I'm really leaning towards the Fuji.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Thanks. I've been enjoying some 'roadtrip' style photographers recently so I think I might try some of that stuff for a bit.

I can't legitimately chime in on the camera choice argument, but for what it's worth I'd take the Fuji.


----------



## Tang

I always test new processing and compositional ideas on the dogs!



sid by nrrfed, on Flickr



mona and sid by nrrfed, on Flickr



sid #32 by nrrfed, on Flickr

and for something a bit more my old style:



yellow by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Took some quick photos of a buddy tonight, I think I'm digging this one. This was with the Yongnuo and a cheap Cowboy Studio reflective umbrella.



IMG_2422 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

For the EOS M vs X20 thing... It's a tough call. I think the X20 might be more practical in that you won't be tempted to try and carry a bunch of lenses round and I've seen some crazy images come out of the X20 (I think it's pretty well known here how I feel about Fujifilm haha) but I totally agree the sensor isn't just small like the G1X, it's reeeeeally small. It all depends on your expectations of course, but if I could carry around something that would always produce top-class image quality over something that couldn't, I'd chose the first. The best camera is the one you have with you, sure, but if the one you have with you can be amazing I'd like it to be . If you're only gunna shoot JPEG though, I've always found Canon's JPG engine disappointing and the Fuji would win that hands down for me. I'd also cancel my EOS M focus griping if the X20 is the comparison, I don't think there's any clear winner, I've only ever held an X20 in a shop though hehe. 

In England a used X100s would only cost you £100 more than a new X20, is that out of the question? That would solve all your problems 

I try to keep my brand vs brand posts balanced, but I think diplomacy just turns my posts into vague waffle, I apologise for that. I get bored on my lunch breaks so like to type essays on camera forums.

EDIT: ah x100s used in America actually costs more than here, weirdly, $900! Sorry, count that out I guess.

How about the Fuji XM1? It's basically an EOS M with Fuji processing.



Philligan said:


> There are differences in colour and dynamic range, but that can vary as much from camera to camera as it can from brand to brand. And that's pretty much all based on sensor tech, which can and will change, so don't get too hung up on that.
> 
> One thing I will say though, is the current Nikons spank Canons and low-ISO dynamic range. It's hard to recover shadows on a Canon without introducing a lot of noise, but you can pull shadows a lot with a Nikon. This is something I'd actually like for weddings, because it gives you more slack with your exposures, but I don't think I want it badly enough to leave Canon.



I can't say I too strongly agree with this as it in fact _isn't quite_ as down to sensor tech as you might think - lets not forget that Nikon and Sony sensors are the same and their RAW files completely are not! Sony make all of Nikon's sensors without except and use basically all of them in their own cameras.

I also don't think one could say Nikon spank Canon for low light just generally speaking, just the D4S is the most recent body on the market - granted it really does lay the smack down (as does the A7S). I think there are plenty of demonstrations floating around internet land of the 6D and D610 where the 6D _would appear_ to come out on top, and likewise the D800/5D3 comparison I made earlier. Of course your mileage may vary, and there obviously changes from camera to camera but there's more dialled into the processors which get reused a lot than perhaps some realise. Pulling shadows is a file encoding thing.

I'm not disagreeing with your fundamental point however that it is the decision is between systems as a whole and these differences seem minor, but they were un-minor enough for me to go from a full frame Canon to an 'inferior' cropped sensor Fuji system - the lenses aren't as good or as comprehensive but the way Fuji renders images was preferable to me - it was a sum of all the minor stuff I laid out in my previous post. My Fuji's slower, less compatible, not quite as good in low light, but I prefer the interface and images way more than any of that matters. I bought into Fuji despite the system, not because of it 

As you say, all sort of irrelevant really as it's just the system you're most comfortable with and how you interact it. I keep expressing an interest in Nikon's pro bodies recently but in actual fact ALL the lenses I have access to are EF and our pocket wizards are Canon TTL (not that I use TTL) and so on, the Canon would be the more practical system for me and I wouldn't begrudge that.


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Wow, it's been a while since I've been in this thread. Y'all just keep getting better and better. 
I, on the other hand, have stagnated. I haven't taken many pictures at all recently. I took a few that I thought were halfway-decent when I went walking around downtown Mason with a couple of my friends. Here they are. 
















Also I took this shot of my hi-hats and it's one of my favorite pictures that I've ever taken.


----------



## Tang

Keep at it man! I try and shoot everyday, and in fact, I just checked to see just how much I've shot. 

I've had the K5ii for about 8 months now and I just passed 18,000 shutter actuations. 18,000! Out of those 18,000 I'd say I'm extremely happy with 50 or so. 

Again, keep shooting man! You'll get to where you want.


----------



## fwd0120

Snapped a few during a rainy sunset.

This one turned out really cool - even SOOC (well, considering it was a low quality camera).

SOOC








231_3096 by fnldrem, on Flickr

After some lightroom.



231_3096-2 by fnldrem, on Flickr

Then my sister said it was too dark, so I lightened it. Which looks better?


----------



## Ocara-Jacob

Personally, I prefer the darker one.


----------



## Tyler

So Ive been toying around with this lately, but how often do you guys mess with your exposure compensation? Ive always kept t neutral and adjusted via shutter speed if it wasnt an issue, but Im curious as to how much (or little) most people use it


----------



## Rook

I don't use exposure comp but I always spot meter around 2/3 stop too bright on the subject.

It makes colours lighter and preserves a majority of '3 tones'. I've heard it referred to I. A few ways, but basically if you break a black to white transition into 7 chunks - 1 is white, 7 black - the subject should ideally be in 2 or 3 in terms of luminance. I say should, it's like the rule of thirds and stuff and just a guideline, but it seems to work for me.

Apparently you retain the maximum colour information exposing there too, don't know how much truth there is to that it's just something I picked up.


----------



## Tyler

Rook said:


> I don't use exposure comp but I always spot meter around 2/3 stop too bright on the subject.
> 
> It makes colours lighter and preserves a majority of '3 tones'. I've heard it referred to I. A few ways, but basically if you break a black to white transition into 7 chunks - 1 is white, 7 black - the subject should ideally be in 2 or 3 in terms of luminance. I say should, it's like the rule of thirds and stuff and just a guideline, but it seems to work for me.
> 
> Apparently you retain the maximum colour information exposing there too, don't know how much truth there is to that it's just something I picked up.



Exactly what I've been doing, good to see Im not crazy!


----------



## Tang

I actually go in the opposite direction because my Pentax is incredible at pushing shadows in post. Most shots I meter -1EV. I hate even accidentaly blowing my highlights. To my eyes, digital sensors react closer to positive slide film and we all know how tricky that can be to control highlights. 

Give me a sensor that renders highlights like negative film and I'll be ecstatic!


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> For the EOS M vs X20 thing... It's a tough call. I think the X20 might be more practical in that you won't be tempted to try and carry a bunch of lenses round and I've seen some crazy images come out of the X20 (I think it's pretty well known here how I feel about Fujifilm haha) but I totally agree the sensor isn't just small like the G1X, it's reeeeeally small. It all depends on your expectations of course, but if I could carry around something that would always produce top-class image quality over something that couldn't, I'd chose the first. The best camera is the one you have with you, sure, but if the one you have with you can be amazing I'd like it to be . If you're only gunna shoot JPEG though, I've always found Canon's JPG engine disappointing and the Fuji would win that hands down for me. I'd also cancel my EOS M focus griping if the X20 is the comparison, I don't think there's any clear winner, I've only ever held an X20 in a shop though hehe.
> 
> In England a used X100s would only cost you £100 more than a new X20, is that out of the question? That would solve all your problems
> 
> I try to keep my brand vs brand posts balanced, but I think diplomacy just turns my posts into vague waffle, I apologise for that. I get bored on my lunch breaks so like to type essays on camera forums.
> 
> EDIT: ah x100s used in America actually costs more than here, weirdly, $900! Sorry, count that out I guess.
> 
> How about the Fuji XM1? It's basically an EOS M with Fuji processing.



Good points, that's kinda where I'm at. I prefer the form factor and in-camera JPG processing of the X20, but I prefer the sensor of the M. I'm used to editing the 70D's files (the wifi app just sends JPGs) in Photogene on my phone, so I could always set the M to shoot small JPG, use an Eye-Fi card, and edit in Photogene. I played with RAW files from the X20 and compared them to my T3 RAW files, and I think the T3 has about a 2-3 stop advantage in detail. 

I'm leaning towards the M, because it's cheaper, comes with a sweet pancake lens, technically does the same physical job (i.e. same size/portability), I'm familiar with the RAWs, and if I wanna shoot portraits on the go I can get the same image quality I would with a DSLR.


----------



## Tang

*cough*

Ricoh GR

*cough*

Become a street master. 

Seriously though.. I'd pay for Ricoh/Pentax to make a interchangeable K-mount version of the lens on the GR. It's that good. AND! and! You get to use the same glorious sensor that's in my K5ii minus the AA filtee

and for this one.. well.. I saw this neon green bowl on the side of the highway and I had an idea.. this is the outcome. Handheld at 1/4s because I'm lazy and don't bring my tripod with me to work. It's not perfectly sharp, but I'm quite pleased with the result. 



highway bowl by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> Good points, that's kinda where I'm at. I prefer the form factor and in-camera JPG processing of the X20, but I prefer the sensor of the M. I'm used to editing the 70D's files (the wifi app just sends JPGs) in Photogene on my phone, so I could always set the M to shoot small JPG, use an Eye-Fi card, and edit in Photogene. I played with RAW files from the X20 and compared them to my T3 RAW files, and I think the T3 has about a 2-3 stop advantage in detail.
> 
> I'm leaning towards the M, because it's cheaper, comes with a sweet pancake lens, technically does the same physical job (i.e. same size/portability), I'm familiar with the RAWs, and if I wanna shoot portraits on the go I can get the same image quality I would with a DSLR.



I actually had a proper look throughout the compact system camera market on the lower end yesterday as a favour and the best options we found (he literally JUST wants to be be able to get a thin-ish depth of field) were the EOS-M and the Olympus E-PL's. 

And you can calculate stop disadvantage with respect to sensor size. Assuming they're the same aspect ratio, the stop disadvantage = relative crop factor / &#8730;2

So the amount of light lost from full frame to crop with a crop factor of 1.5x

1.5/&#8730;1.4 = about 1 - you lose about 1 stop of light or will have about 1 stop more noise.

If the crop factor of the X20 to the EOS M is say 2.8 - and I think it is about that, there's your two stops right there!


----------



## Nats

Tyler said:


> Exactly what I've been doing, good to see Im not crazy!



Same. That or I heard a tip from a photographer I like where he meters off the brightest relevant "color" in the scene (usually something white) and push it 1.5 stops higher. This gets the white to be a true white as opposed to middle grey white. The rest of the colors, including the person's face, will fall into place and expose correctly. But I find it easier and more to the point to just meter off the person's face.


----------



## Tang

Sometimes you just have to bokeh all the things. Today is that day. Lens is 35mm f/2.4 wide open.


----------



## tank

this is kickass buddy, I love bokeh :3


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I just pulled the trigger on an old Vivitar 135mm 2.8 - £29.95 Looking forward to this arriving!


----------



## Tang

my first real scans that I did myself! Please don't mind the dust! Even the cheap V550 I picked up is producing MUCH better scans than I received at Walgreens.



docks: the final scan by nrrfed, on Flickr



#41 by nrrfed, on Flickr



the colors of jacksonville in the summer by nrrfed, on Flickr



blues by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Exploring an abandoned hotel in Guatemala City lovingly/sarcastically referred to as "El Ritz". There was also an art exhibition put on there, and after the event, a lot of the art was just left behind.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

A couple of Polaroids I just scanned... I think that thing might actually be my favourite, of all the cameras I own.











And here's one I skipped over when I posted all the B&W. It can be tough getting away with street stuff in places like this because you end up being asked for money a lot of the time, but I got away with this one. It was taken in Chichicastenango.


----------



## Tang

An older photographer I know that comes in every day told me my street stuff reminds him of Garry Winogrand.. strange compliment that I can kinda see.

I liked how the bokeh reflection leads the eye around in this shot and love the highlights in the doorframe. 77mm



scooter by nrrfed, on Flickr

way more contrast than I'd normally use.. grain too. 14mm



jess and jenn by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I just got hired at Future Shop (Canadian Best Buy). Apparently the employee discount is ridiculous, so I'm hoping there's a half decent markup on bodies and lenses.

Also, there are two Pelham Blue Epi LP Standards available online that are old stock for $450, so I'm really hoping I can get a discount on top of that.


----------



## Rook

^I'd be interested to hear if there is. My local swears there's very little margin but he's also a salesman, so I only believe about 1/3 of what he says hahaha.


----------



## Rook

Also, my restriction for this month....

EVERYTHING at ISO 3200 or above. The graining (except in blacks) on the Fuji is insanely nice, no miscolouration at all, you lose a fair amount of detail in dark shadows though.

I'm trying to get out of the habit of avoiding above 800 like the plague and working it, as well as using wider depths of field.


----------



## Tang

Sup Rook. High ISO unite!

Changed the WB a hair:


----------



## JeffFromMtl

My trip to Guatemala and attempts at street photography there (as well as lugging a backpack full of photo gear around with me everywhere) further convinced me of a need for something more compact. I'm not 100% whether I'm thinking analog or digital, but when I've got the money, I'll be looking for something.

If I do go with analog, it'd likely be something off this list: Premium compact cameras - A buyers guide | Japan Camera HunterJapan Camera Hunter or an old SLR, like a Zenit TTL or Canon AE-1. My Lomo LC-A was supposed to help remedy this need, but it hasn't worked properly and has been in and out of the shop since 3/4 of the way through the first roll I shot with it.

Digital, it's tough to look at anything outside of the X-series Fujis.


----------



## Tang

I've honestly thought about picking up an old Rolleiflex for street work. I've gotten huge into Vivian Maier's work and she just used those old TLR's wonderfully.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Tang said:


> I've honestly thought about picking up an old Rolleiflex for street work. I've gotten huge into Vivian Maier's work and she just used those old TLR's wonderfully.



I've got a friend who has a cute little Rolleiflex. She loves the thing. I might look into it.


----------



## capoeiraesp

My love for the Fuji X100s continues to grow with every occasion I use it. Silence and an inconspicuous size is such a powerful tool!


----------



## Azyiu

capoeiraesp said:


> My love for the Fuji X100s continues to grow with every occasion I use it. Silence and an inconspicuous size is such a powerful tool!



I love this shot!


----------



## capoeiraesp

Thanks man! She's my friend's very fidgety cat. The Fuji handled it well.


----------



## Rook

I almost bought a 500cm yesterday. I walked out of the shop to sleep on it but I think the one I was eyeing up was a little too expensive.

This could happen this month though.

And Ilford delta 3200 of course 

My dad has a Minoltacord TLR I've tried to use on the street once, the focus was infuriating. They're a joy to use in so many ways, but I couldn't get behind it on the street... Not to say there aren't better TLR's for focusing or that you won't nail it, just wasn't for me. Having handled a 500cm - dunno how much I'll use it on the street... - the magnifier and giant, brighter finder made all the difference for me.


----------



## Tang

Channeling my inner Vivian Maier. 




the pursuit of light by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A few more of my earlier shoot.













I'll be doing a brief writeup on this set talking about my use of off-camera lighting.


----------



## Rook

Some stuck indoors squares at 3200 (first two) and 6400 (second two)



2 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



1 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



4 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



3 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Brief write-up as promised. Feel free to let me know if you want more info.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I got my roll of Panos on Fuji Provia 100 cross-processed today. All shots are from Guate. I've still got 7 or 8 exposures on a roll I haven't finished yet, so those will be done eventually.

Something I've noticed about cross-processing: it seems to really up the exposure. A number of these that look over-exposed in the scans actually look quite gorgeous in print, however, so I'm not sure if that's a matter of the processing or what.

Either way, I'm really happy with the results, given that I didn't use any form of metering and just guessed at exposure and aperture values. I also absolutely love the way the dream-like tones came through with the x-pro. I'm pretty annoyed with the lines present in most shots, I'm not sure what that's about. Anyway, here's a big dump. Sorry for the quantity, it's just tough to pick.




































The following is one in particular that looks great in print, but seems quite over-exposed in the scans. Bummer, cuz it's one of my favourites.





















I think my next experiment with film is going to be push-processing. Likely with some 400 ISO B&W film pushed to 1600 or 3200. That seems to be the territory my digital B&W processing treads, so I'd like to see if I can achieve the same aesthetic with film. Looking at some Ricoh GR1s' to put to the test.


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> Brief write-up as promised. Feel free to let me know if you want more info.



Awesome, definitely gonna check that out tomorrow. 

I edited this a few days ago (had a really busy weekend so I'm just posting them now). This is from the most recent wedding last Sunday - I had one Saturday, but didn't get a chance to back up my cards myself, so I'll have to see if I ever remember to bring my hard drive to Dan's to get them.

This is as far as I've gotten so far, just the bride and groom's houses. Gonna work on the rest over the next couple days. These are the ones I really like.

Bride:



IMG_0887 by philbabbey, on Flickr

Mimosa from the bride's house:



IMG_0900 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_0904 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_0950 by philbabbey, on Flickr

Stuff from the groom's house:



IMG_0984 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_0990 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_1010 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_1012 by philbabbey, on Flickr

And groom portraits I did:



IMG_1140 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_1158 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_1177 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_1208 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_1244 by philbabbey, on Flickr

And the groom, who wasn't allowed to smoke before he kissed the bride. 



IMG_1264 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_1293 by philbabbey, on Flickr

My Quentin Tarantino ripoff:



IMG_1309 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Phil, most of your post is broken links. At least on my phone. Did you delete them?


----------



## flint757

Deleted here as well.


----------



## Philligan

That should be better. I posted everything then realized I forgot to set the album to private, so maybe that's what did it.


----------



## Philligan

I just went through the rest of the photos - nothing too exciting, not many portraits. Mostly reaction shots and whatnot (all that fun second shooter stuff haha).

The lighting in the reception hall was just brutal. It was really dark and yellow (pretty standard), but the bar and doorway to the kitchen in the back were open and blasting fluorescent light, so anytime they were in the background they ruined shutter drags, and they put coloured strobes/disco ball things on during the dancing that added flaring and haze to pretty much every shot.

This one worked out, though.



IMG_2257 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Welcome to the joys of event photography.


----------



## Philligan

Oh yeah haha. That happened at the main club we shoot at, too. They had a couple ads on Facebook about the crazy new lights they got and wanted us to take shots showcasing them and whatnot, and they were those brutal balls with a bunch of coloured LEDs in them that made shooting a nightmare.


----------



## Philligan

It's annoying, but I still have a lot of fun. I don't like going to clubs (especially not after midnight... damn kids these days), but even then I enjoy it. Makes my regular part time job seem so much more trivial.

edit: Apparently I posted twice.


----------



## kaffefilter

Some pics from Getaway Rock Festival here in Sweden a few days ago.























johanbackstrom.net


----------



## Tang

This old man didn't understand a word of English, but I guess he liked my camera because he kept miming taking a shot. So I did. 









fort scene by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Taking a different approach to my color shots.
I painted myself into a corner with my own presets. All of them were made for low contrasty stuff to bump it up more.
A lot of photos of my Ridgeback would always come out bad with my usual processing due to her dark snout. When ever I made it less contrasty I was never happy with the results.

Also I've taken photos a few times with the subject being lit from light shining through the tree leaves. Again I'd end up over doing the contrast 

Happy with the results although it's quite different to my usual color photos so I'm still adjusting to the change.

Oh and I didn't use any additional vignetting on these photo which is very very rare for me  The vignetting that's there is natural.

40mm





55mm


----------



## Metalma5ness

Hey all, A month ago I finally decided it was time for a kit upgrade after the wheel on my t2i stopped working. I decided to go with the 70d as it looked appropriate for what I needed in that it is better specced than the 7d other than the lack of magnesium alloy body. While I was at it I decided to finally get a hold of a good mid-range tele lens - the 70-200mm f4L for some wildlife and portraits. The kit came in just before a holiday in Turkey. 

Here are some of the shots from the holiday whilst I was familiarising myself with the upgrades. Sorry if anyone has a slow internet connection haha






At this point I was still getting to grips with the shallow depth of field as this is the fastest lens I have owned and The iffy auto AF didn't help, I ended up going with the single center AF point like I used to on my old camera.






Loving the soft background blur I can get with this lens.











The only problem with the lens is the lack of telephoto range in some situations although in this case I tried to counter the distance with a wide crop.






The sharpness on this lens is pretty ridiculous compared with my old sigma 70-300mm.






Overall, I'm really happy with my purchases, with the new body far surpassing my previous one in every way wheres the lens took a while to get used to the shallow depth of field and I did find myself moving up to F.8-10 to ensure accurate focus when I didn't get much time to frame and take a shot.

Now just need to get back into the flow of coming up with some nice subject ideas so I can get more use out of the new kit.


----------



## Philligan

^ Those looks great. I've got the 70D and want to get the 70-200 f4 as my next lens. The colours look awesome and it looks super sharp.

Whammy: Your colour shots look great, especially the one of your dog. It's super clear and punchy looking and I love the bokeh.


----------



## Metalma5ness

Philligan said:


> ^ Those looks great. I've got the 70D and want to get the 70-200 f4 as my next lens. The colours look awesome and it looks super sharp.



Thanks, I'd say go for it, fantastic lens for the price. I wasn't really sure what I was going to get as it is the cheapest L lens but I was pleasantly surprised.


----------



## Rook

Yeah, the non IS version of the f4 is brand new bargain of the century and you can pick up a used non-IS 2.8 for ridiculous money too. People talk about the v1 like it's a piece of shit but it really isn't, I can't help but feel Canon have propagated the opinion the original 70-200 2.8 and particularly the non-IS version isn't worth the insanely cheap used price they go for - around a quarter the price of a new 2.8 IS II.

I went to a local(ish) used camera dealer yesterday and it turns out they don't list non-collector grade gear on their website, which is what I've been watching the last few months.

They had a couple of v-series blads in including a 1987 all black 500CM which is perfect except some scratches in the coating of the lens - which obviously is replaceable. It's a fantastic price, and he let me take it out for 30 minutes... Obviously it's not like digital but he gave me a meter and let me get a feel for carrying a v series, focusing, setting exposure, changing magazines and so on.

Honestly I fell in love, and so did my non-believer accomplice. This could be an expensive week.


----------



## Metalma5ness

Rook said:


> Yeah, the non IS version of the f4 is brand new bargain of the century and you can pick up a used non-IS 2.8 for ridiculous money too. People talk about the v1 like it's a piece of shit but it really isn't, I can't help but feel Canon have propagated the opinion the original 70-200 2.8 and particularly the non-IS version isn't worth the insanely cheap used price they go for - around a quarter the price of a new 2.8 IS II.
> 
> I went to a local(ish) used camera dealer yesterday and it turns out they don't list non-collector grade gear on their website, which is what I've been watching the last few months.
> 
> They had a couple of v-series blads in including a 1987 all black 500CM which is perfect except some scratches in the coating of the lens - which obviously is replaceable. It's a fantastic price, and he let me take it out for 30 minutes... Obviously it's not like digital but he gave me a meter and let me get a feel for carrying a v series, focusing, setting exposure, changing magazines and so on.
> 
> Honestly I fell in love, and so did my non-believer accomplice. This could be an expensive week.



Ahh yeah, I have a similar shop near me that does a great range of used equipment including various medium format bodies and they'll let you experiment with it all, the only thing stopping me using them more often is their lack of canon products as they are a nikon dealer so they only sell used canon, otherwise their prices are pretty competitive.

I must admit, with the 70-200mm I was cheap and picked it up used off ebay for £350 which is about £100-150 cheaper than it would have been new and it also came with two new hoya UV filters. Lens had barely been used and much of the packaging had never been opened. The used market here is really good although I'm not so sure about picking up bodies used as there is plenty more that can go wrong with them , The 70d was bought as new when there was a deal going for it + 2 batteries and a joby sling.


----------



## Berti_smb

I found old picture of some lamp and decided to process it with lightroom...taken with 550d and kit 18-55 lens



Lamp by -berti-, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

If you're in London dude, just head over to the British Museum, there's a shop off of the square called Aperture - it's 'the camera cafe' but their site is apertureuk.com, that's where I've been looking for a hassy and they have a tonne of used lenses, including canon L. They have the 85 1.2 in there now for 950!

That's a great price for your lens though, seriously great.

Here are some London squares, giving the 6x2 thing a break before I overdo it (more).

None of these are at lower than ISO 3200, the first one shows just how clean that is in highlights, mental.

I've not changed the grain in the slightest, that's just off the sensor - for better or for worse.



Gt Marlborough Cyclist by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



4 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



1 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Turn by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Rose by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Dominion Kiosk by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Crossing by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



7 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Is that a glorious upside down shot? I'm addicted to flipping. 

Trying to be compositonally focused in my street work.


----------



## Azyiu

Rook said:


> If you're in London dude, just head over to the British Museum, there's a shop off of the square called Aperture - it's 'the camera cafe' but their site is apertureuk.com, that's where I've been looking for a hassy and they have a tonne of used lenses, including canon L. They have the 85 1.2 in there now for 950!
> 
> That's a great price for your lens though, seriously great.
> 
> Here are some London squares, giving the 6x2 thing a break before I overdo it (more).
> 
> None of these are at lower than ISO 3200, the first one shows just how clean that is in highlights, mental.
> 
> I've not changed the grain in the slightest, that's just off the sensor - for better or for worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



This one is cool.


----------



## soliloquy

i went for a hike. with the exception of the fountain, all were shot with my k5 and my 18-135mm lens. the fountain was taken by my 50mm lens


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Yeah, the non IS version of the f4 is brand new bargain of the century and you can pick up a used non-IS 2.8 for ridiculous money too. People talk about the v1 like it's a piece of shit but it really isn't, I can't help but feel Canon have propagated the opinion the original 70-200 2.8 and particularly the non-IS version isn't worth the insanely cheap used price they go for - around a quarter the price of a new 2.8 IS II.



I actually made an offer on a non-IS f4 today, but I wouldn't be able to afford it for another week or two, so I'm out of luck if someone buys it before then. After seeing how cheap those are going for used, I'll probably pick one of those up before a smaller camera, because it'll make a huge difference at weddings.

I also didn't realize how cheap the original 2.8s are going for. I offered that guy $500 for his f4, but if I was gonna be buying an f4 new, I'd get a used 2.8 instead. I'd prefer the 2.8 for weddings, but I think I'd prefer the f4 overall right now, because that lens would have to double as my zoo/wildlife lens, and dragging a 2.8 around for a day would be brutal. 

From what I understand, the original 2.8 is as good as the f4 and f4 IS (they're all pretty similar), and the Mk 1 2.8 IS was actually a bit worse. I've used the latest Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR, and apparently the Canon IS II is even better. Some day I'll own one haha.

edit: That was probably my most confusing post ever.


----------



## Rook

Yeah 2.8 zooms suck to carry, we have the 2.8 IS 2 at work and it's a monster.

Great for video though.

And yeah, I've heard the IS 1 isn't as sharp as the non IS 1 too, can't remember where... Maybe the-digital-picture.com or something (great site for canon users).


----------



## Tang

Rook: 



let&#x27;s get weird by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

So, I had a visit by a photographer Luis Ascui for a shoot at my school regarding the use of Oculus Rift in education. Apart from being an amazing guy who took time to look at my stuff and catch up in future, he let me try his gear...

The Fuji XT-1 with the 56mm 1.2 and 10-24 F4.
OH, and his Leica with all kinds of lenses I know nothing about.

Rook, looks like I may be doing the same as you with 6D. Both the lenses that I tried with the XT-1 were phenomenal! So fast focusing and sharp! I have been using my x100s a lot since getting it and XT-1 just felt right at home.


----------



## Rook

Wow, best of luck for your transition and may I wish you a premature 'welcome to the club' haha!


----------



## capoeiraesp

We'll see how it goes. I am in a very good place with the 6D and the x100s.


----------



## Rook

HE'S CHANGED HIS MIND ALREADY ABORT ABORT 

I don't have a good video camera now, I miss that in the 6D. The X-T1 video quality's perfectly fine for pootube but you get exposure comp and that's it. Fuji really need to allow manual control. I think I've seen you can use a kind of aperture priority for video but I've not tried it.

ISO 6400 isn't as good as people make out either... Colours are nice, highlights are lovely, but shadow detail is just shit. The grain is much nicer than my 6D was, the 6D introduced big blobs of purple and green goo and a kind of white noise, but you don't get as fine an image.

I've only ever had to use 6400 when I was shooting in a dark underground station at f/8 1/125 because I needed the DoF AND shutter speed, that was it haha.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I got hired to shoot IleSoniq tomorrow for a magazine. I'm pretty much being paid to take pictures of Iggy Azaelia's ass


----------



## JeffFromMtl

^aaaand scratch that, the gig's off. Just my luck, I got hit by a car this afternoon and my camera gear was in my backpack. The 50mm is wrecked and my 6D might be out of commish for some time. Here's hoping they're (affordably) reparable.


----------



## Tang

What the *....*?! You ok man?


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Tang said:


> What the *....*?! You ok man?



Yeah thanks man, I'm alright. My bike somehow made it out almost unscathed as well, but my camera gear didn't make out as well. I guess it could have been worse, but still pretty rough luck the day before a gig.


----------



## Khoi

Just moved to California over the weekend, stoked about the opportunities that lie ahead for me


----------



## soliloquy

how was this picture taken? turned out awesome! 



Rook said:


> I
> 
> 
> 
> Crossing by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Out of focus and wide aperture


----------



## Rook

Thanks! Pretty much, I pre focussed on a drain cover that's just out of shot at the bottom so that the people would be blurred enough to not have any detail but not so blurred that you couldn't tell what they were, waited for them to move a little further from the car and be in full stride and that's it.

It's the 56 1.2 at 1.2, ISO 3200, about 1/125 shutter speed.


----------



## Rook

JeffFromMtl said:


> ^aaaand scratch that, the gig's off. Just my luck, I got hit by a car this afternoon and my camera gear was in my backpack. The 50mm is wrecked and my 6D might be out of commish for some time. Here's hoping they're (affordably) reparable.



Dude that sucks, I hope it's not too long before you get back up and running!


----------



## Tang

Recropped and added to a different reply!

I love you guys.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Holy smokes! Dude, that's messed up. Truly hope you're ok!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Coffee:





Location Scouting:


----------



## Philligan

Holy shit Jeff, hope everything works out okay.

So I just went to Future Shop and checked out my staff discount, and it's pretty solid (10-20% on camera stuff). I know I'd like to grab a 6D, but I'm trying to decide between saving up for the body, or selling my 70D and Sigma 17-50 and getting the 6D + 24-105 kit.


----------



## Philligan

I took this last night, I got home and saw the moon between the trees and had my camera on me. Not totally sure how I feel about it, it was brutal to process. This was taken with the Sigma, and I think had something like a 1/2 shutter speed - IS FTW.



Moonlight by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

IS4life. 

The second shot in my little series from the challenge thread. I've really come to love 35mm on crop after shooting a couple rolls of film with a 50mm 1.7. It's just a great perspective. Just enough compression to keep things interesting but you can go wide if pushed. Great FL/FOV/whatever! 35mm, 1/80s, f/8, and ISO200.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Thanks for the well-wishes, dudes. It looks like the only thing that'll be out of the picture for any length of time is the 50mm. The 6D is a-ok. I also picked up some analog stuff for cheap on ebay to make myself feel better. I found a cheap Lomo LC-A to replace my broken one and a nice all-black Canon AE-1 w/50mm 1.8 for only $55. Those should ease the pain until I can afford to replace the 50mm 1.4 

And in celebration of using whatever you've got even if your best gear is out of commission, here are a few iPhone4 photos from the queue.

This was taken in Antigua.






This was from the cemetery in Chichicastenango. I felt a bit weird photographing some sort of death ritual, but I did it anyway, hoping nobody would notice. It was an interesting thing to see.






This was also taken in Chichicastenango. "Linchamientos" translates to "Lynchings", which is likely in reference to the civil war that plagued Guatemala for almost 40 years.






The following three were all taken at lake Atitlán
















And this last one was just a random snapshot taken from the roof of the Spanish centre of arts in Guatemala. We were on the rooftop because the girl I was with had been asked to model for a somewhat well-known photographer from Spain named Miguel Trillo, who's known for taking portraits of people from subcultures all over the world. He took a few pictures of her, then asked if he could take a few of the both of us (he liked our tattoos, and the fact that we were a Canadian guy and a Spanish/Chinese girl in Guatemala). So at some point, in an art gallery somewhere in the world, a photo of her and I from my days in Guatemala might surface. I'd love to see it one day. Anyway, this was the building across the street.


----------



## Tang

Those are iPhone 4?! Damn son. Great processing and the awesome light doesn't hurt at all.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Tang said:


> Those are iPhone 4?! Damn son. Great processing and the awesome light doesn't hurt at all.



Thanks, man. All the phone stuff I've posted in this thread has been with the same iPhone 4. I've had it for over 3 years now, and I think I'm due for an upgrade, but I'm waiting for the next iPhone to drop before I make my decision. All my phone pics are edited in-phone with the VSCOcam app. But yeah, light is the thing about the iPhone 4 (and probably most phone cams). If it's any darker than overcast, things start looking terrible pretty quickly. But in good light, iPhone 4 cameras are surprisingly capable!


----------



## Tang

so.. first time I've legit had a reason for a tiny aperture. f/22 and be there! I wanted as much in focus as possible.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Needs more f/64+.


----------



## Philligan

I'm playing with some X-T1 raw files right now. This is very bad news. 

Nick, as I believe you're the only guy with an X-T1 on here at the moment, could you send me one or two portraits with it? I can't find any decent raws with a lot of people detail in them, and I'd really like to see how those process in LR.


----------



## Tang

Y'all killing me with this gear talk.


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> I'm playing with some X-T1 raw files right now. This is very bad news.
> 
> Nick, as I believe you're the only guy with an X-T1 on here at the moment, could you send me one or two portraits with it? I can't find any decent raws with a lot of people detail in them, and I'd really like to see how those process in LR.



Of course, I'll pop something up in a bit


----------



## Nour Ayasso

I spent 300 bucks on an SLR, am I a photographer yet?


----------



## Rook

No I think the 5DmkIII or D800S are the minimum requirement for instant photographer status.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I thought it was the H4D50 (or Phase equivalent) or better.


----------



## Rook

Haha.

Philligan here are some RAW files with skin in them. They're in varied conditions with different lenses so hopefully you'll find what you're looking for. If there's something else you need just let me know.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/47095395/X-T1 RAW Files.zip


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Of course, I'll pop something up in a bit



Awesome, thanks man.  The moment of clarity came when I downloaded 6D and X-T1 raws and preferred the Fuji files before and after processing. That and the on-chip AF should mean more accurate focusing at fast apertures. I'm having huge issues with focusing my 50 1.4, even stopped down to 2.2 or 2.5. Even _if_ the 6D is a stop or more better in low light, the extra useable aperture of the Fuji should negate that. And the noise looks like film grain on the Fuji as opposed to the harsh colour noise of the 6D. 

My main concern about switching is battery life. Last wedding, I shot just under 1500 shots and finished with about 15% battery life. I don't mind less for everyday shooting, but I don't wanna have to carry half a dozen batteries around all day at a wedding. 

My other concern is focusing in low light. A couple reviews I've read have said the focusing gets a lot more hit-or-miss in low light, which would seem to negate the point of getting it for fast apertures - but I'm not sure if the issues they mentioned were using a fast prime or the kit lens.

As it is, I could do pretty much everything I want with the 23 1.4 and 56 1.2. And other than my battery life worries, it would be a good work camera and a good everyday/travel camera. I just need to make a decision in the next couple weeks, in case I don't get kept on permanently at Future Shop. 



Nour Ayasso said:


> I spent 300 bucks on an SLR, am I a photographer yet?



My current working rig cost me around $2500 (not counting stuff I've bought and sold) and I'm still not sure if I'd call myself a photographer yet, or just a guy who likes to take photos.


----------



## Rook

The battery life is the only major adjustment I think I've had to make. Assuming you don't chimp (I have preview turned off) or shoot video, I'd say I get 4-600 shots off a battery. That sounds like a wide variation - I'd always expect a minimum of 400 but I've gotten over 600 off one cycle.

I carry two bodies with a battery each. I don't think I've ever used up both batteries on a shoot but I normally max out about 400 frames these days.

I will be investing in a battery grip and another battery, I just haven't yet. I'm expecting that'll comfortably keep me over the 1000 mark on a cycle.

As for the AF, I've only ever had problems with AF when I'm in basically utter darkness and I'm using ISO 6400 and 1/2' to try and get as much light into the EVF as possible. One think I love about the AF on the X cameras is you can change the size of the AF point and still use a single point of focus - rather than letting the camera chose the subject - and quite physically change how you trade off speed for absolute precision. Shooting the 23 at f/2.8 from a reasonable distance for example, as long as it's not a tiny subject, I'll make the AF point larger and it snaps to focus so fast it's obscene. This also works well in low light when you feel you can trade off multimeter perfect precision for some speed, it works very well.


----------



## Philligan

Awesome, that's pretty much exactly what I was hoping to hear.  I hoped it was like Canon and how they underestimate the real life battery life by 50% or so. I don't use the auto image review, so the back LCD would be off the majority of the time, and I like the EVF eye sensor. 

Doesn't the X-T1 ship with two batteries? I think I could get away with four no problem, and I'd like to get the grip for the extra size and balance anyway, so I'd have less batteries to juggle. 

I don't have any solo weddings til next year, but two gripped X-T1s with the 23 and 56 would be almost all I'd ever want. The Fuji EF-42s seem pretty small and still decent, too.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Stocking up on discontinued and vintage films...

I've already won:
3 rolls of fuji Neopan 400 (I'm going to push these to 1600)
2 packs of Polaroid 108 type (exp. 1981)

And am currently the highest bidder on:
2 packs of Polaroid 669 (my favourite film of all time, just in case my processing style hasn't given that away)

And I also got 3 rolls of Agfa Precisa CT to x-process with the LC-A and Horizon Perfekt cuz dem blues. I found the Provia 100 came out a little too green/yellow and overexposed for me, which seems to be the norm with it. I'll probably stock up on some Kodak Elitechrome 100 before that all disappears too.

And for anyone else shooting slide film and x-processing, I found this chart of what to expect from your films.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Stopped off at Green Man festival yesterday. Was hoping to get some decent photos, but drinks and music got in the way. Here's a couple...


----------



## Rook

If the X-T does ship with two batteries I've not found my second, tempted to look though! Haha.

I have the 23 and 56, they're fantastic lenses, I've taken many a picture I'm happy with using those.

I assume you found my files on the previous page? Haha.


----------



## Philligan

Yeah, after playing with those raws I'm pretty much totally sold on Fuji's IQ. Now I just want to make sure it'll make it through a 12+ hour day without too much trouble. 

My next day off I'm gonna find out where I can try one in person. But I might be posting my Canon stuff in the next few days.

edit: I haven't played with the ones you sent yet, I'm at work and have a family shoot right after haha.


----------



## Rook

What inspired you to check Fuji out anyway, Phil?


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Philligan said:


> Yeah, after playing with those raws I'm pretty much totally sold on Fuji's IQ. Now I just want to make sure it'll make it through a 12+ hour day without too much trouble.
> 
> My next day off I'm gonna find out where I can try one in person. But I might be posting my Canon stuff in the next few days.
> 
> edit: I haven't played with the ones you sent yet, I'm at work and have a family shoot right after haha.



If you do post the Canon stuff, let me know. I have a 50 1.4 that needs to be replaced.


----------



## Philligan

JeffFromMtl said:


> If you do post the Canon stuff, let me know. I have a 50 1.4 that needs to be replaced.



Will do man.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> What inspired you to check Fuji out anyway, Phil?



The big thing was the focusing with the 50mm. Even stopped down to 2.8, it would have trouble (which is why I printed off a calibration kit, but that worked totally fine). At the second last wedding we did, I was shooting with the 50 at 2.2 to get natural light shots (it was in a darkish house) and like 80%+ of the shots were out of focus. I kept my shutter speed at 1/160 in silent mode for the softer mirror flip, and braced myself/kept still and took a pile of shots to hopefully get some keepers. The other night when I was shooting a buddy, I took 40 or so shots, and only three or four were in focus, and most were consistently focused a few inches in front of him. 

Using live view would get around this, but it's awkward holding my camera like a point & shoot all the time, and it nerfs the battery life. 

That's the big reason I wanted a full frame, so I could push the ISO farther and not have to use a flash 100% of the time at receptions and indoors. But that's a big investment when I'd still be running into the same issue sometimes, and what's the point of buying a fast prime when I have to stop it down 2+ stops all the time? Not to mention, getting a full frame would only make me want a second, smaller camera that much more.

I'm not totally set on it. I'm gonna see what I really like about the 70D at the family shoot tonight. But I'm probably not gonna get the 50 out unless I absolutely have to, because it's too inconsistent. I notice it a bit with the 17-50, too, but not nearly as much because I'm usually shooting at f4. If a mirrorless gets me some more usability with fast primes and is more portable, it's worth the downsides I think (basically just battery life).

Not to mention, I'm gonna want a second body for next year when I do some weddings on my own, and two $1300 X-T1s (or similar) is easier to swallow than two 6Ds. I just can't get over how much of a crapshoot it is focusing at f2 or faster. And it sucks when we're just hanging out at a pub or something and I have to blast off five or ten shots to hopefully get some in focus. 

edit: I just went through the files you sent me. Man, they process so nicely. I just did basically the same thing I'd do to my Canon files, only I didn't have to touch colour levels, and they came out nicer anyway.


----------



## Rook

The, colours I have to say, are what pricked my ears up to fuji to begin with, I love them.


----------



## Tang

How are the details in the greens, especially shadows? I remember having trouble with foliage when I used the x100s.

I cropped the shit out of this. I find my compositional style is very much suited to longer lenses. I calculatd this shot is around 135mm.


----------



## Rook

I've never had a problem with it, and you can see a lot of floral stuff on my Flickr. If you spot what you mean let me know haha


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> The, colours I have to say, are what pricked my ears up to fuji to begin with, I love them.



It's the AF and noise for me, but the colours are a nice bonus.


----------



## Philligan

The family shoot's over. It was brutal, the kids were total sociopaths.  But actually, they were.

The 70D didn't really do anything for me that the X-T1 wouldn't, either. I just did a two-hour family shoot and took just under 500 shots, so I should be able to do that on a single Fuji battery no problem. I had to chimp a bunch to get the exposure right because it was early evening and the sun was going down, so the EVF would have come in handy for that. And whenever I used my 50 I had to use live view to guarantee shots would be in focus, so the X-T1 wins there, too.

I'm sold. Gonna see how much the body would cost me with my staff discount, but I'll have to go to Henry's for the 23 1.4 because Future Shop doesn't carry it. I'll probably post my Canon stuff tomorrow and see what kind of offers I get.

edit: Not to mention, I really want it as my travel/every day camera. I have an uncontrollable urge to have it shoot Small JPG and do the three-shot JPG bracketing with Velvia, Astia, and B&W, so I can choose my favourite and throw it on Facebook straight from my phone.


----------



## Wretched

Haven't posted in a while. here's some of my latest:


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I won the 2 packs of Polaroid 669 film for super cheap 
I've never been this excited about buying film before.


----------



## Tang

You gents have fun with those Fuji's. I'm gonna stick with my Pentax's for a good bit longer I think.

Speaking of Polaroid, I was inspired by my door-frame to take this shot.. I then processed the shit out of it to make it look.. Polaroidy?



self-portrait chihuahua jam by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Nour Ayasso

Rook said:


> No I think the 5DmkIII or D800S are the minimum requirement for instant photographer status.


Damn oh well i tried haha though really I been on a photography kick lately. I don't really know what the hell I'm doing, but wow taking photos with an SLR compared to digital cameras has really opened my mind! Definitely stick around on this thread to learn


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> The big thing was the focusing with the 50mm. Even stopped down to 2.8, it would have trouble (which is why I printed off a calibration kit, but that worked totally fine). At the second last wedding we did, I was shooting with the 50 at 2.2 to get natural light shots (it was in a darkish house) and like 80%+ of the shots were out of focus. I kept my shutter speed at 1/160 in silent mode for the softer mirror flip, and braced myself/kept still and took a pile of shots to hopefully get some keepers. The other night when I was shooting a buddy, I took 40 or so shots, and only three or four were in focus, and most were consistently focused a few inches in front of him.



If you are manually focusing the 50mm then ideally you should have a precision focusing screen. Makes focusing by eye a hell of a lot easier.

As far as auto focusing is concerned my 5d MKII with the 85mm 1.2 doesn't have any issues like you are describing. And this lens is meant to be slow to focus. Nearly all the photos would front focus by the same amount. It was only really visible at the 1.2 to 2 range. The camera's Micro-Focus Adjustment and Calibration tool fixed that issue.

It just seems that the issues you are having with focusing are a bit excessive. I don't have the 6d or 50mm 1.4 but if you manual focus then the precision focusing screen is a must and if you auto focus the Micro-Focus Adjustment and Calibration tool in the camera should fix those shots where "most were consistently focused a few inches in front of him".


----------



## Philligan

That's what has me confused. Sometimes it's dead on, and sometimes it's consistently off. I printed off a DIY calibration kit and that seemed to be fine. When I think about it, it seems worse when what I'm shooting is farther away (which would explain why the calibration kit worked fine), but I don't know if the micro-adjustment can adjust for certain ends of the focal range.


----------



## Philligan

That was fast. Got buyers lined up for my body and both my lenses.  (The 75-300 non-USM still hasn't sold, but I was expecting that. ) I'll find out for sure in the next day or so.

I've got my staff discount at Future Shop, but they don't carry a ton of Fuji lenses, so I think I'm going with B&H (prices are the same as Canada for some things and a bit cheaper for others). FS only carries the X-T1 body, and if I buy it with the 18-55 kit from B&H, I'll be paying about half for the lens what I would in Canada.

As much as I want the 23 1.4, it would be a stretch just to afford that and the body, and this is gonna be my work rig, too. So I'm thinking I'll order the 18-55 kit and a couple extra batteries first off, and hopefully afford the 35 1.4 not long after that.

After seeing those raws, I take back everything I said about Fuji.  The size and weight are starting to matter more to me than I thought they would, and I think the IQ legitimately does stack up against the Canon/Nikon full frame stuff.


----------



## Whammy

After buying a printer I had to put off getting a second camera body fo a little bit. So I've been looking extensively into Fujifilm cameras (including the X-T1) and also my own shooting style and prefences I've determined that any Fujifilm camera isn't for me (unless the release a full frame mirrorless camera)

Sorry Rook  I've know you've helped me with loads of information 

The deal breakers for me are as follows.
I love my old legacy lenses and intend to get more (second hand leica ). Having them on a crop body would kill some of the characteristics of these lenses that I love so much.

I also love fast lenses and currently my canon offers 1/8000 shutter speeds and if needed iso down to 50. Shooting at f1.2 in bright daylight these options are extremely valuable.

The increased depth of field for a given f stop is actually a negative for me as again, I love fast lenses and use their characteristics quite a lot.

The Fujinon lenses. Although they are undoubtedly amazing lenses and I love what other people do with them but the only lense that I truly can relate to is the 56mm f1.2. But I have a 85mm f1.2 which I can connect with better and have no intention of selling it.

I'd still love a Fujifilm but now doesn't seem the right time.

So yeah,
In other words I need a second camera that can also act as a smaller main camera, that is full frame and can do 1/8000 shutter speeds. Also all the usual requirements. Good IQ, weather sealed, small, mirrorless, ability to adapt all of my legacy lenses without cropping along with my Canon EF.

So everything is pointing me towards the Sony A7R.
They have good deals on the body here in Sweden at the moment.


----------



## Nats

Any of you photoshop/post processing gurus know how to tell what a person did in their processing just by looking at a photo? There's this photographer whose work I really like and I want to apply her style of post to a bunch of photos I took of my wife at my cousin's wedding over the weekend. I think that style would work well with the pics I took and the setting they were in.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Maybe, post up a link and an example of a photo where you'd like to apply the style.


----------



## Nats

This is my fave set and the look I'd want to emulate the most 
Photography by Maja Topcagic


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That set varies wildly in its processing.


----------



## Nats

Pictures 6-10. Where she's surrounded by the green leaves. That's the closest to the scenes we were in in the photos I took. Although in general I like her colors and the way the model herself looks.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Overall: Professional Makeup and Hair, Good skin retouching (notice the lack of reds in the skin aside from her makeup), and great location/posing/wardrobe.

For the scene you mentioned: 6 and 8 are colder than the rest and I think you could get close with a gentle S-curve on the red channel only set to color blend mode. The black point is brought up (not too much though). You could also play with overall saturation.


----------



## Nats

Ok, cool. Thanks. I'll give it a shot.


----------



## Philligan

I got a chance to steal Dawn's camera this afternoon, so I compared 50s. My 50 1.4 focuses fine until the subject gets farther away than 5 feet or so. Then it starts front focusing by a few inches. Her 50 1.8 focuses fine on my body. 

I'm wondering if I was too close using the calibration kit. I tried eyeballing it against furniture and it's definitely better, and I don't think it's affecting the close focusing in a bad way.


----------



## Tang

You seem to have endless woes with that 50.. does the 50 1.4 have a reputation for focus issues? Like someone else said it does seem a bit excessive. 

When I rented the Sigma 35 1.4 I had no issues with focus, even wide open.

EDIT: deleted these shots to make way for some fun Superia 200 shots. Oh yes.


----------



## Philligan

Don't get me started on the Sigma 35.  I've used it on Dan's D610, it's amazing. The perspective is perfect for me, and it's so sharp and punchy. 

It's a sharp lens when it focuses and looks great, but it is known to have focus issues. It doesn't use the full USM motor, it uses a micro version of it, and the barrel moves pretty far with focusing, so it's really delicate and finicky. I'm gonna go to Henry's tomorrow and have them take a look at it. I maxed out the micro adjust and I think that should be enough, but since it's still under warranty, if it's out of whack I might see if they can just replace it.

That's what had me so frustrated. Everything I'd read (and what a couple local photographers have told me) is that focusing with fast primes is always difficult. But I practice like crazy, and even stopped down to 2.2 or 2.8 I was still having issues, and if that was the norm I was fed up. Apparently it's not, though.  I've been really busy lately with two jobs, a couple shoots, and having like ten weddings coming up, and was getting stressed/fed up.


----------



## Tang

If I were gonna go FF tomorrow, I'd more than likely pick up a D610 + Sigma 50 ART. That true 50mm perspective is a joy on a film body and I imagine it would be even better on a FF digital. 

For now I'll stick with my film:



aliens landing in my neighbors backyard by nrrfed, on Flickr



superia dragonfly by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> I got a chance to steal Dawn's camera this afternoon, so I compared 50s. My 50 1.4 focuses fine until the subject gets farther away than 5 feet or so. Then it starts front focusing by a few inches. Her 50 1.8 focuses fine on my body.
> 
> I'm wondering if I was too close using the calibration kit. I tried eyeballing it against furniture and it's definitely better, and I don't think it's affecting the close focusing in a bad way.



Normally when you calibrate your camera the minimum camera to subject distance should be 50 times the focal length. For a 50mm lens that is 2.5 Meters or 8.2 Feet.

Check over this under the Micro-Focus Adjustment and Calibration section if you haven't done so already...
http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/quickguides/CDLC_Accurate_EOS_AF_QuickGuide.pdf


----------



## Khoi

I finally adjusted the micro-focus on my 50mm 1.2..... I can't believe I didn't do it earlier, it makes such a huge difference at f/1.2. I've always had issues with the backfocusing on that lens; now it's all good!

In other news, I'm actually tempted to sell my Canon 50 1.2 and buy a Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART. I bought the Canon right before the reviews started to come out for the Sigma, and from all that I've read and seen, there's a pretty significant difference in sharpness with the Sigma at a cheaper cost. The only thing the Canon has over the Sigma is the superior bokeh (IMO), and obviously f/1.2, but I realize I never use f/1.2 because I find it too soft in most cases.


----------



## Rook

Is sharpness all that matters though? If have said not myself... My Zeiss 85 is tediously soft by modern standards but created the most incredibly colours and '3D' look that even the 85 1.2L didn't even come close to for me. The 85 L is way sharper but who cares?

I bought the 50 1.2 again for the lush bokeh and great colour rendition, Sigma _by comparison_ look very sharp and kinda flat to me. I can't make a blanket sweeping statement obviously because I wouldn't really be able to look at some arbitrary image and say 'that's definitely the sigma' but these days, even comparing 'bad' to 'good' we're talking about small details.

The Sigma's also stupid big for a 50, which is the only reason I wouldn't buy it if I had that budget.

I'm not suggesting you don't do it, though you've lost the money on the Canon now and buying a new Sigma means you'll lose the few hundred on that straight out the gate, but I personally wouldn't make a decision like that based solely on sharpness.

All of that said, next time I have a full frame body, I'll be using the Zeiss 50 1.4, it's pretty pants by modern standards but it does the exact same colour and bokeh effects as the 85, there's literally nothing else like it.


----------



## Philligan

Hooray for diminishing returns. 

I can't say about the Sigma 50, I haven't tried it. I'd take the 35 over the 35L I think, though, even if cost weren't an issue.


----------



## japs5607

I invested in a 35mm 1.8g and tried it out in London today. Really pleased with the results





Just need to practice with it now.


----------



## Khoi

Rook said:


> Is sharpness all that matters though? If have said not myself... My Zeiss 85 is tediously soft by modern standards but created the most incredibly colours and '3D' look that even the 85 1.2L didn't even come close to for me. The 85 L is way sharper but who cares?
> 
> I bought the 50 1.2 again for the lush bokeh and great colour rendition, Sigma _by comparison_ look very sharp and kinda flat to me. I can't make a blanket sweeping statement obviously because I wouldn't really be able to look at some arbitrary image and say 'that's definitely the sigma' but these days, even comparing 'bad' to 'good' we're talking about small details.
> 
> The Sigma's also stupid big for a 50, which is the only reason I wouldn't buy it if I had that budget.
> 
> I'm not suggesting you don't do it, though you've lost the money on the Canon now and buying a new Sigma means you'll lose the few hundred on that straight out the gate, but I personally wouldn't make a decision like that based solely on sharpness.
> 
> All of that said, next time I have a full frame body, I'll be using the Zeiss 50 1.4, it's pretty pants by modern standards but it does the exact same colour and bokeh effects as the 85, there's literally nothing else like it.



Completely agree with you on all accounts, which is why I won't be going the Sigma route, it was just a thought I entertained when I was going through reviews and researching.



Philligan said:


> Hooray for diminishing returns.
> 
> I can't say about the Sigma 50, I haven't tried it. I'd take the 35 over the 35L I think, though, even if cost weren't an issue.



I just researched the Sigma 35mm ART last night (which lead me to the Sigma 50mm ART) and that's one I'd DEFINITELY pick up, maybe even my next lens. I need something a little wider than the 50mm sometimes, especially when I'm shooting videos indoors.


----------



## Philligan

I think 35mm is my desert island length. I've used (real) 50mm a couple times on Dan's Nikons and my AE-1, and 35mm doesn't seem significantly different, but it just feels right to me. I did some almost-headshots with it at a recent wedding and it was just far enough away to not be awkwardly close to the people, so for full body and group stuff you aren't too far away. 

It could be the Sigma specifically, but for headshots, there was something about the focus that I can't get enough of. With longer lenses like my 50 (on crop) or Dan's 70-200, things seem to either be in focus or out of focus. With the 30, the focus seemed to visible fall off past their faces and it made them really jump out of the photo. I like the wee bit of warping it does, too - not enough to make people look weird, but just enough to make it feel like you're really close to them. 

/rant


----------



## Tang

35 on APSC is my preferred focal length too. 50 on the film body does feel a little different, but it's workable. You know, Cartier-Bresson preferred using a 50 on his Leica's!

These two were taken with my 35 @ f/8. 



windows by nrrfed, on Flickr



open by nrrfed, on Flickr

Maybe it's a little overboard, but these are the best colors I've ever gotten. INO.


----------



## Philligan

I just got home from Henry's. Problem solved. My 70D is defective. They sent it back to Canon and I don't have a camera for two months. 

I know it's outside of the 15 day return period, but it's still under warranty, so I thought I should get a loaner or something. Nope. I said I had like eight weddings coming up, and he said I could send my camera away or keep it and deal with it.

It's something with the TTL focusing. Live View focusing is fine, and the TTL focusing was brutal. We used a test chart, and the front focusing gets worse the farther away the subject is, which is why I missed it when I tested it at my house but noticed it when I was out shooting weddings or that last family. The 50 worked fine on their demo 70D.

This is pretty brutal. I can use Dan's backup D7000 for weddings with him, but I'm out of a camera for anything I do on my own.


----------



## Khoi

Damn man, that sucks to hear that. I guess if you have a lot of gigs coming up, it might be worth it to rent a body and lens through LensRentals.com or something.


----------



## Philligan

It's not ideal, but I can get by using Dan's backup for weddings. But if I get other job offers on my own, I might just suck it up and grab a second body earlier than planned. But that would stretch the budget a bit, so we'll see.

This is the perfect excuse to use my staff discount to buy a 6D, but alas, I am poor.  On the upside, I can bide my time and see what happens at Photokina.


----------



## Philligan

Since I'm currently sans camera, here are some photos from that family shoot. The dad was drunk. 



IMG_2558_BW by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_2606 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_2689 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_2712 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_2743 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_2789 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Did you try pushing the shadows on that last shot? Can the 70d cope with that? It looks around 2-stops darker because of metering for the sunset.

Also, I'd say if you're planning on sticking with Canon and will be shooting 'professionally' you should look into CPS. 

http://www.canon.ca/inetCA/categoryHome?msegid=5&catid=4345

From what I've heard, they're REALLY good at getting pros back-up bodies if something were to happen. I'm not sure how much $ it would be in Canada, but it might be worth it for peace of mind.


----------



## Philligan

I metered for the sunset in that one. The second and third last ones have the shadows pushed half a stop or a stop.

I'll check it out, thanks man. 

edit: Oh man. I need at least two 70Ds and two L lenses for the basic plan, so maybe next year.


----------



## Wretched

Here's a sneak peek at a shoot I did this week on Ricci's Torana for Xtreme Holdens magazine.
Nice 355ci stroker small-block with tunnel ram intake. Got some nice pics of it pulling a big burnout as well. Hoping it'll make front cover.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> I metered for the sunset in that one. The second and third last ones have the shadows pushed half a stop or a stop.



Two words: Fill flash.


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> Hooray for diminishing returns.
> 
> I can't say about the Sigma 50, I haven't tried it. I'd take the 35 over the 35L I think, though, even if cost weren't an issue.



I agree, the 35 L is outdated garbage, poor focus, zero sharpness, horrible bokeh, and just a flat looking lens overall.

The Zeiss 35 1.4 was bloody lovely but I liked it more when it was under a grand, I didn't feel like spending £1400 on one now the prices have crept up.

Glad you're getting your 70D sorted out by the way! Do you use the video much? Was a big part of the appeal for me.

CPS isn't something one enters into lightly, I thought you had to have some pretty serious kit before you could even sign up anyway.


----------



## Tang

I had to go and out and be creative in a non-street photography way, so.. back to my old ways! Really enjoy the tones in the sky for this shot. 

35mm @ f/7.1 (wat?) shot through a fence.


----------



## Khoi

The Handevision 40mm f/0.85 lens is out, the "fastest production lens" in the world. Apparently the optics are supposed to be fantastic. Who wants to drop $2000 for one of these? 

It weighs 2.65 lbs itself. Almost as much as Canon's 70-200mm f/2.8 lens..

LensRentals.com - HandeVision IBELUX 40mm f/0.85

Handevision IBELUX 40mm f/0.85 Lens for Micro Four HVIB4085M43


----------



## Rook

They make one for m43 and Fuji X, it's just an 50 1.4 with a metabones speed booster built in and would give identical results hahaha.


----------



## SeductionS

Not a real photographer here but when given the opportunity to play around a bit I like to shoot some pics.
The only one I have available right now is my wallpaper (I have to reorganize my different drives to find some more):


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> I agree, the 35 L is outdated garbage, poor focus, zero sharpness, horrible bokeh, and just a flat looking lens overall.
> 
> The Zeiss 35 1.4 was bloody lovely but I liked it more when it was under a grand, I didn't feel like spending £1400 on one now the prices have crept up.
> 
> Glad you're getting your 70D sorted out by the way! Do you use the video much? Was a big part of the appeal for me.
> 
> CPS isn't something one enters into lightly, I thought you had to have some pretty serious kit before you could even sign up anyway.



I don't have any experience with the 35L to be able to comment on it, but the Sigma 35 is so killer. I'm debating biding my time and saving for it while my camera's out of commission. There's definitely a time and place for fast primes at weddings, and my 50 actually looks great when it's focused, it's just a bit tight. And I'd love the 35 even more if I got a 6D. 

I've honestly shot one video on the 70D, and it was just Dawn walking around the dining room because I'd never shot video before.  it doesn't hurt that it's on there and would be handy if I ever wanted to use it, but I haven't yet and don't have any specific plans to. 

I got it because a 6D was too expensive at the time, and even cheap zooms doubled in price. I still don't think I regret the decision, but I'd love a 6D to compliment it (17-50 would live on the 70D and would be my flash camera, and the 6D would get a 70-200 for ceremonies and a 35 or the 50 for receptions - that's my plan for next summer). I chose it over the 7D purely because the high ISO is supposed to be half a stop or more better, and it's newer so it'll be supported for longer. But honestly, other than the ISO, I'd prefer the 7D for the size, build, and ergonomics.


----------



## Tang

Ya'll missing out. We've got some killer lenses over here in Pentaxland.



jenn by nrrfed, on Flickr



jenn #121 by nrrfed, on Flickr



IMGP2910_v1-Edit by nrrfed, on Flickr



riverside by nrrfed, on Flickr



IMGP2948_v1 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Just some nifty fifty long exposure.


----------



## Philligan

I started at Future Shop yesterday. I was on the floor to shadow someone, and didn't have a cash login so I couldn't actually sell anything. It sucks, I would have made like $25/hour if I could ring stuff through.  I should be able to start selling on Sunday, though. So I should be making enough to save the for wedding, work on my student loan, and still take advantage of the staff discount. 

On a less exciting note, I'm shooting a wedding tomorrow with Dawn's SL1/100D.  It's a shorter one, just an evening wedding, so the battery life shouldn't be an issue. It's with the other girl I shot with, and since it's evening and outside she wants to do speedlite stuff. I'm thinking warming gel and umbrella? 

It's gonna be interesting if I have to do any on-camera flash, because I'm pretty sure my 17-50 2.8 and Yongnuo each weigh more than the SL1 body. 

Philosopher: The Blackjacks look so good with offset dots.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Depending on how it's setup you could really pull off some rear curtain sync long exposures, they're rather interesting for weddings, especially if handheld. I'm using this technique to blend flowing water and a model for a shoot I'm planning, but I'll be using a tripod and an 2 stop ND filter.

I love that 8 string, but it's not the most comfortable thing to play while seated. I think my favorite thin neck profile is the SLS profile on these two guitars. I still prefer something thicker and asymmetric like a Wolfgang blended with a Tele profile though.


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> Depending on how it's setup you could really pull off some rear curtain sync long exposures, they're rather interesting for weddings, especially if handheld. I'm using this technique to blend flowing water and a model for a shoot I'm planning, but I'll be using a tripod and an 2 stop ND filter.



What's up with rear curtain vs first curtain? I've always used first curtain because it's easier to frame knowing exactly when your flash is gonna be, but I've heard a couple people say second curtain places your flashed subject on top of any existing light in the exposure? Whereas I always thought that whatever is brightest would show through, regardless of when takes place during the exposure. 

Sorry if none of that made any sense.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

When doing a long exposure the sync matters:

Normal sync: The subject is hit with light and is hit with more light for the duration of the exposure - they look blurred and ghost like no matter what.

Rear curtain sync: The duration of the exposure is going and at the end the subject is hit with light freezing them at that point.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/802816


----------



## Philligan

Awesome, thanks man.  I'll try that next wedding reception and see how it goes.


----------



## Khoi

ThePhilosopher said:


> When doing a long exposure the sync matters:
> 
> Normal sync: The subject is hit with light and is hit with more light for the duration of the exposure - they look blurred and ghost like no matter what.
> 
> Rear curtain sync: The duration of the exposure is going and at the end the subject is hit with light freezing them at that point.
> 
> low-light glow stick advice needed - FM Forums



I've always wondered how you know how much to power the flash to get the proper exposure at the end. Any tips?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I use a light meter. 

First, I'll decide on an f-stop, meter the scene, and then set the flash for the appropriate power to match the cameras exposure. I can then adjust the shutter speed for more or less motion blur.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Phil, get the 6D and Sigma 35mm and just enjoy it for all it's worth! Freakin' sensational combo.

F8





1.4 at ISO 3200? I think? It's sharp at 1.4 and has really been a saviour in rubbish lighting conditions.





1.4 ISO 6400?


----------



## Rook

Just booked a trip to Budapest in a few weeks, I'm totally pumped for it. Heading over to Iceland in December too, so this is gunna be fun few months!

I have some money left FINALLY to buy one piece of gear (or set) to take with me along with my X-T1 and/or X-Pro1, 10-24, 23 and 56.

The options are:
- Leica Summicron 90mm f/2 ASPH (with Fuji M-mount adapter)
- Zeiss Touit 32mm 1.8
- Zeiss ZM Biogon 35mm f/2 (with Fuji M-mount adapter)
- 1987 Hasselblad 500CM with 80mm 2.8, definitely beater condition but perfect mechanically.
- Some triggers, another speedite and some modifiers. Wouldn't take these with me but I want them haha.
- Something else, suggest.

Not necessarily gunna buy something, but if I decide I want one of those enough I'll pick up a used one (so I can sell when I get bored of it) and take it along.


----------



## Whammy

^

Leica Summicron 35mm 

This lens is also known as the bokeh king 

The 90mm is also a great option but on a crop sensor, I don't know. 135mm is at that awkward focal range imo. Something wider or narrower would be more useful for me


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> I use a light meter.
> 
> First, I'll decide on an f-stop, meter the scene, and then set the flash for the appropriate power to match the cameras exposure. I can then adjust the shutter speed for more or less motion blur.



I usually underexpose by about half a stop or so and trial and error with the flash until the histogram looks good. Or, if I'm shooting people outside, expose for the background and do the same thing with the flash.


----------



## Rook

Whammy said:


> ^
> 
> Leica Summicron 35mm
> 
> This lens is also known as the bokeh king
> 
> The 90mm is also a great option but on a crop sensor, I don't know. 135mm is at that awkward focal range imo. Something wider or narrower would be more useful for me



Aaaaah can't afford the Summicron 35, there's a version of the 90 that goes for very reasonable money used.

I like 135mm, I sold my last 135 because it was my second lens, frankly not ideal. I do plan on getting the Fuji 70-200 equivalent though which would mean selling a 90, probably not worth it.

I'd be interested to see how the Zeiss equivalent compares to that Leica 35 though, the Touit stuff's ok but calling them Zeiss lenses is like calling the Sony lenses Zeiss, there's nothing Zeiss about them :/


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> Aaaaah can't afford the Summicron 35, there's a version of the 90 that goes for very reasonable money used.
> 
> I like 135mm, I sold my last 135 because it was my second lens, frankly not ideal. I do plan on getting the Fuji 70-200 equivalent though which would mean selling a 90, probably not worth it.
> 
> I'd be interested to see how the Zeiss equivalent compares to that Leica 35 though, the Touit stuff's ok but calling them Zeiss lenses is like calling the Sony lenses Zeiss, there's nothing Zeiss about them :/



Both the Zeiss and Leica will have an amazing amount of character and produce stunning images, both a good choice. It's down to whether you prefer Zeiss characteristics or Leica.
On the off chance that Fujifilm release a full frame you'd have a very nice 35mm at your disposal 
[EDIT] Oh yeah. The summicron 35mm that is normally referred to as king bokeh is the 4th version. Serial numbers 2,974,xxx - 3,731,000 [/EDIT]

If I had your set-up I'd probably invest all my money into the Summilux 35mm 1.4 and use that as my main 50mm equivalent 

The Touit seems interesting. It seems a bit hit and miss when it comes to stunning looking images. More miss though. But that could just be the photographer using the lens 

------

Got my photo in a local magazine  Actually it's my own band so it's nothing special.
We had to take a photo of the band or have the magazine's photographer take a photo of us so I decided to take the photo myself.
I had to make do with what I had (which was no lighting rig) so I turned off the main lights, used some crappy small LED lights that were in the studio and placed them on the floor in certain points to create dramatic shadows.
I shot wide open at 1.2 with the 85mm and the iso was 800. Shutter speed was 1/200.
One of the guitarists wasn't at the studio so I got a photo from his facebook page and photoshopped a Mexican mustache onto him as punishment for not being there 

My Swedish still isn't good enough to read the article


----------



## Rook

^nice dude, congrats!

The big thing when I was shooting my Canon for me with the Zeiss glass was the insane 3D effect and colour tone and EVERY review I've read about the Biogon 35 uses words like that which I'd have used to describe my lenses. I'm gunna try and track one down to try out but I'll have to find a Leica M adapter first, so I'll eiher just have to buy ne or find a place that sells both. Could be tricky.

Really want to try one out though!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Very nice Whammy - I dig the lighting.

I revisited a shot from 2011 that was shot on rocks quite similar to a shot I did this year where I really like the processing. I got inspired and this is what I came up with.


----------



## Philligan

I just shot a wedding with two Rebels. It wasn't fun. 

I really miss my 70D now. I miss the advanced metering options, the ability to tweak AF (not to mention the AF micro-adjustment), really the AF in general, and the size/buttons/controls/top LCD. Even though you don't get much jump in image quality going to an enthusiast/semi-pro crop sensor camera, the body and interface make a massive difference.

I also found out the RF-603 triggers can't handle second curtain sync (we did some long exposures with sparklers) and I ended up just triggering the flash by hand near the end of the exposure. I'm probably gonna pick up a YN-622 set, because they apparently do 2nd curtain, and you can also program flash settings on the trigger and the receivers will program each speedlite.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Thought about Cybersyncs?


----------



## Philligan

I hadn't heard of them before. They're a bit more than I was thinking about spending, but I'd definitely spring for them if I thought they were worth it.

I'm planning on sticking with Yongnuo speedlites, because mine's worked completely fine for me, and at around $180 for the most expensive one they sell, I'm not as scared of dropping it or anything. 

I think the YN-622s will do all I want, but I don't know a lot about the CyberSyncs. What do you like about them?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

They're affordable compared to something like PocketWizards, will sync at higher speeds. I've used them up to 1/500s with my medium/large format cameras, and the cord is modular so if it goes bad I can replace it with another cord. They are fairly robust and available in AC versions for when I'm doing studio stuff.

Your 2nd curtain sync issue isn't the triggers, but the Canon. Canon 2nd-curtain sync is transmitted through some of the auxilliary pins in a digital code format. This requires a decoder. This may be a Canon 2CS-capable flash (eg 430EXII, 580EXII) or a radio controller like the YN-622C.


----------



## Philligan

Ahh k, that's what I thought. I was interested in the YN-622s because I can control the lights right from the transmitter, and it does groups. I'd read tonight that it can handle 2nd curtain sync, and that pretty much convinced me on them.

I'll check out the CyberSyncs, too, and read up on them. Thanks man.


----------



## Tang

I've got the unfortuanate task of selecting a photographer for my wedding. Everyone around here just does straight up work that while good, doesn't exactly speak to me on any artistic level. I guess there really isn't a market for really artistic wedding work down here. 

Oh yeah, I also kinda want some portraits done with 4x5 Portra. Wish me luck.


----------



## Cloudy

I've been a lurker on here for a while now, I would still consider myself a very very low level amateur photographer don't want to mess with the pro level vibe in here with my terrible questions . Just recently totalled my canon s95 (i know i know) and upgraded to a Fuji X-T1, thanks for the recommendation Theoctopus.

Its my first step into pretty serious camera gear, I grabbed the 18-55mm kit instead of waiting for the 18-135mm coming out this september, figured it'd suite what I like to photograph better. Hoping to have some pretty serious improvement over the rest of the year

A couple of my new test shots.










Seems miles better then my old camera, much smoother looking.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Welcome to the madness.

Tang, I've got your 4x5 portraits.


----------



## Rook

X-T1 club woo.


----------



## Philligan

Excellent choice - the X-T1 takes awesome photos. Now shoot a lot and post your photos here.


----------



## Cloudy

Philligan said:


> Excellent choice - the X-T1 takes awesome photos. Now shoot a lot and post your photos here.



Thats the plan!


----------



## Tang

A friend of mine lets me take shots of her grandchildren and it's a blast. I love how you can see their little personalities written all over their faces. Channeling my inner Sally Mann for sure.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Fellas, I've got an itch to get a film camera. The X100s is rockin' my world at the moment for many reasons and I know that getting a film camera can only help me improve as a photographer.

Where the hell do I begin camera wise?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Leica M3.


----------



## Philligan

NCD  I picked up Dan's old D7000 today. This is the beastie we use at the bar. The 3rd party grip is actually more comfortable. 

I'm suspicious I prefer a grip when I'm doing jobs, so it'll be nice to live with this for a month or so and find out how I really feel on the cheap. 





One thing I will say, I've shot his Nikons enough to get familiar with them, and while I'm sure my Canon preference is at least partly because I've used Canon for the last year, Nikon's button layout sucks.  with the enthusiast/semi-pro Canons, the control layout has either shooting controls on the right side of the camera and menu/playback on the left, or shooting on the top right and playback/menu stuff on the bottom right. Nikon's controls are all over, with the metering mode button by the shutter button and ISO on the bottom left, sharing a button with the zoom out. It seems so randomly thrown together.


----------



## Rook

Whammy said:


> After buying a printer I had to put off getting a second camera body fo a little bit. So I've been looking extensively into Fujifilm cameras (including the X-T1) and also my own shooting style and prefences I've determined that any Fujifilm camera isn't for me (unless the release a full frame mirrorless camera)
> 
> Sorry Rook  I've know you've helped me with loads of information
> 
> The deal breakers for me are as follows.
> I love my old legacy lenses and intend to get more (second hand leica ). Having them on a crop body would kill some of the characteristics of these lenses that I love so much.
> 
> I also love fast lenses and currently my canon offers 1/8000 shutter speeds and if needed iso down to 50. Shooting at f1.2 in bright daylight these options are extremely valuable.
> 
> The increased depth of field for a given f stop is actually a negative for me as again, I love fast lenses and use their characteristics quite a lot.
> 
> The Fujinon lenses. Although they are undoubtedly amazing lenses and I love what other people do with them but the only lense that I truly can relate to is the 56mm f1.2. But I have a 85mm f1.2 which I can connect with better and have no intention of selling it.
> 
> I'd still love a Fujifilm but now doesn't seem the right time.
> 
> So yeah,
> In other words I need a second camera that can also act as a smaller main camera, that is full frame and can do 1/8000 shutter speeds. Also all the usual requirements. Good IQ, weather sealed, small, mirrorless, ability to adapt all of my legacy lenses without cropping along with my Canon EF.
> 
> So everything is pointing me towards the Sony A7R.
> They have good deals on the body here in Sweden at the moment.



Only just saw this post, heh.

It just comes down to what you're trying to achieve. The thing that put me off the a7, apart from the shutter shock problem and Sony raw files, was it still has a full frame image circle meaning big lenses, so given how much it was, how big lenses for it would need to be and how I don't want any Sony lenses and would have to adapt everything... It made no sense to me.

If you just want something with a small enough flange distance that you can use Leica lenses however, then your only options are that or a used Leica m9 that'd cost twice as much!

A7 it is I suppose! A7S would be my preference.


----------



## Cloudy

Why are my animals so photogenic


----------



## Cloudy

--double post lag--


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I went salmon and trout fishing this weekend and shot some film and finished the roll I had in my Horizon Perfekt. So I'll have some panos from that soon, as well as some left-overs from Guatemala. I also shot some stuff with my DSLR I haven't even looked at yet, but here's an iPhone4 photo for the time being. I'm actually beginning to realize more and more as I accumulate cameras, that I've massively undervalued my phone camera for its accessibility, ease of use and discreetness. I'm craving a high-quality compact that I can just keep in my pocket and whip out whenever I need it. And I've been considering an X100s more and more. The fixed lens was initially a turn-off for me, but I find that I become more engaged when working with less. And the 35mm equiv. focal length is perfect for that.


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> Only just saw this post, heh.
> 
> It just comes down to what you're trying to achieve. The thing that put me off the a7, apart from the shutter shock problem and Sony raw files, was it still has a full frame image circle meaning big lenses, so given how much it was, how big lenses for it would need to be and how I don't want any Sony lenses and would have to adapt everything... It made no sense to me.
> 
> If you just want something with a small enough flange distance that you can use Leica lenses however, then your only options are that or a used Leica m9 that'd cost twice as much!
> 
> A7 it is I suppose! A7S would be my preference.



I hear you.
Although everything was pointing me towards the A7R a few things do bug me about the camera.
One of them was when I saw the camera first I thought the dial on top was a shutter speed dial. I was so excited and then I saw it was just a mode selector dial 
I don't get mode selector dials. How quickly do you need to change modes 

Pet peeves aside, the A7R doesn't do it for me. Well in a way it does. 1/8000th shutter speed, legacy lenses with no cropping, no low pass filter, small. All good points.
But the bad points, shutter shock, DSLR layout (getting so tired of it), price, RAW files.
But unfortunately it seems to be the only option given my needs (excluding Leica).

I'm starting to abandon the full frame mirror-less idea until more options become available.

On the other hand the _only main_ issue I have with the X-T1 is the crop factor. Albeit a big issue but it's not a flaw with the camera itself. Only a personal preference. The max shutter speed and lowest ISO are annoying but I've used film cameras with 1/1000 as the max shutter speed so I could live with those issues. More of an inconvenience than an issue.

After seeing you mention some 35mm lenses for your Fujifilm as a 50mm equivalent it got me thinking. I've been fixated on only 50mm lenses because it's my favorite focal length and I've never used a cropped sensor. 35mm lenses are a bit alien to me 
But yeah, I've realized that there is a world of options out there for a 50mm (equivalent) lens, just not in the areas I would normally look in.

I know you're not a big fan of some Voigtländer lenses but I've noticed one I have always over looked that would suit my usual style perfectly.
The Nokton 40mm f1.4 single coated version (discontinued now) or the Nokton 35mm f1.4 single coated version. Think I'd prefer the 40mm.
The idea of that on the X-T1 or Pro1 seems pretty yummy.

The fuji body and Voigtländer are still cheaper than a A7R.
I'm still putting money aside so I have time to think. Too much time


----------



## capoeiraesp

The X100s is ruling my world/weekends.


----------



## Rook

Now imagine you could change lenses - welcome to my life hahaha /fanboi



Whammy said:


> I hear you.
> Although everything was pointing me towards the A7R a few things do bug me about the camera.
> One of them was when I saw the camera first I thought the dial on top was a shutter speed dial. I was so excited and then I saw it was just a mode selector dial
> I don't get mode selector dials. How quickly do you need to change modes
> 
> Pet peeves aside, the A7R doesn't do it for me. Well in a way it does. 1/8000th shutter speed, legacy lenses with no cropping, no low pass filter, small. All good points.
> But the bad points, shutter shock, DSLR layout (getting so tired of it), price, RAW files.
> But unfortunately it seems to be the only option given my needs (excluding Leica).
> 
> I'm starting to abandon the full frame mirror-less idea until more options become available.
> 
> On the other hand the _only main_ issue I have with the X-T1 is the crop factor. Albeit a big issue but it's not a flaw with the camera itself. Only a personal preference. The max shutter speed and lowest ISO are annoying but I've used film cameras with 1/1000 as the max shutter speed so I could live with those issues. More of an inconvenience than an issue.
> 
> After seeing you mention some 35mm lenses for your Fujifilm as a 50mm equivalent it got me thinking. I've been fixated on only 50mm lenses because it's my favorite focal length and I've never used a cropped sensor. 35mm lenses are a bit alien to me
> But yeah, I've realized that there is a world of options out there for a 50mm (equivalent) lens, just not in the areas I would normally look in.
> 
> I know you're not a big fan of some Voigtländer lenses but I've noticed one I have always over looked that would suit my usual style perfectly.
> The Nokton 40mm f1.4 single coated version (discontinued now) or the Nokton 35mm f1.4 single coated version. Think I'd prefer the 40mm.
> The idea of that on the X-T1 or Pro1 seems pretty yummy.
> 
> The fuji body and Voigtländer are still cheaper than a A7R.
> I'm still putting money aside so I have time to think. Too much time



You mention the Voigtlanders, and a lot of them apparently are utter shit, but I've heard interesting things about the old 35 1.2 and I believe there's an f/1.0 or f/0.95 version that exists, I bet that'd be great fun!

I had the exact same dispute before I moved over, re lenses and crop factor. I took a leap of faith and couldn't be happier frankly, as you may have noticed. Not replacing my X-Pro1 with the new X100 or Pro2 when they become available would take some serious restraint hahaha.

I'm not really saying anything new here though.

Dat 12mm 5.6 doe, I'd have a great time with that.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

More cross-processed panos. This time on Lomo Xpro Chrome 100.


----------



## Philligan

Those are awesome, Jeff.

I just did a fitness shoot with Dan. It was pretty weird.  It was for some young guy who does boxing and MMA. He was super nice but pretty awkward, and I've never shot a guy who greases up and flexes for me.  There were some killer shots, though. I'll post a link if I remember to by the time Dan gets one up.

Just to bring things back to gear talk, apparently Canon's releasing a 24mm pancake at Photokina.  They're assuming it's going to be a 2.8 STM, which I'll still buy, but I'm really hoping it's something faster like f2. That would probably become by go-to lens, but either way, I'm definitely picking one up. 24mm on a crop would be the perfect walk around lens, and being a pancake, my camera wouldn't seem quite so scary. And on full frame, that would be an absolutely killer lens for party photos. Really hoping this rumour's true.


----------



## Wretched

The last shot I took on a four hour shoot a couple days ago. Light painted with my trusty LED video light panel, hurriedly diffused with a white umbrella before the rain returned. About five images in this one, including one or two for the light trails.


----------



## Rook

Anyone wanting to go full frame on a budget that also likes to use their camera as a weapon, this might be worth a look
Canon EOS-1Ds mk iii - Aperture

That's a crazy price, I've seen these sell for double that.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Got some Fuji Neopan 400 and Agfa Precisa CT 100 in the mail. I'm going to have some fun with those! The Precisa expires in October, so I'm going to go on a shooting spree over the next month so that I can avoid having all my cross processing turn green and yellow like the expired Xpro Chrome I just shot.

Also, the magazine I was supposed to be shooting the festival for before I got hit by a car contacted me to shoot a week at PopMontreal in September, so I guess they're not as pissed that I had to cancel on short notice as I feared. Now I get a press pass for Deafheaven


----------



## ThePhilosopher

More revisiting of old work:


----------



## Tang

Really into my b&w processing. I spend way too much time tweaking!


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Anyone wanting to go full frame on a budget that also likes to use their camera as a weapon, this might be worth a look
> Canon EOS-1Ds mk iii - Aperture
> 
> That's a crazy price, I've seen these sell for double that.



I wondered about an older 1D (it would be awesome for club stuff especially), but I'm not sure how well I'd get along with the ISO capping at 1600.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Tang, I've really liked where your B&W processing is at in your last couple of posts. You're getting some push-processed film textures that I'm really into.


----------



## Philligan

Hmm. 





Hands-on with the Pentax K-S1: Digital Photography Review


----------



## Tang

No. The sensor will probably be epic, though. And what's with the fooking (fury) borg lights on the grip? Seriously.

Another bw from the previous set.


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> I wondered about an older 1D (it would be awesome for club stuff especially), but I'm not sure how well I'd get along with the ISO capping at 1600.



Hey hey hey, let's be fair, H mode is 3200 

Guess you'll just have I buy a 1DX


----------



## Tang

31mm. f/2.2 @ ISO80. Bokeh straight out the gates of the netherworld.



jenn #123 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Nour Ayasso

Cloudy said:


> I've been a lurker on here for a while now, I would still consider myself a very very low level amateur photographer don't want to mess with the pro level vibe in here with my terrible questions . Just recently totalled my canon s95 (i know i know) and upgraded to a Fuji X-T1, thanks for the recommendation Theoctopus.
> 
> Its my first step into pretty serious camera gear, I grabbed the 18-55mm kit instead of waiting for the 18-135mm coming out this september, figured it'd suite what I like to photograph better. Hoping to have some pretty serious improvement over the rest of the year
> 
> A couple of my new test shots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems miles better then my old camera, much smoother looking.


I game with this dude, pictures of guitars and cats.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

The Canon 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens is on special for only $139 at a local shop until Sunday. I might grab that as a stop-gap while I decide what to do about my broken 50mm 1.4. Anyone have experience/thoughts on this lens?

I've even considered going back to the 50mm 1.8. I never found the 1.4 particularly strong wide open, and am not sure the price difference is justified in its performance. I might just stay cheap until I can afford a new high-quality prime like a 35mm 1.4 or 50 mm 1.2.


----------



## MrYakob

JeffFromMtl said:


> The Canon 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens is on special for only $139 at a local shop until Sunday. I might grab that as a stop-gap while I decide what to do about my 50mm. Anyone have experience/thoughts on this lens?
> 
> I've even considered going back to the 50mm 1.8. I never found the 1.4 particularly strong wide open, and am not sure the price difference is justified in its performance. I might just stay cheap until I can afford a new high-quality prime like a 35mm 1.4 or 50 mm 1.2.



I love my little 40, it's not the best lens I own but it's sharp and most importantly (for me anyways) super light and small. I always have it in my bag even though I have the 50 ART now because it weighs nothing.


----------



## Whammy

JeffFromMtl said:


> The Canon 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens is on special for only $139 at a local shop until Sunday. I might grab that as a stop-gap while I decide what to do about my 50mm. Anyone have experience/thoughts on this lens?
> 
> I've even considered going back to the 50mm 1.8. I never found the 1.4 particularly strong wide open, and am not sure the price difference is justified in its performance. I might just stay cheap until I can afford a new high-quality prime like a 35mm 1.4 or 50 mm 1.2.



No experience with Canon's 40mm lens but I do have an old 40mm pancake.
I really love that lens for multiple reasons. Two of them being its portability and its angle of view.
Sure you're still going to be attaching the lens to a big camera body but it does make everything easier to carry especially compared to heavy and big L glass.
As for the focal length it's a bit of an odd one, but in a good way. To me it feels like a 50 but looks more like a 35.

I think there are better (by better I mean with more character) 40mm lenses out there. Faster too. But if auto focus is a must then it's pretty much the Canon.

The Canon 50mm 1.4 does have really nice bokeh, better that the 1.8. But the 1.8 is sharper wide open.
The 1.8 is obviously lighter which may or may not be a good point. It does have a noisy auto focus system. For the price though you can't complain.

Normally when I head out with the camera and only bring one prime with me I'll choose my 40. My favorite focal length is 50mm but the 40 is more versatile.


----------



## Rook

Can you manual focus? Zeiss's 50 f/1.4 and 35 f/2 go very cheaply used here.


----------



## Tang

My absolute favorite lens on APSC is my 43 f/1.9 and it's a great FL. I'd definitely pick up that Canon 40 for $150! Great deal.


----------



## Philligan

JeffFromMtl said:


> The Canon 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens is on special for only $139 at a local shop until Sunday. I might grab that as a stop-gap while I decide what to do about my broken 50mm 1.4. Anyone have experience/thoughts on this lens?
> 
> I've even considered going back to the 50mm 1.8. I never found the 1.4 particularly strong wide open, and am not sure the price difference is justified in its performance. I might just stay cheap until I can afford a new high-quality prime like a 35mm 1.4 or 50 mm 1.2.



The pancake's awesomely tiny, and with a 6D I think I'd take that over the 50 1.8, unless you really want low light performance. I sold the 40 2.8 because I needed the money, and the faster aperture of my 50 1.4 was more valuable to me than the extra width of the 40.

Have any of you guys had any experience with the 50D? I found someone selling one on Kijiji for $300, and they're an hour away or so, so I'm debating trying to talk them down to $250 if I drive. From what I can tell, high ISO noise is only half a stop worse than the 70D, and it has lens micro adjustment. That would let me use my lenses, triggers, and flash again, and when I get the 70D back I can dual wield.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I'd look into manual focus lenses, but for me, AF is pretty much a must. I shoot a lot of moving people and live performances for work, and to make a manual focus lens at all worthwhile, I'd have to install a focusing screen, which is just kind of a hassle. To me, it sounds like the 40mm might be a good option for the time being, especially at the price point. I already have 40mm on my 17-40 f/4L, so I wouldn't really be getting used to a new focal length. I'm just questioning whether the portability and extra stop of light are worth it. Aperture was always a big selling point for me when I was shooting with my 7D, but I really haven't had any trouble shooting indoors and in dark places at f/4 with my 6D because of the amazing high-iso performance. For some reason, I'm still always worrying that I'm not going to be getting enough light and ending up with blurry subjects because of low shutter speeds used in compensation.


----------



## Philligan

The 40mm focused a bit slower, but seemed to hunt a bit less. If I was in your position and had to choose one... Man haha it's tough. The 40mm is small and super quiet. The 50 1.8 is also small, noisier AF, but looks great too and that extra stop of light would never hurt. 

I'd probably go 50 1.8. Even if not for the light gathering, the fast aperture would be nice for super shallow DoF when you want it.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Yeah, I owned the 50mm 1.8 before I got the 1.4. The noisy focusing motor is the only thing that really ever bothered me about it. For the money, it was absolutely killer. I think what I might do is grab the 40 while it's on sale since it's normally the pricier of the two, and just pick up another 50 when I've got the spare change. I see them go for 75-$80 locally all the time. 

That said, I'm also going to have to pick up a 24-105 by mid-septmeber for some upcoming work that demands the versatility. That kind of bothers me because I know that shooting on my own time, I'd much rather shoot fast primes 95% of the time. I'd be much happier to pick up a 24-70 f/2.8, but I just can't afford it, not even a second-hand mk i version. Whatever. My credit card company is already laughing at me as it is


----------



## Philligan

I know the feeling man. If it weren't for weddings, I'd probably just hoard primes.  I wish Canon offered more cheap primes, like plastic 24 and 35 1.8s. If they were under $200, I'd buy them first thing.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Speaking of primes, I used my 50 and 24mm for these shots of Wortham Center - probably one of the most photographed places in Houston.


----------



## Whammy

^
Is your 24mm a tilt-shift?
That building in the background looks super straight.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

No, just the regular Nikon 24mm f/2.8D. I did the perspective correction in post.


----------



## Rook

We've had a new arrival!

She was born in 1987 weighing in at 2lbs 2oz.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

^ffffuuuuu so pretty.

Well, I took the plunge and got the 40mm 2.8.

I went to a shop in the old port to rent a remote timer for some time lapse stuff I'm going to be doing with a friend tonight, and they had the 40mm on sale even $10 cheaper than the other place I mentioned. It was the last one in stock, and for $129, I kind of couldn't not. I haven't put any photos on my computer yet, but looking at them on the LCD on my 6D, they look sharp as a tack. The feel and focal length is actually very reminiscent of the 30mm Sigma I used to shoot on my 7D. Incidentally, that Sigma was my favourite lens I've owned to date, so that can only be a good thing. The build quality is also really nice. Already, I feel that this lens was a steal.


----------



## Rook

$129 is insanity. Pure insanity.

Looking forward to seeing some pics


----------



## Philligan

JeffFromMtl said:


> ^ffffuuuuu so pretty.
> 
> Well, I took the plunge and got the 40mm 2.8.
> 
> I went to a shop in the old port to rent a remote timer for some time lapse stuff I'm going to be doing with a friend tonight, and they had the 40mm on sale even $10 cheaper than the other place I mentioned. It was the last one in stock, and for $129, I kind of couldn't not. I haven't put any photos on my computer yet, but looking at them on the LCD on my 6D, they look sharp as a tack. The feel and focal length is actually very reminiscent of the 30mm Sigma I used to shoot on my 7D. Incidentally, that Sigma was my favourite lens I've owned to date, so that can only be a good thing. The build quality is also really nice. Already, I feel that this lens was a steal.



I just downloaded an app called TriggerTrap. It's free, but you need to buy dongles to connect it to cameras and flashes. It's an iPhone app that gives you a crapload of ways to trigger your camera and/or lights, and I think the dongle should only run you $15 or $20. It has a few different things it does for time lapses, too. Check out the app at least while it's free and see what you think. Depending on how much it costs to rent the remote, that could end up being a good option if you get into it.

I did another wedding with Dan today. Another local photographer was there as a guest. Well, "local" haha. He's from Sarnia and lives here, but shoots bands for a living. His name's Joel Pilotte, and he just uses his name for his Facebook page if you guys wanna check him out.

Anyway, we got talking. He said he'd been watching us all day, and Dan shouldn't be treating me the way he does. Sometimes Dan's nice, but he can be a pretty big dick sometimes too, and it kind of bugs me how I don't get any credit at all on his site, even when he uses my photos in his albums. It's something I didn't want to take too seriously (and I put up with it for the money), but Joel was telling me about Dan, and I guess he got to where he is now by ripping people off and stealing contacts and whatnot, and he's more two-faced than I thought.

So, long story short, this was probably my last wedding with him.  Since my poor 70D's in the shop, I shot the whole thing today on his Nikon stuff, so I'll see if I get the photos from him to process myself or not.

We got a couple Olympus E-M10 kits in at work for $750 with the collapsable 14-42 kit lens, and I think I might pick one of those up soonish. I'm hoping it'll be like $500 with my staff discount. It's cheap enough that I can get it without ditching my Canon gear, and the lenses are all tiny. I'd like the 17 1.8 or 20 1.7, but that's about it right now. If I'm gonna be doing a lot less weddings now, I'd like to finally get something that I can use for personal stuff. I'd still love a Fuji, but I'm looking at like $2k for a body and lens. The Olympus would be way cheaper, there's a huge ecosystem of tiny lenses, and I was pixel peeping and the image quality is still good. We'll see how poor I am in a few weeks.


----------



## Rook

I really liked the EM-1, one of the few things that puts me off te otherwise great system is how frickin hard it is to get very wide lenses and BOKEH.

I like how broadly spanning the m43 system is though.


----------



## feilong29

I've been gone for a minute! I just moved to Hawaii  I'll have to get back on the ball soon. Til then, here is this:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I really like my E-PL3 and it's a nice little camera - I wish it had more dedicated knobs and/or buttons instead of menus for everything. I still haven't gotten any of the pancakes, but I would like to get one in the future. I do have the Sigma 60mm f/2.8 and it's a decent portrait lens.


----------



## Whammy

The words Bokeh and Olympus haven't belonged in the same sentence since the days of Yoshihisa Maitani.

If only they were able to live up to their early days when they were the first company to release a 21mm lens at f/2 for the 35mm SLR range


----------



## Rook

Quite, sad really as the cameras themselves are very nice.

Guys. I've sorted myself out a lab, I'm gunna pick up a 150mm f/4 and another back and some film to take to Hungary with me.

I'm thinking Provia 100F and Neopan 400, thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I love Fuji Neopan so much. I've got 2 rolls of 400 waiting to go into my AE-1, which I'm going to push to 1600 for the booming contrast and dat grain.

------

Anyway, here are a couple of snapshots taken with the 40mm.


----------



## Philligan

40mm. 

I pretty much know nothing about film. I recognize most of them by name, but I'm not familiar with them at all. I've been meaning to go buy some more cheap Walmart film since my 70D's getting fixed and shoot on that, and see how I like film after really shooting it for a while.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Provia or Astia will be nice, and Neopan is always a good choice. I have a ton of Ektachrome too, that's good stuff as well. Efke 25 is good for outdoor stuff and I like Plus-X 125 as well as a cheaper alternative to Neopan but you have to both of these films down today.

You can see some color film here if you're trying to decide: https://www.facebook.com/HoustonPhoto/media_set?set=a.653614933646.2246200.37512876&type=3 (not sure if it will load up for you or not).


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> I really like my E-PL3 and it's a nice little camera - I wish it had more dedicated knobs and/or buttons instead of menus for everything. I still haven't gotten any of the pancakes, but I would like to get one in the future. I do have the Sigma 60mm f/2.8 and it's a decent portrait lens.



I think for now I'm going to just get the kit, and get the 17 1.8 or 20 1.7 when I have the extra money. That would pretty much cover everything (aka the prime will live on the camera unless I need something wider haha) until I legitimately have some extra money to spend on camera stuff. I'm happy doing portraits on a 35mm, and that should be wide enough to cover most kinds of people photos. 

Most of my decisions over the past few months have been based on jobs, but the more I get into the photography scene here, the less I like it. And I don't think I want to move or seriously pursue this as a career. So I'm going to start making decisions based on what I want to do, and not what I'd need for jobs.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

And I just finished working on these. This little time lapse project was the reason I needed to rent the remote interval timer yesterday. We McGyver'd a support system for the camera on top of the bed with a collapsed bench, my tripod and a bit of tape. Some of the exposures aren't perfect because I felt that the only way to ensure that things wouldn't get horribly over-exposed come morning was to set the camera to aperture priority and then stick the aperture at 4 and the ISO at 400, and allowing the camera to decide on the exposures through the changing light. A handful of them came out hit-or miss, but for the most part they came out nice and uniform, or at least salvageable through exposure adjustments in post. Shutter speeds started at 4 seconds when we went to bed around 1:30, and were up to 1/30 second by the time we finally got out of bed in the morning. Shot on a 17mm lens at 5-minute intervals, this is a small selection of the hundred some-odd photos.

(You might have to open your browser really wide to see them in series - 3 per row)

Had to delete them from Flickr, I'll post them up again soon!


----------



## Philligan

That's awesome.  That's a really cool idea, and I really dig the framing. Did you get any shots of the setup at all? I'd love to see that.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Thanks, man. But nah, I don't have any pictures of the set-up, but now that you mention it, I wish I would have thought of it. It was some rickety-ass home-made shit, I'll tell you that much haha


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> Most of my decisions over the past few months have been based on jobs, but the more I get into the photography scene here, the less I like it. And I don't think I want to move or seriously pursue this as a career. So I'm going to start making decisions based on what I want to do, and not what I'd need for jobs.



If you develop a shooting style that is inherently your own then you know yourself exactly what gear helps you to create that.
If your own style is welcomed by clients then your gear choice is both what you want to do and what is needed for jobs 



Rook said:


> Quite, sad really as the cameras themselves are very nice.
> 
> Guys. I've sorted myself out a lab, I'm gunna pick up a 150mm f/4 and another back and some film to take to Hungary with me.
> 
> I'm thinking Provia 100F and Neopan 400, thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?



Ilford HP5?

I used to use a Back & White film called Efke. It had a higher than normal silver content which made for great gray scale detail. The company now goes under the name of ADOX. Most of their films are around the 25 to 100 iso mark. They do offer a Pan 400 film but I'm not sure if it's out in 120 format yet.



JeffFromMtl said:


> Had to delete them from Flickr, I'll post them up again soon!



Very curious to see these


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Here's a couple of shots of HARK at ArcTanGent festival last weekend near Bristol, UK.





















You should check them out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBach_BFalg


----------



## Tang

Cat in tree. My bokeh allowance for the week has been used.


----------



## Philligan

PSA: The EOS M is $249 on eBay with the 22 f2 pancake. That's the price of the lens.


----------



## tank

first test with the sigma 30mm f1.4 art 


























as first test, no PP here, let me know 

bonus taken with my 24/70:






today I just recived my fisheye lomo  
and I'm searching for an old kiev88 or yashica mat 124  cheers


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> PSA: The EOS M is $249 on eBay with the 22 f2 pancake. That's the price of the lens.



What will Phil find next?

Will he ever buy a smaller system?

What's more important, sensor size or form factor?

For the answers to all these questions and more, tune into next week's episode of...

FINDING PHIL'S PHOTOGRAPHY FGEAR.


----------



## Rook

Oh also it turns the shop I bought my Hassy from can't read or write or something, it is in fact from 1978, not 1987.

My camera's nearly 40 years old. How cool as sh!t is that.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> What will Phil find next?
> 
> Will he ever buy a smaller system?
> 
> What's more important, sensor size or form factor?
> 
> For the answers to all these questions and more, tune into next week's episode of...
> 
> FINDING PHIL'S PHOTOGRAPHY FGEAR.



It was on Canon Rumours.  I'm not going to buy one, but figured I'd post it, because that's ridiculously cheap. For the price of a P&S, it probably functions at least as well with DSLR image quality to boot.


----------



## Rook

Ah I thought that was a *tempted* post.

Where are you up to with that, anyway?


----------



## Tang

You guys are about to see a huge change in my color processing, I think. We'll see.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Ah I thought that was a *tempted* post.
> 
> Where are you up to with that, anyway?



Do you mean what am I looking at? I've been seeing what's out there for small setups with good image quality and control. I'm pretty much set on M4/3, because it's small enough and cheap enough (the E-M10 kit would cost less than the new RX100), but it has the potential to become a working system. 

I downloaded X20 raw files, and there's a noticeable difference in the image quality compared to my 70D at pretty much every ISO. That's fine for a higher-end P&S, but I'd bring my 70D kit on vacations, too, for more serious photos (or when I need range or low light shots). 

The E-M10 takes photos that stand up to my Canon, but it's a lot smaller (about X100s sized). So if I get the Olympus and never buy anything else for it, I've got a great little personal camera. But if I find out that I like the pictures enough and I don't "need" the size or battery life of my Canon for paid work, I'm already partially invested in a great system. 

I think the M4/3 stuff nails the sweet spot between image quality, size, and price (nothing against Fuji - I think their photos look nicer and the X-T1 is a cooler camera, but I can't afford to buy one outright, and the M4/3 lenses are even smaller). The E-M10 could be a personal camera that has the potential to become my working camera. 

I should stop talking about gear. I've been feeling kind of cooped up without my camera haha and have just been reading reviews and watching YouTube videos. I should have a roll of Walmart colour film around still - if I can find it I'll load it in the AE-1 and shoot some tomorrow after work. I'd like to get something soon, though, in case the 70D takes a long time to come back. They said 1-2 months, but maybe longer if it needs parts.


----------



## Tang

OK! Kinda worked on a series when I was hanging out with some friends. Fun compositions and neat colors I think.



golf at sunset by nrrfed, on Flickr



the wizard by nrrfed, on Flickr



swinging by nrrfed, on Flickr



ice by nrrfed, on Flickr



chris likes cats by nrrfed, on Flickr



IMGP8487 by nrrfed, on Flickr



IMGP8458 by nrrfed, on Flickr

Sorry for posting so many at once, but I feel they do belong together as a rough series.


----------



## Rook

Like I said, I'm a big fan of the OM-D's!

In continuing news with the Hasselblad, I unloaded it yesterday having pissed a roll of film up the wall and I noticed that when the dark slide is removed, a part of the gasket that's light-locking the film back has torn and was covering the lower right corner of the film. There's also a crease in it meaning that the tiniest little bit of light comes in the side of the magazine when the dark slide's out, so my pissed-up free piece of test film I'm expecting will have a white line across the middle and a black line across the bottom, awesome haha.

I've lifted the foam base of the gasket, reattached the torn part and put another layer of foam underneath so there's no more light leak and the dark slide no longer pulls a piece over the film, should all be good. I'm not going to send my test roll off until Ive shot another roll and I can see a before and after, to make sure I've sorted it, I'm certain I have though.

I'm going to get the magazine resealed and buy a second anyway, so no worries really. I've got a 5-pack of provia 100 on the way which I'm really looking forward to getting back after I take it into London on Friday.


----------



## javiereu

Joe Harvatt said:


> Here's a couple of shots of HARK at ArcTanGent festival last weekend near Bristol, UK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBach_BFalg


Which brand is that guitar?


----------



## Joe Harvatt

javiereu said:


> Which brand is that guitar?



It's a First Act - Lola DC custom shop.

Nikon D7100 on the way! ARGH!! My D200's for sale if anyone's interested in the U.K. 

http://www.gumtree.com/p/for-sale/nikon-d200-body/1079493425


----------



## Wretched

A few pics from Anathema's Sydney show on Aug 22, 2014. Their first Aus tour in their 25-year career. Amazing show.


----------



## Tang

Those look great, Wretched!

Really into 2;1 crops right now, if the subject allows.


----------



## Rook

If you're feeling really manly, 3:1 is where it's at


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Or 6.25:1 or nearly 12:1 (respectively)...
http://www.bartkophoto.com/Photos/AlpineDec2013/Large/AlpinePano_0003.jpg
http://www.bartkophoto.com/Photos/AlpineDec2013/Large/AlpinePano_0001.jpg


----------



## Philligan

So I still don't have a camera, but I forgot that I had that last wedding with Brenna on my hard drive. These three are all with a speedlite outside. It was my first time doing this, and I just spent a good hour or more on these three trying to balance their skin tones with the sunset. I'm still not thrilled with them, but it's a start. I usually find things I did wrong after I post them, so here goes. 



IMG_8174 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_8176 by philbabbey, on Flickr



IMG_8210 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

In all but the second shot they look a bit under - you need a bigger flash modifier.


----------



## Philligan

That was a 36" umbrella, I believe. I don't remember what power I had the flash at, but I underexposed them pretty badly. I'm pretty happy with how I got the grass/sky (any brighter and the ground looked like shitty HDR), and I pushed the exposure on them about as much as comfortably possible before the Canon noise got too bad. 

The problem I found is that I would have to edit the whole photo, then mask the couple off and tweak them as needed. Is there any way that I can mask them off and only apply my editing to the rest of the photo? IIRC I pulled the highlights for the sky, then probably had to push the exposure on them even more to make up for that.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Multiple raw conversions as smart objects and masks, I think this tutorial works for your issue: How To Correct Lighting Falloff In Photoshop: Tutorial: How To Correct Lighting Falloff In Photoshop - YouTube.


----------



## Philligan

Oh man, that's awesome. Thanks. 

There's no way I can do that in Lightroom, eh? If not, I can probably get Photoshop soonish. Does that pretty much works the same way as Magic Lantern's Dual ISO hack for Canons?


----------



## Tang

hello.



chris #2 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> Oh man, that's awesome. Thanks.
> 
> There's no way I can do that in Lightroom, eh? If not, I can probably get Photoshop soonish. Does that pretty much works the same way as Magic Lantern's Dual ISO hack for Canons?



Dude just hit up Adobe's photographer subscription deal thing, it's crazy cheap. Photoshop CC for $10 a month (and lightroom but you already have that).


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Dude just hit up Adobe's photographer subscription deal thing, it's crazy cheap. Photoshop CC for $10 a month (and lightroom but you already have that).



I've been thinking really hard about that. There are a few things PS would be nice for, and I like the idea of storing my catalogs in the cloud. And I could edit wherever if I got an iPad.

Dawn and I went to a conservation called Rock Glen today. We brought her SL1/100D. I used the IS to take some long exposures, all between 1/8 and 1/4s IIRC. I edited them in Canon DPP, because she hasn't got LR on her laptop - it was really rough compared to LR.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I don't know about Lightroom-I can't stand its work flow.


----------



## Rook

So I've spent a week with my 100 speed transparency film, including two days at the weekend where I've been out in daylight.

How many frames have I managed to use?

6.

I was worried I wouldn't be able to shoot wide open or close to wide open in the day if I used a faster film, while that's true I actually *can only* do that at the moment without a tripod hahahaha.

I'm gunna pick up a second magazine this week and a box of (bloody expensive) Portra 800 and save my Provia 100 for landscape/cityscape shots. Turns out I can't hack just using one slow film for what I wanna do hahaha. Ah well.


----------



## Philligan

I shot a roll of film today.  Just cheap Fuji 400, but it was good to get out and shoot for fun for an evening. I borrowed my friend's longboard and we skated down to the bridge at the US border. We hit it right near the end of the sunset, so I hope I got some cool colours. Gonna get it developed in between class tomorrow and hopefully have it up tomorrow night.


----------



## Tang

Heya Rook.. manly enough? 



ice by nrrfed, on Flickr

AND.. redid this shot with a way less contrasty B&W..



t. by nrrfed, on Flickr

and this was a double-exposure done completely in camera inspired by the monthly assignment thread which this month is shooting at f/11. The first exposure in this double was shot at f/11 with the meter dead in the middle. The second exposure was taken at f/4 and I manually changed the focus a tiny amount to hopefully give the image some depth. In order to keep the second exposure from overpowering the first, I set the meter to -2EV and crossed my fingers. Like I said, it was an experiment, but I could see this 'soft but still in focus' look working for some other ideas I have.



a chair by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Boss.


----------



## Philligan

I got that roll developed. I don't know if it's a scratch or a light leak, but there's a line across most photos. It's really bugging me, I want to shoot more film now, but I want to either get this fixed or grab a new camera first. I'll call the one local shop in town and see what they can do before I do anything else.



Xtone PS-1 by philbabbey, on Flickr

I think this one looks ridiculously awesome:



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr

Selfie! 



Self Portrait by philbabbey, on Flickr



Lake Huron by philbabbey, on Flickr



Blue Water Bridge by philbabbey, on Flickr



Blue Water Bridge by philbabbey, on Flickr



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr

And some guy who was playing guitar on the rocks along the river.



St Clair River by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Some of those aren't working for me Phil.


----------



## Philligan

My bad. I might have moved them around on Flickr.

edit: I think they should be okay now. I noticed a few weren't showing up on my phone, but they seemed fine on the computer, and worked when I set my browser to private mode, too.


----------



## Azyiu

Just a shot of the moon, enjoy.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Hey fellas, I want to get a slave flash to go with my 600ex rt. 
the yongnuo's seem good. Any experience with them? I would like to get one that is ettl compatible.

Some more x100s goodness and an iPhone shot at the end.


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> I got that roll developed. I don't know if it's a scratch or a light leak, but there's a line across most photos. It's really bugging me, I want to shoot more film now, but I want to either get this fixed or grab a new camera first. I'll call the one local shop in town and see what they can do before I do anything else.



I've had that before. Every shot was scratched in roughly the same location. I assumed it was the camera body rubbing on the film as I advanced the film forward.
Long story short it turned out only to be on my C41 shots and not on my B&W shots. I would give my color films into a different place to be developed than my black & white films.
I started to give my C41 films into the same place that did my B&W film and the scratches stopped appearing.

Run of a test roll and get a different place to develop and scan the photos, preferably a place that specializes in photography. If the problem is still present then look at investing money into fixing your camera or getting a new body


----------



## Tang

Another double exposure. First at f/11 of me and second was at f/8 for the dog. Each focused as best I could in live view. 8 second timer was critical. Using exposure compensation and different apertures and focus points can create some very surreal pictures. I definitely plan on experimenting with this more.



27 (double exposure) by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Whammy said:


> I've had that before. Every shot was scratched in roughly the same location. I assumed it was the camera body rubbing on the film as I advanced the film forward.
> Long story short it turned out only to be on my C41 shots and not on my B&W shots. I would give my color films into a different place to be developed than my black & white films.
> I started to give my C41 films into the same place that did my B&W film and the scratches stopped appearing.
> 
> Run of a test roll and get a different place to develop and scan the photos, preferably a place that specializes in photography. If the problem is still present then look at investing money into fixing your camera or getting a new body



Thanks, that's what I was wondering.

Yeah, I just checked. The last time this happened, the line was along the bottom. This time, it was along the top. That's what I get for taking it to Walmart, I guess. There's a good chance there's no one in town who develops film; I'll ask around, but I don't think so. Worst case, if I start getting somewhat decent film, there's a place in Toronto that develops pretty much everything - you mail your rolls to them, and they develop them and send you high res scans. I'll probably have to send my B&W to them eventually, because I haven't found a place in town that develops non-C41 film.

I couldn't see it being too too expensive to fix (if it even is a camera issue) as long as I could do it in town, so I'd probably do that. I'd still love to grab an F1 sometime, and or one of the EOS film cameras (EOS 1V please).


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> Thanks, that's what I was wondering.
> 
> Yeah, I just checked. The last time this happened, the line was along the bottom. This time, it was along the top. That's what I get for taking it to Walmart, I guess. There's a good chance there's no one in town who develops film; I'll ask around, but I don't think so. Worst case, if I start getting somewhat decent film, there's a place in Toronto that develops pretty much everything - you mail your rolls to them, and they develop them and send you high res scans. I'll probably have to send my B&W to them eventually, because I haven't found a place in town that develops non-C41 film.
> 
> I couldn't see it being too too expensive to fix (if it even is a camera issue) as long as I could do it in town, so I'd probably do that. I'd still love to grab an F1 sometime, and or one of the EOS film cameras (EOS 1V please).



Yeah B&W film needs to be hand developed so unless the place is strictly a photography shop or something then odds are they won't do it.
There are some B&W films that are classified as C41 so they can be developed as C41 films.
Ilford Super XP2 and Kodak BW 400 CN are both B&W C41 films.

It's a handy way to shoot some B&W and get the results back quickly 

My favorite film camera so far is the Olympus OM-4ti (Olympus fanboy I know )
Auto or manual exposure. It also can expose in Spot mode and take average readings from a few different spots. You can also set the exposure to expose for blacks or whites which is super handy.
And like all OM cameras the shutter dial is a ring at the base of the lens mount so you change the shutter speed with your left hand just like the focus for the lens. I really like that


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Get some Rodinal (the Adox version is fine), fixer and stand develop your b&w at home.


----------



## Tang

Rook and everyone that appreciates epic optical performance. 

Lens review: The Zeiss ZF.2 1.4/85 Otus APO-Planar

Those 100% crops. Holy shit.


----------



## Rook

Good lord.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Over the last 36 hours, I've had a sudden influx of Instagram followers and I had no idea why or how since I don't hashtag anything, but my friend pointed out to me today that I made this list. I have no idea how they found my account, but it feels pretty good to be recognized, even if it is just Instagram.

Best Montreal Instagram Accounts You Need To Follow Now | MTL Blog


----------



## JeffFromMtl

double post...


----------



## Philligan

That's awesome, man.


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> Rook and everyone that appreciates epic optical performance.
> 
> Lens review: The Zeiss ZF.2 1.4/85 Otus APO-Planar
> 
> Those 100% crops. Holy shit.



I've been keeping an eye on this purely out of curiosity. I can't afford this lens 

In terms of optical performance this blows every other 85mm out of the water. Even wide open it's insanely sharp.
Those examples show just how amazing this lens would be at landscape. I'd imagine it would hold itself well to many styles except portraiture.
The extra detail wide open and the less superior bokeh compared to other fast 85mm lenses would be its down fall for portraiture, for me at least. Unless of course you like being able to see every subtle nuance and imperfection in the subjects skin 

I do love the 85mm focal length for landscape so this is a dream lens for me


----------



## Khoi

Tang said:


> Rook and everyone that appreciates epic optical performance.
> 
> Lens review: The Zeiss ZF.2 1.4/85 Otus APO-Planar
> 
> Those 100% crops. Holy shit.



oh my god.


----------



## Philligan

A new camera's on hold for a while. I took my car in yesterday, and I'm looking at $1k in repairs right now.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That stinks, I recently put $1400 into my car and it hurt my GAS badly.


----------



## Philligan

That's a bummer, man.  The winters get too bad here, but I've seriously considered just riding a bike.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

It's still cheaper than a car note and I can always start saving again. Went out to quickly play with my Helios 44-2 (I almost forget this is in my bag sometimes).
All SOOC minus the resize.
Bokeh anyone?


----------



## Philligan

I really dig the one of the rocks, the crazy bokeh works great there. I ordered an M42 to EOS adapter for a couple dollars in case I find a great deal on that lens.


----------



## Whammy

Got myself a reflector so I did a little test with it. Waited until sun set.

I kinda prefer the B&W version but the wife insisted on a color version.
Now I don't know which I prefer. The color is more standard but also more cliche


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> I really dig the one of the rocks, the crazy bokeh works great there. I ordered an M42 to EOS adapter for a couple dollars in case I find a great deal on that lens.



Pentax do some great 50mm lenses with lovely bokeh.
Nothing as crazy as the swirly bokeh of a Helios though


----------



## flint757

Whammy said:


> Got myself a reflector so I did a little test with it. Waited until sun set.
> 
> I kinda prefer the B&W version but the wife insisted on a color version.
> Now I don't know which I prefer. The color is more standard but also more cliche



The B&W picture really pops. I like it as well.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I keep trying to score a Minolta Rokkor 58 f/1.2 and a Helios 40 85mm f/1.5 for a decent price.

I prefer the color version of that shot - it feels vibrant without gobs of saturation.


----------



## Philligan

I prefer the colour version, too. Something about it draws my eye more to your wife and kid, and I really like the colours.


----------



## Rook

Whammy said:


> Yeah B&W film needs to be hand developed so unless the place is strictly a photography shop or something then odds are they won't do it.
> There are some B&W films that are classified as C41 so they can be developed as C41 films.
> Ilford Super XP2 and Kodak BW 400 CN are both B&W C41 films.
> 
> It's a handy way to shoot some B&W and get the results back quickly
> 
> My favorite film camera so far is the Olympus OM-4ti (Olympus fanboy I know )
> Auto or manual exposure. It also can expose in Spot mode and take average readings from a few different spots. You can also set the exposure to expose for blacks or whites which is super handy.
> And like all OM cameras the shutter dial is a ring at the base of the lens mount so you change the shutter speed with your left hand just like the focus for the lens. I really like that



Don't know about the 135, but 120 neopan 400 is c41 too.



ThePhilosopher said:


> I keep trying to score a Minolta Rokkor 58 f/1.2 and a Helios 40 85mm f/1.5 for a decent price.
> 
> I prefer the color version of that shot - it feels vibrant without gobs of saturation.



The 58 1.2 seems pretty common in these parts, usually for about £400. I keep being tempted to pick one up only to remember all the disadvantages of very old glass. All the old manual glass I've owned has suffered from awful glare and coma...


----------



## Whammy

I really want the Nikon 58mm f1.2 Noct-Nikkor AI-S.
Pretty sharp wide open (compared to similar lenses like the old Nikkor 50mm f1.2)
That price though 

Awful glare and coma generally come with the territory 
There are a few nice lenses designed from the mid/late 80's which walk that fine line of being well rounded lenses (good flare control etc) yet still retaining some of the look of old glass.


----------



## Rook

This is one thing that just drops my jaw about Hasselblad, the lenses are insane by today's standards, it's crazy.

I'd love the 110 f/2 for the blad, what an awesome lens. They go for under a grand too.

I've booked a tonne of portrait sessions the next month, if I end up pursuing that long term maybe I'll find myself one.

EDIT: 110 f/2 example
https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/omelnitsky/8653507762/


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Rook said:


> Don't know about the 135, but 120 neopan 400 is c41 too.



Not according to Fuji's data sheet - it's a typical b&w film for processing.
Pages 3-6: http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/Neopan400.pdf


----------



## Rook

Sorry, it's this one:
Neopan 400 CN | Fujifilm United Kingdom

CN seems to be the only version you can get in the UK, so I assumed the non-CN was no more.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

We can't get 400 at all except for on eBay and NOS here.


----------



## Rook

we can get Neopan Acros 100 and 400CN in 120 and 400 professional in 135.

Black & White Camera Film | Fujifilm | Ilford - Calumet Photographic


----------



## Joe Harvatt




----------



## Wretched

Philligan, Yongnuo stuff is great, even at twice the price. I use several of their flashes, their RC603 triggers and one of their LED video light panels for light painting. All good stuff.


----------



## Wretched

Shot this monster sleeper R32 Golf this week. Light painted. Can't show any more pics until the feature is published, but happy with how it came out.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

How many shots is that?


----------



## Wretched

There's five or six in this one, including the unlit background plate.


----------



## Philligan

Thanks a lot, man.  I've been totally happy with what Yongnuo gear I've got so far, and I think I'm gonna stick with them. If I start doing more stationary portrait work (I hope so), I'm gonna look into those PCB Alien Bees lights, they seem awesome.

Also, that shot of the VW is great, and not doing anything to alleviate my Golf GAS.


----------



## Wretched

No worries. Looking at the PCB Einsteins and Vagabond Lithium Extreme batteries myself.


----------



## Tang

From the archive. I can't believe I never bothered to edit this..


----------



## Philligan

I found some batteries for my C35.  I've got the better part of a roll of film in there, so I'll hopefully get out and shoot that soon.

I picked up the 70D today, after a month with Canon. And of course they said there was nothing wrong with it. They did a clean and service on it, and the guy at Henry's thought they cleaned it and everything before actually looking for the problem, and that that fixed it. It seems to be focusing fine now, and I know it's my camera because it had my micro adjustment saved for the 50 1.4. I still need to sit down with the calibration kit and get everything set up, but I think everything's working as it should. I can't wait to get out and shoot it, it feels like I got a new camera.


----------



## Tang

Phil: I saw this shot and thought about you. The only time I've ever attempted to drag my shutter! I used a bar napkin to try and bounce the flash as best I could. I know these other guys saw this when I first posted it, but I did reprocess and recrop it.


----------



## Philligan

Yes! Gotta love shutter drags.  Looks great man. I really like the blue cast to it, and how the lights make a sort of bar at the top.

Was that with the popup flash? I've tried a bit with it on Dawn's SL1, but nothing crazy. That came out looking great, pretty soft, but still hard enough to really freeze the movement.


----------



## Philligan

I broke out the 70D quickly tonight. 

I'm not totally happy how this photo came out, but I was trying to juggle the camera in one hand and the flash in the other, with my phone propped up against a desk lamp. And it's 9:30pm and we're tired, so I shot four quickly and took the best. 

For this, I bought a space blanket a few months ago for about $1.25 off eBay, and crumpled it into a ball and put it in a zip lock bag for a while to get it nice and wrinkly. I hung the blanket up in the background, and shone my iPhone flashlight and a desk lamp light on the blanket. I put Dawn in front of those lights (as far in front as I could in the limited space of the living room) and hit her with the speedlite with an orange gel. Then in Lightroom, I basically cranked the white balance as cold as I could to get her looking normal and get the space blanket looking more blue.



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Yeah Phil, that was the popup flash. I imagine the sharpness is from my Tamron 17-50 2.8 and it's wide open in that shot.

My fiancé has requested that I reprocess a bunch of shots from her 30th birthday cruise. I wasn't very good at processing and all of the skin tones from the original edits are AWFUL. I'll be sure to post before/afters if it's a big enough improvement. Looking through my old shots it's apparent I had a very strict 'no-cropping' policy and I think that kept me from using a lot of shots that had potential.

I really like that shot of Dawn! If I could offer a small C it'd be there's a small bit where the bokeh falls off and goes to pure black on the right side of her head. Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely nit-picky but that's the process I go through in my shots and if it can help others I'm all for C&C!

Another from the cruise that I straight-up ignored on my first run-through of edits. My eye at the time was writing checks that my processing couldn't cash, or something like that. 



me by nrrfed, on Flickr



ready for anything by nrrfed, on Flickr

tl:dr..


----------



## Rook

I like the second one, would have prefered to see her face in focus instead of her boob though haha!


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> I like the second one, would have prefered to see her face in focus instead of her boob though haha!



ha! Agreed, but you have to forgive a beginner me. I really didn't know what I was doing! I was going through these and when I saw this shot the first thing that came to my mind was, 'go wide! go wide now!' and I really like the result. Funny how cropping a shot can really bring it to life, even a year after it was taken.

Thankfully she doesn't mind the shot!

EDIT: on second thought, I think the DOF is perfect the way it is. f/2.4 at 35mm and the subject was probably 2 meters away? I imagine if I'd had a faster prime (50:1.4 or 50:1.8) at the time the result would've been much different. I wouldn't have know to stop down just a tiny bit to get a larger DOF. Luck is luck!

Speaking of idiot beginner mistakes.. as I've been going through these shots I've noticed one thing: f/2.8. All the shots. Portraits? Yes. Landscapes? Yes. It didn't matter what I was shooting I never stopped down. Thankfully the Tamron is pretty good wide open, but how many shots would've been better with stopping down? This is we learn!


----------



## Tyler

Just got my hands on a 5D Mk iii and took it out before the sunset when my classes were done. I've gotta read up on everything more so I can really get in deep with this


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The first shot looks posterized or a super low quality jpeg render. In the last shot I think it would work better if she were further right in the frame (it would take away from the awkward toe crop).


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> I really like that shot of Dawn! If I could offer a small C it'd be there's a small bit where the bokeh falls off and goes to pure black on the right side of her head. Don't get me wrong, it's absolutely nit-picky but that's the process I go through in my shots and if it can help others I'm all for C&C!



Those both look great, man. 

Yeah, I totally agree. It bugs me like crazy, that and the fact that her left shoulder is a bit cropped out.  In hindsight, I wish I'd thought to pull the exposure up there. I think there's enough information there to bring it up so it's not so noticeable without bringing too much noise in. I really debated cropping the left side of the shot down so both her shoulders are cropped, but then you lose out on a lot of bokeh. 



Tyler said:


> Just got my hands on a 5D Mk iii


----------



## Winspear

Philligan your film pics on the previous page are stunning!

Think I might go out this week - been a while since I took any leisurely pics


----------



## Rook

3rd time lucky, my big box or portra showed up today, I went 400 given that I didn't think that an extra stop was worth double the money. I realise 800 is a finer grain at any speed hence why it's rated 800 but 400's fast enough, and comparing p800 at 400 to p400 I like the thicker colours and more subtle contrast. I will shoot some 800 one day, but maybe back on the streets of london when I'm nailing my exposures rather than wasting expensive frames on my idiocy.

That said, I'm getting my P160 test roll back tomorrow so can check over all the little errors and make sure I found what I hope is the only light leak, and I'm gunna finish the roll of Provia I'm on this week and send it off so it's back by the time I'm home from *drum roll*

Budapest.

Really looking forward to tackling that city with the Hassy and my Fuji on my hip. I'll start posting frames late next week hopefully.

*IF* I don't fuck up every frame and want to kill myself after paying to get it all developed and pull my hair out over the tedious scanning process and shitty looking scans, I'm gunna pick up a 150mm f/4 and another film back late next week for some portrait sessions I have coming up. Pumped.


----------



## Tyler

ThePhilosopher said:


> The first shot looks posterized or a super low quality jpeg render. In the last shot I think it would work better if she were further right in the frame (it would take away from the awkward toe crop).



Im not sure what happened with that one. So awkward back story, these are all in RAW and when I put the cf card into my card reader it somehow deleted everything, so I had to restore every one of these shots. Im not sure if doing that messed with the files or what but yeah Im not sure why the first picture looks so strange for the quality.


----------



## Whammy

Did my first engagement shoot with a couple.

I was kinda awkward.
They were kinda awkward.
But I'm happy with the results.

But there is plenty of room for improvement. 
A few mental notes for next time...
Pay attention to the woman's hair so it doesn't cover too much of her face.
Focus more on storytelling rather than nice but unrelated photos and make notes before hand of minimum shots required to complete the set.
Pay more attention to framing as subjects can move after I have framed everything in the viewfinder 

Here are a few of the photos...


----------



## Tang

Well done Whammy! I agree with your observations on attempting to tell a story with a series. Really like the processing on those, as well.


----------



## Winspear

_Engagement_ photos are a thing? Damn 
Dig the 2nd one a lot!


----------



## Rook

Yeah dude, I have a couple gigs coming up haha


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Was at the workshop yesterday, got some film looking shots of my neck as it was having its rough carve.


----------



## Philligan

Those are killer, Dave.  I really like the first one, and the wide one of them against the tree.


----------



## Whammy

Cheers guys.
Shots 1 & 4 are with the 55mm. The rest are the 85mm.
Shot 2 is actually using the Brenizer Method. It can be a bit of a challenge to visualize the photo and to capture all the shots required to make it.

Photos 2 to 4 are using a large reflector. Wouldn't have been able to take half the photos I did without it.

Didn't need a reflector for the last as the sun was literally 1 minute from setting so the sun light was really weak and didn't cast a strong shadow.

I took all the photos in the last hour of sunlight as that was the lighting I wanted.

Got a few more gigs lined up now so I'm happy 

Equipment wise I'm happy with what I have but I waste too much time changing lenses and stuff. A second body would be ideal as I currently only use primes but I can get by without it for the moment.
Also I really want to upgrade my 55mm lens. Any photos taking into the sun with this old lens were unusable. Again I can get by without upgrading and it's not like new equipment is going to make me a better photographer. It'll only make my work flow quicker and smoother 

I'm pretty sure I'd be happy with three lenses. My 85mm, a new 50mm and a zoom like the 16-35 or a wide angle prime. 24 or 35mm


----------



## Philligan

Dave, I'm not sure what you're looking for in a 50, but I was checking the focus on my 70D the other day, and I was shooting it at 1.4 for the first time in as long as I can remember. There's definitely some purple colour fringing, especially at 1.4, but it surprised me how sharp it is. Way past acceptable, I was actually excited by how sharp the photos were turning out. The colour fringing is easy to correct in LR, too. Hang on and I'll see if I can find an example.

I'm not thrilled to death with the fact that the front element moves when it focuses (apparently the motor is fairly delicate), but I bought a lens hood for something like $3 off eBay, and it just lives on the lens now. It's still smaller than a standard zoom, and I can leave the lens on and store the camera face-down in my bag and not worry about it. The 50 is dirt cheap right now, too.


----------



## Philligan

Okay, I'm not sure if this is a good example or not, but I can't figure out how to open and edit the entire raw file in Lightroom. I've been editing using Smart Preview, but AFAIK, Lightroom always just displays the thumbnail jpg, and applies your edits to the raw file when you export it.

Anyway, here's a screenshot of the file in LR. This is a 2:1 crop of the Smart Preview, so hopefully that's a decent indication of how sharp this lens is at 1.4. If it's not, here's a link to the raw file so you can check it out for yourself.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/k2ogax2pbr9gkmg/IMG_7757.CR2?dl=0


----------



## Tang

About to rent the Sigma. 17-35 1.8 as it's finally available in K-mount! Thinking about using this lens with my main body and a 50-135 2.8 on my second body for a wedding I have next month. Hyped.

More from the cruise. I think centered horizons can work the closer the aspect ratio gets to 1:1. What do you guys think?

















That last shot gave me a lot of trouble processing when I first took it, but it was an absolute breeze this time. I was obsessed with VSCO's slide film emulations at the time and every single preset I used just had the most horrific skin tones. I'm glad I grew out of that phase and my processing is better for it.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Some things from another dinner event we hosted at home - some shot for our September f/11 challenge and I'll be cross-posting those. All shot with the Helios 44.


----------



## Tang

Those limes. Such a nice color.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I duplicated the green channel set to multiply and tweaked shadows/highlights on the green channel until it got a nice color to it and I adjusted the brightness with curves afterward.


----------



## Whammy

Hey Phil
You think the purple fringing is bad on that lens. The 85 1.2 is one of the worst for purple fringing. Really bad. I put up with it because I love the images the lens produces but it is pretty annoying.
If anything even looks at the camera wrong it will cast a purple fringe on it 
Stopping it down a tiny bit even to 1.8 is enough to get rid of the purple fringe.

I had some issues with it with the images I posted. The woman's top is purple and I wasn't able to get rid of all the purple fringe without it messing up her top too. Thankfully the fringing was so small you don't see it on screen or even standard size prints.

Anyways yeah, thanks for posting those examples. I was considering the 1.4 as you do seem them for cheap enough second hand and I really do like the bokeh from them. But I'm in no rush to buy new equipment yet and I think I would invest in the 1.2 when the time comes. Not just for the bokeh but also for the focusing, weather sealed and built like a tank qualities and slightly sharper wide open.
I would end up using the 50mm the most (the only reason I'm currently not is because my current lens is pissing me off ) so it makes sense to me to invest most of my money in that lens.

In hindsight I should have bought the 50mm 1.2 rather than the 85mm 1.2 when I had the chance but I was after selling loads of audio engineering gear and had the cash and thought I may as well go with the 85 as I would never have that chance again to buy the lens 

I'm not pushed on the bokeh for wider angle stuff so a zoom would work well I think.

The couple I took photos for asked me to shoot their wedding 
That would be my first wedding so I'd be shitting a brick 

p.s.
You should try doing a B&W edit of that photo. One with soft blacks pushed up to around 15 on the curve. I think you'd be happy 
The orange cast to the sink really help with tones when in black and white.


----------



## Rook

As a former 50 1.2 owner I whole heartedly agree that you should buy it haha.

Used, they hold their value exceptionality well and apart from its size it just wins for me! Every shot I took with it just looked fantastic from a quality perspective.


----------



## Tyler

How often does everybody use UV / clear filters on their lenses, if at all? I've been using them for a while and never noticed any significant decrease in quality.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I've never used them, never saw the point.


----------



## Whammy

I personally never use them unless it's a specific filter like a polarizer filter.

I find a lens hood does a better job at protecting the front element.
It stops you from scratching the front element off anything.
It will take part of the impact if it falls face first.
It will only improve the results from the lens.

A filter on the other hand.
Well depending on the quality of the filter it may have an impact on image quality.
It really depends on the quality of the filter and the quality of the lens and body.
If the lens and body are extremely high quality then the results of a cheap filter may be more obvious as the lens and body will reveal any imperfections. A cheap filter on a expensive piece of glass feels like it will bottle necking the system. Granted that's an exaggeration but I feel uneasy with a "clear" filter on my lens.
If the lens falls face first on the ground the filter could be mashed into the lens.


----------



## Rook

Never ever ever. Ever. Nope.


----------



## Tang

Only on my film body. 

I saw shot open up right in front of my eyes yesterday. Light? Perfect. Cool composition? Check. Dog being reasonably calm? Check. 

I had to do some quick thinking because I knew Ramona wouldn't sit still for too long and I needed to quickly figure out how much DOF I needed to get the shot. This shot is 17mm @ f/6.3. I think it was a good call.  the colors were inspired by the show Hannibal.


----------



## Rook

Best thing about my film body is...

I don't need no UV filter, come at me bitches.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The best thing about mine is scanning 8x10 prints that are 2x enlargements.


----------



## Wretched

Shot a few portraits for Performance Garage recently...


----------



## Philligan

Man, it's been busy the last couple days.   

My M42-EF adapter showed up today.  I forgot I'd ordered it.  It seems like it should be decent, it's all metal and has the contacts, so I think I get normal metering and focus confirmation. I'd like to get the 44-2 and maybe a 135 some time if I can find them cheap. I've been using my AE-1 quite a bit lately and have been getting more comfortable with manual focusing. Speaking of, I'm almost done a roll of Superia 200. The local camera shop sells and develops C41, so I can stop going to Walmart. I got a roll of Superia 200 and 400, and next paycheque I'm gonna order a couple rolls of Ilford C41 B&W just to try shooting real black and white.

So Dawn and I went out to the cemetery where her dad is buried last night, in the middle of nowhere, and the starts looked crazy. I didn't bring my camera, but we were going to her mom's after, and she lives in a really small cottagey town that's about 20 minutes from any other small town. The light pollution was still kinda bad, but we could see the Milky Way a bit.

I'm not thrilled with this photo, but it was pretty cool that I could pull this off with the 70D on such short notice. I definitely wanna get out and try this again soon.



Milky Way by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

This Sigma is absolutely insane. It definitely brings out the best in my Pentax. 

18-35 1.8, btw.


----------



## Tang

First shot from the Sigma. Seriously crazy performance. This shot was 1/30s, f/1.8, and ISO6400. Scary good. My quick calculation shows that to be right around 0EV and my Pentax/Sigma combo locked focus immediately which is a relief. I was a bit worried about ultra-low light AF with this lens. 







And as always, here's a pet shot. The performance away from center is insane at f/1.8 and downright perfect in the center.


----------



## flint757

Okay, so I'm looking to potentially move up to full frame from my 7D. A lot of the reasons are actually for video work because I intend on using it as a backup to my eventual purchase of a blackmagic 2.5K cinema camera. I don't do a lot of action related work, although the faster shutter speeds have been a lifesaver in the past at times, and I'm making my consideration based on price as well as magic lantern implementation. Ultimately if I had the scratch to just spend I'd go with the Mark III, but alas I'm not super wealthy.  Who knows, the Mark IV will be released within the next year so maybe the III will drop enough in price to bring it into consideration. 

Anyhow, in my current price range we've got the 5d Mark II and the 6D. Anyone use them both to have an idea on how they compare. I'm somewhat torn because from what I understand the 6D isn't being well supported by magic lantern and the write speed is rather slow as well. Whereas the 5d Mark II is fully supported and writes something like 20MB/S faster which means a lot with higher end video work. So how do they compare when taking stills and has anyone used either or both for video related work? I will say that I'm not a huge fan of the alpha builds as my 7d is much more quirky with it on than without. So a stable build would be wonderful.


----------



## Philligan

I can't say for video, but I've played with a 5D2 for stills. I love that camera like a son, but if I were to buy a new DSLR today, I'd probably end up talking myself into the 6D. I like the feel of the larger body of the 5D, and the faster flash sync speed (I can't really say about write speed), but I like the less obtrusive body of the 6D, the low light focusing, the noise performance/image quality, and the wifi (which isn't a deal breaker, but I use it more than I expected to, and it's nice to have). Not to mention, the 6D has an almost identical layout to my 70D, and they'd compliment each other nicely. The 5D2 is laid out closer to the 7D, though.

A big complaint of the 5D2 is the crappy focus system (the small amount of points doesn't bother me, but it's not the fastest either), but I'm assuming you're mostly or always using manual focus for video, so it shouldn't be such a problem then.

I'm really not experienced enough to say this, but if video's your main concern, I'd say 5D2, for the Magic Lantern and the write speeds, since you said that's important.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

First proper weekend with my new camera. Very pleased with it. There's a set here... Flickr Set


----------



## flint757

Philligan said:


> I can't say for video, but I've played with a 5D2 for stills. I love that camera like a son, but if I were to buy a new DSLR today, I'd probably end up talking myself into the 6D. I like the feel of the larger body of the 5D, and the faster flash sync speed (I can't really say about write speed), but I like the less obtrusive body of the 6D, the low light focusing, the noise performance/image quality, and the wifi (which isn't a deal breaker, but I use it more than I expected to, and it's nice to have). Not to mention, the 6D has an almost identical layout to my 70D, and they'd compliment each other nicely. The 5D2 is laid out closer to the 7D, though.
> 
> A big complaint of the 5D2 is the crappy focus system (the small amount of points doesn't bother me, but it's not the fastest either), but I'm assuming you're mostly or always using manual focus for video, so it shouldn't be such a problem then.
> 
> I'm really not experienced enough to say this, but if video's your main concern, I'd say 5D2, for the Magic Lantern and the write speeds, since you said that's important.



I'm leaning that direction as well at this point and yeah all of my cinema lenses are and will be manual focus.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I finished the first roll with my second LC-A today, so this will be developed shortly.

For now, here's what I hope is the last photo you'll see from my iPhone 4. I ordered an iPhone 6 and it should be in this week.


----------



## Cloudy

Animal pictures ahoyhoy














A few long exposure tests I did on my animals. Shameless cuteness.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I think I'm just posting pictures rather than joining in any conversation at the moment. Apologies. Here's an older one I found today and went back on. I like the seagull.


----------



## Rook

flint757 said:


> Okay, so I'm looking to potentially move up to full frame from my 7D. A lot of the reasons are actually for video work because I intend on using it as a backup to my eventual purchase of a blackmagic 2.5K cinema camera. I don't do a lot of action related work, although the faster shutter speeds have been a lifesaver in the past at times, and I'm making my consideration based on price as well as magic lantern implementation. Ultimately if I had the scratch to just spend I'd go with the Mark III, but alas I'm not super wealthy.  Who knows, the Mark IV will be released within the next year so maybe the III will drop enough in price to bring it into consideration.
> 
> Anyhow, in my current price range we've got the 5d Mark II and the 6D. Anyone use them both to have an idea on how they compare. I'm somewhat torn because from what I understand the 6D isn't being well supported by magic lantern and the write speed is rather slow as well. Whereas the 5d Mark II is fully supported and writes something like 20MB/S faster which means a lot with higher end video work. So how do they compare when taking stills and has anyone used either or both for video related work? I will say that I'm not a huge fan of the alpha builds as my 7d is much more quirky with it on than without. So a stable build would be wonderful.



The 6D absolutely shits on the 5D2 for ISO performance and is quite a lot lighter and still (partially) weather sealed (I used mine when it was raining buckets, absolutely fine). When I had my 6D, we had a 5D2 at the same time and the 5D2 supposedly has AF 1 stop darker but it's way less reliable and slower so it didn't count for a whole lot, it's not even a benefit if you plan to use it with cine lenses.

There's no way I'd buy a 5D2 over a 6D, the focus is infuriating and the ISO performance really is that difference. The benefits of the 5D2 are the fast CF cards and the cast iron (lol) chassis that you can kill people with.


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> Man, it's been busy the last couple days.
> 
> My M42-EF adapter showed up today.  I forgot I'd ordered it.  It seems like it should be decent, it's all metal and has the contacts, so I think I get normal metering and focus confirmation. I'd like to get the 44-2 and maybe a 135 some time if I can find them cheap. I've been using my AE-1 quite a bit lately and have been getting more comfortable with manual focusing. Speaking of, I'm almost done a roll of Superia 200. The local camera shop sells and develops C41, so I can stop going to Walmart. I got a roll of Superia 200 and 400, and next paycheque I'm gonna order a couple rolls of Ilford C41 B&W just to try shooting real black and white.



Why Superia? It's really not a high grade film, why not try some Portra 160 or 400, or Pro 160C or 400H? I'm not a fan of Fuji's C41 films at all personally, but Superia in film's a little like point and shoot in digital, I'd really like to see what you could do with a nice, sharp film!


----------



## Philligan

I just don't have access to any means of developing film on my own, and C41 is all I can get developed here. Superia was what my local store stocked.  I'm gonna order a few different rolls this weekend to try out, though.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> When I had my 6D, we had a 5D2 at the same time and the 5D2 supposedly has AF 1 stop darker but it's way less reliable and slower so it didn't count for a whole lot, it's not even a benefit if you plan to use it with cine lenses.



Do you mean the light levels it can focus in? If so, isn't the 6D supposed to spank pretty much every other camera? Other than maybe the D4s (I don't know), the only other camera that's supposed to focus in darkness like the 6D is the new 7D2, including the Canon and Nikon pro bodies.

If I was just doing portrait stuff, I'd probably still seriously consider the 5D2 for the flash sync speed, but for general use, I think the 6D is the all-around better choice. We have a demo 6D at work, and every day I see it and hope I can afford it while I'm still working there, so I can get my staff discount.


----------



## Tang

If the 6d's center point is rated to focus at -3EV then it's the same as my K5ii. It's pretty damned impressive.


----------



## Whammy

The 5d MKII is a six year old camera so needless to say it's a bit dated 
But it's still a workhorse.
Its shutter life is around 50,000 more than the 6d.
Max shutter speed of 1/8000th of a second (a must for fast lenses on bright days) although it can't be used in live view mode.
The max write speed of the 5d MKII is nearly twice as fast as the 6d.
Built like a tank. I've dropped mine numerous times onto stone/concrete and it's still fine.
Weather sealing is okay. I also dropped it into snow at -15 degrees celsius. worked fine afterwards.
I drop my camera a lot 

I do wish the noise performance was better but I can't live without the 1/8000th shutter speed.
I mainly shoot manual focus lenses so auto focus was never an issue for me.
I've also taken a lot of photos with this camera since I bought it 4 years ago. It's nice to know that I'm not even a third of the way through the expected max shutter life.
Plus it's nice to know it has lived for 4 years despite the amount of times I've dropped it.

Would I trade my 5d MKII for a 6d? No.
The noise performance of the 6d would be nice but no one has complained to me yet saying my photos have too much noise 
If I was buying one without owning either I'm not sure what I'd go for. More than likely a 6d.
But a second hand 5d MKII is roughly half the price of a new 6d. And unless the mileage of a second hand 5d MKII is over 50,000 shots it'll still live longer than the 6d.

If I was buying a camera which would be mainly used for video then I would get a cheap 5d MKII to start off with and save the rest of the money for a MKIII when the price comes down.




Philligan said:


> I just don't have access to any means of developing film on my own, and C41 is all I can get developed here. Superia was what my local store stocked.  I'm gonna order a few different rolls this weekend to try out, though.



All the films that Rook mentioned are great C41 films to try


----------



## flint757

Rook said:


> When I had my 6D, we had a 5D2 at the same time and the 5D2 supposedly has AF 1 stop darker but it's way less reliable and slower so it didn't count for a whole lot, it's not even a benefit if you plan to use it with cine lenses.
> 
> There's no way I'd buy a 5D2 over a 6D, the focus is infuriating and the ISO performance really is that difference. The benefits of the 5D2 are the fast CF cards and the cast iron (lol) chassis that you can kill people with.



Most of my lenses are manual so it's a moot point on that front. I have the 7D now and it has a fairly good auto focus yet it can still be a bit of a nightmare at times. Not a huge fan of auto focus or how it is implemented in most lenses (exception being the STM lenses, but my 40mm f/2.8 is super lame to do manually if I can't get a good auto focus setup). They are also very noisy even when manually focusing for video work.

Could you clarify that first sentence I quoted. Are you saying do to the iso and noise performance even with cine lenses the 5dII is bad or that the benefits of the 6D are irrelevant because of what I'd be doing with it? The only benefit is the iso performance for me considering I don't use auto focus that often anymore and the SD card, with Canon's crappy choice of hardware, is slow enough to be a potential problem with larger video files. I'm really torn on this. I'm starting to think I should just wait until the IV drops and the III falls in price in the used market. Considering it combines the best of both worlds (like a cross between the 7D and 6D) I could even sell my 7D to recoup some of the cost, although I'd prefer to keep it.



Philligan said:


> Do you mean the light levels it can focus in? If so, isn't the 6D supposed to spank pretty much every other camera? Other than maybe the D4s (I don't know), the only other camera that's supposed to focus in darkness like the 6D is the new 7D2, including the Canon and Nikon pro bodies.
> 
> If I was just doing portrait stuff, I'd probably still seriously consider the 5D2 for the flash sync speed, but for general use, I think the 6D is the all-around better choice. We have a demo 6D at work, and every day I see it and hope I can afford it while I'm still working there, so I can get my staff discount.



Even the 5DIII? This is a really tough decision.  All I know is my 7D isn't cutting it anymore with my video work. I wish someone on the magic lantern team would get back on working the 6D's build. Development has pretty much halted on that front. That's why I was liking the 5DII as it was one of the first cameras to even get magic lantern so it is far better fleshed out. Not sure how often I'd shoot raw video with the DSLR, but it needs to be an option either way and the 6D's write speeds are somewhat of a problem for that.



Whammy said:


> The 5d MKII is a six year old camera so needless to say it's a bit dated
> But it's still a workhorse.
> Its shutter life is around 50,000 more than the 6d.
> Max shutter speed of 1/8000th of a second (a must for fast lenses on bright days) although it can't be used in live view mode.
> The max write speed of the 5d MKII is nearly twice as fast as the 6d.
> Built like a tank. I've dropped mine numerous times onto stone/concrete and it's still fine.
> Weather sealing is okay. I also dropped it into snow at -15 degrees celsius. worked fine afterwards.
> I drop my camera a lot
> 
> I do wish the noise performance was better but I can't live without the 1/8000th shutter speed.
> I mainly shoot manual focus lenses so auto focus was never an issue for me.
> I've also taken a lot of photos with this camera since I bought it 4 years ago. It's nice to know that I'm not even a third of the way through the expected max shutter life.
> Plus it's nice to know it has lived for 4 years despite the amount of times I've dropped it.
> 
> Would I trade my 5d MKII for a 6d? No.
> The noise performance of the 6d would be nice but no one has complained to me yet saying my photos have too much noise
> If I was buying one without owning either I'm not sure what I'd go for. More than likely a 6d.
> But a second hand 5d MKII is roughly half the price of a new 6d. And unless the milage of a second hand 5d MKII is over 50,000 shots it'll still live longer than the 6d.
> 
> If I was buying a camera which would be mainly used for video then I would get a cheap 5d MKII to start off with and save the rest of the money for a MKIII when the price comes down.



How much do y'all think the 5dIII will drop in price in the used market when the IV hits in the spring? Then again the II will likely drop along with it.  

Decisions, decisions. This isn't happening right this second so I've got some time to think it over. If it's highly likely the 5DIII will drop quite a bit in price then I can be patient and stick with what I got in the meantime. I still need to pick up a black magic cinema camera 2.5K. I'll likely get the MFT mount version since it leaves me with the best lens selection if I use converters.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm stuck on these as b&w or color:


----------



## Whammy

Normally a B&W kinda guy but the color versions have so much more depth.
Beautiful lighting too.


----------



## flint757

I like the color versions on both better overall as well. The B&W works for the first too though. However, the second one seems too busy without color separating the subject from the background. There's separation, but my eye doesn't immediately go to the subject like it does with the color version.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Thanks, I'll try a less easy b&w conversion using the channel mixer (these were done with two B&W adjustment layers). I prefer the color images myself, but I'm really wanting to get a decent b&w conversion out of one of the images from this set (about 6-7 more to go through).

Lighting is a 750w/s strobe through a 3' x 4' softbox for these two shots. I used a 16" x 20" softbox on the strobe for some shots as well.


----------



## Rook

For some reason I thought the 5d2 was -3 and the 6d -2, don't know what I was thinking of haha, main point was that it doesn't affect the guy asking the question!

You would benefit from the noise performance of the 6D over the 5D2, yes.

I absolutely would not wish to imply the 5D2's a bad camera at all, of course it isn't, I've said enough times I love them and what a revolutionary classic that camera remains. The 6D build is also plastic city in comparison, everything from the plastic on the body to the feel of the buttons, the 5D2 feels like it means business whereas the 6D more like a 600D with a big sensor haha.

In terms of the things that affect the quality of the image for the person asking, however, it's gotta be the 6D, hands down. If the card write speed is that much of an issue, the 5D3 sells used for the price of a new 6D, if it's that much of an important part of your setup just buy a 5D3! It'll save you the money you'll lose when you upgrade later, too.

Please don't think I think the 5D Mark II's a bad camera! Haha.


----------



## Rook

Also, I've shot 3 rolls of Provia 100F and 3 of Portra 400, can't wait to get them developed IM ALREADY WARMING UP THE SCANNER haha.

Got a box of Delta 3200 and maybe a 150mm f4 on the way too. I freeking love my Hasselblad, I'm so pleased I bought it.


----------



## Tang

I swear to .... I have the worst luck. Just went out shooting ( and got some pretty good self-portraits!) and on the way home I popped the spare tire I just put on my car. 

These shots had better to AMAZING cause I'm one pissed off dude waiting for a tow truck.



self-sunset by nrrfed, on Flickr



what? by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I posted the RG8 for sale. That $900 car repair ended up costing me $1400 - the shop underquoted me huge.  I pretty much never touch the 8 these days, so I'm gonna see if I can sacrifice it to help afford something I'll get more use out of (aka a compact camera).

These are a couple from the FS ad I posted (just locally, it's not worth shipping a $400 guitar IMHO). This is the 50 1.4 wide open. I still need to check the calibration, but it's definitely not doing what it was before I sent the 70D away.



RG8 by philbabbey, on Flickr



RG8 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

My shit scanner's just crapped out.

I'm not feeling like I want to spend Epson V700 money just yet, maybe if I use my blad for something I get paid for, but I need something that does transparency and will take 120 film in a cartridge.

I was going to go Epson V600, anyone any thoughts?


----------



## Tang

I just bought the V550 and I believe it'll scan up to 4x5 if you're looking for something a bit cheaper. 

I've gone down the dark path of self-portraits and am completely addicted.


----------



## Philligan

I think I'm gonna start developing my own B&W.  I've got three rolls I can't get developed without mailing them to Toronto, and I can get 800 and 1600 B&W a lot easier than C-41. And, I don't know what kind it is, but apparently my grandpa has an ~$800 scanner that I can use for now. 

I'm probably gonna order the kit and chemicals tomorrow, after I get paid. Any suggestions as to a certain brands, or where to buy?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Adox Rodinal Film Developer - 500ml | Freestyle Photographic Supplies
Arista Premium Odorless Liquid Fixer 64 oz. - Makes 5 gallons | Freestyle Photographic Supplies

I highly recommend using this as well as a wetting agent just before hanging your film to dry: Kodak Photo Flo 200 16 oz. | Freestyle Photographic Supplies.

I'd use these and do stand development as it's the hardest to get wrong. I do stand development most of the time when I shoot B&W now because it's easy, cheap, and the results are quite nice (IMO).

For stand development you use a low dilution of your developer (1:100, 1:200, 1:250 depending on what film you are using) and completely submerge your film. 

You give it one inversion and let it stand undisturbed for a longer period of time (usually an hour, but I've gone up to 5 hours).

You'll dump the developer, fill your tank with water 5-7 times (I don't use a dedicated stop bath any longer), and fix according to the directions of your fixer.


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> My shit scanner's just crapped out.
> 
> I'm not feeling like I want to spend Epson V700 money just yet, maybe if I use my blad for something I get paid for, but I need something that does transparency and will take 120 film in a cartridge.
> 
> I was going to go Epson V600, anyone any thoughts?



Epson have just announced they are releasing the V800 & V850 and will be replacing the V7xx series.

Prices may come down on the v7xx series. Although I can't imagine that'll be any time soon 
The new scanners use a LED light source.


----------



## Philligan

Awesome, thanks man.  I'll order those tomorrow, along with a tank and whatever else.


----------



## Rook

Whammy said:


> Epson have just announced they are releasing the V800 & V850 and will be replacing the V7xx series.
> 
> Prices may come down on the v7xx series. Although I can't imagine that'll be any time soon
> The new scanners use a LED light source.



I've just seen that and guess what, 3 V700's popped up on eBay today and I've made an offer on one haha.

Don't have the space to do my own developing at the moment but I will when I have my own place. Really pumped for this scanner though, I've got 5 rolls of film on their way back to me on Monday, 3 Provia 2 Portra (400). I'm really eager to get these back and have a good look to see how my metering's going etc and progress somewhat.

All kinds of excited at the moment.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> Awesome, thanks man.  I'll order those tomorrow, along with a tank and whatever else.



Get a decent tank and reel-I prefer stainless to plastic, but they are more expensive.


----------



## Tang

Here's the last self-portrait I did and a fun double exposure.


----------



## Rook

Anybody know anything about this place?

https://www.keh.com/shop

Lots of very cool kit for very reasonable money...


----------



## Tang

Pretty sure KEH has great reviews overall. I'd be comfortable ordering from them.


----------



## Rook

I could buy all the hassie parts I need from there for a third of the price I'd pay here!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I've bought a load of good stuff from KEH. Their ratings tend to be very conservative as well. They also have a great return/exchange policy.


----------



## Rook

Oh awesome, they have the 150 and 50mm for under $200, I don't care how ....ed up they are as long as it doesn't affect quality.

I found a cheap A12 today, so that's solved, but those lenses are expensive and the market's tiny here.


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> I've bought a load of good stuff from KEH. Their ratings tend to be very conservative as well. They also have a great return/exchange policy.



This. I constantly hear that they tend to undershoot on their condition rating. I've been looking at Canon FD glass on there for a while now. If I ever order used from a store, it'll be from them.

I'm hanging out with a buddy tonight, so I'm hoping I'll get the chance to take the camera out if we go skating. Priority #1 is sushi, however.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm going out for sushi tonight as well .

Here are two from today's shoot, natural light - a rarity for me.





50mm f/1.8 1/640s with two stop ND ISO400





85mm f/4 1/40s ISO100 with two stop ND​


----------



## Rook

Why did you use a 2 stop ND on the first image when you had a spare 2 or 3 stops of shutter speed and 2 or 3 stops of ISO?

Similar with the second really, you're at a shutter speed there's no way I could hand hold at that length, why use an ND?


----------



## Tang

OK, this'll be the last time I post my ugly mug for a while. I had a lot of fun shooting these self-portraits with the sigma because it gave me a chance to experiment with fast aperture wide angle shots. When I'm out doing these portraits the first thing I'm looking for are interesting backgrounds to bokeh the shit out of. Hope y'all like this one. 

I'm actually thinking of making a DIY reflector because the shadows in my eyes are a tad annoying. I'm shooting some early Christmas card portraits tomorrow and it should come in handy.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Rook said:


> Why did you use a 2 stop ND on the first image when you had a spare 2 or 3 stops of shutter speed and 2 or 3 stops of ISO?
> 
> Similar with the second really, you're at a shutter speed there's no way I could hand hold at that length, why use an ND?



I was bouncing back and forth between using and not using my ringflash so it was easier to leave the filter on and just adjust the settings on the camera.


----------



## Tyler

Snapped the pup today before I headed out. Its almost as if he was modeling for me


----------



## JeffFromMtl

From a recent portrait shoot 

40mm f/2.8 - I also finally caved and shot in RAW. Never shooting JPEG again. It's actually stupid that I waited this long just because I was worried about file size. Dumb, dumb, dumb.


----------



## Whammy

JeffFromMtl said:


> From a recent portrait shoot
> 
> 40mm f/2.8 - I also finally caved and shot in RAW. Never shooting JPEG again. It's actually stupid that I waited this long just because I was worried about file size. Dumb, dumb, dumb.



Really? Wouldn't have guess that you shot JPEG only.
How are you finding the 40mm?



Tang said:


> I'm actually thinking of making a DIY reflector because the shadows in my eyes are a tad annoying. I'm shooting some early Christmas card portraits tomorrow and it should come in handy.



The background is great but yeah, without some extra light it's hard to balance the face to the background.
I used a DIY reflector before. Actually worked out better than I thought. Super unprofessional looking though  Not as strong as a silver reflector but still usable. Just make sure to build it bigger than you think


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Whammy said:


> Really? Wouldn't have guess that you shot JPEG only.
> How are you finding the 40mm?



I guess I just never really noticed how much depth and detail was lost shooting only in JPEG. It kinda makes me wish I could go back and start shooting RAW from the beginning. I shot these in RAW and JPEG, and looking at the files side by side was just night and day - the JPEGs were just super flat in comparison.

I actually really like the 40mm. It seems to struggle with focus (which isn't particularly quick to begin with) at times, but the focal length is great. I think it suits my style quite well, and compensates for those times I've found 50mm _just_ too tight. Using the 40mm is reinforcing my belief that 35mm would probably be the perfect focal length for me to use as a walk-around, given my style/aesthetic.


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> Really? Wouldn't have guess that you shot JPEG only.
> How are you finding the 40mm?
> 
> 
> 
> The background is great but yeah, without some extra light it's hard to balance the face to the background.
> I used a DIY reflector before. Actually worked out better than I thought. Super unprofessional looking though  Not as strong as a silver reflector but still usable. Just make sure to build it bigger than you think



Yeah, man. Even with the great dynamic range of modern bodies, pushing the shadows on my face there (by almost 2 stops) just looks.. slightly unnatural. Granted, it's super clean but it'd be much better with more real light. I imagine if I were better at photoshop I could coax more out of the image, but I digress. 

It's very overcast today and if it doesn't rain we'll see just how well my reflector works. Thankfully this shoot is for family so i can look as unprofessional as I want.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Jeff:
Wait until you start pulling multiple RAW conversions for the same image, you're really going to regret JPEG after that starts. 

Tang:
Overcast/rainy days (if it's not too hard) are good days to test out your reflector to see if it's effective enough to provide some separation. 

More rare natural light stuff:




85mm f/1.8 1/160s ISO100 and 2 stop ND

and a candid shot:




85mm f/1.8 1/160s ISO100 and 2 stop ND

something darker:




50mm f/2.8 1/30s ISO400 and 2 stop ND​


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> OK, this'll be the last time I post my ugly mug for a while. I had a lot of fun shooting these self-portraits with the sigma because it gave me a chance to experiment with fast aperture wide angle shots. When I'm out doing these portraits the first thing I'm looking for are interesting backgrounds to bokeh the shit out of. Hope y'all like this one.
> 
> I'm actually thinking of making a DIY reflector because the shadows in my eyes are a tad annoying. I'm shooting some early Christmas card portraits tomorrow and it should come in handy.



Every time you post, I regret not getting that lens.  I'd love to sell the 17-50 and grab one, but I'm slowing down on buying gear with the wedding coming up (not to mention that huge car bill from a couple weeks ago). It sucks because I can get ~20% off on most lenses on my staff price now that I work for Best Buy, but once I get a compact camera, I'm probably gonna hold off until after the wedding in May before I buy anything significant. I'm still not sure what the work situation is gonna be like for me after I graduate in December, and the fiancee has teachers college next year, so money is gonna be tight.

If you want a quick and dirty reflector, stop by Best Buy. I just picked one up after my last shift. It's only 18" and silver/gold (no white side), but it collapses and comes with a bag, and it was only $9 - that was the regular price, too. 



JeffFromMtl said:


> 40mm f/2.8 - I also finally caved and shot in RAW. Never shooting JPEG again. It's actually stupid that I waited this long just because I was worried about file size. Dumb, dumb, dumb.



It blows my mind that you've been shooting JPGs this entire time. Holy shit. 

Your photos all look awesome, but I'm excited to see what they start looking like now. Especially with the pushed blacks, I find they look a lot more natural and transition more smoothly with RAWs.


----------



## Tang

Damn! I was searching my mind for places that sell photography gear and I totally forgot about Best Buy. $9 sounds like a good deal, especially if it ends up making me money.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Thanks guys!
I also just realized that Lightroom has been exporting my images at 60% quality. Why is this a default setting?


----------



## Tang

JeffFromMtl said:


> Thanks guys!
> I also just realized that Lightroom has been exporting my images at 60% quality. Why is this a default setting?



I used to use 60 exclusively until recently. It's probably the best compromise between quality and file size. Pretty much everything I've posted in the past 6 months have been exported at jpg set to 80 and output sharpening set to For Screen: low. Seems to work well enough for web use.


----------



## soliloquy

do you guys have any experience with ND filters? recommend them? or not? what to look for?
i'm seeing some nd filters that are 1 or 2 stops, and i dont really see that big a difference, if at all between them and my polorizor filter. granted, ND filters are polarizing filters. but worth it? or a hassle to deal with? 

and are variable nd filters worth their price? a Hoya branch ND filter for my lens would set me back about 150ish or so


----------



## Philligan

A lot of the stuff they sell is house branded stuff, but for something like a reflector, <$10 for one right away isn't bad at all. Some of the stuff looks pretty sketchy, though, especially the third party batteries and chargers.


----------



## Rook

JeffFromMtl said:


> Thanks guys!
> I also just realized that Lightroom has been exporting my images at 60% quality. Why is this a default setting?



60's a web standard and most services you upload to to display images will downsample to that anyway, going up from there you get diminishing returns tbh.

The visible difference is slightly less 'clumping', if you can't immediately guess what that is from looking at your images it doesn't matter. If you're printing I'd stick to TIFF's, hence, 60's fine. Generally. Not a huge difference really.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

soliloquy said:


> do you guys have any experience with ND filters? recommend them? or not? what to look for?
> i'm seeing some nd filters that are 1 or 2 stops, and i dont really see that big a difference, if at all between them and my polorizor filter. granted, ND filters are polarizing filters. but worth it? or a hassle to deal with?
> 
> and are variable nd filters worth their price? a Hoya branch ND filter for my lens would set me back about 150ish or so



I have B+W 2-stop and 10-stop ND filters, they are in no way the same thing as a polarizer. Polarizers (circular I'm assuming) are going to affect reflections globally in your scene while an ND filter is simply going to darken the scene (maybe add some tinting depending on which ND you get, my 10-stop is a bit warm). 

I've never used a Variable ND filter, if I need more stops taken out I just start stacking filters and/or shooting bracketed images to pull different information into a single composite image.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> 60's a web standard and most services you upload to to display images will downsample to that anyway, going up from there you get diminishing returns tbh.
> 
> The visible difference is slightly less 'clumping', if you can't immediately guess what that is from looking at your images it doesn't matter. If you're printing I'd stick to TIFF's, hence, 60's fine. Generally. Not a huge difference really.



So if I'm exporting a photo for Facebook, should I just change it to 60% quality? I've been leaving it at 100% and playing with file size trying to get decent looking photos on Facebook.

Flickr seems to handle 100% fine. I mostly use Flickr to store photos online for free (and to get at them easily from my phone), so I like the idea of being able to download whatever quality or size I want from there. But that's good to know for Facebook, though.


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> I have B+W 2-stop and 10-stop ND filters, they are in no way the same thing as a polarizer. Polarizers (circular I'm assuming) are going to affect reflections globally in your scene while an ND filter is simply going to darken the scene (maybe add some tinting depending on which ND you get, my 10-stop is a bit warm).
> 
> I've never used a Variable ND filter, if I need more stops taken out I just start stacking filters and/or shooting bracketed images to pull different information into a single composite image.



I shot with a guy who used a variable ND once. It was cool, and I'd like to pick up an ND some time, but the variable one seemed to make the photos a bit softer (I didn't really get the chance to peep them, though). 

If it were me, I'd play it safe and get a regular ND. Cameras these days are so flexible, I can't see the extra couple stops in either direction from a variable ND to be worth the loss in image quality.

I've also never used one really, so take that with a huge grain of salt. 

I don't think I posted this yet. I picked up some small accessories from work for dirt cheap yesterday. There's not a lot offered in store, and most of what is is total crap, but I grabbed a couple things. When I have $100 or so to spare, I'm gonna do a big order of accessories from the website, just so I don't have a bunch of ~$10 things trickling in every couple days.



Cheap stuff by philbabbey, on Flickr

The reflector's Rocketfish. It's only 18", and only has a gold and silver side. But it only cost me like $5. Same with the LED light. It's tiny, and probably pretty much useless for outdoor use, but I've been wanting to get some kind of constant light for shooting non-stationary things, so it's worth the try for $5. We sell larger Bower and Manfrotto ones, so I'll hopefully get the chance to get one of those, depending on how long I'm at this job.

The polarizer is an interesting one. It's a circular, and it's branded as Platinum. From what I can tell, I think it's like a "high end" version of their house brand stuff. It stickered at $40, so I think it's on the borderline of being expensive enough to actually be decent, and my staff price was $9, so I took a chance on it. I'd like to get it out today and see what kind of difference it makes, and pixel peep the photos from it.


----------



## Tang

Sadly, my best buy didn't have ANY decent accessories so I came home and made a fugly cardboard/aluminum lolflector. It's hideous and very much unprofessional.. thing is it works! Like a charm!

No reflector: 



no reflector by nrrfed, on Flickr

Reflector:



diy reflector test by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> So if I'm exporting a photo for Facebook, should I just change it to 60% quality? I've been leaving it at 100% and playing with file size trying to get decent looking photos on Facebook.
> 
> Flickr seems to handle 100% fine. I mostly use Flickr to store photos online for free (and to get at them easily from my phone), so I like the idea of being able to download whatever quality or size I want from there. But that's good to know for Facebook, though.



Facebook down samples to around 40 I think, staying close to their maximum dims help (it scales down) and greyscale's reasonably safe.

Can't remember what the max dims are, maybe 1200 wide? I stick to 1000px on the long side and I don't get the major smearing any more.

Flickr I think was 80, I can't remember, they may have bumped it up though, they let people do a hell of a lot more now than they used to.


----------



## Wretched

Last week was busy! Still processing now.
Here are a couple peeks at the machinery I got to shoot.

The two bikes were lit with a single speedlite on full power through a white umbrella in multiple shots, comped in PS:











The Skyline was light painted with about six frames comped in PS:


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> So if I'm exporting a photo for Facebook, should I just change it to 60% quality? I've been leaving it at 100% and playing with file size trying to get decent looking photos on Facebook.
> 
> Flickr seems to handle 100% fine. I mostly use Flickr to store photos online for free (and to get at them easily from my phone), so I like the idea of being able to download whatever quality or size I want from there. But that's good to know for Facebook, though.



For facebook you'll get best results uploading .png files rather than jpg.
Facebook still gives it the jpg treatment but the photos retain more detail compared to a 100% jpg upload.
The difference is minimal but it's enough for me to make the effort and upload them as png.

I find flickr amazing for hosting photos and retaining quality. I upload the max quality I can and let flickr do all the resizing and jpg treatment. I normally upload tiff as I find the end result on flickr has smoother gradients in the darker areas like corner vignetting.

Vignetting over areas that essentially have no detail (like clear skies) leaves vignetting that looks like it's stepped rather than a smooth gradient with a jpg upload.

If the photo has a lot of grain then the jpegs hold more information in those areas and the gradients that I mentioned are rendered smooth.

I don't always want to add more grain so that's why I use tiff


----------



## Rook

^I'd heard Facebook have now patched the PNG trick so it'll just wind up like a JPEG these days.

I'd have to try find where I read that though.


----------



## Whammy

Really? Lame  Facebook image quality is already bad enough.
I'll have to upload a jpg and png to see if there is still any difference them.


----------



## Rook

^ do report back, I'm yet to try it since I heard that.


----------



## Tang

I've always done my FB uploads at 40 quality and 2048px at the longest end and had no problems with detail. Is it perfect like flickr? Absolutely not, but it's good enough to share for my friends and family. 

Had to send the Sigma back, but as soon as I shoot these next few weddings I will be buying it for real. It's quite versatile and it really does replace at least 3 wide-to-normal primes (17-24-35 and all at f/1.8!). Granted, it doesn't have the character of some of my favorite Pentax primes but it's good enough.

EDIT: here's one of the last shots I took with the Sigma. 35mm @ f/1.8. No reflector.


----------



## Whammy

I tried the jpg vs png on facebook earlier to see if facebook did away with that advantage.
I couldn't notice any difference now. Both looked shit 

Reflectors FTW


----------



## Philligan

Man, the photos you've been posting lately have been killer.


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> I tried the jpg vs png on facebook earlier to see if facebook did away with that advantage.
> I couldn't notice any difference now. Both looked shit
> 
> Reflectors FTW



Is that that 40mm? Just a guess based subject size/distance/bokeh. I absolutely love the composition though! Nice, rolling curves everywhere!

That bokeh really is gorgeous. Gives the shot an almost oil painted feel.


----------



## Tyler

Was in Georgetown yesterday with some buddies. Ive been wanting to try out multiple exposure, and just change up my overall editing technique


----------



## Tang

MEH!

fun with old RAWs! This first shot was what I meant by the Sigma not having the same 'character' as my favorite Pentax prime, the 31mm f/1.8. It's just.. something I can't put into words. It's quite sharp, but there's just a little something extra that gives the image a lot of pop.








mirror, irmor by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Last one from the set I promise, now to get Kenneth Cole to pay us for it - I think it fits in nicely with their ad style :


----------



## Rook

Well I got my V700 today but my Hungary negs aren't back yet so I had to play with my test roll that I used before I fixed my camera and I didn't get in til late so I basically have no idea what I'm doing.

Alas, however, a scan from my Hasselblad and portra 160. Not that you'd know it were Portra 160 since apparently the slightly ass-backward Epson Scan software's apparently made some sex with the colours.

I'll do it properly at the weekend.

EDIT: Ignore that

I got a slightly better grasp on the colours, though there;s a funky rainbow doogad appearing on this strip of scans, bit annoying, I'll have to figure out what that is.

Bed time now though. Here's a more recognisably Portra-esque frame, if you go to the flickr link you can see it in it's full 25MPx glory.



Hasselblad Test 2 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## metal_sam14

Here are a couple of sunset snaps from a few weeks ago. My band was loading in for a gig and the sky just lit up in this amazing colour and I had to run to my car and take some shots. 



Fire Sunset by TasmanSam, on Flickr



Fire Sunset 2 by TasmanSam, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

in my post-sigma depression I went and bought a couple of nice photobooks and GOT INSPIRED!



the skater (edit #2) by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## soliloquy

anyone ever try their own custom bokeh filters? seems like an easy, cheap, and fun little thing to do. i wonder how it would turn out with the batman logo
THESE ARE NOT MY PICTURES!!!


----------



## Tang

Sorry to be a party pooper but I honestly hate it. Just a gut reaction.


----------



## Decreate

A few pics I took at one of the protest spots in Hong Kong


----------



## Khoi

Whammy said:


> I tried the jpg vs png on facebook earlier to see if facebook did away with that advantage.
> I couldn't notice any difference now. Both looked shit
> 
> Reflectors FTW



that's a fantastic shot, what did you light it with?


----------



## Whammy

Thanks guys about the photo 



Tang said:


> Is that that 40mm? Just a guess based subject size/distance/bokeh. I absolutely love the composition though! Nice, rolling curves everywhere!
> 
> That bokeh really is gorgeous. Gives the shot an almost oil painted feel.



Yeap it's the 40mm. The bokeh is really nice from this lens. I call it non-offensive. It doesn't draw attention to itself in a good or bad way. It just does it's job and does it well.
It was one of the last lenses made for the OM system and Olympus were on the ball then.
I actually meant to stop the lens from 2 to 2.8 to get a bit more sharpness and less vignetting but I forgot 

That statue/skateboarding photo is excellent. The framing/timing/depth of field is great.



Khoi said:


> that's a fantastic shot, what did you light it with?



Thanks. I used a large reflector. 1.2 meters (47 inches). I bought the reflector for portraits with two people. It was actually way to big for this  I need a smaller one. It was hard only lighting his body and not the ground due to the size of it. It was also a bit too strong so I bent it a bit to reduce the light hitting him.
I used the silver side. I've yet to find a use for the white side.
I was holding the reflector a bit to my far right taking the photo.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> Sorry to be a party pooper but I honestly hate it. Just a gut reaction.



I think the first two work from an artistic point of view, especially the one with the crosses. Sorta like a still-life or a shop job, only done with in-camera trickery. It's a cool idea, but technically neither photos do it for me - I mean like the sharpness, framing, processing, etc. 

The third one isn't for me haha.

I don't know if we'll have time to shoot much today, but I brought the AE-1 to school with me. I've got a bit of the 200 roll left, and a roll of 400 waiting to be shot. If I can find one on the cheap, I desperately wanna pick up a Canon G-III. It's tiny, and should scratch my compact itch and my film itch at the same time. It's just tough, because we're so poor right now.  

I've been having trouble finding a desktop background I really like, so I decided to make one for myself. I wish I'd thought of this before, and I'm gonna try and keep making my own from now on. For the time being, I re-edited a sunset one I like and cropped it to the right aspect ratio. I just can't decide on the amount of blacks I want in it. 

I've currently settled on this one. The RAW is back home on my external, but when I get the chance I want to fix a couple things (mainly the whites on the houses across the river)



sunsetdesktop1 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> Thanks guys about the photo
> 
> 
> 
> Yeap it's the 40mm. The bokeh is really nice from this lens. I call it non-offensive. It doesn't draw attention to itself in a good or bad way. It just does it's job and does it well.
> It was one of the last lenses made for the OM system and Olympus were on the ball then.
> I actually meant to stop the lens from 2 to 2.8 to get a bit more sharpness and less vignetting but I forgot
> 
> That statue/skateboarding photo is excellent. The framing/timing/depth of field is great.



Thanks man! I feel this shot really shows how far I've come in my photography. Even a few months ago I would've settled on just getting the shot of the statue and it's reflection and been happy with it. Now, waiting and working the scene is the name of the game. I saw the skateboarders approaching from the right and quickly juggled my settings to get to 1/2000s because if the guy was gonna do a trick I only had one shot to get it. Beyond happy with this shot and quit proud of it too.

EDIT: I say I only had one shot because technically skateboarding is illegal in this park and the police had just arrived. The skateboard dudes got away, and I got a great story.


----------



## Whammy

Yeah in situations like those waiting is so worth the effort 
Plus expanding on an idea and incorporating other elements into it helps think outside the box.

I had a good look through my recent photos I've taken and realize I need to think more outside the box. Got some ideas I need to try. They all might fail but it's important to try 

On a unrelated note here is another stitch photo I did. It was the first photo I took from the session and I didn't end up using this photo as I wasn't happy with a few elements in it.
They were a bit stiff (first photo and nervous plus I wasn't saying much to ease there nerves). Light was too harsh on the guys face. The guy also looks stuned by the light  The location although nice just wasn't suited for the shot. Apart from the shallow depth of field there is no seperation between them and the background.

Live and learn 






Phil.
Are you going with the Canon G-III because it's a 1.7 or are you open to other options?
That camera does seem really nice though


----------



## Philligan

That still looks awesome, it has that medium format feel to it. 

I'm mainly interested in the G-III because it's small, and a "real" rangefinder. I've got that Konica C35, but it's only Program, and uses the Holga style focusing with three distance settings. 

The Canon should have the real rangefinder experience, with the same kind of focusing the Leicas use, and full manual control (with literally every setting on the lens barrel, which blows my mind). I really want full manual, because I like how deliberate it is, and it slows me down. You can't use the built-in meter in manual (not really sure why), but I picked up a battery-less Leica rangefinder hotshoe meter off eBay last week. 

I'm definitely open to other options. I only have my eye on the Canon because I don't know a lot of the other options out there. I like that it's small. I'd like to try a rangefinder in general, but it would be nice to get a more compact one, so I can take it with me when even the AE-1 is a little too big. Something relatively cheap is important to me, too - if I was gonna spend more than $100 or so, I'd be buying a compact digital because it's more practical for me.


----------



## Tang

Real quick guys, what do ya'll think it better? color or b&w? I'm having a tough time with this one.



IMGP9558-2 by nrrfed, on Flickr



skaters by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

That's tough. B&W. The colours don't really add anything specific to the photo, IMHO, and the B&W draws my eyes to the reflection more.

edit: Yeah, definitely B&W. It makes the subjects stand out more for some reason. And, I can't really put my finger on it, but it feels more like a photograph, and less like a snapshot, if that makes any sense.

Just for kicks, mind if I have a go at the RAW file? If the RAW thread's still near the top of the pile, post it in there.


----------



## Tang

I agree with your thoughts, Phil. 

Oh yeah, the RAW has been posted!


----------



## Whammy

Some camera's to look up Phil.

Olympus 35RC
Ricoh 500G
Both are very small.

There is also the Yashica Electro 35

I actually have the konica c35 af2 along with a Petri Computor 35
They were given to me as presents. I've only tried the Petri. I kind of like that camera.

Tang...
B&W. Maybe without the color tone but B&W for sure.


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> Some camera's to look up Phil.
> 
> Olympus 35RC
> Ricoh 500G
> Both are very small.
> 
> There is also the Yashica Electro 35
> 
> I actually have the konica c35 af2 along with a Petri Computor 35
> They were given to me as presents. I've only tried the Petri. I kind of like that camera.
> 
> Tang...
> B&W. Maybe without the color tone but B&W for sure.



The people on my flickr feed must thing I'm schizophrenic based on how many versions of this shot I've posted in the last 2 hours.. I think this will be the final version. I edited my previous post to show the plain B&W version and I think you'll agree that it's much better. In the end, I felt like the split-tone version had WAY too much contrast.


----------



## Philligan

I definitely like the plain B&W. 

edit: Had a go. Posted my thoughts in the RAW thread.



IMGP9558 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Khoi

I prefer the color one

Here's my go at it


----------



## Tang

Oo, this is fun! I love checking out ya'lls versions of that shot! 

Khoi: how do you feel that .dng handled compared to the .cr2's of your Canon gear? 

EDIT: damn, I didn't even realize you cloned out all the extra people! Nice work, man.


----------



## Khoi

Tang said:


> Khoi: how do you feel that .dng handled compared to the .cr2's of your Canon gear?
> 
> EDIT: damn, I didn't even realize you cloned out all the extra people! Nice work, man.



They handle the same, I didn't really notice anything different from a normal CR2. As for the quality of the RAW image provided, I did notice that there was a noticeable amount of green fringing/chromatic aberration. I didn't bother to correct it though because I was lazy.


B&W version just for fun, edited from the JPG


----------



## Rook

Update on my little film saga for anyone following.

First, great news (for me) I figured out the rainbow thing no thanks to Epson who've been talking to all day... In brief, I checked it wasn't on reflective scans - nope, it's gotta be the light, but all the light does is... Guess what. Light up. How could a light be causing the rainbow thing? Well the scanner's CCD calibrates just before the scan by shining the light directly onto the CCD and microadjusting exposure on a pixel level. This exposure is then dragged over the whole scan. Something must be disturbing that light. I'd already cleaned the glass 50 times, so I placed a tiny tiny little fine hair on the glass where the CCD calibrates and hey presto, GIANT RAINBOW.

So something's blocking the light somehow, it's not on the glass or the CCD, it's gotta be on the light. Crack out my loupe and there it is, right where the streak is. A tiny little fleck of shit, I don't know even know what. Screwdriver out, glass off, blower bulb all over the light, I also tangled a wire and had to reopen the case and fix but when I got round to doing a scan.

ITS GONE. THE BLOODY RAINBOW'S GONE. Awesome.

Also I'm getting 3 Provia and 2 Portra 400 back tomorrow so there goes my night, I'm bored of scanning the shitty frames on that clammy test roll hahaha.

So expect some tasty little hassy frames this weekend, yay!

Also my compact film camera is a Kodak Retinette hehe. The Retina is such an incredible camera. No metering or focus though, all guesswork.


----------



## Tang

The kind of shots I'm doing now would be perfect for MF..

goddddddddamnit.


----------



## Rook

I'm mediuming all the formats.


----------



## Tang

Deleted because I reprocessed the shot.


----------



## Khoi

I'm not much of a car guy but I took a picture of my new car. Maybe it'll be an excuse to learn how to light paint? Paging Wretched!!


----------



## Azyiu

Some of you may have heard of the so-called Umbrella Revolution that is going on in Hong Kong. This movement has been nothing but very peaceful, and here are some sight from yesterday (the 4th day):




































For a little more about this movement: Hong Kong protests: 5 things to know about the 'umbrella revolution' - World - CBC News


----------



## Tang

What an opportunity! Stay safe. The shot of the yellow umbrellas is incredible.


----------



## Rook

I agree, umbrella one's very nice


----------



## Tyler




----------



## capoeiraesp

Been a while since I've posted. I think based on recent posts by others I need to invest in a reflector.

Did a lot of travelling recently for a few weddings of old friends.

iPhone shot.





x100s. Played with a cropped version of this but the full shot won out.





6d & 135L









and the Sigma 35mm









Hope you fellas in HK are staying safe!


----------



## Tang

Nice! I like the iPhone shot the most, actually. 



dream within a dream by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I'm just heading out to shoot a wedding in a few minutes. It's a super short one, we're only there for three or four hours. I'm okay with that, because I already worked a full shift today. 

This one's with the girl, not the guy who's been a dick lately. She isn't technically as good as he is, but she's a lot nicer to work with, and she pays me more consistently haha. Between this and potentially selling my 8 string on Monday, I could have a compact coming my way before too long.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Another from the recent shoot. '80s vibes, 669 colour palettes and boobs.

Just a link because BE CAREFUL, NSFW

https://flic.kr/p/peYREz


----------



## Tang

iPhone 4S + Lightroom. Wonky focus is cool now, right?


----------



## Philligan

The wedding went well, but I think my camera's still not focusing like it should. It was definitely front focusing worse with further distances again - I maxed out the micro-adjustment and it seemed better, but I don't know if that's just moving the misfocusing like last time. I'll have to try it at a lower ISO when the light is better.

I'm really not impressed. I honestly have no idea what to do from here. Canon's telling me the camera is normal, and I can consistently get it to front-focus with the PDAF and nail focus in live view. This doesn't help me at all with weddings, where I need to shoot around 2.2 for indoor receptions and everything gets more exaggerated.

Any suggestions? I'm totally at a loss, and the camera's not useful to me if I can't autofocus through the viewfinder at faster apertures.


----------



## Rook

Phil I have some suggestions but no time to type them now, I'll pop back this evening.

I'm just here to post this, my first not fucked up scan of a Portra 160 frame off the Hasselblad.

The exposure latitude of these frames is unbelievable and the resolution way higher than I expected for a colour negative. I really encourage anyone curious to follow the link to my flickr and check out the full 43MPx version of this frame. It's a little soft at that res, but still pretty mind blowing considering the camera's 40 long years old.

Anyway, enjoy another of my pointless test shots!



Hasselblad Test 3 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

That's straight off the scanner by the way, not a tinkered-with tiff.


----------



## Philligan

That looks great. 

I could be wrong, but I was reading some stuff about the 7D AF system, and it sounds like it's a bit different than it looks. Apparently the actual AF sensors are larger than the square in the viewfinder, so it's better for tracking, and I think it's weighted pretty heavily toward speed over accuracy. I know you can adjust that in the menu, so I'll try cranking it toward accuracy and see if that helps. 

I played with the 70D this morning and lower ISO and it didn't seem to have much trouble focusing at faster apertures, but it was really bad last night when I was shooting mostly at 1600. We had a short break in between the bridal shoot and first dance so I tested it, and I maxed out the micro adjustment. But outside today, it was focusing most accurately at +10. 

Anyway, I'll play with the AF some more and see. There's a whole bunch of talk on the internet about it, with some people saying the AF is faulty, and other people saying it just behaves differently than normal. If that's just the case, I'll probably sell the 70D and Sigma 17-50 and use my staff discount to grab a 6D body. I'm not doing anything that requires super fast focusing and tracking, and it's pretty annoying having to take 5-10 shots of everything to make sure one is in focus. I'm not doing a lot of weddings anymore, and the bit of paid work I am getting asked to do is all portrait work, so I think the 6D would suit me a bit better anyway.

Speaking of, a girl at work is entering a fashion show or something like that and asked if I would do head shots for her.


----------



## Tang

I shouldn't drink and visit lensrentals.com! Last night, I almost did something totally ridiculous. I'm shooting a wedding in 2 weeks and was planning on renting a second body so I don't have to switch lenses often. 

Well. 

Apparently, drunk me really wanted to rent a 6D + 85mm f/1.2L. Obviously, a wedding is the absolute worst time to use new gear!

Phil, are you having focusing problems at all distances?


----------



## Whammy

Phil,
Do you always use the center/middle focusing point?




Tang said:


> I shouldn't drink and visit lensrentals.com! Last night, I almost did something totally ridiculous. I'm shooting a wedding in 2 weeks and was planning on renting a second body so I don't have to switch lenses often.
> 
> Well.
> 
> Apparently, drunk me really wanted to rent a 6D + 85mm f/1.2L. Obviously, a wedding is the absolute worst time to use new gear!
> 
> Phil, are you having focusing problems at all distances?



85mm f/1.2L for some portraits at a wedding 

Using a 85mm f/1.2L for the first time at a wedding 

I kid...
But the 85mm is slow to focus (compared to other lenses) and if you are shooting wide open or close to wide open you really need to check the micro adjustment to ensure sharp focusing.

Shooting candid shots with it may cause you to miss a few shots from inaccurate focusing.

It's a challenge using this lens, in a good way. When you pull off the correct focus you feel pretty proud of yourself 

For more composed photos, portraits etc it's amazing. I find I end up composing things differently with this lens. Mainly for the OOF areas. I pay quite a lot of attention to get a gradual drop off from the OOF areas. The lens renders OOF areas so beautifully that it's a shame when people use the lens just to knock the background out of focus with no sense of depth. Having a sense of depth with the bokeh leading you into the distance really shows off the beautiful nuances of the layers of bokeh.
Sure I probably over think this stuff and maybe you plan on using the lens stopped down but I just thought I'd share my opinion 

I'll stick up a photo or two using this lens in the RAW section for you.
I think I have examples of the lens at different f stops on the same subject too. I'll have a look for them.

Oh yeah. The lens is heavy. Like really heavy


----------



## Tang

Whammy, I feel the EXACT same way about my backgrounds and bokeh. Nothing weird there!


----------



## feilong29

A couple of shots from Hawaii


----------



## Rook

Last time I post this image.

I seem to have gotten to grips with Epson's colour correction settings! This came off the scanner at 3200dpi (again, always recommend looking at the full 43mpx file), this time as a tiff with 48bit colour setting instead of 24. You'll notice the blacks are now black, the whites white, and the green cast has faded a little. I didn't spend as long on spot removal this time (the biggest pitfall of film IMO), in Lightroom I just rotated it ever so slightly to make the door frame straight, removed the green cast (the rest of the colour process was done off the scanner), and exported to JPG - turns out LR's a better convertor.

Oh and a little bit of cheesy vignetting.

It's a mundane picture but in terms of all the things that make medium format what it is... Just wow. The dynamic range compared to digital is obscene. The colour transitions are so soft and natural, the transitions from shadow to highlight, the tone... and it's sharp!



V700/Hasselblad Test 4 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Oh go on then, have another.

Exact same process. Black line in the top right is a broken bit of light seal, it's fixed now haha.



V700/Hasselblad Test 5 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Got my iPhone 6 this week! I was always pretty happy with the camera on my iPhone 4, but damn, this is good. It's markedly better in all situations, but the major difference is in low light, which is pretty outstanding on the 6. I already know I'll be using this camera a lot, as I already found myself reaching for my phone in most situations that weren't planned shoots, even if I had my 6D or some analog stuff in my bag. The manual exposure control is also a really, really welcome addition.


A couple of quick samples from the last 2 days.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

On another note, an art director friend of mine and I are planning a fashion shoot for the end of the month. The thing is, I'll need to use lighting, which is something I've barely even touched so far. So a question for you guys with more studio experience: what are some lighting essentials I should pick up? I'm going to pick up some basics and start practicing ASAP. This is going toward building a more professional-looking portfolio.

The shoot is very Michal Pudelka-inspired, which I think speaks to my inclinations as it is, but I need to start knowing wtf I'm doing outside of using the camera and the slight amount of processing I already do.

Michal Pudelka


----------



## Tang

Those look great!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

JeffFromMtl said:


> On another note, an art director friend of mine and I are planning a fashion shoot for the end of the month. The thing is, I'll need to use lighting, which is something I've barely even touched so far. So a question for you guys with more studio experience: what are some lighting essentials I should pick up? I'm going to pick up some basics and start practicing ASAP. This is going toward building a more professional-looking portfolio.
> 
> The shoot is very Michal Pudelka-inspired, which I think speaks to my inclinations as it is, but I need to start knowing wtf I'm doing outside of using the camera and the slight amount of processing I already do.
> 
> Michal Pudelka



A lot of his work is natural light, the little studio work he is doing is high key which is usually a 3+ light setup. His non-studio strobe/flash work looks a lot like Terry Richardson's barebulb flash style. 

It would be easier to nail down recommendations if you could show what the final images are supposed to look like rather than point to his entire catalog of work (either from Pudelka or otherwise).


----------



## Philligan

Sorry for the late reply guys. I pretty much always use the centre focus point, which is dual cross type. 

From what I can tell, the AF just isn't accurate with fast lenses in low artificial light. When I did the calibrations, it was in good light and at ISO 100. All my quick tests in good daylight are fine. Then I get in dark reception halls and my 50 front focuses like crazy, even at 2.2 or 2.8. 

Reading stuff about the 7D makes me think it's just how the AF system works, being weighted so much toward speed and tracking. And Canon said it was up to spec. I read an article on the 7D saying the AF micro adjust optimizes focus for your most commonly used focus distances, not the entire range so much. I think it's so the focus throw is a bit shorter for faster AF. 

Anyway, I posted the 70D and 17-50. I was thinking about upgrading anyway, and the 6D isn't missing anything the 70D offers me. And with my staff discount, selling the 70D and Sigma alone will buy me the 6D. 

Only this is a good time to switch systems. I still think a DSLR will suit best right now, but I'm going to Henry's as we speak to play with the X-T1, just to be sure.

Edit: Forgot to add. 

Tang: The focus got worse at further distances. It was super fast, but not very accurate. It front focused fairly consistently, but some shots were on, which makes me think it's the speed. 

From what I've read, the 6D is slower but super accurate. And that -3EV would be amazing in reception halls. The 70D's centre point is only 0 or -0.5.


----------



## flint757

I can agree with your assessment of the 7D. Auto-focus doesn't work at all for me in low light. Part of the reason why I moved on to manual focus as it started getting rather annoying. When it works it works quite well though. The issue is most of the times I need good auto-focus is in situations where it is less likely to give good results. During broad daylight I'm more likely to be taking candid shots or landscapes where speed isn't a factor. If I were a sports or bird photographer I'd probably be more impressed.


----------



## Philligan

That's interesting to hear, man. I'm glad I don't think it's just me.  I forget if I said, but for one wedding with Dan I shot his D600 with the Sigma 35 1.4A and a Nikon 50 1.4, and all my shots were on. I was taking one shot of everything instead of five or ten, and still getting a better hit rate.

I played with the X-T1. Man, what a sweet little camera. If I could afford buying into a second system, it would be Fuji hands down. As it is, I'm still undecided between that and a 6D, but not in a bad way. I know pretty much exactly what I'm getting into with the 6D, and playing with the Fuji for 15 minutes reassured me. It felt amazing - small but really meaty and metal feeling. 

The EVF was interesting. I definitely noticed the weirdness - it looks great, but there's always that little feeling that what you're seeing isn't real. I was surprised when I took a shot and looked at the screen after, because it looked exactly like I saw it in the viewfinder. It was massive, too. They had fluorescent lights at Henry's, so there was a bit of flickering now and then. I could go either way on the EVF - the positives of it are excellent, but I definitely noticed a difference between that and an OVF.

My only real concerns are battery life (sort of, not really though) and how quickly it focuses in low light. If I wasn't doing weddings, this would pretty much be a non-issue, and I may be done with weddings for the year, so we'll see.

I'm undecided, but not in a bad way. I know they're both great cameras, and each have their plus sides over the other. If I didn't know I had a few paid jobs coming my way, I'd go Fuji for sure. If I knew I'd be doing weddings seriously next summer, I'd go 6D. As it is, I'm leaning toward the Fuji, but I'll wait and see if the 70D even sells before I do anything.


----------



## Rook

If it helps, there's a firmware update due in a few weeks for the X-T1 that will add proper video controls (finally), including full manual exposure and some decent codecs, as well as some super fast electronic shutter (silent!) speeds up to 1/32,000, kinda nuts. Other bugs fixes and stuff too, those are the main ones.

The other useful thing to remember about the EVF, which you'll get used to, is that in low light it amplifies the signal, in some situations where a slower lens or something can seriously darken the viewfinder (thanks to the focusing screen) of an SLR, the X-T1 can account for that.

Really moving from 6D to X-T1, there's a lot more in it than just what's good and what isn't. I've never really had any trouble with focusing, the 6D wasn't exactly a focusing monster and the X-T is more flexible in the sense that you get cross points all over the middle of the sensor and you can change the effective area and junk like that. The battery life difference is obvious but I understand these 'wasabi' batteries you can get for $20 a piece are completely fine, I'd gladly just buy a bunch of those to take with me, again no biggie. My X-T1 does feel more solid in the hand than the huge lump of plastic 6D I think, though it obvious doesn't have the same grip or pro-sounding (lol) shutter as the 6D, the glass is obviously cheaper and usually smaller but also a little bit gappy at the moment. I prefer the look of the noise on the X-T but the 6D goes higher and lower, never caused me a problem despite shooting in plenty of low light situations but I no some people seem to think you have to be able to use 51200 all the time these days.

There's a lot in it, but I have to say, once I have the 90mm f/2 and 16mm f/1.4 I will be completely settled in my Fuji system and won't be looking back. If Fuji do add proper video and some electronic shutter action in too then that's the cherry on top.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

ThePhilosopher said:


> A lot of his work is natural light, the little studio work he is doing is high key which is usually a 3+ light setup. His non-studio strobe/flash work looks a lot like Terry Richardson's barebulb flash style.
> 
> It would be easier to nail down recommendations if you could show what the final images are supposed to look like rather than point to his entire catalog of work (either from Pudelka or otherwise).



There's no particular image I have in mind, but his indoor shots in general. I will be doing a couple of outdoor ones that I'm sure I'll be fine for, but a portion of the shoot will be indoors, which is what I was referring to and should have specified.

And would you be able to elaborate on the barebulb thing, and what exactly it is? I'd actually be really interested in that, since I love the snapshot vibe. Keep in mind I don't know the first thing about artificial lighting and have never employed anything more sophisticated than a couple of desk lamps  thanks!


----------



## Whammy

Had to do a self portrait with the kid today as the wife was getting annoyed that there are no photos of me and him.

I wanted to experiment more today with some ideas that are in my head but I'll just have to do that another day 

I've been taking so many bright and cheerful photos lately when I would prefer to be working on something darker and moodier. But these are all good practice for working with engagement shoots etc and really help with the portfolio for that kind of work.

I would have preferred more dramatic lighting but it was cloudy as shit today. Maybe it's time I stated to look into artificial lighting too.

Taken yet again with the 85mm wide open.






EDIT:
Actually on the artificial light note. I've been thinking of a beauty dish as I've checkout examples of loads of photos with different lighting rigs and I seem to prefer the beauty dish photos (looking at outdoor photos mainly). Second to that is a softbox.
Philosopher, do you have any experence with using a beauty dish?


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> If it helps, there's a firmware update due in a few weeks for the X-T1 that will add proper video controls (finally), including full manual exposure and some decent codecs, as well as some super fast electronic shutter (silent!) speeds up to 1/32,000, kinda nuts. Other bugs fixes and stuff too, those are the main ones.
> 
> The other useful thing to remember about the EVF, which you'll get used to, is that in low light it amplifies the signal, in some situations where a slower lens or something can seriously darken the viewfinder (thanks to the focusing screen) of an SLR, the X-T1 can account for that.
> 
> Really moving from 6D to X-T1, there's a lot more in it than just what's good and what isn't. I've never really had any trouble with focusing, the 6D wasn't exactly a focusing monster and the X-T is more flexible in the sense that you get cross points all over the middle of the sensor and you can change the effective area and junk like that. The battery life difference is obvious but I understand these 'wasabi' batteries you can get for $20 a piece are completely fine, I'd gladly just buy a bunch of those to take with me, again no biggie. My X-T1 does feel more solid in the hand than the huge lump of plastic 6D I think, though it obvious doesn't have the same grip or pro-sounding (lol) shutter as the 6D, the glass is obviously cheaper and usually smaller but also a little bit gappy at the moment. I prefer the look of the noise on the X-T but the 6D goes higher and lower, never caused me a problem despite shooting in plenty of low light situations but I no some people seem to think you have to be able to use 51200 all the time these days.
> 
> There's a lot in it, but I have to say, once I have the 90mm f/2 and 16mm f/1.4 I will be completely settled in my Fuji system and won't be looking back. If Fuji do add proper video and some electronic shutter action in too then that's the cherry on top.



Cool, that's pretty much exactly what I was thinking.  The only minor concern I still have is how capable it is at focusing in low light vs the 6D, but I'm under the impression that the Fuji either focuses or it doesn't, right? As long as the capability of the AF is somewhat similar to the Canon, I'm okay with that. I'd rather have the camera tell me it didn't focus so I know to try again, than have it tell me it's focused and give me an out of focus shot.

Like I said, I'm not really deciding one way or the other until I sell my 70D, but between that and the 17-50, and my RG8 that I just sold this morning (oh yes), I should be able to buy the 6D and grab the 40mm pancake so I've got a relatively small walk around camera. It's that or sell my 50mm as well, and go Fuji. I need to check my staff discount on the X-T1, but we don't sell many Fuji lenses at work, so I'd be buying the lenses from Henry's. I'd maybe get the 23 1.4 if I had enough money, but I'd probably shoot for the 35 and an 18-55 or 27mm pancake to be safe.

On the topic of noise, I try not to shoot my 70D over 1600, and didn't shoot the Nikon at 3200 if I could avoid it. So the Fuji's 6400 clears that anyway, and I preferred the high ISO out of the Fuji over the 6D. It's a wee bit noisier, but it's smoother and grainier, and doesn't have all the harsh colour noise that the Canons have.


----------



## Skyblue

Went for a walk last saturday, took this with the phone.


----------



## Tang

I had the great luck of catching the rising moon when I was out shooting street yesterday. Here's a couple of shots. Completely focused on composition.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Whammy said:


> Philosopher, do you have any experence with using a beauty dish?



I have a large eBay dish that I've used quite often on location when it was too windy for other modifiers. I had a grid for it, but it warped due to poor construction and wouldn't fit correctly in the dish any longer. For indoor stuff I would only use it with a grid, but being from eBay it was too heavy for my lightstands with the grid and would threaten to fall over if I raised it too high so it was always a risk.

I am thinking of buying a better quality BD later this year (something like a Mola Setti or Euro).


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> Cool, that's pretty much exactly what I was thinking.  The only minor concern I still have is how capable it is at focusing in low light vs the 6D, but I'm under the impression that the Fuji either focuses or it doesn't, right? As long as the capability of the AF is somewhat similar to the Canon, I'm okay with that. I'd rather have the camera tell me it didn't focus so I know to try again, than have it tell me it's focused and give me an out of focus shot.
> 
> Like I said, I'm not really deciding one way or the other until I sell my 70D, but between that and the 17-50, and my RG8 that I just sold this morning (oh yes), I should be able to buy the 6D and grab the 40mm pancake so I've got a relatively small walk around camera. It's that or sell my 50mm as well, and go Fuji. I need to check my staff discount on the X-T1, but we don't sell many Fuji lenses at work, so I'd be buying the lenses from Henry's. I'd maybe get the 23 1.4 if I had enough money, but I'd probably shoot for the 35 and an 18-55 or 27mm pancake to be safe.
> 
> On the topic of noise, I try not to shoot my 70D over 1600, and didn't shoot the Nikon at 3200 if I could avoid it. So the Fuji's 6400 clears that anyway, and I preferred the high ISO out of the Fuji over the 6D. It's a wee bit noisier, but it's smoother and grainier, and doesn't have all the harsh colour noise that the Canons have.



Well the advantages the X-T1 has in that sense are:
- you're seeing what the camera sees, it can't focus on something without you knowing and if you're ever not sure you just tap 'focus assist' and there it is at 100%.
- you're looking at the sensor so it can amplify low light signals, you'll very likely see more through the EVF than you would through an SLR OVF with that fresnel lens in the way sucking up a load of light.
- it uses contrast and phase detect AF in tandem, so the fact is if you can see something, the camera can focus on it. If that's not enough, you have focus peaking too.

I thought my X-Pro1 wouldn't focus in low light with my 56, it turns out that was my fault, I hadn't updated some firmware, as soon as I did it was fine.

I shoot in dark gloomy studios and at sound checks in gigs, I've never had a problem with focus. There are odd times where it might hunt where the 6D wouldnt, but there are others where it just snaps straight to focus on a fraction of a second and the 6D never did that.

I dunno, there are odd things I've missed about the 6D but focus has never been one. Video was the biggest thing but they're about to solve that it seems!


----------



## Wretched




----------



## feilong29

I really wanted to get that rainbow to 'pop' but, eh... not the best edit but it's still pretty


----------



## Whammy

With all the talk of getting new cameras I'm still undecided on what I want my next step to be.
Sure an upgrade in IQ and noise would be great for myself but I feel that when the final result is displayed to a client those issues that may exists in my head are non-existent in theirs.
I'm going to hold out for a camera that has the IQ upgrade I am looking for while also addressing my other needs, lens options, features, battery life etc.

Plus I've printed out the last photo I did pretty big and for a camera designed 6 or so years ago I am still more than happy with the results. I think we can over do it with pixel peeping.
ISO was 800 because I wanted a high shutter speed to freeze any movement. Think I had it over 1/1000.

I'm not saying anything about the photo but regarding quality and detail I don't feel like this is an old outdated camera.

Here is a link to a 2048x1365 crop of the photo.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dirtyhamster/15436140936/sizes/k/
The full res photo is 5616x3774

So yeah, seeing that I am currently happy with the performance from my camera I'm going to look into developing my own style with artificial lighting etc.
If I can improve my photos in an artistic sense rather than in a pixel peeping context than I think that is worth pursuing 

I still _want_ a new camera really bad though


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's exactly how I feel about leaving my D3. For a higher performing body with greater IQ, I have to spend quite a bit. One of my biggest holdouts is that someone will come out an electronic shutter to get sync speeds up above 1/250s or finding a DMF setup for not too much money (the Hassy system is up to 1/800s and the PO stuff is at 1/1600s).

Finally got around to writing and posting this up: Natural Light Looks


----------



## Rook

Well it turns out Provia is kinda amazing.



Hand Stitching by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Waiter by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Margit by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Chain Bridge 2 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Chain Bridge 1 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Budapest Street by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Provia is good stuff, I always preferred the look of Astia though.


----------



## Rook

And here are some Portra 400's.

Turns out you have to relearn the bloody colour controls for each film hence the purple cast on the Provias... Portra was more familiar though. You may see some hazing on some of these, I'm blaming the X-Rays for that. That's life though.



Louise by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Cathedral by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Grand Market Hall by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Man at the Bar by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Sitting on Danube by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Two Girls on Bench by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Tram 3 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

Plenty more to go, don't worry though I won't post them all here, just glad to finally have these back!


----------



## Philligan

So much film haha. Awesome stuff guys. 



Rook said:


> Well the advantages the X-T1 has in that sense are:
> - you're seeing what the camera sees, it can't focus on something without you knowing and if you're ever not sure you just tap 'focus assist' and there it is at 100%.
> - you're looking at the sensor so it can amplify low light signals, you'll very likely see more through the EVF than you would through an SLR OVF with that fresnel lens in the way sucking up a load of light.
> - it uses contrast and phase detect AF in tandem, so the fact is if you can see something, the camera can focus on it. If that's not enough, you have focus peaking too.
> 
> I thought my X-Pro1 wouldn't focus in low light with my 56, it turns out that was my fault, I hadn't updated some firmware, as soon as I did it was fine.
> 
> I shoot in dark gloomy studios and at sound checks in gigs, I've never had a problem with focus. There are odd times where it might hunt where the 6D wouldnt, but there are others where it just snaps straight to focus on a fraction of a second and the 6D never did that.
> 
> I dunno, there are odd things I've missed about the 6D but focus has never been one. Video was the biggest thing but they're about to solve that it seems!



Awesome. I don't mind too much for video. It's more form factor (I'd take this out more) and AF that I'm looking for. I don't expect or care if the AF is *better* than the 6D, just different. I really don't mind if it hunts once in a while or doesn't lock focus, as long as it doesn't tell me it's in focus. That's what really bugs me about the 70D in low light - no matter what I do, there are times when it tells me it's in focus and it's not. I'd gladly take slower focus over one that's fast but inaccurate.

So I've basically talked myself into the Fuji. If anything for the fact that I'd take it more places than a 6D, and I'm probably not gonna be taking enough DSLR jobs that I'd regret it. If I sell my Canon gear, I can definitely afford the X-T1 and at least one lens. I'm thinking the 35 1.4, because it's long enough that I could get away with portraits with it, and it's small. Then I'd probably grab either the 18mm or the 27mm pancake, or the cheap zooms for versatility.

On a more sad note, I got one reply to my ad today, and the guy low balled me really badly.  He talked me into driving two hours to meet him (fair enough), then said he couldn't go any higher than $650 for the body because he was gonna have to spend money on gas to meet up with me. Hopefully I get a better reply soon. I'm really tempted to price them really low to sell, but I don't have any paid gigs coming up til December, so I should use the off time wisely and sit on my stuff til I get a decent offer.


----------



## Tang

Seeing all this film stuff makes me hate how digital handles highlights close to clipping. I need medium format in my life yesterday. Thinking about a TLR and kicking it real old school on the streets. I've come to love the square format and I think it'd be absolutely perfect. 







EDIT: I found this shot in a Vivian Maier photo book and it made me see the light re: medium format. It looks alright in the web version but it's STUNNING in the 8x10 version in the book. Such clarity. You can also see that she's a huge influence to me.


----------



## Wretched

Just a few images from Devildriver's gig at the HiFi in Sydney on Sept 6.





















Whitechapel


----------



## Tang

This shot became very popular on flickr to my great surprise. Second explore this week!


----------



## Wretched

Just a few shots from a car shoot the other day:


----------



## Tang

Love the side profile with the way-red highlights in the sky. Cool look, man!


----------



## Whammy

Looks like my idea to hold out for a newer camera to make the upgrade worth while might be a reality 
It seems that Canon may be working on a multi-layered sensor.
The rumor is that it will go in a 1dx replacement and one other camera. I'm hoping it's a 5d mkIV as I currently feel that the mkIII, although a step up from the mkII isn't quite worth the money considering the upgrades I'd be getting.

Come on Canon. You're falling behind on the body front and need to step up. Don't let me down. I don't want to go through the hassle of changing system


----------



## flint757

Unless they release an entirely new line I'd think it'd be the 5d Mk IV, but who knows. 

I think I've settled on going mirrorless with the Panasonic GH4 and a speed booster adapter to go with all of my old nikon lenses. Going full frame is something I'd love to do, but I've got limited funds and need to be a bit more pragmatic in my options. The GH4 has some pretty awesome features for video work that make it much more worthwhile in the end. It'll make an excellent B camera once I pick up a black magic BMCC too. Kind of hoping they have another flash sale with the pocket camera like they did over the summer. They were selling them for about $500 which is insanely cheap for what you're getting.


----------



## Rook

Don't worry too much about full frame, the GH4 is a monster!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Looking through some of my older medium format film shots makes me want digital access to this look.

Portra160NC









Expired Ektachrome









Neopan Acros 100









Plus-X


----------



## Philligan

flint757 said:


> Unless they release an entirely new line I'd think it'd be the 5d Mk IV, but who knows.
> 
> I think I've settled on going mirrorless with the Panasonic GH4 and a speed booster adapter to go with all of my old nikon lenses. Going full frame is something I'd love to do, but I've got limited funds and need to be a bit more pragmatic in my options. The GH4 has some pretty awesome features for video work that make it much more worthwhile in the end. It'll make an excellent B camera once I pick up a black magic BMCC too. Kind of hoping they have another flash sale with the pocket camera like they did over the summer. They were selling them for about $500 which is insanely cheap for what you're getting.



Watch Philip Bloom's GH4 review. IIRC the video coming out of that straight up looks better than the 5D3 and the little Black Magic. If you're gonna be shooting mostly video, that's probably your best bet, and it's a great camera for still photography, too. I sorta considered an OM-D to replace my Canon stuff instead of Fuji, but for weddings I don't think the high ISO would cut it. The crop factor's nice and easy to figure out at least.


----------



## flint757

Yeah, my setup is in the long, long run is going to be the Black magic cinema camera 2.5K and the GH4 (as a B camera and photography). I'd only ever get the pocket camera if they did a flash sale again for only 500 bucks. That's so cheap for what you're getting it'd be dumb to pass up almost. I wish I hadn't missed the last sale.


----------



## Tang

This was fun! I had a work meeting at a reasonably nice hotel and they had this thin, clear waterfall contained in glass separating two rooms. I chose the view facing the front door and just waited for someone interesting to come into frame. I kept the shutter speed fairly low (1/50s) to try and capture the motion, which, I hope would give the shot a kind of painterly feel. I cropped it in such a way as to make the left-side look like the frame of a painting shot fairly close up. Does any of this make sense?

Oh yeah, special guest appearance by The Predator. Funny how your mind loves to put faces in things where there are no faces.



watercolor in frame by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## flint757

It's funny because before reading what you wrote I actually thought it was a painting and I did think it was some sort of abstract alien.


----------



## Rook

Here are some Provia frames I've actually put some time into. The resolution of these frames is unbelievable, I definitely suggest having a look at the huge files on my Flickr.



Mercer Street by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Sweet Seller by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

I'm imagining this with the above used Provia and medium format.. time to step my game up! Regardless, I ....ing love reflections, especially when whatever is behind the reflection has a sense of depth.



201 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

I could see you with a Pentax 67, wooden handle and all


----------



## Tang

Hell yeah!

Another from yesterday.


----------



## Rook

Excellent Pentax 67 with SMC 67 90mm F 2 8 Medium Format from Japan | eBay

$580's a good price man with dat standard focal length.


----------



## Philligan

Well, it happened. 

Sold my 70D and Sigma today to some guys from Toronto who are into video. When I got back to work, I ordered an X-T1. We haven't got any good Fuji lenses in stock, so when I sell my 50 1.4 on Wednesday, I'm gonna go to Henry's and grab the 35 1.4. I'm really pining for the 23, but it's out of my price range, and I'm probably gonna have a couple portrait sessions coming up (including head shots), so I think I'd be a bit safer with a 50mm equivalent for now. Not to mention, if I was gonna drop $1k on a lens, I'd seriously be considering the 10-24. I played with it the other day, and it's awesome.


----------



## Khoi

Guys,

the GAS is getting real. I'm thinking about selling one of my guitars to invest in some more glass. I can't just stick with a 50mm forever. 

I should probably be responsible and go for something more realistic though, maybe a Canon 85mm 1.8 and Sigma 35mm ART? I'd really love the 85mm f/1.2, but it's just way too expensive right now..


----------



## Rook

Unless you're shooting portraits in a studio, have enough time to wait for the lens to focus or care enough to want to carry around all the weight, the 85 1.2 really isn't the best option out there, it's very specialised. I live with my dad and as soon as he bought one and gave me access to it I was totally over it after like 2 weeks haha. It's a fantastic lens but it doesn't look so fantastic to me any more that it's worth all the money, weight and time it costs these days.

For an 85 I really enjoyed my Zeiss 1.4, for half the price and weight of the Canon 1.2 and a - not the sharpest - unmatched, classic 'Planar' look that nothing else really replicates. Then I got an 18mm. If I could have afforded I've have slotted a ~25mm in the middle and been done aside from a medium tele but I don't have much of a use for those. I like Zeiss but they aren't always an affordable alternative despite always being manual focus. I love the 'look' of each of their lenses I've tried, particularly in comparison to Canon, but canon tend to favour neutrality which I can understand for a 'pro' brand looking to suit as many needs as possible. If I went for a 36mm frame again now I'd go Zeiss again, but thankfully I can shoot the classic Zeiss designs on my 6x6 setup which kinda quenches that for me somewhat 


Would you not find having two standards and a very short tele a little limited?


----------



## flint757

If money is an issue and manual focus is an option old glass is always an option too. Adapters are pretty cheap as well.


----------



## Tang

Khoi said:


> Guys,
> 
> the GAS is getting real. I'm thinking about selling one of my guitars to invest in some more glass. I can't just stick with a 50mm forever.
> 
> I should probably be responsible and go for something more realistic though, maybe a Canon 85mm 1.8 and Sigma 35mm ART? I'd really love the 85mm f/1.2, but it's just way too expensive right now..



Sigma's current 85 1.4 is a helluva deal, IMO. Absolutely gorgeous bokeh and it would slay on a FF body.

I got this as close as I could. My main priority was making sure the light poles were straight and let all the other lines fall where they may. I like it.


----------



## Whammy

As a 85mm 1.2 user I have a few things to add.

Unless you have a specific need for the lens then other alternates like the canon 1.8 should be considered. The 1.2 is not a one trick pony but it is a bit of a niche lens and you need to consider the price against how often you'll use the lens.

At 1.2 the lens is very hard to use and focus. It's heavy as hell and is slow to focus. It still focuses considerably faster than you could by hand but it is slower compared to other lenses like the 1.8 when it comes to auto focus.

As I stated though the lens is not a one trick pony, even if many photographers with this lens can only use it for studio portraits.
Obviously for portraits it's a great focal length and the 1.2 will give a look that other lenses can't.
That being said a 1.4 lens will give similar results regarding depth of field although the bokeh will be of a different character.
This lens is also great for astrophotography and landscape. Something a lot of people over look with this lens.

I use this lens for portraits and landscape and use it quite a lot.
It's heavy and hard to use and I do wish for something lighter to carry. But at the end of the day I am more than happy with the results I get from this lens to the point that the flaws and weight don't bother me.

I have since printed loads of photos from this lens large and my love for the lens has only been amplified.


----------



## Rook

I like 85 as a length for a lot of things, absolutely; I could definitely manually focus my Zeiss at least as fast as the 1.2 AF if I use focus confirmation though haha.

Since doing a side by side of the 1.2 and my Fuji 56, aside from the depth of field difference I've pretty well lost interest in the Canon. It's a great lens but there's a lot that excel in the same or are better at other things for better money and more compact packages. Money no object though, I'd still have an 85 1.2 haha.


----------



## Khoi

Yeah, the more I research about the 85 1.2, the more it isn't an option for me.

I guess I should have specified that I'm looking for lenses to use for more video applications. The 50mm is okay with video, but I need a wider variety of lenses for different cinematic purposes, like wide shots (35mm would be great I think) and close-ups (85mm would do great here too). 

For photography, I might have to pick up another 135mm. I feel like with a 50 and 135, I don't need anything else 

(just kidding, you can never have too much!)


----------



## Tang

135 f/2L. 



EDIT: too soon, Khoi? Didn't realize it was you!


----------



## Rook

Well you'll find the (stunning) 135 f2 has a similar close focus distance to most 85's which might be better for headshots for your video work too, it's also pretty compact for its length and speed, deadly fast to focus and razor sharp.

For video, something with IS might be the way to go, have you considered the 16-35 IS? That's gunna be a great handheld video lens, plus the 50 and say the 135, you've got an awesome range.


----------



## japs5607

I know my skill is far below some of you guys on here. But I though I would give candle photography a go this evening. 

Pretty pleased with the results

















Input gratefully received 

Thanks


----------



## Tang

I actually really like the b&w. Nice use of DOF!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I just dropped off a roll of slide on my way to work to have it developed. Should be done in a few days. Otherwise, I haven't been out with any of my cameras lately because of my 70-hour work weeks.

Some quick stuff from the new phone:


----------



## soliloquy

this is an art installation called 'global rainbow'. as the name implies, it travels around quiet a bit. its in my city currently


----------



## Whammy

japs5607 said:


> I know my skill is far below some of you guys on here. But I though I would give candle photography a go this evening.
> 
> Pretty pleased with the results
> 
> Input gratefully received
> 
> Thanks



A few notes if you want to try them out 

I know you wanted to give candle photography a go. But just because the topic is a candle doesn't mean the only thing in the photo needs to be a candle.
Create a setting. Show the candle glowing away but also show the light being cast outwards. Have objects near by that are lit by the candle. Not only will the photo be of a candle but it will also show how it lights near by objects while also casting long shadows outwards.
All of a sudden a simple photo of a candle can become a lot more engaging by putting in into context.

The tiled background in some of the photos where you had a shallow depth of field...
If you pulled the candles further away from the tiles the background would be rendered out of focus, creating more of a sense of isolation.

When using a shallow depth of field try a few different focus points.
Some people don't like it when objects in the foreground are out of focus. Also most lenses render backgrounds out of focus in a more pleasing way compared to rendering the foreground out of focus.
Give it a go if you haven't already


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I was going to suggest some focus stacking to get the candles in focus and blur the rest of the image.


----------



## japs5607

Whammy said:


> A few notes if you want to try them out
> 
> I know you wanted to give candle photography a go. But just because the topic is a candle doesn't mean the only thing in the photo needs to be a candle.
> Create a setting. Show the candle glowing away but also show the light being cast outwards. Have objects near by that are lit by the candle. Not only will the photo be of a candle but it will also show how it lights near by objects while also casting long shadows outwards.
> All of a sudden a simple photo of a candle can become a lot more engaging by putting in into context.
> 
> The tiled background in some of the photos where you had a shallow depth of field...
> If you pulled the candles further away from the tiles the background would be rendered out of focus, creating more of a sense of isolation.
> 
> When using a shallow depth of field try a few different focus points.
> Some people don't like it when objects in the foreground are out of focus. Also most lenses render backgrounds out of focus in a more pleasing way compared to rendering the foreground out of focus.
> Give it a go if you haven't already



Thanks Whammy. I think il try a subject next. I had planned to use some glass candle holders with the candles lighting them up. But they looked rubbish. 

It's all a learning curve.


----------



## Tang

trying to push myself to try new things. I'm not sure how well it's working but I know it'll help improve me as a photographer.



skyline by nrrfed, on Flickr



reflection #3 by nrrfed, on Flickr



circular doors by nrrfed, on Flickr



reflection #1b by nrrfed, on Flickr



things going on by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Khoi

Anyone edit with a Wacom tablet?

I just ordered one, I'm super excited to start using it. The whole mouse/keyboard thing for 8+ hours/day isn't working out for me; by the end of a day of editing, my hands/wrists feel really weak and sore. I think I'm starting to develop a serious case of RSI, so hopefully this helps out.


----------



## coffeeflush

Tang said:


> trying to push myself to try new things. I'm not sure how well it's working but I know it'll help improve me as a photographer.
> 
> 
> 
> skyline by nrrfed, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> reflection #3 by nrrfed, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> circular doors by nrrfed, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> reflection #1b by nrrfed, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> things going on by nrrfed, on Flickr




This is so cool. I opened this thread to check some ideas because I have to photograph a building I completed (no photographer, just an engineer). 

And behold !


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Khoi said:


> Anyone edit with a Wacom tablet?
> 
> I just ordered one, I'm super excited to start using it. The whole mouse/keyboard thing for 8+ hours/day isn't working out for me; by the end of a day of editing, my hands/wrists feel really weak and sore. I think I'm starting to develop a serious case of RSI, so hopefully this helps out.



I've been using a Wacom for 4 or 5 years now, and I'm finally going to upgrade from my Intous 2 to a Intous Pro. I don't use pressure sensitivity as I'm too inconsistent with my pressure so I just use flow rate to adjust how quickly things build up. There are also a ton of shortcuts people don't really know about in PS.

Alt+[ and Alt+] switch between layers, Shift+numbers to change opacity, numbers to change flow...really knowing these is time saver. I have my pen setup so that the bottom most button is the space bar (to drag around an image) and the top button on the grip is step backward.


----------



## metal_sam14

Here are some edits from my recent trip to New Zealand: 


Lake Taupo by TasmanSam, on Flickr


Wheel and Tube by TasmanSam, on Flickr


Waterfall and Grass by TasmanSam, on Flickr


Bridge by TasmanSam, on Flickr


----------



## Kwirk

Some live stuff from the past few months:

Michael of Circus Maximus:




Nils of Pagan's Mind:




Simone of DGM:




Einar of Leprous:




Elize and Olof of Amaranthe:




Within Temptation:


----------



## Khoi

ThePhilosopher said:


> I've been using a Wacom for 4 or 5 years now, and I'm finally going to upgrade from my Intous 2 to a Intous Pro. I don't use pressure sensitivity as I'm too inconsistent with my pressure so I just use flow rate to adjust how quickly things build up. There are also a ton of shortcuts people don't really know about in PS.
> 
> Alt+[ and Alt+] switch between layers, Shift+numbers to change opacity, numbers to change flow...really knowing these is time saver. I have my pen setup so that the bottom most button is the space bar (to drag around an image) and the top button on the grip is step backward.



That's great to hear, I ordered a Small Intuos 5. I hope that's big enough, from what I've read, it should be pretty good for me. I also got a good deal on a refurbished one, so if it doesn't work out I can always return it.


----------



## flint757

If you're working with a single monitor in 1080p then the small intuos is perfect. For dual and higher resolutions I'd go medium. I'd love to own a large wacom tablet, but they are huge and take up too much desk space.


----------



## Tang

I'm about to dive in head first with Photoshop. I have a shot (will more than likeliness end up b&w) and Lightroom just isn't cutting it.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

flint757 said:


> If you're working with a single monitor in 1080p then the small intuos is perfect. For dual and higher resolutions I'd go medium. I'd love to own a large wacom tablet, but they are huge and take up too much desk space.



On a 2+ monitor setup I move all my tools to the second monitor and map my tablet only to the first monitor with the image so I can utilize as much of the area for retouching as possible.


----------



## Khoi

flint757 said:


> If you're working with a single monitor in 1080p then the small intuos is perfect. For dual and higher resolutions I'd go medium. I'd love to own a large wacom tablet, but they are huge and take up too much desk space.



I'm am working on a dual monitor setup (only 21.5", 1920x1080) but I plan on running one monitor at a time and using the monitor switch button. I was looking it up and that method seems way more efficient. That way you also get the most real estate out of the tablet.


----------



## flint757

That's definitely a solid workflow. I use mine mostly for modelling in CGI though. If I'm using the tablet I try to avoid having to reach for my mouse if possible.

[EDIT]

Yeah, switching is super useful. There's also a precision window so you can just focus in on an area that will utilize the entire tablet surface in just a couple square inches of space if needed. I use that a lot for nit-picky detail stuff if I don't want to physically zoom in on what I'm working on.


----------



## Wretched

Khoi said:


> Anyone edit with a Wacom tablet?
> 
> I just ordered one, I'm super excited to start using it. The whole mouse/keyboard thing for 8+ hours/day isn't working out for me; by the end of a day of editing, my hands/wrists feel really weak and sore. I think I'm starting to develop a serious case of RSI, so hopefully this helps out.



Yeah, I couldn't do what I do without one. Takes a day or two to get used to the feeling of it, but before you know it you'll be a natural.


----------



## Khoi

It sounds like I made the right choice then!

Not only should it help with my wrist fatigue, but as a lefty, I never really felt comfortable drawing and painting in Photoshop with my right hand, so hopefully this helps out as well


----------



## Tang

Is a Wacom tablet worth it even if I have terrible handwriting/drawing skills? I mean truly awful. I ask because I feel like most of my work will be shifting to portraits pretty soon and retouching in a pain in the ass on a laptop trackpad. I think I've earned something easier.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Yes, IMO it's far more intuitive on where to put the cursor with a pencil-type device as opposed to a mouse/trackpad/other pointing device, and if you're like me and terribly inconsistent as far as pen pressure you can turn all that off and use keyboard shortcuts for things like brush size and flow to build up effects/colors/masks slowly. The only thing I rarely use pen pressure for now is controlling taper when I have to hand-draw hair(s) and the built-in taper settings take too long to dial in correctly.


----------



## Khoi

Tang said:


> Is a Wacom tablet worth it even if I have terrible handwriting/drawing skills? I mean truly awful. I ask because I feel like most of my work will be shifting to portraits pretty soon and retouching in a pain in the ass on a laptop trackpad. I think I've earned something easier.



I'm a terrible drawer myself but it should at least help when tracing things to mask and clone stamping 


Here are some great things you could do with it in terms of adjusting the brush sizes and photo editing:

You could start at like 1:35 or something (or the beginning, it's short)


----------



## Philligan

I was just looking at a Wacom at work on Sunday - just the standard Intuos. I'm mainly interested in it for adjusting stuff like exposure on people, because trying to outline or fill in areas with a trackpad is terrible.

Can I use that to make a handwritten watermark, too? I've got a copy of Illustrator I could do it with. I've scanned a signature, I just don't want to have to outline the whole thing with the trackpad. 

Here's a little teaser. Proper photos will come tomorrow, when I actually have a lens.  Tonight involved reading the manual and setting up the menus and custom functions. This thing is awesome, it's a tiny brick.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Khoi said:


> I'm a terrible drawer myself but it should at least help when tracing things to mask and clone stamping



Exactly, there's no way in hell I'd try to do this with a mouse:


----------



## Tang

Phil: I'm jelly. Like Zoidberg on the eve of his species mating ritual jelly. Overflowing.

And here's a little proof-of-concept.. I would've done more with this but an overzealous security officer did not appreciate me appropriating his mirrors. Damn.



fun with wall-e by nrrfed, on Flickr



fun at the fort by nrrfed, on Flickr



landing view by nrrfed, on Flickr

I know I've been posting alot, but I've been shooting alot so I guess that's fair? I've gotta keep the Pentax spirit alive with all you Fuji nuts.


----------



## Philligan

I really like the one of the girl jumping man.

I was pretty nervous ditching my Canon stuff for Fuji, especially without spending a whole lot of time on one. I'm glad I went with the X-T1 over the X-E2 though - I've been bugging Nick about them like crazy over the past week.  I'm able to get the X-T1 and 35 1.4 without spending any money other than what my old gear sold for, and I had to choose between that or the X-E2 with the 35 and one other lens. I went with the X-T1 just to be safe, because it's better overall, still has a firmware update coming (whereas the E2 already got its firmware update), and because, at the end of the day, it's the camera I really wanted, and I've gotta live with it alone for who knows how long. 50mm equivalent is versatile enough, and if I'm desperate for something wider I'll grab the 18 f2 on the cheap from work. 

I'll have the 35 in a few hours, and then we're going to Detroit for the afternoon/evening, so I'm hoping some awesome street photos will follow.


----------



## Philligan

Game on.


----------



## Philligan

Straight out of camera.


----------



## Tang

dat jpg engine.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A little work on the mundane.


----------



## Philligan

After shooting for the evening: man, this camera is awesome. I seriously don't have a single complaint, other than the fact that the shutter speed dial seems to have a lock button, but it doesn't actually do anything. 

AF is great. Definitely not as fast as my 70D, especially in low light, but it's dead accurate every shot. In-camera JPGs are great - they smooth out the skin tones a bit too much at high ISOs, but that's the worst of it, and RAWs are fine. The handling is awesome, and it's so discreet. I prefer this tilting LCD to the full-on flippy screen of the 70D - I rarely ever needed to bring the screen out beside the camera, and it's a lot faster to tilt it up or down on the X-T1. And of course, the wifi. Being able to send those excellent JPGs straight to my phone is great.



DSCF1120 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF1106 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF1096 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF1100 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF1088 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF1077 by philbabbey, on Flickr

And a selfie of course. 



DSCF1057 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

The 35 is the chase of your slow focusing, the lenses that use a retro focus design (internal, rear element) are way way faster, the 35 chatters and whirrs about a bit. The 18 does the same.

You look like you're having fun!


----------



## Tang

Yeah, I'm a little jelly of that Fuji action, but I'll get over it  Me and my Tamron will have a drink to celebrate.



one by one by nrrfed, on Flickr



garage sale? by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> The 35 is the chase of your slow focusing, the lenses that use a retro focus design (internal, rear element) are way way faster, the 35 chatters and whirrs about a bit. The 18 does the same.
> 
> You look like you're having fun!



I noticed the chattering. It doesn't bug me, because it's not much worse than Canon's 50 1.4, if at all. It is making me wonder if I'd want to get the 18mm, though. I like this lens, a lot, but if the new ones are even better, then that's awesome.  The upside to the 18 is that it's a focal length I'd use a lot, I can get my staff discount on it, it's a pancake, and it's got f2 if I want it. We'll see what happens when I can afford to buy another lens haha.

I really want to get out and shoot raws with it and peep them on the computer. I love the JPGs it does, but I remember how crazy the raws were that you sent me a while ago, Nick.


----------



## Philligan




----------



## Whammy

Nice one Phil. I thought you'd never make the change 

I decided to do an on going project taking photos of my son. Really original I know 
The idea is to make a collection of photos of him growing up while also documenting the seasons changing.
I'd like to experiment with how much of the landscape I capture in the frame.
I prefer to stay away from wide angle lenses as I feel when you add a person into the landscape a proper sense of scale is lost. I'd rather stay around the 35mm to 85mm range and just get further away.

This photo was taken with the 55mm f/1.2
I normally try and take outdoor portraits when there is a back lit sun low enough in the sky. But it's been miserable and super cloudy all day today and thought I should probably try and shoot today anyway as relying on the weather for good lighting is developing into a bit of a crutch.

So yeah, I decided to shoot at a lake so the water would act as a source of back lighting. I also intentionally shot with my 55mm as it produces a lot of ghosting.
I was actually in the photo holding a reflector (my son was actually looking at me) but I took a second photo afterwards with nobody in the frame and edited me out of it.

I don't know what I'd do without a tripod and remote shutter release


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> I seriously don't have a single complaint, other than the fact that the shutter speed dial seems to have a lock button, but it doesn't actually do anything.



I'm pretty sure the lock button is only for the "A" setting on the shutter dial. I don't own a fuji so I could be wrong


----------



## Rook

^spot on.

The 18's a great little lens, i sold mine to pay for the 23 but if I had the spare change I'd totally have kept it.

Bit soft on the edges, but a nice length, very fast and the chattering is a lot quieter than the 35. It focuses faster too.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> ^spot on.
> 
> The 18's a great little lens, i sold mine to pay for the 23 but if I had the spare change I'd totally have kept it.
> 
> Bit soft on the edges, but a nice length, very fast and the chattering is a lot quieter than the 35. It focuses faster too.



Aw man, right when I settled on the 10-24, you talk me back into the 18mm. 

But seriously, a new lens is gonna be a ways down the road. If I can make some extra money at work, I'd think about the 18, because I can get it for almost 1/3 of what the 10-24 would cost me. I'll think about that when the time comes.

Also, thanks Whammy.  That was really bugging me, and that's definitely it.

My adapter showed up today.





I took a few quick ones around the house (sadly, I need to work on a paper tonight and don't have a lot of time) and focusing is great on it. The split image is pretty much useless haha but the focus peaking is great, and the EVF is so big and sharp you can focus pretty well without any assist. I'd love if they changed the split image to be more like the traditional one (one more obvious split instead of a few subtle ones), but the rest is so good it doesn't matter.


----------



## Philligan

Man, raw files are pretty much perfect coming out of this camera. All I have to do is tweak the exposure, and maybe add some vignetting. Even the tone curve I don't have to touch - I'd normally pretty much always push the blacks, even if just a tiny bit, to try and get rid of that weird digital blackness, but you don't have to do that with the Fuji files. 

The noise is great, too, and I'm not used to being able to push shadows this far. 

edit: These are the FD 50 1.8. I want to start ordering more adapters, especially the M42 to F so I can get the Helios 44-2, but that would just make me want to buy more lenses. 



DSCF1004 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF1007 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Stop it. Stop it now.

EDIT: it's amazing how much use I can get out of one small block downtown. More mirror sillyness.



reflection #5 by nrrfed, on Flickr



reflection #7 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

The 10-24 is the better lens; it focuses waaaaay faster (lightning fast) and silently and I get about 4 stops out of the IS. It's not as sharp as a sharp prime, but it's very consistent across the frame, it also focuses very very closely.



4 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Kurfurstendamm 1 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Garden 4 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tyler

Those pictures with your son are excellent Whammy! Ive been trying to get outdoors some in my spare time from classes and tweak around with my 5d3 some more to learn about each metering properly.


----------



## Whammy

^
Thanks man.
For metering I normally keep it on _Evaluative Mode.
_That being said though I rarely ever use metering. Most times I will change my exposure based on what I see on the LCD. Rarely do I find I have over or under exposed a photo.

Tang:
These reflection photos are really good. The last one you posted confuses and intrigues me at the same time


----------



## Tang

Thanks Whammy! I've been studying the work of Saul Leiter and he's just amazing at using reflections to create really cool, dynamic images. He's easily my biggest inspiration at the moment.


----------



## Tyler

Whammy said:


> ^
> Thanks man.
> For metering I normally keep it on _Evaluative Mode.
> _That being said though I rarely ever use metering. Most times I will change my exposure based on what I see on the LCD. Rarely do I find I have over or under exposed a photo.



Ive been using center weighted average, but have started using evaluative more often. I really want to start trying out the Brenizer method soon and give that a spin


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> The 10-24 is the better lens; it focuses waaaaay faster (lightning fast) and silently and I get about 4 stops out of the IS. It's not as sharp as a sharp prime, but it's very consistent across the frame, it also focuses very very closely.



Are those photos all 10-24? If so, they're sharp and the focus falls off really nicely.

If/when I get another lens (other than maybe the cheap 55-230 5.6-6.7), it's probably gonna be the 10-24. Going to 24 makes it useful enough as a walk around lens, and it's got 10 too. Can't argue with that logic.  I've love the 23 1.4, but if I was buying that, I'd probably just pay the extra couple hundred dollars and get the X100T, because I'd want a second body for jobs, and 35mm is my favourite focal length, so it would get a lot of use. The 10-24 would cover pretty much everything else.

Also, words can't describe how weird if feels going to FujiRumors and not CanonRumors. 

This isn't anything special (I've gotta write a paper tonight and don't have time to go out shooting), but I just took a photo of the beer I opened. This is a RAW processed in-camera to Pro Neg Std, with nothing else done to it, sent to my phone from the wifi. 



Untitled by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Guys. I think I'm reasonably prepared for this wedding tomorrow. Nervous because it's my first solo gig, but that's normal.. I hope!

Gear as follows:

Pentax K3 w/ 77mm f/1.8 and speedlite. 
Pentax K5ii w/ 31mm f/1.8
Pentax K30 w/ 17-50 f/2.8

I also have my makeshift reflectors and a 135mm f/2.8, but I doubt I'll use it. The ceremony itself is taking place under a HUGE 300 year old oak tree which creates the most gorgeous light you've ever seen. Just the perfect amount of shade. That 77mm is going to be on bokeh duty and I'll probably be doing most of shooting with it.


----------



## Philligan

That's a pretty awesome setup.  This is purely IMHO of course, but I'd do pretty much everything with the 31 and 17-50, and bust out the 77 for more staged portraits.

What kind of shots do they want? Are you gonna have to get up close and personal for details during the ceremony, or can you more hide out of the way and do more environmental shots?

Are you doing the getting ready shots beforehand?


----------



## capoeiraesp

argh!!! so many xt-1's!!!
Those jpegs look great, Philigan. Nick, stop it. Please.

I guess some 6D & 135L shots will do.


----------



## Tang

That first shot. Oh my god. 

Oh my god.

That is the most glorious bokeh I've ever seen.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Pretty unique ey?
That's shot through a bird cage with the 135. Completely unexpected.


----------



## Tang

capoeiraesp said:


> Pretty unique ey?
> That's shot through a bird cage with the 135. Completely unexpected.



that's so cool! I love it when bokeh reacts in strange and unexpected ways.

This was the K3 + 31mm f/1.8.. the chromabs were absolutely bonkers because I was shooting directly into headlights but it cleaned up nicely in LR.



artificial rain by nrrfed, on Flickr

and this..? Who knows.. just having fun with some gorgeous lenses.



plunger in moon orbit by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> Are those photos all 10-24? If so, they're sharp and the focus falls off really nicely.
> 
> If/when I get another lens (other than maybe the cheap 55-230 5.6-6.7), it's probably gonna be the 10-24. Going to 24 makes it useful enough as a walk around lens, and it's got 10 too. Can't argue with that logic.  I've love the 23 1.4, but if I was buying that, I'd probably just pay the extra couple hundred dollars and get the X100T, because I'd want a second body for jobs, and 35mm is my favourite focal length, so it would get a lot of use. The 10-24 would cover pretty much everything else.
> 
> Also, words can't describe how weird if feels going to FujiRumors and not CanonRumors.
> 
> This isn't anything special (I've gotta write a paper tonight and don't have time to go out shooting), but I just took a photo of the beer I opened. This is a RAW processed in-camera to Pro Neg Std, with nothing else done to it, sent to my phone from the wifi.
> 
> 
> 
> Untitled by philbabbey, on Flickr



Yes, all 10-24.

There's a pretty marked difference in quality between the X100S lens and the 23 1.4, you really have to weigh up if you want just the focal length or everything else the 23 1.4 offers: vastly better IQ, an extra stop of brightness, DAT manual focus clutch, fast focus etc.

That's the decision I made and I'm happy with it, but I already have a second body.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Well, after thinking for so long how badly I need to get something more compact because of lugging my 6D and lenses around everywhere and hating how much attention it draws, I finally took the plunge on the camera I've been eyeing since its original incarnation was launched - even before I got my 7D a few years ago. So here she is:







It's everything I want in a camera that I carry everywhere with me and something I can take on trips, given how much I hated having my 6D with me when I was in Guatemala. I used my phone and analog cameras way more than anything the entire time. I also decided on the X100s over the X-Pro1 because I'm tired of fvcking around with lenses all the time. I've known for a long time that 35mm is my perfect focal length, and I'll stick with that and simply get more engaged with my surroundings to get more out of them rather than relying on different lenses. That, and the fact that this camera has the X Trans II, while the X-Pro1 has the original version. Given the minimal updates the X100t will have, I figure now's the best time to invest in this line, rather than waiting and paying several hundred dollars more for the t when it comes out. I also briefly considered the Ricoh GR, but felt weird about a camera without a viewfinder.

I haven't had a chance to really take it out because as usual, I'm stupid busy. But I hope to get a day off and get out with it later this week.


----------



## Philligan

I couldn't live without a viewfinder. I like the wifi on the T, but it's the only thing about it I really prefer over the S. 

Fuji = the future.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Philligan said:


> I couldn't live without a viewfinder. I like the wifi on the T, but it's the only thing about it I really prefer over the S.
> 
> Fuji = the future.



The future of SSO at least, it seems


----------



## Rook

Crikey, quite the Fuji club this is becoming. It's like Fuji's the new Axe FX haha.

We have to think of some particular photographic technique we can all start using but that isn't a genre of photography.

Anyway, the X100S is a way better camera than the X-Pro1. The X-Pro is pretty and an absolute joy to use but I rely on the X-T1 when it counts, if I had to rely on the X-Pro... I'd be nervous. The X Trans and X-Trans 2 sensors produce identical images (much as many people like to pretend they don't haha), the 2 just has phase detect pixels on the sensor for the better autofocus.

The only thing the X100T has my eye wandering for is the mini focus window in the viewfinder allowing you to manual focus using the OVF. That is such a great idea. UGH. Not buying one though, I'd rather expand my Hassy kit than buy a third digital camera haha.

On that note, I took a load of photos with my Hasselblad in Hungary and while it was my break-on phase, I wasn't really used to the thing, and there are a few shots I love and some that didn't go quite as planned. Point is though my exposures were pretty great (for me, considering I was guessing haha) and focus and all that, I'm now looking to put that medium format goodness to better use for my next trip (Reykjavik in 7 weeks, woo). I've decided that I'm going to save the transparencies for when I want big resolution. It doesn't do dynamic range like colour negative and while the 'quality' of the image is outrageous, that's not really what I bought this camera for. I've also shot some Portra 160 and 400 and some Delta 3200 (not got it back yet) which, particularly the 160, is gorgeous for skin tones but I find it gives more landscape-esque shots a slightly too warm look. I think I'd like to switch over to Fujifilm, try some Pro 160S and 400H. While both bleach skin slightly, I think the flatter, slightly less saturated colours and the boost of contrast on the 400 will give me a nice balance between CN dynamic range and slide *pop*. I think the cooler white blanace will suit Iceland's whole aesthetic too.

Does anyone have any experience of the two in similar circumstances that could talk about using the two, and what they feel each one does well at? I have to say, I don't mind the slightly weird look the Fuji gives skin, I like the effect, and I love the colour transitions on Pro 160S, whereas Portra 160 just looks like digital, made to be scanned.


----------



## Tyler

Was doing some community service with my Fraternity at a friend's farm and got a couple of these shots when we had a break.


----------



## Philligan

The Camaro sticks out so much in that photo, especially looking after the first one. So much warm foliage, then a super modern car.  I really like the colours in that one, man.

It's really cold, rainy, and windy today, but I don't think I have anything going on tonight, so if the weather gets half decent, I'll go wander around town with the Fuji.


----------



## Tang

I will continue the Pentax. Don't you Fuji guys worry.

Phil, go shoot anyways. As long as it's not raining its fair game!


----------



## Rook

Sunlight sucks, get out and shoot!


----------



## Philligan

It is raining.  Keeping an eye on it, though. It's cloudy, so I'm hoping the rain clears it a bit and we get a sweet sunset.


----------



## Tyler

Philligan said:


> The Camaro sticks out so much in that photo, especially looking after the first one. So much warm foliage, then a super modern car.  I really like the colours in that one, man.



Thanks! Yeah with landscape and portraits I usually like to go for a matte/desaturated kind of touch. But I couldnt help but go for an HDR approach for the Camaro as it stuck out so much.


----------



## capoeiraesp

JeffFromMtl said:


> The future of SSO at least, it seems



We are the trend setters in guitars so why not cameras? 

Welcome to the club! I wish I had the black x100s for it's sleek looks. It's funny how it's just habitual for me to grab mine now anytime I head out and when I'm walking around town it fits beautifully into the back pocket of my jeans.

I think I'll be saying goodbye to my 6D setup this week and picking up the XT-1 with the 56mm and either the 23mm or 18mm lens to start. I'm thinking the 18 mm will be good because I plan to keep the x100s and have enjoyed using it as a second camera on a couple of 'shoots' now.


----------



## Philligan

capoeiraesp said:


> We are the trend setters in guitars so why not cameras?
> 
> Welcome to the club! I wish I had the black x100s for it's sleek looks. It's funny how it's just habitual for me to grab mine now anytime I head out and when I'm walking around town it fits beautifully into the back pocket of my jeans.
> 
> I think I'll be saying goodbye to my 6D setup this week and picking up the XT-1 with the 56mm and either the 23mm or 18mm lens to start. I'm thinking the 18 mm will be good because I plan to keep the x100s and have enjoyed using it as a second camera on a couple of 'shoots' now.





My ideal wedding setup would be two X-T1s with a 56 on one and 23 on the other. Then the 10-24 for party photos and I'd be set.

I'm gonna start tagging all my Instagram posts with #fujifever from now on.


----------



## Rook

Matt, if you've got the X100S already, go X-T1, 56 and 14. The 14 is an awesome lens and you essentially have wide, standard and short tele then. You get to take advantage of the focus clutch on the 14 too.

One neat trick for that if you're out and about, set your camera to f8 and flick the focus switch to M. Then pull the clutch back (while the camera's on) and roll the focus ring round to the hyper focal distance for f8, so that the far end of the depth of field scale is at infinity or just past. Then pop the clutch forward again and voila, at f8 everything about 50cm or further away will always be in focus and razor sharp and there is zero focus delay, instant shooting. Awesome lens.


----------



## capoeiraesp

What's the clutch?
I feel like a bit of a simpleton.

Edit: I think that lens combo will work out quite well! I've been wanting to get into a real nice wide for a while now and this looks to be the jams.


----------



## Philligan

capoeiraesp said:


> What's the clutch?
> I feel like a bit of a simpleton.
> 
> Edit: I think that lens combo will work out quite well! I've been wanting to get into a real nice wide for a while now and this looks to be the jams.



AFAIK, the focus ring goes towards the front element for AF, and you pull it back for MF.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Got ya. The little front doovalacky.


----------



## Tang

loving this slightly-soft focus.. from the 31 1.8. Both of these from the most photogenic person I've met this year.



sippin&#x27; on juice by nrrfed, on Flickr

and one from the 77 1.8



ring boy by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Yeah, on the 23 and 14, when you pull back on the focus ring it switches the camera to manual focus mode and reveals the distance and depth of field scales on the lens but if you put the camera in manual too, you can use the ring to set and lock focus.


----------



## Whammy

Flash related technical question...

I have no experience with using external flashes myself. Continuous lighting on film sets, but not flash.

My concern is that I want to start using extra light for outdoor shots, but I also want to keep my shallow depth of field.
Now I'm reading all this stuff about sync speeds and everything is pointing towards using a shutter speed that is too slow for shooting wide open (way too much light at those settings outdoor).

This is probably a super noob question 
Is it possible to shoot your camera at higher shutter speeds while the flash is still using the slower sync speed?

Also are only higher end flash units able to do high sync speeds? 

Any advice is greatly appreciated 

Oh yeah, I'm also trying to put a list of things together that I need to set up a Beauty Dish flash system.
On the list so far is:
Beauty dish & accessories covers
Flash unit
Power supply
Wireless control unit
Tripod

...anything else I'm missing or don't need?

I've been looking at this company as a big retailer in Sweden has good prices on them.
ELINCHROM

In my head I know what lighting I want and I know a beauty dish is a step in the right direction. Still not too sure on the size though 

EDIT:
Oh yeah. I still am unsure on the what power I need for the flash unit. Don't want to go too strong if I can't dial it back and shoot wide open.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Whammy said:


> Flash related technical question...
> 
> I have no experience with using external flashes myself. Continuous lighting on film sets, but not flash.
> 
> My concern is that I want to start using extra light for outdoor shots, but I also want to keep my shallow depth of field.
> Now I'm reading all this stuff about sync speeds and everything is pointing towards using a shutter speed that is too slow for shooting wide open (way too much light at those settings outdoor).
> 
> This is probably a super noob question
> Is it possible to shoot your camera at higher shutter speeds while the flash is still using the slower sync speed?



You can, but you'll get a black stripe from your shutter being partially closed. I've never used TTL or high-speed sync - I used two Vivitar 283s and burned them out in 3 months before deciding to go to full-blown monoblock strobes.

I use a light meter to get an ambient reading on aperture at 1/250s (max sync speed on my camera, though you could easily chimp here). 
I then decide how many stops in separation I want between my subject and the background usually just 1 to 1 1/2, but sometimes I want 3 stops difference. 
I adjust the power of my light to match and then I'll think about throwing the background out of focus. I'll starting counting stops back to f/2.8 or f/4 from where I started (usually f/8 or f/11) and add the appropriate ND filter(s). I tend to start at ISO200 as well since that's the native lowest ISO for my camera, but I can always go down to ISO100 if need be to get one more stop out of my lens.

My units are 500w/s and 750w/s (and then I have my old Speedotron pack which is from 400w/s up to 1200w/s), I also have the ABR800 that is a 320w/s ring flash. I say get more power than you think you will need and lights that can fire down at 1/16 or 1/32 power (or less).

As far as beauty dishes, I say 22" and 28" are pretty common sizes but whatever size you buy make sure you get a grid for it. For starting out I'd suggest a 22" as it's a nice compromise between weight and availability.


----------



## ihunda

Love all the Fuji love, I have a X20 for street fun but I am seriously thinking of getting a XE2 to replace it for that. Same image quality and lens as XT1 but smaller and builtin flash for commanding my strobes if needed. Apart from the articulated screen and weather seal I don't really justify putting $500 more for the XT.

Anyone else considering the XE2 instead of XT1?


----------



## Whammy

ThePhilosopher said:


> You can, but you'll get a black stripe from your shutter being partially closed. I've never used TTL or high-speed sync - I used two Vivitar 283s and burned them out in 3 months before deciding to go to full-blown monoblock strobes.
> 
> I use a light meter to get an ambient reading on aperture at 1/250s (max sync speed on my camera, though you could easily chimp here).
> I then decide how many stops in separation I want between my subject and the background usually just 1 to 1 1/2, but sometimes I want 3 stops difference.
> I adjust the power of my light to match and then I'll think about throwing the background out of focus. I'll starting counting stops back to f/2.8 or f/4 from where I started (usually f/8 or f/11) and add the appropriate ND filter(s). I tend to start at ISO200 as well since that's the native lowest ISO for my camera, but I can always go down to ISO100 if need be to get one more stop out of my lens.
> 
> My units are 500w/s and 750w/s (and then I have my old Speedotron pack which is from 400w/s up to 1200w/s), I also have the ABR800 that is a 320w/s ring flash. I say get more power than you think you will need and lights that can fire down at 1/16 or 1/32 power (or less).
> 
> As far as beauty dishes, I say 22" and 28" are pretty common sizes but whatever size you buy make sure you get a grid for it. For starting out I'd suggest a 22" as it's a nice compromise between weight and availability.




Thanks for all that 
Yeah when I said flash I meant monolights 

What about shooting with the modeling light only in order to keep my shallow depth of field under bright outdoor conditions?
Would that light be strong enough to add addition light on the subject on a sunny day or even to add a stop or so separation between the subject and background?
Or is using a reflector better that using modeling light?


----------



## Rook

ihunda said:


> Love all the Fuji love, I have a X20 for street fun but I am seriously thinking of getting a XE2 to replace it for that. Same image quality and lens as XT1 but smaller and builtin flash for commanding my strobes if needed. Apart from the articulated screen and weather seal I don't really justify putting $500 more for the XT.
> 
> Anyone else considering the XE2 instead of XT1?



If you don't need the speed, ability to use a battery grip, weather sealing, better video (soon to be much better) or magnified viewfinder the X-E2 is the camera for you.

The X-T1 does come with a flash though haha.


----------



## ihunda

Rook said:


> If you don't need the speed, ability to use a battery grip, weather sealing, better video (soon to be much better) or magnified viewfinder the X-E2 is the camera for you.
> 
> The X-T1 does come with a flash though haha.



Thanks Rook,
Yes, I tried both and it felt like with the 35mm lens AF speed difference wasn't dramatic. I am not into video and that external X-T1 flash looks cumbersome  Much prefer the pop in/out version of the X-E2.

Any other comparison points?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Whammy said:


> Thanks for all that
> Yeah when I said flash I meant monolights
> 
> What about shooting with the modeling light only in order to keep my shallow depth of field under bright outdoor conditions?
> Would that light be strong enough to add addition light on the subject on a sunny day or even to add a stop or so separation between the subject and background?
> Or is using a reflector better that using modeling light?



Modeling lamps put a serious drain on any power source you might be using. I've never used modeling lights to try to overpower the sun. I'm sure you could with enough wattage, but again for how long? You're better off using lower power and ND filters IMO.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Here are a few from my last remaining roll of Lomo X-Pro shot with the LC-A. I decided to develop in E6 this time and damn, I wish I'd known expired X-Pro would give me these great purple-ish hues in the shadows. I way prefer how this came out compared to the rolls I cross-processed. Granted, The LC-A's meter is nailing exposures way better than I am with my Horizon Perfekt. I have occasional troubles nailing the zone focus too, and that has me pining for an Olympus XA, which is practically the same camera, glorious vignettes and all, with manual rangefinder focus and an expanded ASA range.
































Next roll loaded up is some Agfa Precisa CT 100. It expires this month, but I'm hoping to shoot the entire roll in NYC next weekend and get those deep blues it's known for when cross-processed. If it's too late, they'll probably end up green like the Provia and X-Pro I've developed. I haven't been entirely happy with those hues.


----------



## Rook

ihunda said:


> Thanks Rook,
> Yes, I tried both and it felt like with the 35mm lens AF speed difference wasn't dramatic. I am not into video and that external X-T1 flash looks cumbersome  Much prefer the pop in/out version of the X-E2.
> 
> Any other comparison points?



The speed is less in the focus - though it is a real improvement, the 35's a bad comparison as it's the lens that's slow to focus, not the camera - and it's in the processors and buffer. RAW files are saved immediately on the T1 and continuous shooting recovers very quickly, where the E2 stumbles. That's where the speed benefit really becomes obvious.

The flash isn't cumbersome, very very small and pocketable, but given that it's a larger unit altogether, it's also a higher guide number which is nice. I wouldn't dream of using either flash to be honest though, they're awful haha. Friends don't let friends use on camera flash!

The X-E2 is a nice handling camera; it focuses well, has a nice, discreet form factor and ehile feeling very manual, doesn't expect too much of the user. The X-T1 adds hands on controls for all manner of features such as drive, metering, ISO and focus points which if you're not using merely take up space and make an all round more imposing camera.

Go E2.


----------



## Philligan

I'm watching a friend's dog for the weekend. This was a SOOC Provia jpg that looked great on the camera LCD but dark and washed out on my iphone. I ran it through Photogene and pushed the exposure and warmed up the WB a bit. I don't know why but these Fuji files play way better than the Canons. The Canons couldn't really handle any tweaking without taking on extreme colour casts.


----------



## Rook

Any camera with an AA filter naturally has a cast built in, which will mean that that orangey gold in the case of canon will also be adjusted with any colour correction you make, and worsened by the JPEG transition.

Any camera with no AA filter will by design have more natural colour separation.


----------



## Philligan

Interesting. Good to know.  In the meantime, I'll probably try to keep my exposure a hair on the high side and go for more saturated sims.


----------



## Tang

Who needs Fuji.  I looked like a goofball today shooting street with 2 DSLR's around my neck, but fvck it. I love photography and don't give a shit what anyone thinks  Lots of variety in this set.

Oh yeah, you guys should hear the shutter on the K3 in 9FPS mode. So clean. So, so clean. 



a knights tale by nrrfed, on Flickr



red dress by nrrfed, on Flickr

and this one..



jenn #77 by nrrfed, on Flickr

how ya'll like that bokehs? I can't imagine this baby on a FF/film body.. sweet christ.


----------



## Philligan

I really like the second one. It's pretty simple and the legs stick out and add interest.

Did you get a K3?


----------



## Whammy

ThePhilosopher said:


> Modeling lamps put a serious drain on any power source you might be using. I've never used modeling lights to try to overpower the sun. I'm sure you could with enough wattage, but again for how long? You're better off using lower power and ND filters IMO.



Thanks. Wasn't aware of the power drain. Was hoping for an easier option than carrying a bucket of ND filters. None of my lenses share the same filter thread size 
Got a lot to think about before investing in a little rig. I see the PocketWizard Hypersync does pretty much what I want with certain units. But I don't have the money to invest a 1000+ rig at the moment.

For now I'll stick with the reflectors and try and to be more creative with them. It's a bit hard at the moment when it's super cloudy  I'll pick up a stand or two so I can place the reflectors where ever I want.





JeffFromMtl said:


> I have occasional troubles nailing the zone focus too, and that has me pining for an Olympus XA, which is practically the same camera, glorious vignettes and all, with manual rangefinder focus and an expanded ASA range.



Being a Maitani fanboy I have to say the original Olympus XA (35mm f/2.8) is awesome for a compact camera


----------



## Philligan

I don't know how much this will run, but (I think it's Tiffen?) a couple companies make square filters. They cost a bit more than a normal filter, but the upside is you only have to buy it once, and you can spend a lot less on mounts and step down rings and such.

I'm seriously debating that, because I'd love an ND for landscapes, and I'd like to try using lights during the day more. Once I figure out what triggers will play well with the Fuji, I'm gonna grab another cheap Yongnuo and hopefully expand my lighting setup a bit.

edit: At the very least, I know you could get one of the larger filters for a lens you use a lot, and at least step it down a filter size or two. I don't know if you can only step them down a certain amount or not, though.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Whammy said:


> Thanks. Wasn't aware of the power drain. Was hoping for an easier option than carrying a bucket of ND filters. None of my lenses share the same filter thread size



I bought the biggest filter size I needed (77mm - though I may soon need a 105mm if I pull the trigger on a new lens) and step down rings. I have everything I use regularly fitted with a ring that goes up to 77mm and 3 ND filters: 2 2-stop filters and 1 10-stop filter. I also use a CPL to cut light when I need something in between.

It's not cheap to start off on the right foot with lighting, but if done correctly it's only the initial investment that hurts.


----------



## Philligan

There's a presentation going on right now so I can't take a photo (it wouldn't be that exciting anyway ) but I brought the X-T1 to class today. I grabbed a cheap Lowepro Nova Sport (or something along those lines) as a small bag for now until I can afford a Think Tank. The padded camera holding section actually comes out and can be its own case/bag, so I dropped that into my backpack. I can still fit all my textbooks and my laptop around it, and it only adds a kilo or so to the weight of my backpack.  I could fit the 70D in with a larger camera insert, but it bowed the bag out so much I couldn't fit anything else in. I'm not sure if I'll actually get the chance to shoot it today, but part of the reason I got the Fuji is to have a camera small enough that I could carry it with me all the time, so I'm trying to get into that habit.


----------



## Whammy

No new photos so here is a few day old iPhone photo...


----------



## flint757

Whammy said:


> Thanks. Wasn't aware of the power drain. Was hoping for an easier option than carrying a bucket of ND filters. None of my lenses share the same filter thread size
> Got a lot to think about before investing in a little rig. I see the PocketWizard Hypersync does pretty much what I want with certain units. But I don't have the money to invest a 1000+ rig at the moment.



For my rig I just bought step up rings to bring all of my filter ring sizes up to 77mm. Then all you have to do is buy one size and you never have to think about what fits what ever again. Wasn't that expensive either. I think I spent ~$100 on step up rings for 10 lens, 7 52-77, 1 62-77 and 2 72-77. They're only a few bucks each so not too bad. A lot cheaper than buying the same filter type for different ring sizes. Alternatively you could buy square filters, but I find the setup to be rather bulky.


----------



## Philligan

I got out with the camera between classes, and edited a couple. I learned two things:

1) The Fuji raws handle drastically differently than Canons. I'm finding I can be more liberal with the sharpening, but more careful with the colours and clarity. I read an article saying not to use the sharpening slider and to use the detail slider instead, but it doesn't do anything to my eyes. 

2) f/4 is more shallow than I thought.  It was cloudy but not overly dark this afternoon, so I went with aperture priority and f/4. I was focusing and recomposing pretty sloppily, and after pixel peeping in LR, I realized how shallow f/4 is. With the weddings and taking photos indoors and in the evening, I realized I usually shoot around 2.2 for light/DoF, or I was doing flash or wide work and shooting at 5.6-7.1. I can't think of a time that I've shot f/4 before - I'm sure it's happened, but it's been a while. 

Anyway, I got two photos I don't mind. The one of Dawn is a bit awkward, but it was starting to rain and we were rushing. I'd like to have another go at it with some nicer sky, and a kilometre or so down the river where the backdrop is downtown Detroit.



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr

And I took this one to see what the watercolour greens talk was all about. It seems a little funny to my eye, but that could just be me looking for it. Greens seem to saturate pretty quickly from the little bit I've shot so far, so it probably just needs a bit of tweaking. As it is, I'm actually pretty happy with this photo.



Park bench by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

I just sent an application to one of the most successful wedding photographers in my area. I'd love the chance to learn the craft from someone that knows what they're doing.. fingers crossed!

and as you can see, I've roped my better half into doing these reflection shots with me 



drinking jenn #2 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Yeah I have to look into ND filters anyway as on super bright days at f/1.2 I can be pushed to 1/8000 and sometime that's not even fast enough. An ND filter would be quiet helpful on those days.
I still a good few steps away from a lighting rig though 



Philligan said:


> f/4 is more shallow than I thought.


Me and you have two drastically different opinions on what shallow is. I stop down to f4 a few times and I always think how deep the depth of field is 
Then again when I do use f4 I'm normally closer to infinity focus rather than the opposite.



Philligan said:


> And I took this one to see what the watercolour greens talk was all about. It seems a little funny to my eye, but that could just be me looking for it. Greens seem to saturate pretty quickly from the little bit I've shot so far, so it probably just needs a bit of tweaking. As it is, I'm actually pretty happy with this photo.



Those greens do seem a little saturated. For my taste at least. Apart from the saturation it does feel like a natural green. But then again I do hate the color yellow and to a lesser extent green. Normally when I use greens I try and shift them a bit away from yellow side of things 

I am curious about the Fuji RAWs. Is there any chance you could stick up a RAW or two in the other thread. No rush or pressure to do it  Just curious.


Tang, didn't you just do a wedding? How did it go?


----------



## Tang

It ended being a really, really strange day. I made it through the ceremony no problem, but as I was taking some shots of the family and such the newlyweds dog (who they brought be to be a groomsman) got really sick and started throwing up. After talking to the couple, I stopped shooting and the groom took the dog to the emergency vet where the dog sadly died.


----------



## Whammy

Did not expect that story!

That sucks on everyone's part


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> I got out with the camera between classes, and edited a couple. I learned two things:
> 
> 1) The Fuji raws handle drastically differently than Canons. I'm finding I can be more liberal with the sharpening, but more careful with the colours and clarity. I read an article saying not to use the sharpening slider and to use the detail slider instead, but it doesn't do anything to my eyes.
> 
> 2) f/4 is more shallow than I thought.  It was cloudy but not overly dark this afternoon, so I went with aperture priority and f/4. I was focusing and recomposing pretty sloppily, and after pixel peeping in LR, I realized how shallow f/4 is. With the weddings and taking photos indoors and in the evening, I realized I usually shoot around 2.2 for light/DoF, or I was doing flash or wide work and shooting at 5.6-7.1. I can't think of a time that I've shot f/4 before - I'm sure it's happened, but it's been a while.
> 
> Anyway, I got two photos I don't mind. The one of Dawn is a bit awkward, but it was starting to rain and we were rushing. I'd like to have another go at it with some nicer sky, and a kilometre or so down the river where the backdrop is downtown Detroit.
> 
> 
> 
> Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr
> 
> And I took this one to see what the watercolour greens talk was all about. It seems a little funny to my eye, but that could just be me looking for it. Greens seem to saturate pretty quickly from the little bit I've shot so far, so it probably just needs a bit of tweaking. As it is, I'm actually pretty happy with this photo.
> 
> 
> 
> Park bench by philbabbey, on Flickr



I can address some of this 

The detail slider is better for Fuji in my opinion but the amount of detail is still controlled by the sharpening slider. To turn the sharpening slider into a detail slider, put sharpening to zero and detail all the way up to 100 *then* start to roll the sharpening slider up to taste, it changes the algorithm from word to word word (can't remember what they're called haha).

Try radius between 0.5 and 1.2, I'm a 0.5 guy (I like very subtle sharpening) but I'm in a minority.

The green thing - it's long dead dude, people still finding it now are looking for it and would get the exact same results with a Canon or Nikon or whatever else haha. It's not a thing any more.


----------



## Philligan

What is the radius? I can't figure it out haha.


----------



## Tang

Phil: watch this quick 20 minute about sharpening.. really helped me understand what each slider does and how to use them effectively.


----------



## Philligan

I re-edited the bench photo. I pulled the greens back a bit (I actually literally pulled the greens instead of just backing off on what I'd pushed), and pulled the shadows down a bit and pushed the blacks. I pushed them a bit too far as far as the shadows under the bench go, but I like what it did to the grass and leaves.



Park bench re-edited by philbabbey, on Flickr

And here's the other one of Dawn that I thought I liked. The street signs bug me, but what can you do. 



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Phil, those look great man! Seems like you made the correct decision to switch over to Fuji.

If I had one those glorious little sexy-jpg making beauties, any free time I had would be out in the street shooting. I'd get nothing done.. nothing!

In other news, I feel I'm finally starting to develop my own style (I wonder how many times I've said that in this very thread).. well, ripping off past masters in the process.. it's so refreshing when you can finally capture what you see in your mind on the first or second try. Can't wait to see where my eye heads next!



sidewalk closed by nrrfed, on Flickr



empty spaces #1 by nrrfed, on Flickr

after this, I'm taking a break from posting shots for a few days UNLESS! UNLESS.. I get the one. You know.


----------



## Philligan

Those were raws.  They seem to have a lot of latitude compared to the Canon files. But it's a trip learning them after only knowing Canon raws. 

I've been debating trying Capture One. Nick, I know you said earlier you really liked it, and my old boss said it's a bit more convoluted but gives you awesome control over colour. 

My computer's nearing the end of its days, and assuming I can afford a new one, I figured it would be the time to start over. I like the flow of Lightroom, but there are a lot of features I haven't learned (basically all the modules other than Develop, and I'm not great with stuff like gradients), and I'm doing an awful job with importing, organizing, and cataloging. With the new laptop, I'd be getting a new external and starting my LR catalog from scratch and learning it the right way. But I'm not opposed to trying Capture One, either.


----------



## Emperor Guillotine

Hey guys, so I have a rather oddball question.

For those who have seen my latest thread on here (about my Strandberg in the "Extended Range" section of the forum), then you'll probably get where I'm heading with this question.

After doing the photos for that thread, I starting thinking today that I would like to start getting into photography more seriously. This would include: updating my camera, getting different lenses, getting some form of mobile lighting for certain instances, creating a Facebook page, developing a multi-faceted portfolio for the page, etc.

So what exactly would I need to do to get started? 
Or should I just be a total hipster and buy an expensive ass camera, only take selfies with it, and create a Facebook page promoting myself as a "professional photographer" and have an excuse for a "portfolio" that consists of only selfies? 
Or should I be a total guitarist and just buy an expensive ass camera, only take pictures of gear, and create a Facebook page promoting myself as a "professional photographer" and have an excuse for a "portfolio" that consists of only guitars and amps? 

Also, for photo protection (about as much as you can get on the Internet), would a watermark be a good idea even though it can be easily cropped out? I created a little watermark for myself yesterday that'll function as the logo for my page based on my idea for the name of the page.


----------



## ihunda

So, re: XT1 vs XE2. 
The only reason I was interested in the builtin flash of the XE2 is to trigger off camera flashes optically, like I am doing today with my X20, no to use the builtin flash by itself of course.

I have a friend with the XT1 and I tried it with a Yougnuo 603C II remote and it does trigger my yougnuo 560 iii properly so I may go XT1 + wireless radio as opposed to optical flash trigger.


----------



## Wretched

I don't tend to shoot a lot of cars in full sunlight... pretty happy with this:


----------



## Whammy

Emperor Guillotine said:


> Hey guys, so I have a rather oddball question.
> 
> For those who have seen my latest thread on here (about my Strandberg in the "Extended Range" section of the forum), then you'll probably get where I'm heading with this question.
> 
> After doing the photos for that thread, I starting thinking today that I would like to start getting into photography more seriously. This would include: updating my camera, getting different lenses, getting some form of mobile lighting for certain instances, creating a Facebook page, developing a multi-faceted portfolio for the page, etc.
> 
> So what exactly would I need to do to get started?
> Or should I just be a total hipster and buy an expensive ass camera, only take selfies with it, and create a Facebook page promoting myself as a "professional photographer" and have an excuse for a "portfolio" that consists of only selfies?
> Or should I be a total guitarist and just buy an expensive ass camera, only take pictures of gear, and create a Facebook page promoting myself as a "professional photographer" and have an excuse for a "portfolio" that consists of only guitars and amps?
> 
> Also, for photo protection (about as much as you can get on the Internet), would a watermark be a good idea even though it can be easily cropped out? I created a little watermark for myself yesterday that'll function as the logo for my page based on my idea for the name of the page.



When you say more seriously, do you meant more seriously as a hobby or are you trying to get work out of it?

If it's to get work then you should be thinking about a few things.

First off, a portfolio is a must and it needs to be relevant to the area of photography you intend to be hired for.
Which areas of photography do you want to delve into?
Portraiture, pet portrait, baby portraits, weddings/engagements, commercial, corporative, documentary, fashion, fine-art, sport etc. There are way more of course. But with certain styles like landscape, you generally don't get hired. People just buy your prints.

Once you know what areas you are interested in then you need a portfolio demonstrating your skill in that area.
Portfolios are all about quality, not quantity. You will always be judged on you worst photo. Only display your best work. If you have 4 great photos and 2 good photos only display the 4 great photos. The 2 good photos, although good don't display you at your best.
Sometimes those good photos are needed in a set in order to complete a story. In that case they are needed.

Facebook pages can be good but facebook is saturated with them. A facebook page won't get you work. In fact unless you are well known in your field the only potential clients that will contact you are through word of mouth. In most cases you'll have to do the leg work to find work.
So in a nut shell, a facebook page should only serve as a place to display your best work for potential clients. But those potential clients will have to be redirected to the page through word of mouth etc.

Watermarking. I normally am totally against it and for many reasons. But if other people watermark their photos I have no issues with it. I just won't do it myself.
If it's small anyone can just crop it out (which they will), if it's larger it destroys the photo.
A watermark without a full name or recognised alias will not let people know who took the photo which in turn will not redirect clients to you.
A logo contains no information unless people already know you.
Anyone who choses to use your photo (a portrait of themselves for example) will in most cases crop out the watermark.
It makes more sense to ask your client to tag you and credit you as the photographer in the description when they use the photo on facebook. That way it provides everyone with a direct link to your page without destroying the photo with a watermark.

Regarding protecting your photos. Well if someone is going to steal a photo they are pretty much going to do it regardless of your efforts and in most cases they have no intentions of actually paying for it. You do have the original file plus your name should be within the EXIF data. Are you protecting it because you are selling loads of a certain photo? My point is more of an effort should be placed on becoming a better photographer, gaining more experience and getting paid work rather than worrying about people stealing photos and watermarking everything.

As for upgrading equipment. You need to evaluate what are your short comings with your current equipment. Do you need wider angles, do you need faster lenses, do you need sharper glass, do you need a faster camera, do you need more pixels or a different sensor, do you need more functions on your camera etc?
Lots of questions to ask yourself but it all boils down to if you need it. Will you be able to work more proficiently with new equipment and will you produce better results from the upgrade?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Whammy, nicely said. I'd suggest specialization over being very general if you're trying to get paying work, certainly photograph everything you possibly can to push and challenge yourself technically, but I wouldn't aim to get hired for these things. I've sold a couple copies of prints and books, but they are far from my main source of income as a photographer.



Wretched said:


> I don't tend to shoot a lot of cars in full sunlight... pretty happy with this:



My only quibble is the clouds and sky in the top center of the frame look artificially darkened, but man that's a nice shot either way.


----------



## Wretched

Thanks for the feedback. Almost the entire background has been shopped in, but I think the effect on the sky was created with a CPL filter.


----------



## Tang

That's what I was gonna say; definitely looks like a CPL.


----------



## Philligan

This is from Monday. There was a wall on campus that looked really cool, so I was gonna take a picture of it. Then I decided to make it trve street and wait for the human element to enter.


----------



## Tang

Yes. Patience is key! Killer colors, man.

And this.. this was shot through a parked UPS truck into a moving city bus. Foreground bokeh for everyone!



shooting through by nrrfed, on Flickr

and I've started doing this thing where the reflection is just as important as what's being reflected because it gives the shot interesting textures. For example, this one kinda looks like it was shot on slide film and then just left in an attic for 50 years.. I don't know.. I really like that 'damaged' texture that certain mirror surfaces can give.



yellow is yield by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Thanks man.  I've been trying to shoot as much as I can and get more routine with these raw files. 

Here's one from the drive home today. I'm not thrilled to death with it, but I saw the light behind the cornfield so I pulled over and grabbed the camera.



Sunset by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

A sneak peek at a shoot we did last night on Matt Baxter's Evolution for Fast Fours magazine. It makes over 400awkW and is a daily driver.


----------



## Khoi

I saw that one on Facebook and wanted to ask you about it! That shot is siiiick, one of my favorites I've seen


----------



## Wretched

Light painted, Khoi. About five frames to make the final composite. If I weren't so busy, I'd have chopped in a different background before posting. I'll probably return to it down the track.


----------



## Whammy

Hitting that wall again of not feeling like I'm improving and/or being original 

I think I need to change things up quite a lot as I'm generally not happy with any photos I take. They still don't feel like they are mine, if that makes sense 

Anyone feel the same?
Not happy with your own work or not happy with progress?


----------



## Philligan

I kinda feel the same way. I'm happy with the wedding photos I was taking, but I progressed with that because I had a much more direct goal, and got the chance to build up a routine. Now that I'm pretty much done with that, I'm having trouble finding direction. I'd like to try landscapes more seriously (especially when I can get a wide lens) and I'm thinking about working on a new portrait style or something.


----------



## Wretched

I felt similarly for a while this year, Whammy. I had a quick succession of car shoots in January that I felt I was never going to be able to replicate or surpass. It had me pretty down in the dumps about my work for a good while.

Thankfully, I got through and found I could keep the quality pretty consistently without killing myself trying. Made me feel better.

However, I know another bout of that kind of feeling/self doubt is always just around the corner.


----------



## Philligan

I read an article not long ago (I can't remember where, though) about how that's the sign of a good photographer. Most pros aren't happy with their work, or are at least always trying to improve. As you get better, that level becomes the new standard, and you start critiquing yourself again. I think it's when you're consistently happy with all your photos that you should be worried.


----------



## Tang

I know I've posted this before but it's so, so perfect.


----------



## tank

Wretched said:


> A sneak peek at a shoot we did last night on Matt Baxter's Evolution for Fast Fours magazine. It makes over 400awkW and is a daily driver.




holy shit that EVO! epic shot too, where can I find you on FB?


----------



## soliloquy

went out for a walk. happy with what came out










polorizor filters make such a huge difference when it comes to water. those leaves are floating on top of water thats fairly deep. however the polorizer just takes it away





tea pot


----------



## Dalcan

Took a few shots on a business trip to India... 1100 year old temple, and the road leading to it.













Friend is releasing a solo EP.. he'll probably post something here, but I took some quick photos for him the other day. The rain and wind were a pain in the ass. He's happy with them, so I am.


----------



## Whammy

Cheers guys for chiming in.

I managed to get out today with the camera. Only got to do some landscape stuff. I had a particular image in my mind before hand along with the mood that I wanted. I got close enough to the images in my head so I'm on the right track for now  It was good to get out and shoot something a bit differently. Helps clear the mind a little 

85mm @ f4





40mm @ f2





85mm @ f4





40mm @ f2


----------



## Dalcan

Whammy- these photos are awesome. Love the compositions and the greys


----------



## Philligan

That last one is insane. 

Dawn and I went out last night but didn't get far before it got dark. I worked all day, so I might not get to them tonight - work sucked, so I might kill some terrorists on Call of Duty instead.


----------



## Tang

I'm never really completely satisfied with my work, but I'm reasonably happy where I'm at right now re: abstraction and reflections. I'm always pushing myself to experiment though.


----------



## Dalcan

Good shot dude. Reflection shots are hard


----------



## Rook

I've just realised another problem with this whole hasselblad thing...

Everything's interchangeable. Sounds good huh? Nope. Just means I spend an hour a day looking at random add-ons and spares on eBay and going 'oh that bit's only £30', but then end up spending £150 on random parts.

At least with the Fuji the only things I want cost at least £700 so I can't actually afford it haha.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> I've just realised another problem with this whole hasselblad thing...
> 
> Everything's interchangeable. Sounds good huh? Nope. Just means I spend an hour a day looking at random add-ons and spares on eBay and going 'oh that bit's only £30', but then end up spending £150 on random parts.
> 
> At least with the Fuji the only things I want cost at least £700 so I can't actually afford it haha.



I'm thrilled that Fuji makes such great lenses at a good price (for what you get), but sad that I still can't afford them. 

I'm hoping between the Christmas season at work and actual Christmas I'll be able to afford a new lens around then.


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> I'd like to try landscapes more seriously (especially when I can get a wide lens) and I'm thinking about working on a new portrait style or something.



I used to think wide angle is a must for landscape but I'm on another photography forum and the amount of wide angle, blurry water, sun setting, over processed photos I see is nauseating 
Granted the wide angle element was the only part of the photos I didn't have an issue with. But it has now forced me to hate landscapes taken with a wide angle. Even if they are processed amazingly and missing all the other tacky elements 

Maybe I'll like wide angle landscape again someday. 

Ha sorry for the rant.

What's your new portrait style?


----------



## Dalcan

Whammy said:


> I used to think wide angle is a must for landscape but I'm on another photography forum and the amount of wide angle, blurry water, sun setting, over processed photos I see is nauseating
> Granted the wide angle element was the only part of the photos I didn't have an issue with. But it has now forced me to hate landscapes taken with a wide angle. Even if they are processed amazingly and missing all the other tacky elements
> 
> Maybe I'll like wide angle landscape again someday.
> 
> Ha sorry for the rant.
> 
> What's your new portrait style?



What Fuji are you shooting with? I have the X-E1. I'm planning on getting the T1 in 2015. Also, what other forums are ya on?


----------



## Whammy

Fuji, me?

Nope. I'm still using my old Canon 5d mkII.
Would love a Fuji as a second body. Not as my main though. Not until they do full frame or make a faster 35mm which I doubt they will.
They release two different versions of the 56mm f1.2 which produce roughly the same results but won't release a 35mm f1.2 or faster 

Phil & Rook both use Fuji and they both have the X-T1. I pretty sure another one or two on here also use Fuji.

I'm Irish and I still contribute in an Irish forum despite not living there. The forum is actually over populated with unoriginal photos and discussion. Nothing wrong with that. Just not my thing.
That's why I like it here. A small community with a high standard to the photos and discussion


----------



## Skyblue

Quick photo I took with my phone in Tel Aviv a few days ago. Played a bit with it in the VSCO app, which I'm just starting to try and use... I thought it isn't too bad (the picture, not the app)


----------



## tank




----------



## Philligan

Whammy said:


> I used to think wide angle is a must for landscape but I'm on another photography forum and the amount of wide angle, blurry water, sun setting, over processed photos I see is nauseating
> Granted the wide angle element was the only part of the photos I didn't have an issue with. But it has now forced me to hate landscapes taken with a wide angle. Even if they are processed amazingly and missing all the other tacky elements
> 
> Maybe I'll like wide angle landscape again someday.
> 
> Ha sorry for the rant.
> 
> What's your new portrait style?



I should get out and try them with the 35 and see how I like it. I mainly want the 14 because it'll cover landscapes and dancing/reception photos, and I think it's still tight enough that I could use it as a walk around lens.

I'd really like the 23 1.4, but I don't think it's different enough from the 35 to justify the cost right now, and I'd rather gradually hoard a great collection of lenses than sell off the 35 to switch to the 23. Things are really tight right now, but I'll have a better grasp of our financial situation around the wedding in the spring, so I'm trying to get a bit of versatile setup on a tight budget for the time being. That's why I'm thinking the 14, because I can do pretty much everything between that and the 35. I'm still thinking about the 18, but from what I've seen, it's noticeably softer than the 35, so I'm not sure it's worth saving the few hundred dollars in the long run.


----------



## Rook

^There's a 16mm 1.4 coming out soon.

Just let that stew for a sec haha. So much want. The 18 wins on size, that's about it. I'd say you're taking a good standpoint on that!

To whammy, I completely agree, all the other photo forums I linger on are the exact same - hundreds of long exposure waterfalls, tedious and needless wide angle 'landscape' (read: strips of blue above strip of green) shots, horrendous HDR abd over processed black and white and family snap shots - I'm not saying I'm changing the face of photography every time I go out and shoot but at least I don't just carry out the usual cliches haha. Here is way better for quality over quantity, despite the odd format of our little group. I too don't use wides for landscapes, by the way, I prefer the natural look of a short tele.

ANYWAY.

I have a question, mostly for ThePhilospher from past experience haha. My girlfriend is a fair weather photographer who gets involved whenever I do, and she's painful jealous of my Hasselblad. She wants her own film camera and she has also decided that if I shoot medium format, that's the way to go. I want to pick her up a medium format camera for Christmas but I just don't have the money to go nuts and frankly, not knowing how much she's actually going to use it, I'm not in any great hurry to buy her some insane gear that's just gunna rot on a shelf. Further to that though, if it's decent, I'll use it 

So, what's a decent, ideally expandable, medium format kit that you can get started in for not too much money? 

I started with Rollei TLR's, they're very cute which is always important if I know my girlfriend - and I do - but I'm most likely looking at a Rolleicord or a beat up Rolleiflex, and im worried about buying something trendy on a budget. By that I mean, if these things are in fashion I can expect to pay over the odds for a working one with no extra gain. That trend-money I'd rather put into a better system, but Rollei by all accounts seem to be the only decently reliable TLR's on the market, is that right? Basically every one I've found so far has had timing issues...

This is exactly why I chose Hasselblad but I just can't face spending that. I guess if I do and she doesn't bother with it I can just use the gear myself but I don't need two bodies, and I already have two back and two lenses...

Ideas?


----------



## Philligan

Save money on multiple backs and film and get her a Phase One?


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Was in NYC this weekend. I resolved to leave the 6D at home and use compacts as much as possible. I brought along my Fuji X100s and Lomo LC-A, as well as my phone. I still have 3 exposure left in the LC-A so it'll be a bit before I get those developed and I haven't gone through my X100s yet. But for the time being, here are some shots from my trusty iPhone.

This was on Coney Island. This little girl was just running around on the beach and picking up shells and whatever. Kids always make amazing subjects.






Also Coney Island. Kind of a whatever shot, but the colour palettes all over that place are awesome.






This is Baohaus, Eddie Huang's restaurant. It was on my list of must-eats while I was there, and the food didn't disappoint. I got there during a shift change, so orders weren't being taken for another 40 minutes. These dudes were waiting on some Baos as well.






I was on the high line and saw this from up there, I went down to take a look. I think it's called Old Chealsea Pier or something.






This was in Brooklyn, a couple of blocks from where I was staying. I took this one to send to a girl I haven't seen in almost 3 months and really miss.






And this was in or near the East Village.


----------



## Wretched

tank said:


> holy shit that EVO! epic shot too, where can I find you on FB?



https://www.facebook.com/HoskingIndustries


----------



## capoeiraesp

Jeff, you are the king of iPhone photos in these parts. Would love to see a little tutorial of what you do on VSCO app.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Picked this up yesterday. EXIF just for Rook, D3 w/Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro: ISO 1600 1/10s f/11 (handheld).


----------



## Rook

1/10 at 90mm you cheeky bastard.


----------



## Tang

Shot though a trash can? Why not. 






More fun with vertical compositions:






I went back to the same doorway for this shot. So many lines.


----------



## Philligan

Feeler: If I were to make a dedicated photography forum, would anyone be interested in joining? Mainly for the option of more boards/threads, and for more lax moderating. 

It would probably be pretty low budget to start out, as I'm not interested in buying/setting up a server, writing code, or paying hosting fees.  But I've been playing around with the idea of setting up a free one, so let me know if you're interested.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'd be interested.


----------



## Whammy

Sure I'd be interested 

I'd also love if the photography section on here was expanded. Don't think that'll happen though


----------



## Philligan

Awesome. 

I'm working on it in class right now.  So far, I'm trying to go with a simple layout that still covers enough categories. I'm using a free forum host, and just went with an existing theme, because I don't know how to make one from scratch. I don't think there are ads, and it seems pretty clean at least.

edit: My laptop's about to die, but I think I've about got it wrapped up for now. 

Here's what I've got so far. We've got a two hour drive home today, so I'll be home around 8 (it's 5 for me right now). Check it out, and let me know what improvements I can make.

http://thephotographyboard.freeforums.net


----------



## JeffFromMtl

capoeiraesp said:


> Jeff, you are the king of iPhone photos in these parts. Would love to see a little tutorial of what you do on VSCO app.



Thanks, man. But really, I don't do much. The first one, I went with a different filter and made a few more changes than usual (contrast, temp, saturation) to get a warmer vibe, but the others are pretty much the same old for me. I generally stick with filters P5, B6 and HB2. Otherwise, I'll usually drop the exposure 1 unit if at all, add 2-3 units on the fade and if necessary, I'll crop. So as you can see, I don't really tweak all that much and I'm not sure how I could go about doing a visual tutorial, but if you have any suggestions, I'd be open to it.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Alright, here are the first files I'm sharing from my new X100s. All shot in NYC and in 16x9 cuz fvck yeah.


----------



## Tang

holy contrast batman! Are those SOOC or processed RAWs because if those are jpgs.. damn!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Tang said:


> holy contrast batman! Are those SOOC or processed RAWs because if those are jpgs.. damn!



Yeah, these are processed RAWs. But I'm actually really interested in trying the film emulation jpgs that are available on this camera, so I'll give those a shot soon.

About the contrast - that's just been a slow progression on my part. My processing has moved more toward higher contrast and big, fat bold colours lately. It's just funny because my processing/film emulation tendencies started out entirely on the other end of the spectrum with low contrasts and washed out colours.


----------



## Tang

JeffFromMtl said:


> Yeah, these are processed RAWs. But I'm actually really interested in trying the film emulation jpgs that are available on this camera, so I'll give those a shot soon.
> 
> About the contrast - that's just been a slow progression on my part. My processing has moved more toward higher contrast and big, fat bold colours lately. It's just funny because my processing/film emulation tendencies started out entirely on the other end of the spectrum with low contrasts and washed out colours.



Definitely not complaining, man! Enjoying the shots AND the processing.


----------



## tank

Wretched said:


> https://www.facebook.com/HoskingIndustries




thanks


----------



## Tang

About had a heart-attack walking up 12 flights of stairs to get to the top of this parking garage, but it was worth it. Met a couple other photographers up there and generally had a great time.

Results:



red and gold by nrrfed, on Flickr



danger street by nrrfed, on Flickr



lady with the konica by nrrfed, on Flickr



frogger by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Khoi

Some live photos from The Contortionist, Intervals, and Polyphia show last Friday in Anaheim, CA!

the lighting was HORRID, it was just purple spot lights, and The Contortionist was just red lights the entire set. You should see the RAW files, they were terrible to work with.


----------



## Dalcan

Tang said:


> About had a heart-attack walking up 12 flights of stairs to get to the top of this parking garage, but it was worth it. Met a couple other photographers up there and generally had a great time.



These look pretty damn awesome. I love the color tones in these.





Khoi said:


> Some live photos from The Contortionist, Intervals, and Polyphia show last Friday in Anaheim, CA!
> 
> the lighting was HORRID, it was just purple spot lights, and The Contortionist was just red lights the entire set. You should see the RAW files, they were terrible to work with.



I think Intervals just posted on of your photo's on their page!


----------



## Wretched

Matt's LC GTR Torana. Same guy that owns the Evo I posted last week.


----------



## Khoi

itsdoodoobaby said:


> I think Intervals just posted on of your photo's on their page!



Yeah, I met Aaron after the show and got his e-mail and sent him the pics, he was stoked on them! But I'm even happier it was shared by them


----------



## Dalcan

Khoi said:


> Yeah, I met Aaron after the show and got his e-mail and sent him the pics, he was stoked on them! But I'm even happier it was shared by them



Congrats dude!


----------



## Tang

I love this shot. One of my favorites. It was a bit harrowing leaning over the edge but it was so worth it.


----------



## Philligan

Here's one I forgot about from last week. There were some crazy colour gradients in the sky, so I got Dawn to take a picture while we were driving. There's some weird kind of clipping going on in the blues or something like that, which I think is why I didn't post it the first time.



The drive home by philbabbey, on Flickr

Brought my camera to class again today, but haven't had a chance to take it out yet.


----------



## Philligan

How should I get into making prints? I've been googling, but I've been having trouble finding a decent article that's not more than a few years old.

Can I make half-decent prints (nothing huge, maybe up to 24" at the most) for a few hundred dollars or less? I know you've gotta worry about the heads drying out, so I'd be down to say make a print at least once every couple weeks, just to make a point of doing it. Are the Canon Pixmas any good?


----------



## Whammy

I love my Pixma Pro-1. Very impressed with the quality out of it.
Took a while to learn how to adjust my photos so the prints would look closer to how they look on my screen. Prints always tended to look darker because a print isn't backlit unlike my laptop screen  I ended up settling on using the internal Lightroom print adjustment settings where I have the brightness and contrast both turned up by 25.

I've made a lot of prints and I just ran out of ink completely on one of the cartridges. All the rest are pretty much on the way out so I'll be buying a full set of inks.

My printer can print on A3+ which is roughly 13x19 in inches.
Pretty sure it can print on longer sheets (19+) but the width is 13 inches.

To be able to print 24 inches is pretty big for a home printer. I can't imagine you'll be able to print that big at home for a few hundred dollars.


----------



## Philligan

Thanks man.  I had no idea what a reasonable print size was, but I feel like 13x19 would be more than fine. I really liked making my own desktop wallpaper, and I thought it would be cool to go out and deliberately take photos to put up on the wall somewhere. I'm thinking normal "nice" photos with Dawn and whatnot, and maybe having a go at landscape or fine art, too. 

I just saw the price of the Pro-1. Sadly, it's a little on the expensive side for me at the moment.  I'll check out the 100, though.


----------



## Whammy

As far as I know Epson offer printers that print large and are under the Pro-1 price.

The things I like about printing is trying out different papers and also seeing how your photos look printed large. It's quite different to seeing them on a screen. It makes you think slightly differently.


----------



## Tang

In case you guys couldn't tell, I didn't bother correcting for straight lines on that girl+cityscape shot. I went back and forth on it but in the end I decided to just go with how I shot it. Believe it or not, that's completely unctopped which is a big deal for me. I almost always crop a little bit whether it's to get rid of distracting elements or change the aspect ratio. It's so nice to get the shot you want as you see it. 

Would anyone be interested in the RAW? It was a challenge to get all the tones just right because we're actually in the shadow of a building so I had to boost shadows a ton.

Phil: as soon as I stop being lazy and process my shots specifically for print I'm gonna have my whole house covered in my shots!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Something from today's test shoot: long exposure (on a tripod), lighting and a model.




Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D+2 stop ND and CPL: ISO 100, 1/5s, f/8


----------



## Tang

More of those kinds of shots please. Love it.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

You're in luck .





Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D+2 stop ND and CPL: ISO 100, 4/5s, f/11


----------



## Khoi

ThePhilosopher said:


> Something from today's test shoot: long exposure (on a tripod), lighting and a model.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D+2 stop ND and CPL: ISO 100, 1/5s, f/8



That's a great shot. My only gripe with it though is that the leg takes too much of the highlight away from her face. It seems like all the focus of the photo is on her leg, it just pulls too much attention.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

There's a new version up currently, I think the only way to adequately fix it might be to reshoot it.


----------



## Dalcan

ThePhilosopher said:


> There's a new version up currently, I think the only way to adequately fix it might be to reshoot it.



I like both of them man!


----------



## Tang

This is just silly.


----------



## Dalcan

That looks awesome dude!!


----------



## Dalcan

Just ordered the Fujifilm 18-55mm


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> This is just silly.



That photo confuses my brain 

Such a deep depth of field yet no sense of depth 




ThePhilosopher said:


> Something from today's test shoot: long exposure (on a tripod), lighting and a model.
> 
> Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D+2 stop ND and CPL: ISO 100, 1/5s, f/8



That photo is great  If her leg was just a bit covered by running water that would have been prefect. Still, it's a great photo and idea. Would never have thought of doing a photo like that.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Tang, I feel like you've been stepping it up lately, so keep up the good shit. And I like the direction your processing is going in, too.

------

In other news, I got back my roll of CT Precisa today, and yet again, shit came out green as ..... Supposedly the scanner plays a big part in that, because Noritsu Koki scanners tend to have that effect on x-pro films. I'm going to take my film to a lab that uses Fujifilm scanners (if I can find one) to bring out the deep blues that this film is known for. Anyway, I'm so tired of these green/yellow slides, that I just converted the scans to B&W, and was done with it. Shot with my LC-A in NYC.






This was weird. The guy in the ocean was fully clothed, screaming on his phone. Dude was having a serious crisis moment.


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> That photo confuses my brain
> 
> Such a deep depth of field yet no sense of depth



Ha! It's a strange shot for sure! I think it has something to do with the overall distance between me and the center building. It was probably 75m away from my vantage point and the buildings on either side of it were even further than that. Exif says it was shot at 38mm so there's a little bit of optical compression going on when you consider the effective focal length (58mm or so) but mainly i think it's the distance creating the illusion. 



JeffFromMtl said:


> Tang, I feel like you've been stepping it up lately, so keep up the good shit. And I like the direction your processing is going in, too.



Thanks man! Glad you're liking the work  I've been consumed with buying all the photo books I can afford and just studying the shit out of them. I love taking what the old masters did (Bresson, Saul Leiter, etc) and trying to mold it into my own style. Hopefully it's coming through!

I also really like where my processing is at now. I've really toned down the saturation and I'm better off for it.

In other news, vertical orientation is the shit. I can't believe I've ignored the creative possibilities for so long!


----------



## Khoi

Here's a fun one for you guys. I've been working on a lot of film sets ever since moving out here, and I decided to try my hand at some set photography while helping out.

I think I came out with a lot of good shots, I was pretty happy how well it worked out.


https://briannguyen.exposure.co/mop-bucket


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's some pretty cool stuff - a little repetitive at times, but I feel like I got the experience of being on set.


----------



## tank

some advices for lightpainting?


----------



## Khoi

ThePhilosopher said:


> That's some pretty cool stuff - a little repetitive at times, but I feel like I got the experience of being on set.



Valid criticism, I began to feel the same way. I found that I was shooting the same stuff over and over for the sake of shooting. I think I need to be more selective next time, upon viewing it again, I realized some shots could have been omitted.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

One for Tang:




Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D+2 stop ND and CPL: ISO 100, 1/5s, f/8

And something more mundane:




Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D+2 stop ND: ISO 200, 1/200s, f/5.6


----------



## flint757

Did your stylist have to keep redoing the hair and makeup or did y'all do them in such an order that it wasn't a huge issue?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

We did all the stuff in the water last and were mindful to move upstream as we shot so as to not kick up any extra sediment. 
She did her own hair and makeup beforehand for this shoot - we may utilize a hair stylist and mua for our next shoot.

All water shots were done with rear-curtain sync to minimize motion blur.


----------



## Philligan

I got roped into doing a family shoot for some semi-distant family members yesterday.  They had a pretty nice spot out in the country, and some terrible ideas for photos haha. They aren't very close with the rest of the family, so I didn't go too far out of my way on these - I pretty much shot the poses they (read: the wife) wanted without any intention of posting them anywhere, but a few actually turned out okay IMHO.

I'm still trying to get used to the colours with the Fuji. It seems to need a lot less colour adjustment, but at the same time, you can usually get pretty heavy-handed with it if you want. My main issue with this shoot was the white balance - it was cold and cloudy out, so they were turning out a little cold to begin with, and everyone's faces were turning purple from the cold. I tried to tone it down without going too crazy with the brush trying to warm them up. It'll probably bug me more than anyone else. 

I haven't totally settled on these as finished products, but I usually notice more issues after I've posted them. I'm not sure if there's a better way to go about this, but I usually go through the photos in order, and I'll just send them straight to my desktop. Once I'm done them all, I'll open them up randomly just with Image Preview and look for colour inconsistencies or over/underexposure, and if I catch something, I'll go back and fix it in Lightroom and just write over it on the desktop. I did that two or three times, and I think I've settled on a finished product, but nothing's set in stone yet.



DSCF0047 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0078 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0105 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0098 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Philosopher: love it!

Phil: that shot of the children looking into the clearing is perfect. Well done, man!

EDIT: on second thought, the WB does appear to my eyes to be a tad too cool. Maybe bump it up to 6300k or so? It'll yellow the grass, but you can use the Hue tool in Lightroom to bring it back into line. If you're already at or past 6300 ignore this!

EDIT 2: more vertical composition:



through the crazy window by nrrfed, on Flickr



down, down, down by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Khoi said:


> Here's a fun one for you guys. I've been working on a lot of film sets ever since moving out here, and I decided to try my hand at some set photography while helping out.
> 
> I think I came out with a lot of good shots, I was pretty happy how well it worked out.
> 
> 
> https://briannguyen.exposure.co/mop-bucket



I like the set.

I did photography a few times for film sets before moving country.
Each time I was hired was because they liked my own style so I was allowed to do whatever I wanted. My job was to document the making while at the same time not to give anything away about the film. The photos were then used for press release purposes.

The first time I shot on set was great. Loads of new things to photograph. But I quickly felt that I was repeating myself with my photos. The next day in and things were super repetitive. I used that as an opportunity to be more creative which was when I got the best shots, they ones they used.

I broke down my photos and what photos I needed into different groups.
The first ones were the obvious press photos which were nearly on the level of stock photos. Director beside main camera instructing cinematographer. Director discussing ideas with lead actor etc.
Everything was obvious to someone who didn't know much about film sets.
The hand gestures and facial expressions from the director were informative and made it obvious what he was asking the other person to do. I still kept a sense of question around the background to the photo.

The second group of photos was the rest of the crew doing their job. But I tried to keep things in context rather than just a close up. A little awkward as I also didn't want to give anything away about the film so in most photos of someone doing their job you could just get a sense of something about the film in the background. A close up of them is great but without another shot showing why they are doing it a lot of viewers with no background to films won't understand.
Another group of photos was the interaction between everyone. The subtle moments that demonstrate the bond between the crew and actors. The moment the makeup artist would quickly brush the actresses hair out of her face with her fingers moments before filming etc. Rarely would I have a photo of someone looking at the camera. A sense of being behind the scene was lost in my opinion if someone looked at me of even knew I was taking photos.

All of the above is just my own experience with shooting on sets. Not saying it's right or wrong, just my own methods. 

But yeah, as I said I really liked the photos you put up. My only main criticism (nitpicking really) would be hand gestures.
You have a good few photos of people pointing to something outside of the frame. Hand gestures are great as they crearly convay what is going on. However in all of these photo it is conveying that your attention should be on what the person is pointing to, which of course can't be seen. Keeping hand gestures which describe the emotions between the two talking are much more informative to the viewer than a hand movent describing something outside of the frame. Sure we know they are talking about something outside of the frame, but we don't know why, what or how they feel about it.




Philligan said:


> I got roped into doing a family shoot for some semi-distant family members yesterday.  They had a pretty nice spot out in the country, and some terrible ideas for photos haha. They aren't very close with the rest of the family, so I didn't go too far out of my way on these - I pretty much shot the poses they (read: the wife) wanted without any intention of posting them anywhere, but a few actually turned out okay IMHO.



I hate when close, but not actually close people expect you to take photos for them. Might not be the case with you but it hit a nerve with me 
Been used a few times with zero gratitude so I refuse to do it now.
It got to the point where I didn't want to take my camera with me in case someone asked me to take photos of their kids or dogs because they love my photos.
I found it quite insulting that they love my work but put absolutely no value on the skill I have that they want to avail of.
Thankfully it hasn't happened since as all of the people have been on my wife's side and always ask her if I'll take photos rather than ask me directly 
She now tells them my rates for portraits and the conversation dies there because they had no intention of hiring me in the first place 


I know you like to keep your tones as natural as possible. But when working with photos under bad lighting conditions and with people with bad skin complexion you need to do different things in order to not make them look ill 

I normally use a few different options for skin tones in lightroom.
The one I normally use to get rid of pink tones in the face is this.






Shifting the red hue to more of an orange tone normally fixes those issues. Other reds in the shot will also be effected though so it doesn't work all the time. I use this quite a lot though.

Another is to adjust the curves. This is an example for if their face is too cold.




I'm only adjusting the blue channel. I pulled out the tones by a small amount that were making the face cold and added another point to make sure only that tonal range was reduced rather than the entire range.
The area and color to pull out will completely depend on the tones present in their skin and the brightness of their skin.
It's very very easy to go overboard with the curves.

Another option is to use the brush tool on their skin and change the white balance and/or overlay a warmer color.

The skin tone in the last photo is the best. The second last one there is a lot of red tones in the skin


----------



## Philligan

Thanks guys. 

Dave, that's awesome. I'll try that. I'm fairly comfortable with playing with the temperature as well as individual colours, but I've never touched the R, G, and B tone curves on their own. I think I tried it once and tinted the whole photo green, and backed off.  I'll try messing around with that and see what each section does.

On another note, the Movember season is upon us, so selfies are required. 



Self Portrait - November 2014 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Definitely play with the color curves. I imagine it might be a bit easier to do this in Photoshop because you can use layers and blend them just perfectly. Sounds like something worth learning.

EDIT: ....ed up both of those shots.. oops! will repost soon!


----------



## Dalcan

Phil-

I really like that last handful of shots you posted. The colors, I think are good.

Tang-

Some of those compositions are awesome. I love the building stuff.


----------



## Dalcan

So I made Pizza today.














And we recorded some bass.


----------



## Philligan

I got out with a buddy for the first time today. It's pretty funny, I actually met him during my last week at Home Depot in Windsor (he'd just been hired), and on my last shift at Home Depot in Sarnia, he came into the store. He'd just moved to Sarnia from Windsor to start the photography program at the college here. Kinda funny how that worked out - if I'd moved back a few days sooner, I wouldn't have met him, so he probably wouldn't have come and talked to me in Sarnia. And if I'd quit a day sooner in Sarnia, I wouldn't have known he'd moved here.

Anyway, we were talking about finally hanging out, and he had a project to shoot for school, so we decided to kill two birds with one stone. I didn't shoot a lot because of how cold and rainy it was, but got a couple of him shooting his girlfriend. Between the cold, cloudy weather and these files I'm still not used to, getting the colours balanced was really hard, so I just cheated and made it B&W. 



DSCF0230 by philbabbey, on Flickr

edit: Had another go at it from scratch. I got a little more liberal with warming up the white balance, and pretty much didn't touch the colours.



DSCF0230re by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0230bw by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

the warmer color shot is right where it needs to be, and probably my favorite of the three.


----------



## Philligan

K, sorry for spamming this photo way too many times, but I wanted to try and get a cinematic look to photos. This is my first crack at it. Thoughts/tips?



DSCF0230cine by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Khoi

Whammy said:


> I like the set.



Dude, thank you so much for all the tips and the words. I'll definitely be sure to keep what you said in mind, I'm shooting on another set right now. I agree though, it does get a little repetitive just because some scenes take so long, but I'll try to get more radical when I feel I have the basics covered.


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> K, sorry for spamming this photo way too many times, but I wanted to try and get a cinematic look to photos. This is my first crack at it. Thoughts/tips?



Tones and dynamic range are nicest on the first photo Phil 

As for cinematic. I normally prefer a crop of 2.35:1 (or close enough 2.39/2.4) and a black 16:9 boarder top and bottom to give that letterbox feel. I'm normally against using boarders but in this case I believe it's justified.
It really helps to close things in and to force the perspective into a horizontal mindset, if that makes any sense 

I've tried to process some photos like professionally graded films but I've always failed and in most cases ended up using black & white.
The RGB curves can play a huge part in creating a cinematic grading style photo along with keeping the blacks slightly faded.

Check out this guys photos. His processing and choice of angles are very cinematic.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/djpoe/


----------



## Tang

Fixed the WB on this. Horrah!



ascend by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Dalcan

I always attempt to get into fixing the white balance of my photo's, and I never like the results =/


----------



## Dalcan

Was out with the lady today. Snapped some photos...


----------



## Tyler

Had to relieve stress, and decided to visit our area's puppy farm today with the gal


----------



## Tang

DOG FARM!? I need this is my life.

What do you guys like better: color or b&w? I feel the b&w is more focused, but who knows.



ascend (b&amp;w) by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## flint757

I personally like the colored one more simply because of the way the sun is lighting the background.


----------



## Whammy

Tang.
B&W!

My eye scatters all over the color version, not sure where to focus my attention on. I end up being drawn towards the overhead windows and miss the lovely subtle light play under his feet and on the left and right where the walls meet the ceiling along with a true sense of all the lines merging at one point.

In the B&W version my eyes focuses straight away on the the lines merging and secondly the shadow/light play. It's being taken on a little journey discovering one element at a time. It engages me more therefore I look at the photo for longer


----------



## Whammy

I realize I'm not pushing my photography skills on any level with a standard portrait photo. But the wife wanted a new profile photo and I haven't been taking anything so it'll do for now 

Nearly all my black & white shots lately have been using the same preset that I made and I'm quite happy with the processing it applies on my photos, from portraits to landscape. Doesn't work all the time but it's the first preset I made that has worked for so many things. Happy in a way because it makes me feel like I'm shooting film because I'm shooting to suit my preset, rather that processing to suit the photo.




Untitled by -Whammy-, on Flickr


----------



## Dalcan

For some reason I always prefer the B&W's


----------



## Philligan

I like the B&W version. It suits the line-heavy feel of the photo better IMHO and makes me notice the person on the escalator more, too.

Dave, that's awesome that you've been using a preset.  It reminds me of VSCO. I kind of feel like VSCO is cheating, for the most part, but I do like the idea of treating it like a roll of film, and running your whole set through one film preset. The only difference is you've made your preset yourself, so you win.


----------



## Dalcan

Whammy said:


> I realize I'm not pushing my photography skills on any level with a standard portrait photo. But the wife wanted a new profile photo and I haven't been taking anything so it'll do for now
> 
> Nearly all my black & white shots lately have been using the same preset that I made and I'm quite happy with the processing it applies on my photos, from portraits to landscape. Doesn't work all the time but it's the first preset I made that has worked for so many things. Happy in a way because it makes me feel like I'm shooting film because I'm shooting to suit my preset, rather that processing to suit the photo.





I like it a lot dude. The only thing I would have done different was the angle that you shot. I really don't like shooting down, but that's a personal preference


----------



## Whammy

I tried out some VSCO stuff.
Great for color toning or rough quick processing. I used to love shooting with slide film but I don't like any of the slide film VSCO presets 
One of my favorites was Kodak 100G but I hate the preset.

It mainly made me rethink how I process my photos. I pulled up some that I liked and checked out exactly what they were changing in lightroom. I saw things that I would never thought of doing myself. Something as simple as changing the grain size and roughness to give different grain effects.

So yeah, some of the VSCO presets really made me re-think stuff.
End result I made my own B&W preset with the knowledge gained 
It is a bit VSCO but then again any photo that has a film like quality to the processing will look a bit VSCO


----------



## Whammy

itsdoodoobaby said:


> I like it a lot dude. The only thing I would have done different was the angle that you shot. I really don't like shooting down, but that's a personal preference



Shooting downwards was a conscious effort on my part. I find that it's a very flattering angle for anyone who's a bit self conscious about themselves. Plus in this case the angle helped eliminate distracting background stuff that would cause ugly bokeh.
Last but not least the angle helps to create a shallower depth of field on the subject compared to shooting head on. The arms and chest are out of focus when they would be in focus when shot head on 

-EDIT-

I should also add in. The photo is just a snap shot  Zero artistic merit.
It's just a snap shot for the wife and I don't have any better photos to upload at the moment


----------



## Philligan

Whammy said:


> Last but not least the angle helps to create a shallower depth of field on the subject compared to shooting head on. The arms and chest are out of focus when they would be in focus when shot head on



I never thought of that. I've been really liking more straightforward portraits that have a lot of focus falloff visible on the subject, but don't necessarily have a tonne of the background blown out. Gonna have to give that a try.


----------



## Tang

All of my current color work was done with a preset based on VSCO's Fuji's FP100-C instant film. Almost all the B&W are processed with Silver Efex Pro 2. It's so good 

After a nights sleep I agree with those who liked the B&W better and it's exactly because of the little splash of light on the guy.


----------



## Dalcan

Whammy said:


> Shooting downwards was a conscious effort on my part. I find that it's a very flattering angle for anyone who's a bit self conscious about themselves. Plus in this case the angle helped eliminate distracting background stuff that would cause ugly bokeh.
> Last but not least the angle helps to create a shallower depth of field on the subject compared to shooting head on. The arms and chest are out of focus when they would be in focus when shot head on
> 
> -EDIT-
> 
> I should also add in. The photo is just a snap shot  Zero artistic merit.
> It's just a snap shot for the wife and I don't have any better photos to upload at the moment



All very valid, and I agree! I just don't like doing it. It's a good shot though!


----------



## Philligan

I had another go at that photo, trying to get a movie still feel to it. If the light's half decent, I'll try another shot with Dawn after class, but the sun might have gone down by then. I only have Lightroom so this was a bit of a hack job, but I think it has more of a cinematic feel than the last one. I mostly desaturated it, played with split toning to get a cool hue to the shadows and warm to the highlights, and added the letterbox around a 2.35:1 crop.



Cine attempt by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang said:


> All of my current color work was done with a preset based on VSCO's Fuji's FP100-C instant film.



Did someone say FP100-45C? Shot on Sunday morning - I'm off to dip my T-Max sheets now.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Did someone say FP100-45C? Shot on Sunday morning - I'm off to dip my T-Max sheets now.



that's wonderful.

my two favorite things:



closing time by nrrfed, on Flickr

the blue windows in this shot turned the sky extra blue.. I decided to keep it as it was instead of lowering the saturation.



blue windows by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## feilong29

You guys! I've had my nikon d610 for a while now, and I must say I'm not impressed with it. I really want a smaller camera and I'm learning that I don't really need a full frame camera. I'm considering switching to the fujifilm x-pro1 which is much more compact and has luscious colors and is very sharp. Would that be a crazy idea? I do family photos on occasion, but I really want something that isn't too much to carry around, perfect for street photography and landscaping shots (though lenses play a good part in that). Any advice is appreciated!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I don't see how switching systems is going to alleviate anything but the size. Cameras themselves don't play a lot into image sharpness and if you're not getting the colors you want then you should really work on the post you're doing on your RAWs as that's where you'll get the most leverage in editing.

Also, I have to lol at the D610 being a big camera.


----------



## feilong29

ThePhilosopher said:


> I don't see how switching systems is going to alleviate anything but the size. Cameras themselves don't play a lot into image sharpness and if you're not getting the colors you want then you should really work on the post you're doing on your RAWs as that's where you'll get the most leverage in editing.
> 
> Also, I have to lol at the D610 being a big camera.



Well the size is the biggest factor to include the lenses. The fujifilm looks much smaller to me. I edit just fine, but I still see a consistent "look" from the Fujifilm that I prefer. One thing I overlooked was the fact that I keep a battery pack on my nikon. Still the width of the bottom is not something I've grown to like.


----------



## feilong29

I'll save up and just buy a Fujifilm later on actually. Carry on!


----------



## Rook

>exactly how I felt
>exactly what I did
>haven't looked back

Let me know if I can help in any way dude


----------



## feilong29

Rook said:


> >exactly how I felt
> >exactly what I did
> >haven't looked back
> 
> Let me know if I can help in any way dude



PM'd ya bro!


----------



## Dalcan

ThePhilosopher said:


> Did someone say FP100-45C? Shot on Sunday morning - I'm off to dip my T-Max sheets now.



Looks so awesome man


----------



## ThePhilosopher

feilong29 said:


> Well the size is the biggest factor to include the lenses. The fujifilm looks much smaller to me. I edit just fine, but I still see a consistent "look" from the Fujifilm that I prefer. One thing I overlooked was the fact that I keep a battery pack on my nikon. Still the width of the bottom is not something I've grown to like.



I wasn't trying to be offensive, I think you can get the look you're after with just about any system (in the world of 35mm variants) through post. By all means go Fuji if the Nikon is uncomfortable to shoot with for you.


----------



## Tang

You know.. I've got the XT-1 on my mind.

Please, Pentax gods.. cure of me of this awful sin!

In other news, I take alot of pictures. If only there were a market for reflection heavy street photography! I do have a model that loves my style, but we just have to work out our schedules to get some shooting done. I'm imagining a very faux-documentary 'fashion' shoot that I don't really see much of.



street scene #22 by nrrfed, on Flickr



street scene #23 by nrrfed, on Flickr

Yeah, I know this one isn't exactly centered but due to the nature of the gigantic monolight in the sky I didn't have any other options. I got it as close as I could while still blocking the sun with those cross-beams. I still love, love, love the light.



into the sun by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I don't know if the Pentax gods can help, but Lord Sinar can. T-MAX 100 4x5 stand developed in Rodinal 1:100 for 1 hour.


----------



## Tang

Damn.. I really need to step my darkroom game up. I have 3 rolls of AFGA b&w film that are waiting to be developed.

What camera are you using for those FP-100 shots? I love the colors you're getting and the idea of film + instant prints is really exciting to me.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I used my Sinar Alpina 4x5 with a Schneider Xenar 150mm f/5.6 in a Copal shutter. All shots were at 1/500s f/5.6 (wide open).


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> I don't see how switching systems is going to alleviate anything but the size. Cameras themselves don't play a lot into image sharpness and if you're not getting the colors you want then you should really work on the post you're doing on your RAWs as that's where you'll get the most leverage in editing.
> 
> Also, I have to lol at the D610 being a big camera.



I don't regret switching to the X-T1, but I do notice the smaller file sizes, even compared to my 20MP 70D (I shot parts of a couple weddings on a D610 and loved the 24MP). The 35 1.4 is even pretty sharp wide open, but I definitely notice the drop in detail/apparent sharpness going to a lower MP sensor. There's talk of Fuji doing a 24MP sensor in the next camera, which would be awesome.

Another thing I noticed is that the Fuji files behave way differently, and they look way better straight out of camera, but there's not a whole lot it puts out that you can't replicate with another camera and some Lightroom sorcery.

Having said that, it's nice that I can do a JPG conversion in-camera, wifi it to my phone, and at the most have to do a couple minimal tweaks before posting it online. With the 70D, I had to fight the in-camera JPGs and still only managed to come out with a half decent edit when I posted from my phone. 



Tang said:


> You know.. I've got the XT-1 on my mind.
> 
> Please, Pentax gods.. cure of me of this awful sin!



I'm not sure if this will help, but I shot a bit at school the other day, because I can fit the X-T1, 35 1.4, and my Canon FD 50 1.8 with an adapter in my backpack along with my laptop and textbooks. So it can literally go with my anywhere.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I suppose if you're looking to go that route, I understand; however, I haven't shot JPEG since I figured out RAW existed and I have never liked the way Lightroom works so that kind of workflow is totally foreign to me.

I don't know if the MP count is the contributor to apparent sharpness or not - my files seem fairly sharp and I'm on a lowly 12MP body.


----------



## Rook

^I quite agree, sharpness is determined by lens resolution (which for a given viewing size will be impacted by sensor size to a degree - my hasselblad lenses aren't digital resolution at all, but scanned 6x6 negs viewed at the same size look fine); sensor pixel microlens tech, quality (or presence) of IR and anti aliasing filters and processing - both in creating the RAW file and in post. Cramming more pixels onto a sensor I feel is a little bit of a false economy, and as ThePhilosopher rightly says, pro bodies consistently offer just 14-18mpx. It might just be me, but 16's more than I'll ever need, and in fact if I could get a lower pixel count body from Fuji and reap the better noise and dynamic range performance, I would!

I maintain, however, the lack of colour cast is something I'm yet to be able to beat from the Fuji. The colour separation is a very real benefit of the Fuji sensors, and going back to my 6D when I had it and now 5D mark II's and Mark III's, it's still something noticeable in the Fuji files. To me, however. Most photographers who see it can't put their finger on the difference, and most casual observers just flat out wouldn't notice.

I feel like I can see what the Fuji offers me that other cameras haven't and I put my money where my mouth is. At the end of the day though, it's about making myself happy as a photographer which, for whatever reason, my Fuji system does. And the fact that I can (and do) keep my X-T in my inside coat pocket and my 23 in my side pocket, meaning I have what in my opinion is the ideal digital camera on me all the time.

The Hasselblad's a different story, I can't quite explain that. Or explain why I now have two backs and three lenses for it. That escalated quickly haha.


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> I suppose if you're looking to go that route, I understand; however, I haven't shot JPEG since I figured out RAW existed and I have never liked the way Lightroom works so that kind of workflow is totally foreign to me.
> 
> I don't know if the MP count is the contributor to apparent sharpness or not - my files seem fairly sharp and I'm on a lowly 12MP body.



In hindsight it probably looks like I'm arguing, but I meant to agree with you.  Just that the camera body has less to do with the sharpness and colours than a lot of other factors.



Rook said:


> II feel like I can see what the Fuji offers me that other cameras haven't and I put my money where my mouth is. At the end of the day though, it's about making myself happy as a photographer which, for whatever reason, my Fuji system does. And the fact that I can (and do) keep my X-T in my inside coat pocket and my 23 in my side pocket, meaning I have what in my opinion is the ideal digital camera on me all the time.



 For jobs I like the larger file size of the Canons, but that's about where it ends. I love everything else about the Fuji, but specifically the size and handling, and EVF. And the fact that my main/favourite camera is now my pocket camera, too, only makes things better.

Unless I get an X100T, in which case that will become my new pocket camera.


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> For jobs I like the larger file size of the Canons, but that's about where it ends. I love everything else about the Fuji, but specifically the size and handling, and EVF.



Even the battery life?

 I kid.


----------



## Rook

The battery is something you can easily carry multiples of at least, you can't just bundle some extra IQ or weight saving in the front pocket of your camera bag haha.


----------



## Philligan

Whammy said:


> Even the battery life?
> 
> I kid.



Touche. 

I actually completely forgot about battery life, so hopefully that's a good sign. I forgot to check when I did that family shoot the other day, and I'm still kicking myself for that. I shot around 200 frames that evening, and should have checked the battery percentage to see where it was at. The indicator hadn't moved, which I think means it was above 50% at least. 

For a full wedding with Brenna I'd typically shoot 500-800 shots, over 8 hours (she was more strict about how long we were there for). With Dan, it was 1000-1500 over usually about 10 hours. I'd definitely be nervous with the Fuji in a situation like that, and would want at least four batteries. But I'm not sure how many weddings I'll be doing with either of them from now on, and so far I haven't run into any situation where I've used a full battery. I'm still ordering a second this weekend, but I don't know if I'll rush to get more than two just yet.


----------



## Chuck

Anyone here into iPhone photography?


----------



## Whammy

Chuck said:


> Anyone here into iPhone photography?



I can't speak for everyone here but it would be a safe bet that most don't care what camera was used once the end result is good photography 

Most of JeffFromMtl's recent posts have been photos taken with an iPhone. Go back a few pages and you should see them.


----------



## Philligan

I feel like we've all posted iPhone photos before. It's great to have in a pinch, but I don't really enjoy it. I don't have a good reason for doing this, but I don't like editing iPhone photos on the computer - I try to keep everything confined within my phone. So I'm always thinking about the image quality, and noticing the lack of depth in the colours. 

The big reason I'm not a fan though is I don't like the mindset it puts me in. I miss the control I'd have with a "real" camera, and I don't like how I interact with my phone. I really miss the viewfinder, too, because I shake like a crackhead when I'm holding my phone out at arm's length. 

I think that's a continuation of why I like shooting my AE-1, even if I'm indifferent towards film itself. The only manual everything is so deliberate, and puts me in a totally different frame of mind.


----------



## Tang

You know IOS8 opened up a good deal of manual control? It's not perfect but exposure compensation does work great on my iPhone 5. 

This is an iPhone shot;


----------



## Philligan

Some Pro Neg Std straight out of camera while we wait for lunch.


----------



## Tang

I should mention that I got 1,100 shots out of my last full charge. 



But I don't have a glorious, gigantic EVF.


----------



## Philligan

I really, really like the EVF. The exposure preview is amazing. I'm surprised at how quickly I took to this camera, considering how differently you interact with it. With an SLR, I'd usually use spot metering, keep an eye on the meter in the viewfinder, take a shot, and chimp/check the histogram and make any adjustments I'd need from there. You couldn't push the shadows much with the 70D, so I'd use spot metering on whatever I was shooting, and chimp to make sure highlights weren't blown.

With the X-T1, I'll be framing my shot, see in the EVF that the sky looks a bit overexposed, and bump whatever parameter I want down until it looks good before I take a shot. 

Not to mention, the on-chip AF is amazing. It hunts a little bit when the light gets low (but I'm pretty sure that's more the 35's fault than the camera), but when it hits, it's on. And even at wide apertures, the viewfinder is so big and sharp that you can eyeball what's in focus almost as well as with focus peaking, so it's easy to make sure if focused on the right area.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Some digitals from Sunday:


----------



## Rook

Iceland. 

Hasselblad: 80 2.8, 150 4 and 250 5.6 (roughly 45, 85 and 135 ish if you account for the much longer diagonal).

I have two film backs, so can use two types of film on the fly. I won't risk flying with faster than 400 speed in case I can't get a hand inspection and my stock gets scanned. I don't worry too much about black and white for travel, I'll do that digitally, and I wouldn't chose slide film the whole time I don't need the resolution.

As far as I see it, that brings me to two slow to medium colour negative stocks to take, which gives me the choice of Fuji 160S or 400H, or Kodak Ektar 100 or Portra 160 or 400.

I'm thinking I'm gunna go Fuji Pro, I imagine the Fuji saturation and contrast along with the slightly sterile tone will compliment Iceland's aesthetic. Thoughts? Suggestions?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Ektar is gorgeous film to shoot. I have about 25 sheets of it I've been saving to shoot.


----------



## Philligan

I forgot about this one. I took it Monday, and just saw it going through my camera now. This is straight out of camera, Velvia sim.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Sadly, that doesn't remind me of Velvia at all - cool shot though.


----------



## Rook

Haha yeah the film 'simulations' (lol) are more vague and suggestive than the name's would indicate. Velvia adds contrast, sharpness and saturation with strong green tones, Provia slightly less so with a stringer purple/orange tonality, and the ProNegs have a more flat contrast and slightly pastel colours, none of the sims actually look really anything like their film moniker.


----------



## Khoi

Some more set photos, here's the gallery: https://briannguyen.exposure.co/mute


----------



## Rook

Shame about the feet on the last one, that was nearly great!


----------



## Tang

More street fun.


----------



## Chuck

Whammy said:


> I can't speak for everyone here but it would be a safe bet that most don't care what camera was used once the end result is good photography
> 
> Most of JeffFromMtl's recent posts have been photos taken with an iPhone. Go back a few pages and you should see them.


 
Well sweet! I just love using my iPhone since I always have it on me and it's so simple and straightforward, and I like being able to do everything from my phone, makes the whole process of shooting, editing, and sharing streamlined. I also think iPhone photography is a fun niche, I love being able to see what amazing things people are doing with their phones in contrast to with the more expensive photography gear. 

Anyway, I somewhat recently actually started using my Instagram and have been sharing my stuff there. 

Instagram


----------



## Tang

Chuck said:


> Well sweet! I just love using my iPhone since I always have it on me and it's so simple and straightforward, and I like being able to do everything from my phone, makes the whole process of shooting, editing, and sharing streamlined. I also think iPhone photography is a fun niche, I love being able to see what amazing things people are doing with their phones in contrast to with the more expensive photography gear.
> 
> Anyway, I somewhat recently actually started using my Instagram and have been sharing my stuff there.
> 
> Instagram



I swear, dude.. looking at your instagram feed is like looking at mine about a year ago.. it's uncanny!


----------



## Chuck

I'll take that as a compliment I suppose


----------



## Khoi

I have instagram, but it's weird, I don't really like to post my photos on there. The main thing I use it for is to post stupid stuff.. I should probably use it more professionally


----------



## Tang

Going for a bit more contrast in this shot. I knew when I went out it would be getting dark early so I made it a point to try and get some night street shots because it's something I've never really done before. Once again patience pays off


----------



## Dalcan

Some more snaps from Pre-pro stuff.


----------



## Whammy

Tang, I was looking through this guys work and I thought you might appreciate this set.
These are photos from his series called "Man On Earth"

Rupert Vandervell | Fine Art Photography | Man on Earth Series


----------



## Rook

Jeez guys, I'm much too busy fussing over gear to take pictures, how do you find the time?


----------



## Tang

Whammy: thank you so much for linking that. His work is incredible and definitely inspiring. 

Rook: whenever I'm not at work or at school I make sure to set aside at least an hour to shoot. All my favorite places to walk around are on my way home. I also always have my camera on me. I really can't get enough.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Rook: I have to make time to shoot for myself, but I almost always go out with a purpose. Street and photowalks aren't my thing really. I have been shooting more paid work, but that's not quite the same as doing a project you really want to do - most of those involve lots of travel for me now (Utah, Arizona, Canada, etc) and I don't have the time/money I want to spend for that right now (especially since my current project is training for my first marathon and making As in grad school).

I have some little ideas I want to muster up and do, but I never quite hammer out all the details enough to actually start and commit to a project (and I want to a shit tonne of testing first to make sure I get it right when the time(s) come). Combine that with all the old man jokes you want...


----------



## Skyblue

Chuck said:


> Anyone here into iPhone photography?



Not that I delve into photography all too much, but I only use my phone... Mostly because I don't have a camera, but still  Plus I've seen lots of people shoot great stuff with their phones, so why not do it?


----------



## Rook

I haven't done a huge amount lately but that's more because it's been very dark and very wet... And I can't play with any of the stuff I have done because I need to have four complete rolls of film before it's worth sending them off and two of them still have 3 or 4 shots each which I refuse to waste.

I really _really_ want to see how those two rolls of delta 3200 have come out, but that's not gunna be for at least 10 days if I finish my other rolls this weekend


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Just start doing B&W at home - it's not worth paying to get processed, unless you're going to pay me to do it.


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> Canada


----------



## Tang

I too would love to visit Canada again. I don't think the Canadian side of Niagra Falls counts


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


>



I'm talking about Yellowknife...during the Winter.


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> I'm talking about Yellowknife...during the Winter.



Hey, everyone said I was crazy for going to the UK in December. 

Yellowknife would look amazing in the winter.  And at least it would be a dry cold, too.


----------



## Philligan

I took this on the way to the car on Wednesday, just for the sake of shooting. I tried to do it a little differently than normal, mostly playing with backlighting, and messing with split toning and the individual curves.



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> Hey, everyone said I was crazy for going to the UK in December.
> 
> Yellowknife would look amazing in the winter.  And at least it would be a dry cold, too.



Wait what? You're coming to the UK?


----------



## capoeiraesp

I'm setting up a little 'diary' of the x100s shot with in-cam jpegs only for the next... however long. Some shots from yesterday. Silence and sharpness.


----------



## Philligan

My buddy's brother started a t shirt company a little while ago, so I took some photos for them today. This is just the buddy, the brother lives in Taiwan right now and just sent a shirt over. I took some that don't feature the actual shirt, because he's recently single and I'm suspicious he wants to use some for Facebook and/or dating sites. 

As usual, skin tones were brutal. We had a tiny spot of bare wall in his landlord's basement, and I was fighting with the flash and a really cheap Rocketfish LED video light. I used the flash on him, and used the LED taped to the wall behind him as a rim light for some shots. The LED was really orange compared to the speedlight, and I couldn't pull oranges because it mangled his skin, so I ended up going around and pulling saturation around the orange highlights. Any one photo looks close enough to his actual skin, but seeing them side by side with slight differences is driving me crazy.

I haven't done much portrait stuff like this with lights, so I had a lot of fun and can't wait to have a go at it again. I definitely liked having access to two lights (more or less haha), so grabbing another Yongnuo is high on my list of priorities. I only really use manual, so I'd grab one of the really cheap ones, because it's smaller and would make a good everyday carry flash for my bag with the X-T1.



DSCF0130 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0044 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0077 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0035 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

fun night shot:


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> My buddy's brother started a t shirt company a little while ago, so I took some photos for them today. This is just the buddy, the brother lives in Taiwan right now and just sent a shirt over. I took some that don't feature the actual shirt, because he's recently single and I'm suspicious he wants to use some for Facebook and/or dating sites.
> 
> As usual, skin tones were brutal. We had a tiny spot of bare wall in his landlord's basement, and I was fighting with the flash and a really cheap Rocketfish LED video light. I used the flash on him, and used the LED taped to the wall behind him as a rim light for some shots. The LED was really orange compared to the speedlight, and I couldn't pull oranges because it mangled his skin, so I ended up going around and pulling saturation around the orange highlights. Any one photo looks close enough to his actual skin, but seeing them side by side with slight differences is driving me crazy.
> 
> I haven't done much portrait stuff like this with lights, so I had a lot of fun and can't wait to have a go at it again. I definitely liked having access to two lights (more or less haha), so grabbing another Yongnuo is high on my list of priorities. I only really use manual, so I'd grab one of the really cheap ones, because it's smaller and would make a good everyday carry flash for my bag with the X-T1.



But are you coming to the UK


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> As usual, skin tones were brutal. We had a tiny spot of bare wall in his landlord's basement, and I was fighting with the flash and a really cheap Rocketfish LED video light. I used the flash on him, and used the LED taped to the wall behind him as a rim light for some shots. The LED was really orange compared to the speedlight, and I couldn't pull oranges because it mangled his skin, so I ended up going around and pulling saturation around the orange highlights. Any one photo looks close enough to his actual skin, but seeing them side by side with slight differences is driving me crazy.



This is where these guys come in handy: Rosco Cinegel Swatchbook 950SBCNG0103 B&H Photo Video

Multiple RAW conversion can be helpful if the transition is nice and clean (read: easy to mask).

Those are some nice looking shots despite the issues with the lighting.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> But are you coming to the UK



Not any time soon.  I was talking about when we went to Ireland last winter. I just goofed and used the UK as a blanket statement to describe the entire area. 



ThePhilosopher said:


> This is where these guys come in handy: Rosco Cinegel Swatchbook 950SBCNG0103 B&H Photo Video
> 
> Multiple RAW conversion can be helpful if the transition is nice and clean (read: easy to mask).
> 
> Those are some nice looking shots despite the issues with the lighting.



Awesome, thanks man.  I'm getting fairly comfortable with using lights without any cheat sheets, so I should really suck it up and start working on getting my skin tones consistent now. I'll check that out after work.


----------



## Tang

Did someone say iPhone shots? This was iPhone 5 + snapseed + vscocam.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The gels just help to balance the color of the light so as to avoid the mixed color look.


----------



## Philligan

Oh, yeah man. I'm on my phone at work and didn't actually follow the link, I assumed it was some kind of colour checker. 

I've got a cheap set of Chinese gels but totally forgot to try a light blue one to cool the LED, I've been kicking myself all day. I had a lot of fun and want to try that again soon, so I'll definitely try it with gels next time.


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> Not any time soon.  I was talking about when we went to Ireland last winter. I just goofed and used the UK as a blanket statement to describe the entire area.



Only Northern Ireland is in the UK, Southern Ireland (Eire) is entirely it's own entity. Long story haha. If England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the States of America, Southern Ireland is our Canada, only more drunk and less friendly, they quite enjoyed bombing us right up until really not that long ago.

Anyway, the UK in December honestly is just like it is the rest of the year, it could rain literally any time and the temperature is always not quite what you expect. The 1st November was an insane 21 degrees (we're Celsius, couldn't tell you what that is in freedom temperature) and the 4th about 2 degrees, we had floods at the end of last week and it's been beautifully sunny all weekend. If you're gunna visit England, just bring an umbrella and if you don't like the weather just wait a few hours haha. You wouldn't know we were as far north as places like Calgary and stuff in Canada.


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> only more drunk and less friendly, they quite enjoyed bombing us right up until really not that long ago.



Bit of a blanket statement, no?

A link for anyone who wants to know about the conflict in Northern Ireland which also spilled into the Republic of Ireland & England.
The Troubles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It explains what actually happened rather than insinuating that Irish people enjoyed bombing Britain.


----------



## Rook

I was only kidding dude, I perhaps dangerously made the assumption that people were aware enough of the difference between 'the Irish' and the movers and shakers of that conflict.

I apologise if it went the wrong way, I have enough Irish friends that a joke like that has always been just that (though it was more a play on the stereotype that all Canadians are very polite than vice versa and that there's not been a Canadian/US conflict) I've zero ill feeling toward Ireland or the Irish, to the contrary in fact.

EDIT: put it this way, I know you're Irish and I consider you a friend enough that I wouldn't go out of my way to offend you, I apologise if my tone was sufficiently lost on the Internet that I may have.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Only Northern Ireland is in the UK, Southern Ireland (Eire) is entirely it's own entity. Long story haha. If England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the States of America, Southern Ireland is our Canada, only more drunk and less friendly, they quite enjoyed bombing us right up until really not that long ago.
> 
> Anyway, the UK in December honestly is just like it is the rest of the year, it could rain literally any time and the temperature is always not quite what you expect. The 1st November was an insane 21 degrees (we're Celsius, couldn't tell you what that is in freedom temperature) and the 4th about 2 degrees, we had floods at the end of last week and it's been beautifully sunny all weekend. If you're gunna visit England, just bring an umbrella and if you don't like the weather just wait a few hours haha. You wouldn't know we were as far north as places like Calgary and stuff in Canada.



I know haha I just lumped them together because they're so close and share weather for the most part. My bad. It wasn't overly cold when we were there (hovering around 0), but it was a really rainy, damp cold. We get really dry winters in Canada that are like -30 and -40, but since it's dry you can make sure you're layered and stay warm. When we were in Ireland, you'd get out of the car and think "wow, it's warm" and you'd be shivering five minutes later.


----------



## Philligan

Here are a couple more from yesterday.



DSCF0034 by philbabbey, on Flickr

I'm not overly crazy about this one, I think the background makes it look more boring. Fun fact, though: the black backdrop is his landlord's 70" TV. 



DSCF0132 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Today I finally did that shoot I mentioned a while back. I'm uploading the photos to Lightroom right now, but here's a preview shot from my iPhone for the time being.


----------



## Dalcan

Phil- those portraits are sick


----------



## JeffFromMtl

As a side note from yesterday's shoot, I just want to comment on how an ultra-wide angle lens was the best investment I've made as far as photography goes. While at first I thought it could have just been the honeymoon stage, I've come to accept that it's a legitimate love affair, and that my style depends entirely on wide angles. Going through the data in the photos, while there are a few outliers shot at slightly longer (but still wide) angles, the brunt of the shoot and the shots I'm most happy with were shot between 20 and 28mm. I think the only reason I wouldn't shoot an entire fashion editorial at 17mm is because of distortion at the corners and edges, but still I opened up to 17mm for a few that I like 

This is starting to make me consider either ditching the 17-40 and investing in the 16-35 2.8, or adding the 24mm 1.4 prime as my next lens. I find it funny how my ideal focal length just keeps getting wider. I went from swearing by a 50mm on my 7D, to 50mm equiv., to being certain that 35mm equiv. or on a full frame was my perfect length, and even though I thought the 17-40mm was going to be a niche lens when I bought it, I've found my stylistic sweet spot with it, right in that 20-28mm range.


----------



## Philligan

itsdoodoobaby said:


> Phil- those portraits are sick



Thanks man! 



JeffFromMtl said:


> As a side note from yesterday's shoot, I just want to comment on how an ultra-wide angle lens was the best investment I've made as far as photography goes. While at first I thought it could have just been the honeymoon stage, I've come to accept that it's a legitimate love affair, and that my style depends entirely on wide angles. Going through the data in the photos, while there are a few outliers shot at slightly longer (but still wide) angles, the brunt of the shoot and the shots I'm most happy with were shot between 20 and 28mm. I think the only reason I wouldn't shoot an entire fashion editorial at 17mm is because of distortion at the corners and edges, but still I opened up to 17mm for a few that I like
> 
> This is starting to make me consider either ditching the 17-40 and investing in the 16-35 2.8, or adding the 24mm 1.4 prime as my next lens. I find it funny how my ideal focal length just keeps getting wider. I went from swearing by a 50mm on my 7D, to 50mm equiv., to being certain that 35mm equiv. or on a full frame was my perfect length, and even though I thought the 17-40mm was going to be a niche lens when I bought it, I've found my stylistic sweet spot with it, right in that 20-28mm range.



I really don't have any experience with this, but oh well.  Apparently the 24 1.4 is an awesome lens overall, so I'd say go that route. AFAIK it's supposed to be sharper overall than the zooms, which I would guess would be important in a fashion shoot. Not to mention, you've got the 1.4 (or close to it) if you need it, or you can get super sharp around 2.8.

I shot my Sigma 17-50 pretty much only around 17mm, which I think works out to about 27mm equivalent. The Fuji 14 2.8 is a 21mm equivalent, and I'm a bit nervous about how wide that is, but because of the sharpness and AF I'm going to go for that over the 18 (hopefully in December if I can make enough at work on top of the honeymoon and student loan payments). I really like the 35, and love having 35 on crop instead of 50, but I miss the wide end a lot. It may have been pushing it distortion-wise, but I would have loved that 14 when I shot my buddy the other day, instead of crouching down on the back of the couch trying to get far enough back.


----------



## Rook

I have used my 10-24 for the majority of work shoots now since I got it. Usually between 12 and about 18mm, ever since I had that Zeiss 18mm 3.5 I've been 100% converted. I basically use my hasselblad for the majority of portraity stuff at the moment but I always wait til I have four rolls before I send them off (just sent two months worth off today) but it's not much use in low light because ISO 800 film is so expensive and Delta 3200... It's a look, but until I get my rolls back next week I won't know how much I wanna use it. That's why I'd definitely keep my Fuji 56 though.


----------



## Tang

deleted because it's awful.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I think the thing I love about that wide to ultra-wide thing is the dramatic/cinematic perspective you get with it. Not to mention the huge amount of depth, which came in really handy shooting 4 models together. I figure it's only a matter of time before I pick up the wide angle conversion lens for the Fuji also


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Well, alright. Am I done editing? Probably not, and I might take this down later, but here's a quick look at what I've been working on.


----------



## Tang

Jeff, I love those.. thanks for the inspiration! I feel like I'm not really pushing myself as much this past week.. I don't know guys. I just have so many different styles I enjoy shooting but I think I should start really focusing on one at a time..



alleyway up by nrrfed, on Flickr



please recycle by nrrfed, on Flickr



couple and thirds by nrrfed, on Flickr

In other news, I have no real favorite focal length, but if I had to choose it'd be closer to a 50mm on FF. You can pretty much do anything with a good 50.

EDIT3: would anyone be interested in a kind of "how far you've come" thread? Like posting shots from when you first started up until now. It would be even more fun if you're still shooting the same genre of photography. I was thinking about this yesterday because the first shot in my flickr stream is of one my dogs and until then I hadn't taken a single serious dog shot for months. The very thing that got me into photography! So if you guys want I'd be glad to create a thread so we don't clutter this one up too much with shitty beginner shots.


----------



## Dalcan

I think that would be awesome!!


----------



## Whammy

Need to get back to using bokeh effectively and doing moodier photos.
I would have preferred if the two had a bland expression and looked towards each other. But the sun was only out for a moment and I needed it for the backlit trees and to reflect some light on their faces.

The sun was gone by the time I got to experiment. Plus it's not easy to get a baby to make a particular facial expression 







Tang, your idea sounds interesting. However I have deleted nearly all my photos off flickr from 2007-2010 when I started my flickr account (can't remember why I deleted them ) and all my photos from 2010 to 2013 are on a hard drive that is currently fecked. Need to get it fixed.
So I can't contribute anything 

Great set Jeff!


----------



## Dalcan

Just got a new computer... time to install everything again /sigh


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Can you clone your drive(s)?


----------



## soliloquy

a little project i've been working on. this was in taken for remembrance day


----------



## Dalcan

ThePhilosopher said:


> Can you clone your drive(s)?



I wish- bad sections


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> EDIT3: would anyone be interested in a kind of "how far you've come" thread? Like posting shots from when you first started up until now. It would be even more fun if you're still shooting the same genre of photography. I was thinking about this yesterday because the first shot in my flickr stream is of one my dogs and until then I hadn't taken a single serious dog shot for months. The very thing that got me into photography! So if you guys want I'd be glad to create a thread so we don't clutter this one up too much with shitty beginner shots.



That's an awesome idea, and you're offline right now and I thought of a good one to post, so I'll start one. 

edit: Done and done.

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/art-media-photography/283247-progress-thread.html


----------



## feilong29

Some more Hawaii landscapes


----------



## Tyler

Went back to the Arboretum today and had some fun before work.


----------



## Philligan

I really like the last one.


----------



## Tyler

Philligan said:


> I really like the last one.



Thanks! I really wanted to try to work with the natural lighting and see what worked best. Hopefully in the next coming months I can pick up a flash to help out even more


----------



## Philligan

I've been meaning to pick up an extra flash (maybe two if I'm feeling particularly wealthy) for a while now, and was thinking about getting a YN-460 next paycheck. I mainly want a full-ish power flash that I can easily fit in a small everyday-carry bag with the X-T1, an extra lens, and a GorillaPod. That would cover pretty much any need if I were gonna take a bag with me over an entire day. The YN-460 would be small enough to fit in the bag and double as a more comfortable on-camera flash.

Anyway, I just found out about the Nissin i40. It's powerful enough, looks like a normal flash, and supports HSS (bonus), but it's tiny enough to look normal on a Fuji and has two dials on the back instead of those confusing LCD menus and context-sensitive buttons.

It's due out in December and should be around $250. I'm definitely gonna hold off for one of these as my main flash, but maybe still grab a YN-460 for a cheap, manual, off-camera flash that I'm not scared of breaking.

Nissin Digital Flash: i40 Introduction


----------



## Rook

^Have you looked at the Cactus stuff? That's the route I'm gunna go when I stop putting it off. You can get 4 built-in wireless, 600 guide flashes for like $500, and they're getting great reviews.

I'm not gunna get 5, I'll get two and a spare transmitter, but they're worth a look I think.

Cactus RF60 Wireless Flash Combo - Gadget Infinity


----------



## Philligan

Hmm, that's not a bad price. I really like how the Nissin's seem to function, but I'll read up on these guys. As much as I'd love four, I can't really swing $500 right now.  But I could get two of those for the price of a Nissin and Yongnuo, and they'd talk to each other a lot better.


----------



## Rook

Yeah that's kinda how I felt. Hoping to pick some up sometime.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

One more from the shoot, just cuz it's one of my favourites


----------



## Tang

I call this one, "on the bonnet" I've been watching too much Top Gear! iPhone 5 + Snapseed + VSCOcam.


----------



## Chuck

Despite my likeness of iphone photography I decided to buy a DSLR


----------



## SeductionS

Nothing special. Was testing the RAW capability of my phone (OnePlus One) while being high in Amsterdam  Pictures were taken around 5PM (nearly dusk).


----------



## Skyblue

Quick phone shot of my friend I took last saturday. Used VSCO Cam on it.


----------



## Dalcan

Just got a new lens, took some test shots when it arrived while at work.


----------



## Tang

I'm pretty sure my next lens will be the Samyang/Rokinon 85 f/1.4. I have no problems with manual focus (even though 1.4 will be a challenge). I've been tending to use longer focal lengths and that sharpness of that Rokinon is said to be up there in Zeiss levels.

doodoo: I think I have that same exact plaid shirt!


----------



## Rook

If it's supposed to be as sharp as the Zeiss 85 that really isn't saying much, the Zeiss 85 1.4 is absolutely not a lens you buy for sharpness hahahaha.

EDIT: the ZE/ZF.2, not the Otus.


----------



## Rook

HNG.


----------



## Whammy

No one's going to notice my post under a NGD 

Congrats on the guitar. Elegance merged with exquisite design 


Re-touched this photo. I though it worked in B&W. Much prefer color.



Mother and son portrait by -Whammy-, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I prefer the color version as well.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> If it's supposed to be as sharp as the Zeiss 85 that really isn't saying much, the Zeiss 85 1.4 is absolutely not a lens you buy for sharpness hahahaha.
> 
> EDIT: the ZE/ZF.2, not the Otus.



Of course! The Zeiss is all about that Zeiss character/microcontrast.


----------



## Rook

I suspect my next lens will either be Zeiss 50mm f/4 or Fuji 50-140 f/2.8 IS, 90 f/2 or 16 f/1.4.

Probably the Zeiss, then probably the 16mm depending on when it comes out. I'm on the fence about a tele for the Fuji since I don't do anything that needs anything that stretches any more than the 56 any more than once in a blue moon...


----------



## Philligan

I want the 50-140 so bad.  I shot some of my last wedding with Dan with his D610 and 70-200 and I loved the longer focal length for portraits, and even walking around. It's crazy how much you can separate people from the background and make them pop.

If I was taking more jobs I'd try to find a way to justify it, but as it is, I'll probably get the 55-200 some day and call it a day.  I have more of a use for wide angles, so the little money I can put towards camera stuff right now is going towards that first.


----------



## Chuck

Okay guys so I want a little lens help. I bought a Pentax K-50 and it will be here this upcoming Tuesday. I got it with the 18-55mm lens. I want another lens or two to accompany it, I mostly do landscape photography so I want something good for that. I want a decent zoom and a decent prime just so I have all my bases covered. Any suggestions? You can check my Instagram(link in my signature)for examples of what I like to shoot.


----------



## Philligan

Paging Tang. 

Take this with a grain of salt, because I don't shoot Pentax and I'm not familiar with their lenses. They make probably the best APS-C DSLRs on the market, and I almost switched to a K-3 back in the day, but I find the cameras a bit too small for my stubby fingers.

IMHO, the 18-55 will be fine for landscapes. If it's anything like other current 18-55s, the image quality is awesome for the money. Especially with stuff like landscapes, where you'll be shooting at f/5.6-11. The aperture is nothing special with kit lenses, but they seem to be pretty consistent for image quality.

You definitely want a prime. My second lens was a 50mm 1.8 and it basically never left my camera. I got a 40mm 2.8 pancake (Pentax makes one too), and it was an awesome little lens, but I found the faster 1.8 aperture of the 50mm more valuable than the size and wider focal length of the 40mm. The 50 1.8 is definitely on the tight side for shooting indoors, but you can get away with it more outside, and it's killer for portraits.

The 35mm 2.4 is worth looking into, too. The aperture isn't as fast, so you'll have a bit more trouble with low light, but 35mm is wider and noticeably more flexible for every day shooting. I have a 35 1.4 on my Fuji right now and I don't think the focal length has as much character as 50mm on APS-C, but the extra versatility is nice.

Honestly, unless you want to get into wildlife photography and need a tele zoom, those two lenses (the 18-55 and whatever prime you choose) should keep you covered for a very long time. It's better to learn on those and wait to "upgrade" until you start running into situations your current lenses can't handle. I dropped about $500 on the more expensive 50mm 1.4 when my 50mm 1.8 broke, only a month or so after I got it, because it was a better lens. In hindsight, I wished I had spent that money on something wider, because I ran into a lot of situations where the 50mm was too tight, but I needed a fast aperture for lower light (this was mostly at weddings), so my 17-50 2.8 wouldn't cut it. If that lens had broken a few months later, I would have had a better idea of what I needed. Instead, I got the 50mm 1.4, and about a month later it took a huge price drop, so I couldn't even feasibly sell it to get the lens I did want. I was still jonesing for the 35 f/2 or 28 1.8 when I sold off my Canon stuff.

TL;DR: The 18-55 kit is great. Grab a cheap prime and live with those until you have a more specific idea of what lenses and gear will meet your needs.


----------



## Chuck

Awesome! That sounds good man. I really appreciate the advice.


----------



## Whammy

Chuck said:


> Okay guys so I want a little lens help. I bought a Pentax K-50 and it will be here this upcoming Tuesday. I got it with the 18-55mm lens. I want another lens or two to accompany it, I mostly do landscape photography so I want something good for that. I want a decent zoom and a decent prime just so I have all my bases covered. Any suggestions? You can check my Instagram(link in my signature)for examples of what I like to shoot.



Judging by your Instagram photos I'd say you'll primarily be using wide angle lenses.

My first advice would be to use the kit 18-55mm lens for a few weeks and find what focal ranges you prefer to shoot.

When you have a better idea on what focal lengths you prefer then investing in a nice prime for that range would be worthwhile.
I have a feeling you'll prefer the 18-24 range of your lens. If so Pentax make some wonderful primes around that range along with a zoom.
Keep in mind I've never used modern Pentax lenses (Tang currently uses a Pentax system) but some of their lenses do look tasty 

Their 15mm f4 and 21m f2,3 look like great wide angle primes.
They do have a zoom lens between the 12-24mm f4 range.

Phil's mentioned some good options for the other focal ranges. But again, wait and see what ranges you prefer. I actually find around 55mm (85mm equivalent) to be great for landscape. Completely different vibe from a wide angle landscape shot though.
In your situation I'd probably go with a wide angle zoom lens and a fast prime closer to the standard focal ranges. That's just me though


----------



## Tang

I take a day off the internet and look what I miss! Phil had some great thoughts and as soon as I go on my lunch break I'll add some of my own. 

You're gonna love that K50, Chuck. Great mid-level DSLR!

This one was taken with the 35 f/2.4. It's a great lens and tiny too. 






And this one was taken with the 77 f/1.8. This lens is on another level and probably equivalent to Canon's L glass. Tasty.


----------



## Tyler

My fraternity and one of the sororities on campus held a philanthropy event for JDRF today with a 5k Color Run. I had an absolute blast shooting this


----------



## feilong29

From a session I had over the weekend


----------



## Tyler

The second to last one came out amazing! It really tells a story


----------



## Tang

After all that talk of going out and shooting everyday.. well..

I haven't picked my camera up in over a week.


----------



## Dalcan

Tyler said:


> The second to last one came out amazing! It really tells a story



Agree with this!


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> After all that talk of going out and shooting everyday.. well..
> 
> I haven't picked my camera up in over a week.



I know the feeling.  I've been pretty busy though, and haven't had much time. I've got 25 hours of school a week, and they've got me working full time around that. I really can't complain, because the money's good, but I literally pretty much just do school, work, and sleep right now. On the upside, I'm making good money, so even with the wedding and everything coming up, I foresee a new lens in the near future.


----------



## Dalcan

Setting up a band shot and I'm stressing myself out. Just order some seamless paper. Lets see how this goes..


----------



## Tang

steps by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> I haven't picked my camera up in over a week.



Welcome to my world


----------



## Philligan

I forgot to post this one. Last weekend Dawn and I saw a friend play at a pub downtown. After a while the beer got to me, but I think I took a few okay ones early on. 

I've been too busy to work on them on the computer, but here's an in-camera monochrome jpg conversion that I wifi'd to my phone. I need to start playing with the editing parameters in camera, but I think this one still looks pretty good as is.


----------



## Rook

I've been living it up with my Delta 3200. I love this film, I can't believe how soft a contrast it is given the speed, and I love the look and feel of the film.



Suit 2 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Suit 1 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Suit 3 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Don&#x27;t Wait by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Headphones by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Bus Stand by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Chuck

Got my K50! Didn't come until after sundown though so I didn't get much of a chance to mess around with it yet. Can't wait for tomorrow!


----------



## Tang

aww yeah. back at it and combining two things I haven't done much lately. Shooting wide open and at a wide angle (17mm). It creates interesting images when you are able to get close to your subjects. 

Unfortunately stopping down was made impractical due to very low light of the garage. Settings were 17mm - f/2.8 - 1/25s - ISO1600. I would've loved to have more of the background in focus but you work with the light. Honestly, the light makes the shot for me. It's creating the shadows on the face of the amp which give a ton of depth. 



recording by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

It was snowing pretty heavily today, with fat snow flakes. I took a few quick shots of Dawn outside the student centre. I'm finally putting some raws on the computer, so I'll be able to edit some if class is boring today.

This one was ISO 200, f/2, and 1/1000 or 1/2000. These are two in-camera processes. The one is just Pro Neg Hi (which I'm really digging over Provia) and the other is plain monochrome, but with the highlights pulled a notch and the shadows pushed a notch IIRC. I haven't played much with the jpg parameters yet, but I'm definitely gonna have to now.

These are straight to my phone, so apologies if the resolution sucks.



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Skyblue

Rook, those photos are amazing. 

...And another phone picture. Tel Aviv central train station.


----------



## Whammy

Phil, I would try the monochrome sim with the yellow or red filter option. I normally like skin tones to be rendered brighter in B&W 
Looks lovely though.

That lens looks considerably sharper at f2 compared to your f1.4 shots. Maybe I'm wrong


----------



## Rook

^I think they've just been down sampled better, I don't remember there really being much of a sharpness difference with the 35 til about f4? I too could be totally wrong haha.

I use the Bw with red filter option, makes skin look like Ivory! ProNegs are the most underrated settings on these cameras though.

And thanks Skyblue!


----------



## Philligan

Thanks man. 

From what I've read on pixel peeper/chart reviews, the 35 is pretty sharp wide open and very sharp at f/2 on. I haven't actually pixel peeped much at all from this camera yet - I've been posting more SOOC jpgs than anything else. 

I got fairly wide and liked the sharpness during that t shirt shoot, but I don't think I broke f-2. I don't think I've even looked at 1.4 shots on the computer yet. 

I tried either the red or yellow filter with a couple other settings but it came out looking kind of weird, and we were in a rush so I just went with something simple. I'm looking forward to playing with the in-camera stuff though.


----------



## Rook

Yeah Red will make people's lips go white too.

And yeah, it's pretty consistent through the range and when you get to f4 or f5.6 you get to its peak, but you'd only notice if you were peeping: it's definitely sharp wide open, but I never thought it was noticeably different until you really stopped down. The 18's a different story, every stop counts with that lens!

I wish I hadn't sold my 35 tbh, it's a lovely lens, I just wouldn't use it that much.


----------



## Tang

I'm really loving Rook's Hassy shots. So much. 

God, I love that medium format look so much. Suit 2 is the my favorite of the bunch because of that glorious DOF falloff. Damn.


----------



## Philligan

That bums me out about the 18, but ah well. Times are tough. 

I prefer the focal length, and for stuff where the sharpness really matters (landscape and portraits) I'll probably be stopped down most of the time anyway. I've looked at shots from the 14 and as awesome as it is, I think it's a bit too wide for most of what I want to do. And it's twice the price.


----------



## Rook

Hey don't get me wrong dude, it is soft around the edges but it's a great lens - it's small and subtle, has a good width for street work and such that it feels different enough to the 35, it's fast, it focuses really close, and as I say you get a more detailed image with every stop down you go. I kept it at f8, so the softness really didn't come into it for me.

I've never held sharpness up as mattering, it just happens to be the topic of this particular conversation. Would I take the 14 over the 18? Yes, for the focus clutch, DoF meter, extra width and the whole look of the lens is great. Would I have the 18 anyway? Absolutely, I didn't realise until I sold it (to pay for my 23) how much I used all of the key features of the lens, not least it's size.

I had a shit load of fun with the 18, and I never picked up the 35 the whole time I had it _despite the small, sharp, cheap 35 1.4 being the main reason I looked into Fuji to begin with_. You'll enjoy the 18, if I had enough money to keep everything I ever bought without having to trade you can guarantee I'd have kept the 18.

Tang, thanks man, I shot some of these up to a few months ago, and I LOVE getting my film back so long after the fact and going back thinking 'oh yeah I remember shooting that' and seeing how it's come out. This set and the Hasselblad 'look' goes really well with the delta look, which in turn goes so nicely with my style of shooting and our fair city. I really expected to see really high contrast and big blobs of grain but it's sharp, the tones are rich, diverse, accurate and expressive, and it's sharp at any sensible viewing distance.

These were all stopped down, if you want to see what the 80mm does wide open (I think, can't remember haha), here's my dog!




Jake by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

I have the 150 f4 and 250 f5.6 now, which are bokeh machines - they may seem slow but let's not forget those are 85 and 135 equivalents on 35mm and the depth of field can be factored accordingly. The 150 at f4 gives similar depth of field to my 56 1.2 at 1.2 according to dofmaster.com, so I'll be sure to post some of those in 6 weeks or so when I send my next batch of films off after Iceland


----------



## Tang

That's one of the great things about shooting film. I have 3 rolls of B&W over that I shot 3 months ago and haven't developed. At this point I have no idea what's on them and i can't wait to find out.


----------



## Philligan

Yeah, I like the focusing of the 14mm, and was thinking about sucking it up and dropping the extra money, but the more I read reviews, the more I think I'd actually prefer the 18 right now. And the fact that it's so much cheaper makes me feel a lot less guilty about buying it.

I don't mind starting with the "beginner" lenses, either, because Fuji's lens lineup is small enough that I'll hopefully be able to afford quite a few of them before too too long. 

Updating Lightroom, then I'm gonna install the Google Nik trial and work on some raws.


----------



## Philligan

Well, so far I don't see what's so good about SEP2.  It seems like all preset stuff you can tweak. I thought it was supposed to be like LR, only with better B&W control. 

edit: SEP2 wanted a .tiff, then things got confusing. I'm not sure what happened but it changed a bunch of my raws to jpgs.  I deleted the batch and started over. Here's a proper LR edit.



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Decreate

Playing around with the Nippon Kogaku SC 50mm f1.4 lens I recently bought.


----------



## Philligan

Here's another very similar shot, only a colour take. I edited this one totally differently than normal. I didn't touch Dawn at all (aside from the usual global sharpening, exposure, etc), but I used an inverted mask to pull the saturation and exposure down on the wall behind her slightly to try and make her pop more.



Colour Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Dude. SEP2 has a pretty big learning curve. Definitely keep working with it.

I feel medium format would be great for shots like this:



tree candles by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> Dude. SEP2 has a pretty big learning curve. Definitely keep working with it.



I downloaded the demo. Took a while to get into the flow of using it.
I used it quite a lot side by side with lightroom.

When I got a better feel for the program I decided that any photo I processed with SEP2 I would also process with lightroom separately.
Because I had an idea in my head of how I wanted the photo to look both versions always ended up looking very similar. Minimal differences really. Neither was better or worse, just slightly different.
I in no way felt one was superior.

As a result lightroom wins for me as implementing SEP2 into my work flow makes things more complicated and cumbersome.

Maybe if I processed my photos in a different style I would notice a bigger difference between the two


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I like SEP if I'm going to do a series of b&w as I can easily build the recipe and include it in an action for batch work.

A few more from my beach shoot:


----------



## Tang

The best part of SEP2 to me is the ability to adjust microcontrast (called structure in the app) of highlights, midtones, and shadows separately. It's similar to the clarity slider in LR, but I like the results in SEP2 a bit more.


----------



## Dalcan

Idiots question; what is SEP2?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Nik Silver Efex Pro 2


----------



## Philligan

I think I'm gonna give up on it.  Nothing against it, but it's not what I was expecting. I thought it was basically like LR, only with more parameters for tone and exposure, but it seems like a similar amount of control as LR, with a heavier push towards presets and such. And I'm not crazy about the process of converting to a .tiff and all that, it did some strange things to my batch and got me confused. 

I would like something that'll let me stack multiple files, but I'm not in a rush to pay for Photoshop. I'm considering switching to the Creative Cloud subscription (especially if I get an iPad), but I'll hold off for a while and see.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm using it in Photoshop so my experience is far different from what you are experiencing.


----------



## Tang

It exports as a .tiff because SEP2 can't actually read RAW files. My workflow is as follows:

Basic exposure adjustments
Sharpen to taste
Right click - edit in SEP2. 16 bit .tiff with ZIP compression 
Profit


----------



## Tang

Oh man guys. I might have hit the mother load. One of my fiancées coworkers late husband was a photographer for NASA back in the day and she's asked me to go through all his stuff and take what I want. I'm talking medium format, large format, all the formats. 

Seriously, I'm about to have a very well taken care of 8x10 setup. 

Oh my god.


----------



## Chuck

I'm in love with my 50mm 1.8. I've hardly even touched my 18-55mm


----------



## Whammy

Tang said:


> photographer for NASA



I never thought that three words would ever describe my ideal job.

I'm jealous man, he must have some serious gear.

On a related note I was just admiring some cameras used for NASA.
This is a Leica from 1966. I love how this camera looks with the extended camera controls.






EDIT:
I just realized that the rangefinder has no view finder


----------



## ThePhilosopher

You know that 8x10 setup would be better suited for working in Houston.


----------



## Rook

Tang said:


> Oh man guys. I might have hit the mother load. One of my fiancées coworkers late husband was a photographer for NASA back in the day and she's asked me to go through all his stuff and take what I want. I'm talking medium format, large format, all the formats.
> 
> Seriously, I'm about to have a very well taken care of 8x10 setup.
> 
> Oh my god.



If you find anything you don't want and decide to sell it for her, I'd be interested to hear what you have 

Let us know what you find man!



Whammy said:


> I never thought that three words would ever describe my ideal job.
> 
> I'm jealous man, he must have some serious gear.
> 
> On a related note I was just admiring some cameras used for NASA.
> This is a Leica from 1966. I love how this camera looks with the extended camera controls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT:
> I just realized that the rangefinder has no view finder



The viewfinders probably weren't much use, they took them off of all the Hasselblads I've seen too.


----------



## Rook

A work colleague and kind-of friend asked me to shot their wedding this week after being very complimentary about the work I've done for the company and my personal stuff, I got a bit carried away and just said yes.

I've just done a little poo in my pants. Anybody know a few good resources for some basic plans for wedding shoots? I know what I'd do, and I'm comfortable with it, but I don't know what the done thing is these days. Wedding photography seems to be completely it's own thing!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'll send you some things I use for weddings.


----------



## xfilth

Don't get to shoot as much as I want to these days, so I mainly lurk this thread. Here's a little thing I did with an old photo from a year or two ago.


----------



## Tang

Another from the phone.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> I've just done a little poo in my pants. Anybody know a few good resources for some basic plans for wedding shoots? I know what I'd do, and I'm comfortable with it, but I don't know what the done thing is these days. Wedding photography seems to be completely it's own thing!



I'm not totally sure what you're asking. 

You can find contracts and the like online. As much as I don't like being a Nazi about things, make a contract.

Another thing, have them list all the shots they'd want. Stuff like getting ready, first kiss, etc. Have them okay a list, and put that list on your phone and check things off as you get them done. That way you can check it when you've got a few minutes to spare and make sure you're getting everything as you go along.

Another list: Family members/grouping for family shots, if they want them. Rounding up family members for group photos after the ceremony is like pulling teeth. Talk to the bride beforehand, or better yet, talk directly to one of the bridesmaids before hand, and have her be the official person gatherer. Someone loud who's good at screaming out names to help you get all the family together, so you can concentrate on shooting the photos.

Here's one from the bar the other night. They had orange and blue lights and the lighting was a nightmare - the orange looked like orange skin as opposed to just an orange light on him, and it was even there a bit with the white balance as cold as it goes. I just did a B&W instead.



John by philbabbey, on Flickr

Also, this is Dan's photo, not mine, but I'm featured on his Movember portrait ad.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

With some minor retouching that could be really killer shot.

The fur-children playing.


----------



## feilong29

Just secured myself a film camera! It'll be my out-and-about camera until I save up for a modern mirrorless camera. What I got was a Nikon FE2  Now, to do my homework on what film to buy. I'm thinking the kodak ektar 100 to start out with. Can't wait!


----------



## Tang

Are you wanting to shoot color or B&W? Negative or slides?


----------



## feilong29

Tang said:


> Are you wanting to shoot color or B&W? Negative or slides?



Color for the most part. I'm not sure when it comes to negative or slides. I'm leaning more towards slides though. It's new for me so I'll have to research a bit but any insight you can give me would be greatly appreciated!


----------



## feilong29

There are some neat benefits to using slide, but I won't have the resources to develop film on my own. I'd likely try to convert them to digital for processing via Lightroom. I'm just hoping that there won't be a loss in color/contrast and detail.


----------



## Tang

Starting off I think that Ektar will be perfect for you. Slide film is awesome, but there almost zero tolerance for getting your exposures wrong. When you get it though... damn.

Also, a lot of people think that slide is almost too much of a pain to scan. If you're planning on scanning and editing in LR, negative film would be better suited. I'd go Ektar and don't be afraid to experiment with under and overexposing shots for the hell of it. Negative films love to get pushed around.


----------



## feilong29

Tang said:


> Starting off I think that Ektar will be perfect for you. Slide film is awesome, but there almost zero tolerance for getting your exposures wrong. When you get it though... damn.
> 
> Also, a lot of people think that slide is almost too much of a pain to scan. If you're planning on scanning and editing in LR, negative film would be better suited. I'd go Ektar and don't be afraid to experiment with under and overexposing shots for the hell of it. Negative films love to get pushed around.



Alright! Thanks for the tips! I better get well acquainted with exposure compensation and mastering proper exposure to not waste the film. Thanks Tang!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Ektar is a great film to start out with, it's easy to scan and quite forgiving - unlike say Velvia or Ektachrome.

A little macro:




Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 200 1/125s f/16


----------



## Rook

I don't completely agree with slide being harder to handle, one of the shots of my Provia 100 roll was about 2 stops over and it came all the way back, no problem at all. It's not _as wide_ as a good colour negative, from which I'd expect maybe 4 stops, but it's still a lot more forgiving than people let on - as indeed all film is really.

I like slide film, and if you want lots of resolution it's the way to go, but it's also a lot more contrasts so by the time you've got all that contrast and resolution, as sacrificed a little tonality and exposure latitude you end up back with something vaguely digital! The lovely things about colour negative are it's insane dynamic range and colour reproduction which is lost somewhat with a transparency. I certainly don't find transparency hard to shoot though, I usually do guess minus 2/3 (whereas I do guess plus 1/3 with CN).

I've not a lot of experience with Ektar but it's not really my first choice, not really my thing. I tens toward Portra these days, and in muggy, damp, overcast England struggle to use anything under 400 though you probably won't have that concern. I realise film looks rather a lot less grainy with larger formats though, which I have less worry for.

Try everything, film's cheap!


----------



## Tang

continuing on the iphone road:



ceiling by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Finally went back out with the Pentax.






In other news, by later tonight we'll know what kinds of awesome gear I'll be receiving. I am hyped.


----------



## Rook

Looking forward to hearing, genuinely hoping there is actually something good in there for you!


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> Looking forward to hearing, genuinely hoping there is actually something good in there for you!



Thanks man! She had so much stuff! While I was going through a filing cabinet (with permission, of course!) I found a couple of classified white papers from the 70's for...

THE GODDAMN SPACE SHUTTLE COMPUTER.

HOLY..

Not only did he photograph, he helped create the space shuttles computer system/programming. Dude was amazing. I also got to look at 3 legit Ansel Adams prints which were STUNNING. Man..

Anyways, I didn't want to totally seem overeager, so this is what I picked up today. One body.



6x6 by nrrfed, on Flickr

I can already tell by looking through the ground glass that I'm dealing with levels of DOF I've never seen and it's glorious. It's beautiful. I can't think of enough words to describe what I felt the first time I looked through the ground-glass. Unfortuately, I am going to have to get the focus knob serviced because it rotates freely, but everything else seems to be in perfect condition. The shutter seems close enough to my ear, and the aperture and shutter speed dials turn as expected.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Welcome to the edge of the most slippery of slopes.


----------



## Rook

Nicccce


----------



## Tang

Thanks guys! I've been walking around this morning just looking through the viewfinder. Holy shit, it's gigantic! If I'm assuming correctly, the image projected onto the focusing screen is the same size of the negative? So excited. 

Now it's time to look at film. I'm thinking about a high speed BW film like Rook shot a few posts up. So pretty.


----------



## Rook

Yes, it is.

And that was Ilford Delta 3200. In my opinion Delta 3200 is an absolutely outrageous film considering what you get, I wouldn't dream of using anything anywhere near as fast from other manufacturers.

It's good by modern standards, and doesn't pretend to be something it isn't like I find Rollei film and such like.

I'll post up some comparisons to HP5+ when I finish the roll.

In the mean time, here's a some Portra 400.




Covent 2 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Is your Hassy 6x6 as well?


----------



## Rook

Yyyyyyyyep.


----------



## Tyler

Got to spend some time with my buddies over Thanksgiving break. 2 weeks and I come back to em again


----------



## Philligan

Black Friday is officially almost upon us. I've got a 12 hour shift that day (5:30am-5:30pm ), and Thursday is an un-advertised family and friends sale day, which is basically supposed to be like a pre-Black Friday sale. 

If I make over $1k between those two days, I'm ordering the 18 f2. I've never worked a big holiday at a real electronics store before, so I have no idea how likely that is, but fingers crossed.


----------



## Tang

Saving this shot for later.


----------



## Tyler

Im gonna be doing a shoot later, and the weather has been shifting from rain to snow etc. Since i dont have a rain cover, would plastic (saran) wrap work as a DIY alternative while protecting the body?


----------



## MrYakob

I've been itching to start shooting film lately, but I have no idea where to start. Is there a particular scanner that I should be looking at? Seems like there's quite a few options. Also recommendations for film would also be very much appreciated as this is all foreign to me


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tyler said:


> Im gonna be doing a shoot later, and the weather has been shifting from rain to snow etc. Since i dont have a rain cover, would plastic (saran) wrap work as a DIY alternative while protecting the body?



It depends on the precipitation's intensity, but then again I don't really worry about this ever with my setup unless it's torrential and even then I'm sure it would survive.


----------



## Philligan

Tyler said:


> Im gonna be doing a shoot later, and the weather has been shifting from rain to snow etc. Since i dont have a rain cover, would plastic (saran) wrap work as a DIY alternative while protecting the body?



What body do you have? I shot a wedding ceremony in heavy spitting with my somewhat weather sealed 70D and not at all weather sealed Sigma 17-50 and it was fine. It was 20-30 minutes, and the 70D got so wet it had sort of water spots on it for a while after we got inside, and there were spread out droplets of water on the inner barrel of the lens. It was a bit terrifying, but it came out totally fine. 

If you can, I'd say maybe keep a small umbrella in your coat pocket and hope for the best. Obviously pouring rain should be avoided, but if it's snowing or spitting, I probably wouldn't worry much.


----------



## Rook

MrYakob said:


> I've been itching to start shooting film lately, but I have no idea where to start. Is there a particular scanner that I should be looking at? Seems like there's quite a few options. Also recommendations for film would also be very much appreciated as this is all foreign to me



Scanners: how big a format are you planning to use? Personally I'd say prepare for bigger formats if you have anything like the disposable income that'll allow you to shoot film with some enthusiasm and try different cameras, which really isn't a lot. A great Rollei will cost you £300 say and that's 6x6.

If you agree with that, I'd say Epson V500, used, is a great option. I went V700 and frankly the quality is better than id ever imagined, that cost me £300 used.

If you just want to stick to 35mm there are cheaper Epson options, and my experience of them thus far would make me want to persevere with them tbh, the quality off my cheap (for a large negative scanner) amateur level Epson is kinda mind blowing, more than I'll ever need.

If you give us an idea of what you'll do with the scans and what cameras you want to use we can make more specific suggestions.

Film stocks: Try everything. 

You use colour negative for that soft, film tone and insane dynamic range - twice that of the average digital sensor. Among the pro colour negative films, Kodak has its own flavour and Fuji has a slightly different. I'd say Fuji's a little more saturated and bold looking, but makes skin look bleached, Kodak has very realistic skin tones and a softer feel all round. 

As a general rule, the slower the film, the lesser the contrast, higher the resolution (you can print larger, say), and less present the grain. The 160 speed films look grain less up to about 4800 DPI scanning, whereas you get about 3200 off 400 speed and maybe 1600-2000 off 800. The grain's nice though.

For transparency, there's not a lot of choice these days. Colours are bold and saturated and the images are unbelievably sharp and high resolution. This is what you use transparency for, but the harder tones make portraiture look a little odd, and in broad daylight when there's a lot of contrast, the bold colours can get a little trippy haha.

Black and white, just try everything again. I love Ilford, personally, and HP5 (400) is a nice sharp film with quite a distinct look and grain, Delta 400 is less sharp but less grainy with softer tonality. Again the same speed rules apply, try everything.

You can always look on Flickr by searching the name of a film, that's what I do before I buy haha.


----------



## MrYakob

Rook said:


> Scanners: how big a format are you planning to use? Personally I'd say prepare for bigger formats if you have anything like the disposable income that'll allow you to shoot film with some enthusiasm and try different cameras, which really isn't a lot. A great Rollei will cost you £300 say and that's 6x6.
> 
> If you agree with that, I'd say Epson V500, used, is a great option. I went V700 and frankly the quality is better than id ever imagined, that cost me £300 used.
> 
> If you just want to stick to 35mm there are cheaper Epson options, and my experience of them thus far would make me want to persevere with them tbh, the quality off my cheap (for a large negative scanner) amateur level Epson is kinda mind blowing, more than I'll ever need.
> 
> If you give us an idea of what you'll do with the scans and what cameras you want to use we can make more specific suggestions.
> 
> Film stocks: Try everything.
> 
> You use colour negative for that soft, film tone and insane dynamic range - twice that of the average digital sensor. Among the pro colour negative films, Kodak has its own flavour and Fuji has a slightly different. I'd say Fuji's a little more saturated and bold looking, but makes skin look bleached, Kodak has very realistic skin tones and a softer feel all round.
> 
> As a general rule, the slower the film, the lesser the contrast, higher the resolution (you can print larger, say), and less present the grain. The 160 speed films look grain less up to about 4800 DPI scanning, whereas you get about 3200 off 400 speed and maybe 1600-2000 off 800. The grain's nice though.
> 
> For transparency, there's not a lot of choice these days. Colours are bold and saturated and the images are unbelievably sharp and high resolution. This is what you use transparency for, but the harder tones make portraiture look a little odd, and in broad daylight when there's a lot of contrast, the bold colours can get a little trippy haha.
> 
> Black and white, just try everything again. I love Ilford, personally, and HP5 (400) is a nice sharp film with quite a distinct look and grain, Delta 400 is less sharp but less grainy with softer tonality. Again the same speed rules apply, try everything.
> 
> You can always look on Flickr by searching the name of a film, that's what I do before I buy haha.



You've covered everything I had questions on, many thanks! It looks like I can grab a refurbished v500 for about 200 bucks from epson so that looks like the way to go!

I'm mostly just curious about shooting film so I'll be sticking to 35mm for the forseeable future, I have my mom's old pentax Spotmatic and it's just small enough to where I'd want to carry it around on campus and just experiment.


----------



## Rook

Go for it!

If you're going 35mm I'd try Portra 160 and 400 (or Fuji 160S and 400H if you thought my description might appeal, look on Flickr!) for colour, then essentially chose between Neopan (soft tones, small grain), Tri X (soft tones, sharper, rougher grain), HP5+ (sharper and rougher still) and Delta (soft and small grain again) for black and white.

Personally, and others may disagree, I wouldn't bother with 35mm transparency unless you particularly like the look. It's tricky to get developed, doesn't bring all the benefits you can get from shooting film in compliment to digital, and you don't get that huge resolution boost like with say medium format, where you can suddenly pull 100+ megapixel files - territory digital still can't convincingly touch.

DONT DO WHAT LOTS OF PEOPLE DO and waste a roll or two of film on silly shots then never get around to developing them. Go out street shooting or something and only take your film camera, remember what that frame's going to cost and think 'is this worth it?'.

By the time you get to the end of the roll, you'll send it off and in return get 36 'good day' frames. Considered, deliberate shots that won't necessarily always work out, but it'll change you!

And if it doesn't, you might as well stop wasting your money haha.


----------



## Tang

Rooky,

My Yashica only has settings up to ISO400! I was researching that Delta 3200 and apparently it's only rated at ISO1250 and you have to tell the lab (or they just know to) to push it to 3200. Maybe that's why the grain was way better than you expected?

Regardless, it looks like ill have to figure out exposures based on 400 and do the math in my head to make it equivalent to 1250? Maybe my first rolls in the Yashica should be 400 speed until I get the hang of it. That reversed focusing screen is really doing me in so far. Hope I get used to it quickly.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The Ilford data sheet shows normal development times for ISO3200. ISO400 to ISO1200 is about 1.5 stops.

The beast is alive - I'm loving having a third monitor.


----------



## Rook

Tang said:


> Rooky,
> 
> My Yashica only has settings up to ISO400! I was researching that Delta 3200 and apparently it's only rated at ISO1250 and you have to tell the lab (or they just know to) to push it to 3200. Maybe that's why the grain was way better than you expected?
> 
> Regardless, it looks like ill have to figure out exposures based on 400 and do the math in my head to make it equivalent to 1250? Maybe my first rolls in the Yashica should be 400 speed until I get the hang of it. That reversed focusing screen is really doing me in so far. Hope I get used to it quickly.



It doesn't quite work like that, you can't cheat grain with push processing!

Delta 3200 is technically a slower film but it isn't push processed in a literal sense, developing normally will naturally give you your EI of 3200.

I don't know what you mean by your settings only go up to ISO 400... My meter (that I now don't bother using) is at ISO 100, so for each stop over that I'm using in film speed you just add a stop of shutter speed of aperture, it's very simple. If at ISO 100 something evaluatively meters at 1/125 f/8 (like an overcast day outside), 3200 is 5 stops brighter, giving 1/500 f/11.

Or get 'my Lightmeter PRO' app on your iPhone which works ridiculously well and just set the ISO to 3200.


----------



## Tang

Thanks man!


----------



## feilong29

Hey guys! What would be a good focal length to take photos of "lines? You know, architecture and whatnot. I think it's something i want to test out. I've seen various lengths used, but right now I'm stuck with a 50mm 1.4d which i want to break it. I was considering either a 24mm or 28mm 2.8 as I'm selling my 14mm (too wide for my needs). I also got my nikon fe2 in yesterday! I've decided to try the fujifilm superia film first. Now to find some nearby hehe. Pics of the gem soon!


----------



## Tang

I shoot lines in all focal lengths!

This one is from the iPhone:






This was about 35mm on my Pentax:

L





And this one was at 50mm (I think!)


----------



## feilong29

Fair enough! I just need to get out and walk around and see what I see. Great shots though bro! Most of these are brought out via editing right?


----------



## Tyler

Theres something I really like about this. Its before I was leaving for a shoot and he probably thought I was heading back to school, but the emotion is definitely present.


----------



## Tang

feilong29 said:


> Fair enough! I just need to get out and walk around and see what I see. Great shots though bro! Most of these are brought out via editing right?



Yeah, the editing is what makes this awesome in my opinion.. of course you have to get the shot first!

EDIT: I've decided to take a break from the 17-50 and focus on shooting with my 35mm prime only. After doing the maths, this is about the same field-of-view I have on the Yashica so I better get used to it.


----------



## Rook

Wider angles and getting closer make lines more dramatic - the further away parallel lines are, the more parallel they look, regardless of focal length. Wider angles allow you to get closer.

I really like the 24-28mm range as a carry round wide angle, and much as I'm a big prime guy, I'm glad my 10-18mm (15-27 equivalent) is covered by a zoom, I'd need too many primes that I'd barely use to cover wide angles properly.

I've got a 50mm for my Hasselblad now, which makes around the same diagonal field of view as a 28mm on 35mm, with the square format it has an amazing feel of space, really looking forward to seeing how those come out.



feilong29 said:


> Hey guys! What would be a good focal length to take photos of "lines? You know, architecture and whatnot. I think it's something i want to test out. I've seen various lengths used, but right now I'm stuck with a 50mm 1.4d which i want to break it. I was considering either a 24mm or 28mm 2.8 as I'm selling my 14mm (too wide for my needs). I also got my nikon fe2 in yesterday! I've decided to try the fujifilm superia film first. Now to find some nearby hehe. Pics of the gem soon!



But superia's poo!


----------



## feilong29

Good points Rook! I spoke with a local buddy and he recommended I stick with Ektar to start with and then he mentioned Tmax and Ilford. So many options for film, sheesh! I just learned how to open my FE2 up today, SMH haha!


----------



## Whammy

feilong29 said:


> Hey guys! What would be a good focal length to take photos of "lines? You know, architecture and whatnot. I think it's something i want to test out. I've seen various lengths used, but right now I'm stuck with a 50mm 1.4d which i want to break it. I was considering either a 24mm or 28mm 2.8 as I'm selling my 14mm (too wide for my needs). I also got my nikon fe2 in yesterday! I've decided to try the fujifilm superia film first. Now to find some nearby hehe. Pics of the gem soon!



I love the 50mm focal length for keeping architecture as natural looking as possible but over all you get a closed in view. When it comes to trying to capture the whole building, wall etc then I love a 24mm Tilt Shift lens. It gives that dramatic wide angle look while (assuming you used it correctly ) renders perfectly straight lines 

Agree with Rook. Superia is poop.



Tang said:


> I was researching that Delta 3200 and apparently it's only rated at ISO1250 and you have to tell the lab (or they just know to) to push it to 3200. Maybe that's why the grain was way better than you expected?



I think the confusion is coming from how a lot of people use Delta.
A good few expose at 1600 (closer to the actual speed) and develop at 3200.
The ones who do this find that exposing at 1600 gives more "pop" and a less flat negative.


----------



## Tang

Superia is alright for what it is. I actually enjoy Superia 800..

Who needs perfectly straight lines anyway 






So i figured out that the focus on the Yashica is stuck at about 1.2m or so. If I got a fast enough film and shot everything at f/8 or higher I could put a few rolls in for fun. It'll be a fun challenge with a fixed lens, fixed focus body! Sadly, I won't be able to afford to repair the focusing mechanism until my next paycheck. 

Sneak preview of the awesome.


----------



## Rook

Does the focus lever run the full range or is it just the focus mechanism itself that's getting stuck? The latter is going to be relatively inexpensive to resolve, I'd offer to look myself but somebody left this stupid ocean in the way, I've fixed cameras before and I like a challenge haha.

Superia's just one of those films I can't get on with, everything comes out soft with a greenish yellow hue for me, I don't know why I wouldn't just use Portra or 160NS instead for an extra few pounds. It looks very archetypally 'filmic' though, which I suppose would appeal to some. Portra's a modern film that's made to be scanned, so doesn't have quite the same exaggerated film characteristic beyond the obvious contrast and dynamic range differences.

Whammy is also quite correct, I know a lot of people (on forums, I don't have real friends) that like to shoot it that way, amusingly what I think is the most endearing quality in D3200 many like to avoid by encouraging a more contrasty, gritty look.

Definitely try it, and don't worry about the process, particularly if someone else is doing it haha.


----------



## feilong29

New digs, Nikon FE2  Next up will be a Fujifilm X-E2 (money matters lol)


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> Does the focus lever run the full range or is it just the focus mechanism itself that's getting stuck? The latter is going to be relatively inexpensive to resolve, I'd offer to look myself but somebody left this stupid ocean in the way, I've fixed cameras before and I like a challenge haha.



It runs the whole focal range. It just spins freely until it reaches either end of the range.

I thought this was fun.. I don't know if I'm getting lazy or just picky, but I'm shooting far, far less when I walk about now. Shot discipline is no joke! 



passing by by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Well, I'm tired as shit.  Worked 8:30-6:30 yesterday, and I just got off a 5:30a-5:30p Black Friday shift today. 

The good news is I made lots of money.  Not enough to buy the 18 f2 guilt free, but enough that I should be able to order it the paycheque after this. 

Other than that, I'm tired as shit so no shooting lately. Next week is my last week of class ever, so I should be able to get out more after that.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm not done for the semester until the 15th - it's crunch time until then so I really have to buckle down and stay away from the camera. Stupid ambition getting in the way of all my down time.


----------



## Chuck

Which circular polarizers do you guys like? I want something decent without breaking the bank.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Marumi is a pretty good bet for not breaking the bank (even at 77mm), the Hoya Pro1 series has a CPL with a more dramatic polarizing effect than others, and I'm personally a fan of B+W filters.


----------



## Chuck

Had to make a new Flickr for some reason.



Pre-Flickr shots by Chuck Haller, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

something nice and boring in a good way.



water bird by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Tyler

Some shots of the family Thanksgiving


----------



## Tang

Nice.. love that last one of the little girl. Nice light indeed.

And speaking just perfect light.. I've been thinking that I haven't shot nearly enough of my pets lately. I also majorly changed my color processing for this. Not sure what I'd call it!



smokey surveys by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I lost out on an auction on a Yashica T4 Super D earlier tonight and decided to check ebay once more before going to bed - Snagged one on a listing 10 minutes old that's cleaner and $50 cheaper than the one I lost out on


----------



## Decreate

Another couple pics I took using the Nippon Kogaku lens


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Anyone looking to take their retouching up to the next level should consider investing in this tutorial: The Complete Guide to Fashion and Beauty Photography with Retouching | RGG EDU


----------



## Philligan

Definitely not the price I was hoping for. 

I'll take a closer look at that, though. I've been having a lot of fun doing some portrait stuff lately, and I like a more natural look, but could definitely use some retouching skills, especially for stuff like exposure.

I've got a Wacom tablet on the Christmas list, which would be a huge help, too.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Here is a different take on retouching - it's not as in-depth, but it is cheaper as well: https://www.creativelive.com/courses/art-business-high-end-retouching-pratik-naik


----------



## Chuck

My most recent attempts:



Autumn reflections by Chuck Haller, on Flickr



First double exposure by Chuck Haller, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

I like where your eye is going, Chuck!

I was jamming the new Cloudkicker EP and came across this shot from the other day.. I totally overlooked it on my first pass through! More using reflections to create a pseudo-double exposure look.



polarizing filter by nrrfed, on Flickr

and something more normal. I just really loved the light coming in through those windows so I decided to make that the main focus of the shot. I like having the people mostly in the shadows for this, strangely enough.



like all good things by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Got a new lens on the way.  And it is...






...a Sony E-mount 55-210.  

It's for Dawn's sister, we're getting it for her for Christmas. It's a bummer, I tried to talk her into a high end compact (like an RX100) when she decided she wanted a nicer camera, but she let the guy at the electronics store talk her into an older NEX model. It's a decent camera for what it is, but she got it planning to get adapters to use Canon and Nikon lenses (terrible idea, especially for a beginner) and, as I shopped around trying to find a lens she wanted, I realize that their lens selection is brutal. She really wanted either a wide angle (she linked a 16mm 2.8 prime, which is redundant because she has the ~16-50 kit lens) or a "zooming lens", based on what she read online. We determined she wants something with more reach when she linked a Canon 70-300. So I ordered the 55-210 because it's one of the few tele zooms that will work natively on her body, it's small enough to not kill the point of a mirrorless, and it was on sale for Cyber Monday. And of course, reading reviews on B&H, I find out it's mediocre, like the majority of their lenses. I was pretty rattled, but felt better after going home to my Fuji.


----------



## Chuck

Tang said:


> I like where your eye is going, Chuck!
> 
> I was jamming the new Cloudkicker EP and came across this shot from the other day.. I totally overlooked it on my first pass through! More using reflections to create a pseudo-double exposure look.
> 
> https://flic.kr/p/qgrKkRpolarizing filter by nrrfed, on Flickr



Thanks man! I'm really trying to get to your level of capturing reflections, some of those reflective photos you've got blow my mind.


----------



## flint757

polarizing filter by nrrfed, on Flickr



passing by by nrrfed, on Flickr

How'd you go about these 2 shots? It makes my head hurt trying to figure out exactly what you shot to achieve that.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

It looks like a plate glass window with the interior of the building being more industrial loft in style and its reflection.


----------



## Dalcan

Some of the better shots from my shoot with my band. Which one is me?!


----------



## Tang

flint: TP hit the nail on the head. I drew an awful diagram to show too. 






Yashica Blues:


----------



## flint757

Tang said:


> flint: TP hit the nail on the head. I drew an awful diagram to show too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yashica Blues:



I figured that's how you did it, but the second one I linked, passing by I believe, is the glass in front of just pipes? It isn't the method, but the placement of the objects that is confusing me.  I can't tell what that'd be because it looks like a small cubby with pipes and a slate of glass in front of it...is that what it is.


----------



## Philligan

I took a photo today and was gonna do the usual wifi it to my phone, but I've got some time to kill before class, so I figured I'd edit it in Lightroom. I've been leaning towards Pro Neg Hi lately, because sometimes the Std can seem a bit too desaturated for me.

The first one is an SOOC jpg in Pro Neg Hi. The second is an edit I did in Lightroom. It's a little more saturated than I would typically go for, but I did that because I'm sitting in the chair where I took the photo, so I tweaked it so it looks like I see it. I wish I had the chance to do that more often, it makes balancing colours so much easier. 

Pro Neg Hi:



Pro Neg Hi by philbabbey, on Flickr

My LR edit:



Lightroom by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## feilong29

Philligan said:


> I took a photo today and was gonna do the usual wifi it to my phone, but I've got some time to kill before class, so I figured I'd edit it in Lightroom. I've been leaning towards Pro Neg Hi lately, because sometimes the Std can seem a bit too desaturated for me.
> 
> The first one is an SOOC jpg in Pro Neg Hi. The second is an edit I did in Lightroom. It's a little more saturated than I would typically go for, but I did that because I'm sitting in the chair where I took the photo, so I tweaked it so it looks like I see it. I wish I had the chance to do that more often, it makes balancing colours so much easier.
> 
> Pro Neg Hi:
> 
> 
> 
> Pro Neg Hi by philbabbey, on Flickr
> 
> My LR edit:
> 
> 
> 
> Lightroom by philbabbey, on Flickr


 
I like this shot a lot! When you say Pro Neg Hi, is this a preset in your camera? Great colors tho


----------



## feilong29

HA! You are using a an X-T1; I am due to receive an X-E2 later this week with a 23mm 1.4. I really want that 56mm 1.2 next but anywho, I can't wait to get it! I sold my Nikon D610 and lenses to fund this conversion.


----------



## Philligan

That's awesome.  I've just got the 35 1.4 right now, and I'm hopefully gonna order the 18 f2 in a couple weeks.


----------



## feilong29

Philligan said:


> That's awesome.  I've just got the 35 1.4 right now, and I'm hopefully gonna order the 18 f2 in a couple weeks.


 
After further reviews, I kinda wish I had gotten the 56 1.2 to start out with, since I do portraits more often than not; but the 23mm will have to suffice as an all-around lens for a little while. But ya, the Pro Neg Hi is a camera setting you are using?


----------



## Philligan

feilong29 said:


> After further reviews, I kinda wish I had gotten the 56 1.2 to start out with, since I do portraits more often than not; but the 23mm will have to suffice as an all-around lens for a little while. But ya, the Pro Neg Hi is a camera setting you are using?



Yeah, sorry, I forgot to mention that. Fuji has a bunch of film simulations they do in-camera. You can tweak them further, but I haven't messed around with that much yet. If anything, I'll pick the film sim I like the most for the shot, and mess with it a tiny bit more in Photogene on my phone.

You should be getting the update for your X-E2, to. In a couple weeks they're releasing a new film sim, Classic Chrome. It's supposed to be like Kodachrome. From the photos I've seen, I think I'll like it the best.


----------



## feilong29

Philligan said:


> Yeah, sorry, I forgot to mention that. Fuji has a bunch of film simulations they do in-camera. You can tweak them further, but I haven't messed around with that much yet. If anything, I'll pick the film sim I like the most for the shot, and mess with it a tiny bit more in Photogene on my phone.
> 
> You should be getting the update for your X-E2, to. In a couple weeks they're releasing a new film sim, Classic Chrome. It's supposed to be like Kodachrome. From the photos I've seen, I think I'll like it the best.


 
Sounds awesome! I hope the transition won't be too long; I'm not used to using dials and now I have to learn a whole new menu system. I'm gonna take the time to learn and memorize some photo fundamentals and make the best use of what I can see. Looking forward to more of your shots (following you now on Flickr)


----------



## Philligan

I think you'll take to it quickly. There's a lot less digging around menus because of all the physical dials.

Just saw this on eBay. I had no idea this existed. Yonguo makes a Canon 50 1.8 copy.  If I still had a Canon I'd probably buy this purely out of curiosity haha.

Yongnuo YN EF 50mm F 1 8 AF MF Prime Fixed Lens FOR Canon EOS Rebel Camera | eBay


----------



## Tang

I have to admit I'm a little sad that my stuff gets no love on the Pentax Forums. I know it's super immature of me, but..

*insert generic macro shot here*



EDIT: to add somes shots.



minnie by nrrfed, on Flickr




bold bean 2 by nrrfed, on Flickr




best friends by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

I know what you mean, the Fuji forums i once posted in are full of HDR and random, unflattering snapshots of people's faces or homeless people, and the hasselblad groups I've frequented are mostly featureless landscape shots, cringy unflattering b&w 'nudes' or mirror selfies with serious faces.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> I know what you mean, the Fuji forums i once posted in are full of HDR and random, unflattering snapshots of people's faces or homeless people, and the hasselblad groups I've frequented are mostly featureless landscape shots, cringy unflattering b&w 'nudes' or mirror selfies with serious faces.



I'd take a selfie with a Hasselblad.  There's a guy in town who has one, I've talked to him a few times. I should make it happen.

I think that's what makes this subforum work so well. I don't think there are any two people here with the same style, and it's a small enough group that everyone's actually familiar with each other.

In other news, I doubt it'll happen, but I might be ordering a lens tomorrow. I can definitely get away with it, but the question is whether I can buy it with a clear conscience or not.  Worst case, two more weeks and the 18 f/2 be mine. It's a bummer, I'm shooting a wedding this weekend and, if I had the 18mm already, I'd just buy a second battery and go all Fuji. As it is, I'm borrowing my old Rebel from my dad to bring as a backup, and in case I need something wide.


----------



## feilong29

Guys! Got my Fujifilm x-e2 today! I was a little perplexed as the format is a lot different than my Nikon. I know Fujifilm is known for amazing colors sooc, but for all the Fujifilm owners here, do you strictly shoot in raw? Also, did you guys fiddle with the color and other settings from the menu and use that as your default start-up setting? You guys, I spent literally an hour trying to figure out how to get my lens into af mode... finally downloaded the manual for my 23mm and it was one of those shift up/shift down ring things. Fail! I'm not feeling the 23mm and might sell it to get a 35, or maybe that luscious 56mm!


----------



## Philligan

I shoot all raw right now, but I do a lot of in-camera jpg conversions. When you look at a photo in playback, if you hit the menu button it'll bring up your raw conversion options. The majority of the photos I've posted with the X-T1 have been SOOC raw conversions.

I'd say give the 23mm some time. The 35mm is a sweet lens, but the 23 is amazing. The 35 hunts a bit with AF - it's still quick, but you definitely notice some hunting in low light.


----------



## feilong29

Philligan said:


> I shoot all raw right now, but I do a lot of in-camera jpg conversions. When you look at a photo in playback, if you hit the menu button it'll bring up your raw conversion options. The majority of the photos I've posted with the X-T1 have been SOOC raw conversions.
> 
> I'd say give the 23mm some time. The 35mm is a sweet lens, but the 23 is amazing. The 35 hunts a bit with AF - it's still quick, but you definitely notice some hunting in low light.



I'll do just that, give it some time and maybe it'll grow on me. My biggest concern is using it for portraits. We'll see. I'll also look into this SOOC raw conversion you are talking about. That's all new to me! Do those react just like normally shot raw photos? Soo much to learn!


----------



## Rook

My experience of the 23 has been much better than the 35. The 35's a nice fast little lens but for everything else, the 23 comes out better. Quick, quiet focusing and fantastic edge to edge image quality for a start.

Some people are 35mm guys and some 50mm guys, perhaps the 35 (50eq) would just be better for you? I love my 23 personally!


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Some people are 35mm guys and some 50mm guys, perhaps the 35 (50eq) would just be better for you? I love my 23 personally!



I'd be a little nervous doing some tighter portraits with the 23mm, but I'd probably take the chance. The 35 still focuses quickly enough, it's mostly the chattering that bugs me. You stop noticing it after a while, though.

I'm excited to use this for any vacations or family stuff, where I'll be shooting a lot of photos but don't want to process every one. I never liked the look or feel of SOOC jpgs on my Canons, but the Fuji stuff is so good. I would usually still tweak most jpgs, but almost always just contrast or the tone curve. I'm really looking forward to Classic Chrome.


----------



## Rook

Yeah, I wouldn't do tight portraits with the 23mm, the 56 is the way to go for that!

And yeah, the 35's fantastic, don't get me wrong!

In other news, I'm taking Portra 400 and Tri-X 400 to Iceland with me! Plus whatever random shit I have left in my bad - I think I have a D3200, some provia, HP5, P160 and P800 in there. Less exciting than I'd originally pre-empted but I've made some serious progress in digitally processing my P400 scans, so it's become a bit of a bread and butter negative for me.

And nobody seems to have any more D3200 in stock :/ The much finer grain on the Tri-X might be nice though.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I've pushed TriX320 to ISO3200 by developing in HC-110B for 24 3/4 minutes. There are posts about TX400 being pushed up to 12,800 and dipped accordingly.


----------



## Rook

Wow, I'll keep that in mind haha.


----------



## feilong29

Rook said:


> My experience of the 23 has been much better than the 35. The 35's a nice fast little lens but for everything else, the 23 comes out better. Quick, quiet focusing and fantastic edge to edge image quality for a start.
> 
> Some people are 35mm guys and some 50mm guys, perhaps the 35 (50eq) would just be better for you? I love my 23 personally!


 
Well, I think the 35mm would be fine for portrait use strictly and I'll abuse the 23mm for general stuff. I actually ordered an adapter for my Nikon 50mm 1.4 so maybe that'll suffice in the stead of the 56mm. We'll see. I'm awaiting batteries for my Nikon FE2 to get my film on! Got my Ektar 100 and Superia 100 or 400 (can't recall) in the mail as well. Thanks again for the input guys!


----------



## Tang

Man, if I went Fuji right now I'd get an XT-1 and the 56mm and call it a day.


----------



## feilong29

Tang said:


> Man, if I went Fuji right now I'd get an XT-1 and the 56mm and call it a day.


 
That 56 is pure butter! I am sooo curious if the Nikon 50mm 1.4 will have a similar appeal. I'll find out in about a week.


----------



## Rook

Batteries?!? Where's the fun in that! Haha.

It'll do the job, does it have an aperture ring? If not you won't be able to use it any way other than wide open. There are adapters with a diaphragm but being in the wrong place means it just creates a vignette.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> Man, if I went Fuji right now I'd get an XT-1 and the 56mm and call it a day.



I'd love the 56. I got used to 50mm on crop and really love it, but I'm glad I didn't get it first. I still get surprised by how much more flexibility this 35 has, especially as my only lens. 

On that note, I ordered the 18 f2 today.  It should be in by Tuesday at the latest, but sometimes stuff ships on weekends, too. I'm hoping against hope that I'll get it tomorrow so I can use it for the wedding.


----------



## Philligan

feilong29 said:


> Well, I think the 35mm would be fine for portrait use strictly and I'll abuse the 23mm for general stuff. I actually ordered an adapter for my Nikon 50mm 1.4 so maybe that'll suffice in the stead of the 56mm. We'll see. I'm awaiting batteries for my Nikon FE2 to get my film on! Got my Ektar 100 and Superia 100 or 400 (can't recall) in the mail as well. Thanks again for the input guys!



Have you shot it on a Nikon DSLR? I adapted my Canon FD 50 1.8, and I haven't actually pixel peeped any raws yet, but going by the back LCD, it's so soft compared to a modern lens.  I want to get an M42 adapter, just to try a bunch of old cheap lenses for fun. The FD stuff is technically cheap, but finding clean copies of the better lenses can get fairly pricey.


----------



## flint757

Never mind.


Misread post.


----------



## Chuck

loljk guys I'm a doofus


----------



## Tang

tonight was a night when I wished for a compact camera. my phone did perform admirably, though.


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> Have you shot it on a Nikon DSLR? I adapted my Canon FD 50 1.8, and I haven't actually pixel peeped any raws yet, but going by the back LCD, it's so soft compared to a modern lens.  I want to get an M42 adapter, just to try a bunch of old cheap lenses for fun. The FD stuff is technically cheap, but finding clean copies of the better lenses can get fairly pricey.



Yeah the only older lenses I've adapted than haven't been overtly awful by modern standards were my Hasselblad lenses.

Yep, you can actually buy a Hasselblad V to Fuji X adapter, a buddy of mine has one. The shots were actually surprisingly great.


----------



## Tyler

Would you guys recommend the Yongnuo 565-iii for a 5Diii? I know its compatible but ive seen some stories about it randomly dying. Im looking for any flash, but dont wanna shell out the cash for the canon one if I don't need to


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Nikon SB-24, 26, 28: https://www.keh.com/search/list?n=178&mfg[]=Nikon or Vivitar 283/285: https://www.keh.com/search/list?n=178&mfg[]=Vivitar


----------



## Tang

iPhone manual controls turn the phone into a pretty good photography machine. Having lots of fun!


----------



## Philligan

Tyler said:


> Would you guys recommend the Yongnuo 565-iii for a 5Diii? I know its compatible but ive seen some stories about it randomly dying. Im looking for any flash, but dont wanna shell out the cash for the canon one if I don't need to



I can't speak for Vivitar, but I've only had good luck with Yongnuo. I'm using a 565 II right now and it's been great. Dan, the one guy I shot weddings with, used Yongnuo stuff, too. At $115, buy three or four of them instead of one Canon speedite, and on the off chance one dies, you still have three.

I'm gonna buy one Nissin i40 for an on-camera flash on my Fuji, because it's so small and offers second-curtain sync, but for all my off-camera flash stuff, I'm gonna hoard the cheaper Yongnuos.


----------



## Philligan

Shot the wedding with the Fuji tonight. It went well, but I'd love to have the 23 and 56 - I definitely noticed the 35 hunting a bit. AF in low light wasn't mind blowing, but it was definitely useable. 

It was a short, small wedding, so I don't have a million photos, but I'm building smart previews for the card with the bridal stuff right now.

For the time being, here are a couple I took of my buddy. It was a pretty crazy wedding - the bride was a girl I went to high school with, who was marrying a guy I went to high school with as well, and I'm friends with both of their older siblings, and work with one of them. It was a good time. 

The one older brother was drunk and wanted a better Facebook profile picture while he was dressed up, so I shot this really quickly before I left. There was an awesome leather chair and a wooden wall, but it was in the reception hall, so I didn't want to take it over. Instead, we shot this in the hallway to the men's washroom.  I set the chair up at the end of the hallway, and the washroom door is to the left. It was so tight I had to put the flash and umbrella in the washroom and shoot through the doorway. 

Focus isn't 100%, but it was insanely dark. In hindsight, I should have used my iPhone flashlight to get focus and shot at f/4. Instead, I shot at 2.8 and focused on his tie/collar, so his face isn't completely sharp, but it's fine for a Facebook profile picture.



John by philbabbey, on Flickr



John by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Azyiu

Ok, I've been feeling lazy in posting anything lately... just a few random shots I took during my trip to Hokkaido, Japan back in mid-Oct. Hope they don't suck too bad for you guys, enjoy. 


A monk in the Sapporo shopping district:






Night sky in Lake Toya (Toyako)






Sunrise in Lake Toya (Toyako)






Morning time in Lake Toya (Toyako)


----------



## Philligan

And here are some bridal portraits.



Heather and Tom by philbabbey, on Flickr



Wedding Party by philbabbey, on Flickr



Heather and Tom by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## feilong29

Got to finally walk around Waikiki a little bit and break in my new Fujifilm X-E2 and 23mm. Still getting used to it, but I tried. Let me know what you think!





















Feedback on areas I can improve on would be greatly appreciated. I wanted to capture as many 'lines' as I could.


----------



## Azyiu

When I have a little more spare money to spend, I want to buy a used Canon film based SLR for cheap. My old Konica S1.6 rangefinder finally died on me (the shutter broke), and I think it is better just let it be.


----------



## Tang

Those are some nice lines, feilong! My favorite is the last one. 

I also have lines. 






edit: added some more iphone shots.. the challenge marches on!



broken window by nrrfed, on Flickr



seeing yellow by nrrfed, on Flickr



negative space by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## feilong29

Great stuff Tang! Crazy what you are capturing with your phone.

Below is a photo that I had trouble editing. I think maybe my exposure was off a tad but anywho, I really wanted to draw-out that zig-zag:


----------



## Philligan

I dig it like that. It's hard to tell what time of day it is, and it really makes the reflections pop.

This is nothing crazy, just a b&w edit of one of the last photos, as requested by the guy's girlfriend. 



John B&amp;W by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

feilong29 said:


> Great stuff Tang! Crazy what you are capturing with your phone.



Thanks man! For me, it's all about working within the limitations of the phone/editing to disguise the weaknesses.

Take this shot for example. It was so dark that the meter chose 1/15s and ISO800. This doesn't sound bad at all until you realize how insane the noise is at that ISO level. It's truly ridiculous. So knowing that, I did a quick B&W conversion in Mattebox (I use Mattebox exclusively because of the Curves tool). It's still noisy, but it's noisy in a charming 'let's push tri-x 400 to 6400' kind of way. It's grown on me. 






EDIT: I'm sorry I've been posting so many shots recently.. I just feel like I'm on a bit of a roll and I need to revel in it! Ha, just kidding.  I like this one too much not to post as soon as possible, so.. here it is. I love how these shapes and lines converge.



celestial completion by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

So Calumet sent me T Max instead of Tri X and I don't have time to exchange it before I leave for Reykjavik.

I don't know how to feel, I'd gotten kinda attached to the romance of shooting Tri X... Still, I suppose I have the 'sharpest (black and white 400) film in the world' to look forward to :/


----------



## Tang

T Max just isn't the same. I'm sure you'll get good use out of it, though. 

This is not film. Sadly, no one in Flickr land or my friends really 'get' what I tried to do in this shot. It's like window inception!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I wanted an effect similar to a Profoto Lightstick or equivalent Bron piece, but I don't have the funds to swing either of those - so I improvised with a little bit of Acrylite and a snoot. I need to get a cap and a thin rubber clamp or ring to go between the end of the snoot and the Acrylite tube to hold it more securely, but I think it'll get the job done.

Sometimes you have to be your own model for lighting tests as well, I laid the tube horizontally for the test shot.


----------



## Philligan

That looks awesome.  It would be cool to try that vertically and see how it compares to a strip light.

I forgot to say, I played with an A7 today. Not long, though. Someone ordered it online with the 35 2.8 and 55 1.8, and decided they didn't want any of it and returned it to the store.  So there's one in a box, not on display, and two open box lenses - they're never gonna sell haha.

The camera's interesting. Really similar to the X-T1, but very different at the same time. It actually feels more plasticky than the X-T1. The grip is a bit meatier and I think a bit more comfortable for me, but the shutter button is in a pretty bad spot, right on top of the camera.

My thoughts were pretty much "Hmm."  It's cool, but I don't regret getting the Fuji. Especially seeing how the only 35 is an $800 f/2.8. I feel like the extra couple stops on the Fuji 35 make up for the smaller sensor anyway.


----------



## Tang

I've been waiting for others to post so I can post more. 

I'd really like some perspective on these. I think they're good, but.. I shoot for myself and no one else but I'm not getting the feedback that I normally get. Maybe there's a bias against phone shots? Who knows. I trust you guys, though.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Thanks Phil, I got inspired by Stephen Eastwood's shot: http://www.stepheneastwood.com/currentbook/IMAGES/ash0003.jpg and thought man I like that light. I only went with one tube for now to make sure it'd work as I thought.

Of those the first shot is the only one I really like, though I wish the trail of water ended somewhere on the edge of the frame (preferably not top center).


----------



## Philligan

Hey guys. I tried to post this earlier from my phone, but it didn't work.







Christmas came early.  



Fuji 18mm f/2 by philbabbey, on Flickr

I don't think I said. Ordering stuff online usually takes about two days. The lens was already three days out and I was wondering why it hadn't shown up. I checked the computer and apparently the only two left in the country were in BC, and the estimated arrival date was 16 Dec.  It randomly showed up today, and I was thrilled. 

It seems solid so far. I haven't used it yet - I literally just took these, and after I format my card I'm gonna try my hand at doing the firmware update. I haven't done one of those before, because my 35 came up to date. Judging by the small amount of Fuji stuff at my work and the dust on the box when it showed up, I think the 18's been sitting in inventory for a while.

Feels great, just like the 35. The aperture ring is weird - it doesn't feel quite as heavy as the 35's, but it's more clicky, which I like. Apparently the early Fuji lenses, and the 18s especially, had issues getting their focus rings consistent, so I'm glad this one's a bit stiffer. I'd prefer even stiffer, because I'm pretty hamfisted, but it's a minor quibble.

Fuji's packaging is amazing.



Fuji 18mm f/2 by philbabbey, on Flickr



Fuji 18mm f/2 by philbabbey, on Flickr



Fuji 18mm f/2 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

And they say this lens isn't sharp wide open. 



Fuji 18mm f/2 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

So, apparently there's a new thing called Beard Baubles that's sweeping the UK. It's a fundraiser for something or other, and they sell beard ornaments and donate the proceeds to whatever charity they're promoting. On the site, they have a bunch of photos of guys with big beards filled with Christmas ornaments. Anyway, a girl my buddy's into told him about it and said he should do that, so here we are. 

This photo is the 35 at f/4, and I believe ISO 400. The background is just some bare drywall in my basement.



Josh by philbabbey, on Flickr

And here's a glass of really expensive scotch said buddy brought with him for me to tree. So the story goes, his friend remodels homes and found this bottle of scotch in a corner in a cellar. It's Lagavulin, and this particular bottle is a special edition double matured etc. He looked it up, and the bottle's priced at over 300 pounds, which would mean that glass cost $20-$40. 



Lagavulin by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Yay some random Iceland shots. Not much of a landscape person but eh:



Wild Orca by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Whale Watchers by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Reykjavik Bay by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



South Iceland Coast 2 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



South Iceland Coast 3 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Skolafoss 2 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



South Iceland Coast 4 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr

And also lol



Morning Hasselblad by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I dig those man. They're kinda moody and seem to capture the Iceland vibe well. 

Also, have fun.


----------



## Tang

I hate Nick right now.

And I'm jealous.


----------



## Philligan

The colours in the one of the guys on the boat are amazing.


----------



## Tyler

Tried the Brenizer method for the first time today (ended up taking about 50 shots to stitch, I definitely might not do that many ever again for this)






And got some more great shots


----------



## metal_sam14

Alright folks, I am gassing hard for an x100s as a travel camera. I love the 35mm focal length and find myself using it more than anything else on my DSLR and am really lusting for something more compact for day-to-day stuff where I don't need my canon gear. Has anyone bought one for similar reasons? Anything I should be wary of?


----------



## Philligan

Jeff and Ben (Wretched) definitely have them. I don't think anyone else does off the top of my head, but Rook and I both have X-T1s, and he's got an X-Pro 1. We both sold our Canon DSLRs for Fuji.

There's really not much to watch out for these days IMHO. The older Fuji's are a bit slower overall, but they're fine now. If you can swing it, I'd consider doing for the X100T over the S. They're giving a bunch of the T features to the S via a firmware update, but the T is like that right out of the box, so it'll likely get an even better firmware update down the road.

The big thing on the T though is the wifi, especially if you want to use it as an everyday-carry camera. Fuji's in-camera raw conversions are amazing to begin with, so with the wifi you can send pro-level photos straight to your phone that'll require little or no tweaking, and throw them online right from there. I wouldn't give wifi up now that I've seen what I can do with it.


----------



## Tyler

Philligan said:


> Jeff and Ben (Wretched) definitely have them. I don't think anyone else does off the top of my head, but Rook and I both have X-T1s, and he's got an X-Pro 1. We both sold our Canon DSLRs for Fuji.
> 
> There's really not much to watch out for these days IMHO. The older Fuji's are a bit slower overall, but they're fine now. If you can swing it, I'd consider doing for the X100T over the S. They're giving a bunch of the T features to the S via a firmware update, but the T is like that right out of the box, so it'll likely get an even better firmware update down the road.
> 
> The big thing on the T though is the wifi, especially if you want to use it as an everyday-carry camera. Fuji's in-camera raw conversions are amazing to begin with, so with the wifi you can send pro-level photos straight to your phone that'll require little or no tweaking, and throw them online right from there. I wouldn't give wifi up now that I've seen what I can do with it.



Dang dudes.. you both replaced your canons with it? The X-T1 has had me interested for a bit. But I'm weary about not having a full frame if I took the same route


----------



## feilong29

Tyler said:


> Dang dudes.. you both replaced your canons with it? The X-T1 has had me interested for a bit. But I'm weary about not having a full frame if I took the same route



I recently replaced my Nikon D610 and like, 3 lenses for a Fuji X-E2 and 23mm. Worth the conversion


----------



## metal_sam14

Philligan said:


> Jeff and Ben (Wretched) definitely have them. I don't think anyone else does off the top of my head, but Rook and I both have X-T1s, and he's got an X-Pro 1. We both sold our Canon DSLRs for Fuji.
> 
> There's really not much to watch out for these days IMHO. The older Fuji's are a bit slower overall, but they're fine now. If you can swing it, I'd consider doing for the X100T over the S. They're giving a bunch of the T features to the S via a firmware update, but the T is like that right out of the box, so it'll likely get an even better firmware update down the road.
> 
> The big thing on the T though is the wifi, especially if you want to use it as an everyday-carry camera. Fuji's in-camera raw conversions are amazing to begin with, so with the wifi you can send pro-level photos straight to your phone that'll require little or no tweaking, and throw them online right from there. I wouldn't give wifi up now that I've seen what I can do with it.



Man the T would be great, but its also pushing $1500-1700 in Australia. Some of the original X100 modela are going for sub-500 on ebay which is really temping with the S model hovering around 1k. Im trying to work out how much difference there is in the quality of low light images between the old 12mp sensor and the newer 16mp one as well as I love low light stuff.


----------



## Philligan

Tyler said:


> Dang dudes.. you both replaced your canons with it? The X-T1 has had me interested for a bit. But I'm weary about not having a full frame if I took the same route



I switched because I was going to switch up from the 70D to the 6D, and figured that if I was going to switch systems, that would be the time. I got Rook to send me some files from his X-T1, and I downloaded some 6D raws, and I liked the Fuji files more than the Canon. Fuji's lens lineup is all meat and potatoes, too - the worst of their lenses (the R lenses at least) are still good compared to Canon or Nikon lenses, and their best ones are amazing. So even through they don't have three or four options for each focal length, the one they do have is affordable compared to L or G glass and comparable.

I'd love a DSLR, especially a full frame. I don't like the noise as much, but you can still get some great high ISO performance out of them, and I think the focus falloff can look a bit different. Mostly, for jobs where being obvious doesn't matter (bar photography and the like), hand holding the fatter grip is nice when you've got a zoom and a flash. But if I had to choose one (which I do) I'd choose the Fuji (which I did). 

The Fuji files are amazing. They don't have quite as much detail at high ISO as a full frame DSLR, but the noise looks way nicer IMHO. It's a grain instead of that harsh digital colour noise. The colours look amazing, too. I prefer all the dials, but that's more for the experience. I had trouble going back to an OVF - this EVF is huge, and seeing your exposure before you shoot lets you tweak settings without having to guess what the meter's thinking. Yeah, you can learn how the meter works and ballpark what your exposure will look like, but seeing a finished photo before it actually exists is still more accurate. And the size - the lenses are smaller, and the camera's tiny. The X-T1 makes my fiancée's Rebel SL1 look huge.  People pay less attention to me because it's smaller and quieter, and it's so small that I bring it with me way more often. 

Like I said, with a flash the grip on the camera can be a bit tough to hold, but you can by a larger grip if you want it. I shot the last wedding with it and loved it. In low light the AF hunted a bit, but when it hit, it hit. I was getting so tired of miscommunication between the mirror and sensor on a DSLR, so the on-chip AF accuracy is awesome.


----------



## Whammy

Tyler said:


> Tried the Brenizer method for the first time today (ended up taking about 50 shots to stitch, I definitely might not do that many ever again for this)



Any of the ones I've done have been close to 50 photos. I could have done the same photo with less but I found they stitch together better and have less distortion when using more photos.

What lens and aperture setting did you use for this?
You should normally be able to achieve a much more shallow depth of field, reminiscent of larger format photography.
The depth of field present in this photo is achievable from a fast lens and DLSR without using the Brenizer method.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Nick, those Iceland shots are amazing.

I haven't been on here in a while. But I've been taking photos here and there, started getting into 16:9 aspect ratio.


----------



## Tyler

Whammy said:


> Any of the ones I've done have been close to 50 photos. I could have done the same photo with less but I found they stitch together better and have less distortion when using more photos.
> 
> What lens and aperture setting did you use for this?
> You should normally be able to achieve a much more shallow depth of field, reminiscent of larger format photography.
> The depth of field present in this photo is achievable from a fast lens and DLSR without using the Brenizer method.



I believe I was using 2.2 since I've found that to be the sweet spot on my 50 1.8
Hopefully I'm going to invest in the 1.4 soon here and then continue to the 70-200 2.8 afterwards


----------



## Rook

Thanks guys 

With regards the Fuji discussion, it's pretty much all been said, but if you've any questions just let me know.

My Flickr is mostly Fuji shots, so you can get a feel for the versatility and quality of the files. Forget full frame, unless you're jumping between small, medium and large formats, you're not gunna notice a huge difference in quality, only price. A good sensor is a good sensor, between APS-C and a 36x24mm frame it's all much of muchness.

I augment my small format digital kit with a medium format setup, that's when you really start to see a difference - and when I say that, I mean I could show you two random images completely out of context and you could probably guess which is which. 

Not poo-pooing all full frame sensors at all, if Fuji had been full frame - apart from the fact that the bodies and lenses would all be bigger and/or slower and more expensive - I would still opt for Fuji's image quality, and the noise performance would probably be even better, but in this case I'd say it's a worthy substitute.


----------



## Philligan

On an unrelated note, happy birthday Tang.


----------



## Whammy

Tyler said:


> I believe I was using 2.2 since I've found that to be the sweet spot on my 50 1.8
> Hopefully I'm going to invest in the 1.4 soon here and then continue to the 70-200 2.8 afterwards



I'd be inclined to open it up fully. Or get closer to the subject to throw the background out more. But getting too close might lead to an exaggerated wide angle perspective when stitched.

I know I'm using a different focal length (85mm) but this is how big I make the subject in the single stills. I would be temped to get closer but I certainly would not make them any smaller in the frame as the depth of field would not be shallow enough. The background in relation to the subject has a large influence over the feel of the photo. Having objects at various distances really help with creating a lovely surreal depth of field.

I didn't use the black & white photo for the couple as I was unhappy with their expression and the stitch.

Original single still





Stitch





Original single still





Stitch


----------



## Rook

Another day, another Iceland.



Tectonic by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Ice 2 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Melavík by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Strokkur by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Three at Geysir by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



Gulfoss by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

No Aurora shots? I need to go to Iceland - my mum was born there.


----------



## Tang

He posted an aurora shot on FB, I'm pretty sure. It was nice. I can't even begin to think of the awesome work I could do in Iceland. Amazing stuff so far, Nick!

I went out shooting the last two days and I wasn't feeling it very much, but this is some of the stuff I did. My fiance is probably sick of the Pentax by now!



through the fire and flames by nrrfed, on Flickr



advanced couples photography by nrrfed, on Flickr



window shopping by nrrfed, on Flickr



IMGP2928 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Born here? Nice! Does she have one of those insane cool names? I can't read anything here, the words are so long.

Aurororora



Aurora by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Rook, slaying it.

Here's a few more I've taken that I don't think I've put up on here.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Rook, no she was born on the naval station in Reykjavik - she's old-fashioned American. I just need a northern Europe tour, my wife was born in Stavanger and spent some years in Aberdeen while she was a wee one.


----------



## Rook

Wow! Northern Europe is a lovely place, and the closer you get to the Atlantic, the more bearable the weather, too.

Scotland's beautiful if you don't get eaten by insects, obviously I like England, Ireland's lovely, Wales if you like insane beaches, Iceland I'm now happy to tell you really is stunning and the food is (unbelievably expensive) really great. I'm headed to Denmark next in the new year, Copenhagen for a weekend, and I have a friend in Sweden who's asked if I want to visit, so that'll be another couple off my list!

If you're ever close dude, you'll have to let me know


----------



## Azyiu

Rook said:


> Wow! Northern Europe is a lovely place, and the closer you get to the Atlantic, the more bearable the weather, too.
> 
> Scotland's beautiful if you don't get eaten by insects, obviously I like England, Ireland's lovely, Wales if you like insane beaches, Iceland I'm now happy to tell you really is stunning and the food is (unbelievably expensive) really great. I'm headed to Denmark next in the new year, Copenhagen for a weekend, and I have a friend in Sweden who's asked if I want to visit, so that'll be another couple off my list!
> 
> If you're ever close dude, you'll have to let me know



If I can afford a trip to Northern Europe for like 3-4 weeks, I would so visiting Norway, Iceland etc!


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> I'm headed to Denmark next in the new year, Copenhagen for a weekend, and I have a friend in Sweden who's asked if I want to visit, so that'll be another couple off my list!



The bridges connecting Denmark to Sweden are themselves something to see. Massive things. I crossed them at night during a snow storm. Cool experience. Would love to see the view during the day.


----------



## Rook

There's one near Copenhagen, right? Definitely down for checking that out!


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> There's one near Copenhagen, right? Definitely down for checking that out!



Yeap, there is one connecting Copenhagen with Mamlö in Sweden. Crossing the bridge is expensive enough if I remember. So weird driving from one country to another over water.

There are two big bridges. The other connects the island that Copenhagen is on to mainland Denmark. From Nyborg to Korsør.

When you reach Mamlö in Sweden it's about a 3 hour drive to Gothenburg or 6 hours to Stockholm, the two biggest cities in Sweden.

I'm around a 9 hour drive from Malmö


----------



## Tang

So incredibly jealous. You could spin in circles, point the camera in whatever direction and still end up with something gorgeous. Can't wait to see what come up with, Nick. 

P.s. thanks for the bday wishes, Phil!


----------



## Philligan

I had to drive to Windsor to hand in a paper yesterday, so figured I'd take my camera. I just got the 18, and I picked up a set of 58mm Hoya filters on clearance at work, and I found a cheap house brand UV filter that came with a 58-52mm step-down ring that I can use to adapt those 58mm filters, so that worked out.  Then I forgot to bring the filters and my tripod with me. 

I went downtown anyway, but it was super smoggy or something and hard to see, so I didn't get much. I set the camera to 6400 just to see what it was like, then forgot it was at that and shot everything at 6400. 

This photo really isn't sharp at all, and between being at 6400 and a really hazy day, it wasn't anything spectacular, but it's a bit different, and I think I like it. It's cool that I was able to catch the helicopter going by.

edit: FWIW, the noise does not look that bad when you have the actual jpg file haha.



Windsor by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

deleted silliness.


----------



## Rook

Phil, I find that 6400 converts to black and white really nicely because the grain is so regular, the only time I use it is when I know I'm going to be converting it or vice versa.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Phil, I find that 6400 converts to black and white really nicely because the grain is so regular, the only time I use it is when I know I'm going to be converting it or vice versa.



Good call.  Here you go!



Detroit by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Man, I've been working so much that it's been getting in the way of shooting. I've decided that since I was planning on going to Texas to get tattooed this summer, I'd keep working my ass off for the next 6 months and put enough money away to take the summer (probably anywhere between 3 and 5 months) off and hitch across America while I'm at it. I'll be documenting my trip strictly on film, and I'll likely only be taking 2 compact cameras and nothing else. So this will be my first project of this magnitude and an experience I've been wanting to have for a long time. I don't know what I'll do with the photos and story, but who knows, maybe I'll finally put my writing degree to use and publish something with it.

That said, I was approached by a gallery to exhibit my work in February, so I'll be doing that as well. I'd have a small space, so I doubt I'd get more than 3 or 4 medium-sized pieces up. But anything I sell, 100% of profit goes to me. So I'm looking forward to that.


----------



## Philligan

That's awesome.  

What did you take in school? I just finished my English BA, and am looking for ideas for jobs.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Philligan said:


> That's awesome.
> 
> What did you take in school? I just finished my English BA, and am looking for ideas for jobs.



I started in creative writing, but was way too stubborn to be taught any sort of creative process. So I switched to English literature with a minor in Human Environment. Prospects don't look too good for me either unless I want to teach abroad, which is why I've been pretty much making my own employment half the time, either in photography or with my painting business. I figure taking this trip would be a good way to build a body of work that can attest to my ability to do documentary photography or on-assigment NatGeo type stuff and observed portraiture, since I'll be meeting a number of different people in random places.


----------



## Philligan

I just made a pretty ghetto DIY beauty dish. My buddy and I rigged up a daylight temp A19 base LED bulb in a big stainless steel bowl. 

It actually worked out pretty well, though. Having a constant light is awesome to work with. I'd like to settle on something a little better to soften it, though - I just stretched a white t shirt across the bowl for the time being.

edit: Apparently the 35 1.4 is sharp.  This is f/2.



Beauty dish by philbabbey, on Flickr



Jeff BW by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tyler

An old friend wanted to go exploring today, and explore we did.


----------



## Khoi

here's my first attempt at a time lapse. I used the built-in intervalometer on my camera (via Magic Lantern). It was a pretty hazy day, and Youtube absolutely murdered the sharpness of it.... but eh, it didn't turn out too bad.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Time lapse is super fun at times. This site is pretty cool: What colour is it?


----------



## Tang

By far the best light I've ever shot in:








bridge of lights by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Downloading the new X-T1 firmware as we speak.  The electronic shutter is gonna be really weird I think. I'm mostly excited for Classic Chrome and the new MF/AF abilities.

Here's the whole update:



> The firmware update Ver. 3.00 from Ver.1.10 (X-T1) / 2.00 (X-T1 Graphite Silver Edition) incorporates the following issues (X-T1 / X-T1 Graphite Silver Edition):
> 1. High-speed electronic shutter with a maximum speed of 1/32000sec. (This function is incorporated in X-T1 Graphite Silver Edition.) The FUJINON XF Lens series lineup includes a number of fast fixed focal length lenses which boast very high sharpness with the aperture wide open, producing excellent out of focus "bokeh". However, fast apertures are difficult to use if the light is too bright, so to ensure users can create shallow depth-of-field effects, the camera is now equipped with a fully electronic shutter offering a maximum shutter speed of 1/32000sec. The mechanical shutter will not operate at all when any speed for the electronic shutter is selected, which also delivers a completely silent shooting experience; perfect for shots of sleeping children, pets, weddings, and more. In addition, it is possible to set the electronic shutter in 1/3 steps from a range of 1sec to 1/32000sec.
> 
> [How to set]
> Select "ELECTRONIC SHUTTER" or "MECHANICAL+ELECTRONIC" of the new "SHUTTER TYPE" option in the shooting menu.
> Shutter speeds faster than 1/4000 sec can be chosen by rotating the shutter speed dial to 4000 and then rotating the command dial.
> *Some functions are restricted when the"ELECTRONIC SHUTTER" or "MECHANICAL+ELECTRONIC" is selected.
> The shutter speed and sensitivity are restricted to values of 1/32000-1 sec and ISO 6400-200 respectively.
> Regardless of the option selected, the mechanical shutter is used for motion panoramas.
> In the burst mode, focus and exposure are fixed at the values for the first shot in each burst.
> In the range where the electronic shutter works, the long exposure noise reduction doesn't work.
> In the range where the electronic shutter works, the FLASH MODE is fixed to the "SUPPRESSED FLASH".
> (In X-T1 Graphite Silver Edition, the flash is suppressed if "MECHANICAL+ELECTRONIC" is selected. With this upgraded firmware, the flash can be used when the mechanical shutter works.)
> *Notice when using the electronic shutter.
> Distortion may be visible in shots of moving subjects.
> Band-like unevenness may occur in shots taken under fluorescent lights, other flickering or erratic illumination.
> 2. Shutter Sound
> The shutter sound can be muted if desired. (This function is incorporated in X-T1 Graphite Silver Edition.)
> 
> [How to set]
> Select the new "SHUTTER SOUND" and "SHUTTER VOLUME" options in the setup menu to choose the type and volume of the sound made when the shutter is released.
> *Notice
> When taking pictures with the shutter muted, respect your subjects' image rights and right to privacy.
> 3. Classic Chrome Film Simulation mode brings more creative power to the X Series
> (This function is incorporated in X-T1 Graphite Silver Edition.)
> The X Series' Film Simulation modes represent Fujifilm's wealth of experience in color reproduction technology. New to the suite of effects is Classic Chrome, which delivers subtle colors and beautifully muted tones reminiscent of vintage reversal film. Using Classic Chrome on cityscapes, for example, will give shots a historic feel, while fashion photos gain an emotive, nostalgic look. Classic Chrome strengthens the film simulation line up and enhances the creative power of the X-T1.
> 
> [How to set]
> Select the "CLASSIC CHROME" option of the "FILM SIMULATION" in the shooting menu.
> 4. Natural Live View function is just like the naked eye.
> One of the great benefits of an electronic viewfinder is that 'what you see is what you get'; the final image is displayed in real-time so any Film Simulation modes or other effects can be checked while shooting. But users sometimes need to see colors close to how they're viewed with an optical finder, or to focus on shadow detail, which some high-contrast effects block out. To aid this, the Natural Live View function has been added and, when "PREVIEW PIC. EFFECT" is turned Off in the menu, an image close to the naked eye is displayed during live view.
> 
> [How to set]
> Select "ON" in the "PREVIEW PIC. EFFECT" of the new "SCREEN SET-UP" in the setup menu.
> 5. EVF / LCD Color Control
> "EVF COLOR" and "LCD COLOR" options in the setup menu to adjust the hue of the electronic viewfinder and LCD monitor.
> 
> [How to set]
> Select the "EVF COLOR" and "LCD COLOR" options of the new "SCREEN SET-UP" in the setup menu.
> 6. AF+MF
> "AF+MF" function enables seamless manual focusing. After half pressing the shutter to autofocus on the subject, fine adjustment can then be made using the manual focus ring.
> X-T1 / X-T1 Graphite Silver Edition New Features Guide [Ver.3.00 or later](PDF : 391KB)
> 7. Direct selection of AF area
> The update will let users select the focus area using the 4-way controller, without pressing the Fn key.
> 
> [How to set]
> Select the "FOCUS AREA" in the "SELECTOR BUTTON SETTIG" of the "BUTTON / DIAL SETTING" in the Setup Menu.
> 8. Unlocked AE-L / AF-L Buttons
> The function of the AE-L / AF-L button is currently locked, but will be interchangeable, depending on the user's preference.
> 
> [How to set]
> Select the "AE-L / AF-L BUTTON SETTIG" of the "BUTTON / DIAL SETTING" in the Setup Menu.
> 9. Change the size of the Focus frame in the Manual Focus
> In the Manual Focus mode, the size of the Focus frame for Instant AF can be changed by the command dial.
> 10. Direct selection of Macro mode
> "ON" or "OFF" of Macro mode can be directly selected without using the shooting menu.
> 11. Q. Menu customization
> To make the Q Menu (used for quick access of frequently-used items) even more efficient, the update will allow its items and layout to be changed to the user's preference.
> 
> [How to set]
> 1. Select the "EDIT / SAVE QUICK MENU" in the setup menu (or pressing Q button for a while).
> 2. Highlight the item you wish to change and press the MENU / OK button.
> 3. You will be given choices of items to assign to the selected position in the quick menu.
> *Select the "NONE" to assign no item to the selected position.
> 12. New Video Frame rates (50P / 25P / 24P)
> As well as the existing 60fps and 30fps selections, 50fps, 25fps and 24fps options will be available with the update. 50 fps and 25 fps allow video editing in the PAL regions, such as Europe, without converting the frame rate. 24fps offers a cinema-like view.
> 13. Manual Shooting in Video mode
> The update will enable ISO sensitivity selection prior to shooting videos, as well as the ability to adjust aperture and shutter speed during movie recording.
> 14. Phase detection AF support for Instant AF
> In Instant AF mode, which is operated by pressing the AF-L button during manual focusing, the update will enable Phase Detection AF, providing faster focusing speeds.
> 15. Interlocking of Metering and Focus areas
> Users will be able to interlock the AF area position with the Metering area when Spot Metering mode is selected.
> 
> [How to set]
> Select "ON" in the "INTERLOCK SPOT AE & FOCUS AREA" of the shooting menu.
> 16. Expansion of shutter speed in Program Shift mode
> In the current Program Shift mode, the slowest-speed setting is 1/4sec., but this will increase to a maximum of 4secs.
> 17. Addition of options in Function(Fn) setting
> Add "Flash compensation", "Shutter type", "Preview Pic. Effect", "Preview EXP. / WB in Manual mode" and "Lock" in "Function" Setting
> 18. instax Printer Print
> Photos can be directly sent from the camera to the Fujifilm instax SHARE Smartphone Printer to instantly print on Fujifilm Instant Color Film "instax mini".
> 
> [How to set]
> Type a printer name(SSID) and a password in the "instax PRINTER CONNECTION SETTING" of "CONNECTION SETTING" in the Setup Menu.
> * For detail, please refer to "Printing from a Digital Camera to an instax SHARE Printer" (PDF:1.63MB).
> Printing from a Digital Camera to an instax SHARE Printer (PDF: 1.63MB)
> 19. Lock Function
> Add software lock function during shooting mode. The update will let users prevent from the unexpected dial/button operation.
> 
> [How to set]
> Select the "ALL FUNCTION" or "the SELECTED FUNCTION" in the "LOCK SETTING" of the "LOCK" in the Setup Menu.
> Select the function you wish to lock in the "FUNCTION SETTING" before the "SELECTED FUNCTION" is selected.
> 20. Three Custom White Balance
> Expand the number of CUSTOM WHITE BALANCE from one to three.
> By registering different conditions in advance of the shooting, users can change white balance conditions quickly.
> 21. Expand EVF / LCD displaying types in manual exposure mode
> In manual exposure mode, the EVF / LCD are displayed with previewing set shooting conditions.
> To display, along with a mode of ignoring exposure condition, users will be able to select a mode of ignoring white balance condition.
> The update will let users expand variations of external flash photography especially with modeling lights of different color temperature.
> By registering the function to the Fn button, users will be able to change settings in quick operations.
> 
> [How to set]
> According to your shooting condition, select one of the "PREVIEW EXP. / WB", "PREVIEW WB" and "OFF" in the "PREVIEW EXP. / WB IN MANUAL MODE" of the "SCREEN SET-UP" in the Setup Menu. In shooting with a flash, "OFF" mode let you view objects with appropriate exposure and white balance.
> 22. PC tethered shooting support
> New HS-V5 software (optional accessory) allows users to tether and control the camera from the PC and transfer images shot on the camera over to the PC automatically.
> 
> [How to set]
> Select the mode you wish to use in the "USB MODE" of the Setup Menu.
> *For detail, please refer to the Help page of HS-V5 on this website.
> *Notice
> When HS-V5 is not used, select MTP(PTP). If other modes are selected, images are not recorded in a memory card and images are not transferred to a PC via a USB cable. In case of "PC SHOOT FIXED", you cannot turn off a camera until image transfer is completed via a USB cable with the HS-V5. (Default : MTP(PTP))
> 23. Change the function of FACE DETECTION in Focus-Frame Selection AF
> When a face is detected, the Focus frame is shown on the face. Otherwise, the position of the Focus frame doesn't move.
> 24. When pressing AE-L button, exposure is reflected to the live view.
> 25. When AF is locked by pressing AF-L button, the AF lock is held during zooming.
> 26. Add the icon to show RAW shooting is not available when an expanded sensitivity range is selected in RAW shooting. (Currently, the RAW icon disapppears.)
> 27. The settings below in the Setup menu are changed from the description on the Owner's Manual.
> The following settings move into the new "BUTTON / DIAL SETTING" in the Setup menu.
> "FUNCTION(Fn) SETTING"
> "COMMAND DIAL SETTING"
> The following settings move into the new "CONNECTION SETTING" in the Setup menu.
> "WIRELESS SETTING"
> "PC AUTO SAVE SETTING"
> "GEOTAGGING SET-UP"


----------



## Philligan

Yup. Classic Chrome looks awesome, and the electronic shutter is terrifying.


----------



## feilong29

Guys, I just picked up my first roll of film that was to be developed and, the roll was blank. Any thoughts? I drove 35 mins for this and still had to pay!


----------



## Tang

feilong29 said:


> Guys, I just picked up my first roll of film that was to be developed and, the roll was blank. Any thoughts? I drove 35 mins for this and still had to pay!



I know this is going to sound real simple, but was the film loaded properly? My first roll was ....ed because I didn't load it right.


----------



## Rook

That, and I'd also just open the back of the camera and fire the shutter a few times, see that it's exposing and stopping down correctly etc


----------



## Philligan

Were all the shots white? If so, you could have a light leak, or have accidentally exposed the film to light while you were loading or unloading it.


----------



## Whammy

If the developed negative is clear then there was no exposure.
If the developed negative is black then there was a total exposure.

In most cases when the film is blank it's human error. The most likely option is that the film wasn't secured into the spool correctly and as you advanced the lever the film slid out of the spool. If that is the case then the film will have had no exposure.

This happened to me once. My Dad loaded my camera for me and he didn't do it correctly. I though I noticed something when I felt a little less resistance as I wound on the lever but I though I was imagining things.
When I went to wind back the film at the end I did notice that there was little to no resistance and I knew then that the film wasn't loaded correctly.
I got it developed anyways just in case.
The film came back with no exposure. Thankfully the shop didn't charge me for the development.
Really annoyed as I though I had some nice photos.

Like Rook said check out the camera itself to make sure the curtain slides out of the way and that the lens aperture stops down when the shutter release is pressed.

Having a really bad light leak could result in the entire roll being over exposed but that's pretty severe.
Opening the back before the film is wound back into the canister will obviously over expose the film. But if you are quick enough to close the camera back you will only blow out a hand full of frames.


----------



## feilong29

Hmmm I'll check how I load it next time. However, I did notice that some of the perforation (sp?), or holes for the spool to lock into was ripped. At one point, and this may be what did me in, I thought my camera had malfunctioned; it stopped working. My dumb, new-to-film ass didn't realize that I had bought a roll of 12 exposures and not the 36 I originally thought, so I did open the back of it, but I thought I was shielding it from light as much as possible. So ANY light from outside could ruin the film? Seriously, I was in traffic for an hour there and an hour back lol. Lesson here: don't open the back of it in bright light, and make sure you know how many exposures you have! Thanks guys. I'm gonna load up my Kodak Ektar 100 and try to do it right this time. I had some pretty badass shots too :/

OH, and all shots were blank, that's all they wrote on my package. Rook, I'll give myself the warm fuzzies by checking the shutter. Thanks again y'all!


----------



## Whammy

feilong29 said:


> So ANY light from outside could ruin the film?



Film is ridiculously sensitive to light. And obviously the higher ISO films are more sensitive. It stays sensitive to light until it's been developed.

Opening the back for even 1 second will give the film a *serious* dose of extra light. Light can still seep through even when shielding the film.



feilong29 said:


> I did notice that some of the perforation (sp?), or holes for the spool to lock into was ripped.



Winding sprockets pull the film via the tabs when you advance the lever.
These gears prevent the film from going backwards, back into the film casing. But once the roll is complete the gears must be released, so the film can be rewound.
A rewind release button disables the gears on the take-up spool and the winding sprockets. Once pressed the film can be rewound safely.
If you forget to press this button then rewinding the film can cause the tabs to rip which could also damage the film.

Just mentioning a few things in case you are not aware of them.

Hope the next roll goes better for you


----------



## feilong29

Whammy said:


> Film is ridiculously sensitive to light. And obviously the higher ISO films are more sensitive. It stays sensitive to light until it's been developed.
> 
> Opening the back for even 1 second will give the film a *serious* dose of extra light. Light can still seep through even when shielding the film.
> 
> 
> 
> Winding sprockets pull the film via the tabs when you advance the lever.
> These gears prevent the film from going backwards, back into the film casing. But once the roll is complete the gears must be released, so the film can be rewound.
> A rewind release button disables the gears on the take-up spool and the winding sprockets. Once pressed the film can be rewound safely.
> If you forget to press this button then rewinding the film can cause the tabs to rip which could also damage the film.
> 
> Just mentioning a few things in case you are not aware of them.
> 
> Hope the next roll goes better for you


 
Thanks for the tips Whammy. I think I pressed the release button on accident, locked it back into play, tried to wind/rewind the film while fiddling around with the back open. A series of mistakes it seems. I will take all you guys have said and apply it next time. So much to learn lol.


----------



## Philligan

This is 100% Classic Chrome, I sent this over wifi and didn't touch it.


----------



## Rook

One of the reasons I chose 120 film is it's generally much harder to load wrong, as it's advanced by the take-up spool instead of teeth - you really can't get it wrong! 

I'm still deeply in love with my Hasselblad setup, it makes me want to weep a little I enjoy that camera so much.


----------



## feilong29

Some festive shots.

Same shot, two different edits (Fujifilm X-E2 23mm):


----------



## feilong29

Some shots I liked from my morning hike up Pali Lookout. We took the 'expert' route instead of the paved 'beginners' lookout point haha! Treacherous!

Fujifilm X-E2 w/23mm lens and various VSCO presets


----------



## feilong29

Then these two I choose from some in-camera raw conversions. Not sure how I feel about raw conversions but these are ok


----------



## Tang

I did a small set with some very sexy overpasses.



overpass 1 by nrrfed, on Flickr



overpass 2 by nrrfed, on Flickr



overpass 3 by nrrfed, on Flickr



hipster dreams by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## feilong29

Did some walking around Chinatown. Couldn't really focus with a wife, our kids and a friend and her two kids rolling with me. I shall return 























I got scolded by a little woman who swore I was taking pictures of her... uh uh bitch, you ain't that cool!


----------



## Tang

feilong: I really like what I'm seeing from you lately! Nice use of lines and pretty good processing too!


----------



## feilong29

Tang said:


> feilong: I really like what I'm seeing from you lately! Nice use of lines and pretty good processing too!



Tang, that really means a lot! I've been extremely inspired since I switched to Fujifilm  Took a bit of a loss, but I'm not complaining. I am, however, selling the 23mm to get a 35mm, and then an 18mm later on. Overall, I'm so happy I made the switch. I have to give thanks to you all for the inspiration and wisdom. This is truly the best forum I've been on, and the coolest thread ever


----------



## Tang

Creating good portraits without depending on bokeh is more work than you might expect. I really love how this turned out.


----------



## Whammy

^
Completely understand this.

Nice photo btw


----------



## Philligan

Every year my family watching Die Hard before Christmas. I took a photo of Dawn while we're watching it. This is my first time really trying the FD 50 1.8 on the X-T1. It's sharper than I thought - I'd say as sharp or sharper than the 35 1.4 wide open, which isn't "sharp" per se, but it's definitely useable. 

There's something about this that I think is a little off. I had the camera in Aperture Priority just to quickly test the sharpness of all my lenses, and I forgot that I had the exposure preview turned off from last night. I pulled the exposure down almost a stop and a half on this, and pulled some highlights and shadows too, so my guess is that's what makes this photo feel a bit off?

I definitely want to play with this lens more now, though. Manually focusing is a teat on this camera (I meant to say "treat", but that's a typo I have to leave in ).



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Here's a brighter take. I have such a bad eye for brightness.



Dawn 2 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## feilong29

Philligan said:


> Every year my family watching Die Hard before Christmas. I took a photo of Dawn while we're watching it. This is my first time really trying the FD 50 1.8 on the X-T1. It's sharper than I thought - I'd say as sharp or sharper than the 35 1.4 wide open, which isn't "sharp" per se, but it's definitely useable.
> 
> There's something about this that I think is a little off. I had the camera in Aperture Priority just to quickly test the sharpness of all my lenses, and I forgot that I had the exposure preview turned off from last night. I pulled the exposure down almost a stop and a half on this, and pulled some highlights and shadows too, so my guess is that's what makes this photo feel a bit off?
> 
> I definitely want to play with this lens more now, though. Manually focusing is a teat on this camera (I meant to say "treat", but that's a typo I have to leave in ).
> 
> 
> 
> Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr



Looks really sharp; FD (Canon right?) gives me hope that when I get my adapter, my Nikon 50mm 1.4 will look just as good.


----------



## Rook

Doing this wedding on Saturday. I'm surprisingly relaxed.

Got my battery grip and some 'Chili Power' batteries today which I've been trying to run flat all day but are doing great - not bad for £8 each. 

Kinda wishing I had the 50-140 2.8 IS haha. The chap I'm doing this wedding for will almost certainly get me a couple of better paid jobs off the back, so hopefully I'll be able to buy the lens in 2015 out of money I've earned selling my work. Fun!


----------



## feilong29

Good luck Rook!


----------



## Rook

Thanks man!

Had a brief moment of crapping my pants but I'm fine again now. I'm going to the rehearsal tomorrow so I'll see how I feel after that.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Doing this wedding on Saturday. I'm surprisingly relaxed.
> 
> Got my battery grip and some 'Chili Power' batteries today which I've been trying to run flat all day but are doing great - not bad for £8 each.
> 
> Kinda wishing I had the 50-140 2.8 IS haha. The chap I'm doing this wedding for will almost certainly get me a couple of better paid jobs off the back, so hopefully I'll be able to buy the lens in 2015 out of money I've earned selling my work. Fun!



I forgot about your wedding haha. Good luck man.  It should be a good time. I really liked the first few weddings I did. They definitely weren't bad after, but started to feel a bit like routine. 

Yeah, I'm jonesing hard for that 50-140. I definitely can't afford it because of the wedding and being poor, but I'd love one nonetheless. If I manage to get a good career job and can more than pay the bills and our student loan payments, I'd really think about it, though.

I did a pro bono shoot for a friend just now. He and his girlfriend were trying to get a photo done on the cheap just to make a Christmas card for their families, and apparently the local photographers they asked (including ones I know) wanted to charge them $200+ for a full shoot, which is ridiculous when you're doing a friend a favour. So I said I would - it'll be interesting to see if there's any backlash. 

It didn't go the greatest. He said his apartment wouldn't really work for a Christmas card photo, so they wanted to use the decorated lobby, but it still wasn't the best spot. It was brutal trying to frame without getting something stupid in the background. I didn't bring my FD 50mm and I really wish I had. Ah well. I tried some different things. They really wanted just one photo, so if I can finish with at least two or three I'm happy with then I'll be okay with that. Building previews right now, so we'll see.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Thanks man!
> 
> Had a brief moment of crapping my pants but I'm fine again now. I'm going to the rehearsal tomorrow so I'll see how I feel after that.



I just saw this now. Shoot at the rehearsal. Weddings are stupid for lighting, so try shooting the rehearsal as if it were the wedding and see what works and what doesn't. That way you can get away with having a mulligan for your first wedding shoot.


----------



## Philligan

Well, it's done. I think I've settled on 8 or so photos to give them.

I had a bit of trouble getting the X-T1 set up tonight. It seemed to have trouble focusing, and it wasn't that dark there - I should try turning off exposure preview when I'm using flash, because I think it stops the lens down to the working aperture for exposure preview, which gives it a hard time for AF. A couple times I'd focus on the guy at f/4 or so, and even through the girl was just slightly in front of him, she'd be a little soft, because he ended up at the end of the in-focus area. Again, probably something that would be fixed with the exposure preview turned off, because the shallower DoF would help keep it centred.



DSCF0045 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0116 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Haven't had a decent day out with the camera in a while. Looking forward to some time at the coast over Christmas. Here's a couple from Bristol, 16:9

I think I'd subconsciously started doing b&w processing for 6400+ ISO as mentioned on the previous page, too! This may have some added grain applied in Lightroom.


----------



## Tang

niceeeeeeee.


----------



## Skyblue

A couple phone-shots from the last few days. 











Started working at the airport, so I hope I'll have a chance to shoot a few pictures there, so many cool things around there. Only problem is I'm not allowed to carry a cellphone during my shift (Not to mention cameras...)

Oh, and Rook, those shots from Iceland are stunning. I wish I could travel there myself, it looks so amazing...


----------



## Tang

seeing lots of great work in this thread now.. my, how far we've come!

In the xmas spirit:



celestial by nrrfed, on Flickr

it's nice to go back to the SLR after shooting with my phone for so long.



mirror, mirror by nrrfed, on Flickr

I like doing these reflection shots that end up looking like damaged prints. For this one I blew out the highlights completely, but because the only real highlights were in the bottom bit of the frame it worked out. My guard dog didn't mind. Plus, my dirty ass front door almost gave the shot a bit of 'grain'. 



guard dog by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Here's a re-edit of a photo of Dawn from the past weekend. 



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## soliloquy

was messing around with my lens. realised i have WAY too much dust on the inside of my lens (the part that goes inside of the body)






and i know this will irritate a bunch of you, but whatever. i was having fun toying around with a cardboard box








what the tree actually looks like (not my picture)


----------



## Tyler

Pretty soon here I'm starting my planning for a road trip I'm gonna hopefully be taking this summer and go across the country over a week or 2 with some friends and document it all, I can't wait to see how the pictures will turn out if it happens


----------



## Forrest_H

Christmas ish











Nikon D5300 processed through GIMP 2


----------



## feilong29

Played with the coloring, matte and sharpness on this one:





And here is an in-camera pano (a smidge blown out tho):


----------



## Philligan

So Dawn got me an M42 adapter.  I've been looking at lenses all morning. I'm pretty broke at the moment, but next paycheque I'm planning on ordering a couple M42 lenses, and probably another speedlite. 

Hope everyone's having a good holiday.


----------



## Tyler

That pano is absolutely fantastic


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> So Dawn got me an M42 adapter.  I've been looking at lenses all morning. I'm pretty broke at the moment, but next paycheque I'm planning on ordering a couple M42 lenses, and probably another speedlite.
> 
> Hope everyone's having a good holiday.



welcome to the endless black hole of optics.


----------



## feilong29

Alright... I got a B+W ND filter and here are the results... I have some practice to do and I shouldn't use a film-sim to take the exposure lol:






And the idiots here saw me taking photos and decided to mosey along down the path anyways... lol






And these are just random shots outside a Hawaiian temple and Chinaman's hat:






(this one is an in-cam raw-conversion)


----------



## feilong29

Rook, what filter do you use? I remember a picture with a bus that you posted a while ago. I have this one: B+W ND 1000x 110 3.0 Neutral Density Filter. I think I might want one that has a higher stop (>10) if there is one. I see people who have their shutter open for over a minute; my poor X-E2 only goes up to a minute on the bulb setting, but even with this filter, my photo would be over exposed. I have a lot to learn still


----------



## ThePhilosopher

You'll be hard pressed to find more than 10 stops of filtration in a single filter.


----------



## feilong29

ThePhilosopher said:


> You'll be hard pressed to find more than 10 stops of filtration in a single filter.



Understood; I think I'll just try shooting later in the day so I can have the shutter open longer for that smooth, smeared look.


----------



## Rook

feilong29 said:


> Rook, what filter do you use? I remember a picture with a bus that you posted a while ago. I have this one: B+W ND 1000x 110 3.0 Neutral Density Filter. I think I might want one that has a higher stop (>10) if there is one. I see people who have their shutter open for over a minute; my poor X-E2 only goes up to a minute on the bulb setting, but even with this filter, my photo would be over exposed. I have a lot to learn still



I've not really used filters much. The one with the bus was just at night time!


----------



## Philligan

Here's one I just took of Dawn because the almost-back lighting looked nice. I was a noob and didn't realize I shot this in jpg, so I had way less latitude to work with.

ISO 6400, 1/60, 35mm @ 1.4.



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tyler

Did these couple shots for my friend very impromptu because I wanted to do something around the sunset. Got a YN 560 III yesterday but forgot to bring it along, granted I still have to mess with it and learn how to work it. But I liked how these back-lit ones came out


----------



## Whammy

Been quiet from me the for the last while.

Got an outdoor pregnancy photoshoot tomorrow. We had it planned for when it was snowing but it has turned out to be too difficult to organize everyone on the day. So we're going for a cloudless blue sky with snow on the ground which is how the weather has been for a while now.

While I was happy with the final results from the last proper photoshoot I was unhappy with how I planned and executed things on the day.
I'm a lot more focused this time and learned from my mistakes regarding how I communicate with the couple to get the best shot.

This time I'm also going to stick to the planned story board and tick of the main shots as I get them.
Have a few Brenizer Method shots planned too. But they are additional bonus shots. Not relying on them as main photos as they sometimes have a habit of not turning out correctly.

Gonna be -15 degrees tomorrow though. No issues at all using the camera at those temperatures. The metal camera body does suck out any and all heat from your hand though, even with gloves on


----------



## Tang

I haven't shot in over a week, Whammy. It feels unusual, but I think I needed a break to refresh my eye. Also, you're gonna love this.. it's a lovely 26*C (80F) here in Florida today. I could wear shorts if I really wanted to!

This was shot at 35mm, 1/6s, f/8, and ISO80. Handheld  I knew if I got the shutter speed just right it would create an almost watercolour feel and it in fact did! 



temple by nrrfed, on Flickr

Also from the 35mm. I'm pleased that I didn't have to crop either of these shots at all. It's a good sign that my compositional skills are actually improving.



winter storm by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

26* and shorts if you wanted to? I'm starting to get uncomfortable in 26* and I'm in shorts by 18*. 

In other news, I got an iPhone 6 Plus today. 

My iPhone 5 needed a recalled battery replacement, but Apple wouldn't replace the battery without fixing the rest of the phone, and I've been having some problems with it lately, so it was more or less cheaper to just upgrade my phone - buying out of my old plan costed more, but I'll pay the difference off within a few months because my new plan is so much cheaper.

I'm really excited to try out the new camera. I just worked two 12-hour shifts in a row eek and just got this today while I was working, so I haven't had much time to play with it yet, but the camera seems awesome. I got the 6 Plus pretty much specifically because the camera has optical stabilization, and you can tell. Hand holding is a lot more steady, and the photos look super sharp so far. I'm really looking forward to trying a few "real" photos with it.

edit: Pics or it didn't happen. This thing is massive. 



iPhones by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## feilong29

Sweet water shot Tang!

These are in-camera conversions. They came out overexposed during the transfer (wi-fi) some how.


























Some Lightroom edits:


















And a film edit from my Nikon FE2... I need to practice with this camera, as the rest of my shots were overexposed and I picked the wrong format to edit them with:


----------



## feilong29

I will repost those broken links shortly.


----------



## Forrest_H

Caught this shot of my cousin a few days before Christmas. Didn't come out exactly how I wanted it, but still looks decent to me.


----------



## Tang

Forrest: those low-light shots of kids aren't easy! Nice job, imo.


----------



## Forrest_H

Tang said:


> Forrest: those low-light shots of kids aren't easy! Nice job, imo.



Thanks! 

I feel so under-qualified posting in here, everyone else is posting fantastic shots with great gear and I'm sitting here with a Nikon I use for videos  I guess some of my high school photography class stuck with me


----------



## Tang

That feeling passes the more you shoot, in my experience. 

I had a field day with clouds today. I find it's hard to incorporate them into non-landscape compositions, but it think the combo of the clouds/contrail + chopped off flag creates a very compelling image IMO. Please note the choice to not show the whole flag was intentional. I find I'm needing to crop less and less lately.


----------



## Rook

Phil, welcome to the 6 Plus club haha, I love mine.

Whammy, I have to say I was a little worried in Iceland, some of those Aurora shots I took were at the top of mountains at about 11pm in 50mph winds and -20 or so, my hands and face were absolutely freezing, I was interested to see what effect it had on the camera. Apart from a little lag, there didn't really seem to be much, thankfully!


----------



## tank

pros/cons with the nikon 1 v1? with the 10mm 2.8...


----------



## Philligan

Those Nikons have pretty small sensors. Other than the ability to swap lenses, you'd probably be better off just buying one of the Sony RX100s. 

Everyone loves the Sony RX100 cameras, which get good image quality in a point & shoot sized camera. Those Nikons have the same sensor size, but they're larger, require multiple lenses, and suddenly you have a semi-expensive system to buy into that probably won't grow with you much as a camera. If you want to learn photography, you'll probably outgrow it pretty quickly. If you just want a point & shoot that will take nicer photos by default, you'd be better off with a Sony RX100 IMHO, as it's even smaller and you don't have the hassle or cost of more lenses.

It's got the 1" sensor size ("CX" in the photo below), which you can see compared to other cameras here. It's definitely better than a point & shoot, but doesn't come close to touching an entry-level DSLR.



sensorsizes by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

getting away from shooting people for a bit has renewed my love for photography.. not that I really lost it, but I love it more now.



into the night by nrrfed, on Flickr



the wings of angels by nrrfed, on Flickr



blkshp by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

The reference to a 36x24mm sensor as a '35mm' sensor I find a little odd, since nothing about it is 35mm, and 135 film is '35mm' because that's the width from edge to edge.... of the 24mm side; the height of a landscape orientated film. A property which obviously doesn't apply to a digital sensor...

People do it with 120 too, calling it 120mm, though that's actually particularly silly since _nothing_ about 120 is 120mm hahaha, it's just a meaningless old Kodak naming convention.

Anyway.

Wedding went seemingly great, I've been through about 2/3 of my work tonight and am very happy with a lot of it, which is a big relief. I've one card left to go through.

I'll post some stuff here when I've handed it over to them


----------



## Philligan

First real photo on my phone, edited in Photogene. Seems to have way more dynamic range, there's no lag to edits, and the screen real estate is awesome.


----------



## feilong29

Phil, those colors tho!


----------



## Whammy

Tang loving the cloud shots. The last B&W one is cool too.

Rook I was going to ask how the wedding went but you already answered that question 
Isn't 120 film actually 53mm x 53mm 

Finished the pregnancy shoot yesterday. Just touched up the photos today.
It was colder than I though. Close to -20 degrees.

I had my iPhone in my camera bag and it stopped working. A big temperature sign popped up on screen and ironically said my phone was too hot and needed to cool down 

I only used the 85mm for the entire shoot. Way too cold to be changing lenses 

Skin tones were awful with the cold. Big red noses. I didn't want to pull out too much red as it killed things so intentionally left some in there.

Here are some photos...


----------



## capoeiraesp

^ That's a really refreshing take on a pregnancy shoot.

I just blew $2k on an XT1 and 56 1.2.


----------



## Philligan

capoeiraesp said:


> ^ That's a really refreshing take on a pregnancy shoot.
> 
> I just blew $2k on an XT1 and 56 1.2.



The Fuji madness claims another.  

The 56 is next on my list, whenever that is. I'm starting to notice times when some people need more compression for tighter shots.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Managed to get some decent weather over Christmas at home in West Wales.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Ah Joe, I love the tones you get along with the sharpness of your pics. 

Philigan, I've been using my x100s a lot as of late and the recent 3.0 firmware makes the xt1 even better. Can't wait for it to arrive! It'll be interesting to see how long my 6D and lenses hang around for.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

capoeiraesp said:


> Ah Joe, I love the tones you get along with the sharpness of your pics.



Thanks man. Those are the two aspects I've been trying to work on with my processing lately, cool that it came across.


----------



## Whammy

Another one from the shoot. I absolutely adore the bokeh from this lens


----------



## Rook

Yeah, square format 120 gives a negative about 53mm square.

Here's an album of a selection of shots from the wedding: on Flickr.


Also, everyone's gone Fuji crazy haha, nuts.


----------



## Forrest_H

Rook said:


> Yeah, square format 120 gives a negative about 53mm square.
> 
> Here's an album of a selection of shots from the wedding: on Flickr.
> 
> 
> Also, everyone's gone Fuji crazy haha, nuts.



Lovely shots, Rook.

Can anyone recommend me some decent but cheap (I know those two things aren't really synonymous with each other in the photography world ) macro and fisheye lenses? I'm getting back into photography with my D5300, and I'm slowly remembering why I didn't buy a DSLR at 15 in the first place


----------



## Tang

Whammy: thanks man! Also, I normally can't stand pregnancy shoots but those shots are wonderful. Really well done, man!

Fuji users: stop. just stop.  

Forrest: http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-FE8M-N-Fisheye-Nikon-Black/dp/B002LTWDSK .. yes, I know it's manual focus but at 8mm? Focus is easy-peasy. I'm not sure about picking up a cheap macro, but that Rokinon is an amazing value.

Joe: killer processing man. I won't lie.. your processing style helped inspire where mine is at now.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Some 4x5 Fujiroids from today - more shots coming later this evening.










And one edit.




Nikon D3 with Sigma 15-30mm f/[email protected]: ISO 200 1/200s f/8


----------



## ThePhilosopher

What happens when you forget you have some Portra sitting in your film holders labeled as Plus-X.
Portra 160-VC developed in B&W developer.













Plus-X 125 that was in the same batch as the Portra.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Tang said:


> Joe: killer processing man. I won't lie.. your processing style helped inspire where mine is at now.



Ah thanks Tang, means a lot. I still feel like a massive beginner in terms of photography so it's good to hear these things. This whole thread has been extremely important to my development.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Forrest_H said:


> Lovely shots, Rook.
> 
> Can anyone recommend me some decent but cheap (I know those two things aren't really synonymous with each other in the photography world ) macro and fisheye lenses? I'm getting back into photography with my D5300, and I'm slowly remembering why I didn't buy a DSLR at 15 in the first place



Tamron 90mm f/2.8 for Macro and the Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8 for a fisheye are pretty cheap (when it comes to lenses anyway).


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A batch of E-6 processing. The 4x5 images are expired Ektachrome 100 4x5 slides - color shifts galore; the other is Astia shot through my Bronica ETRSi with 100mm f/4.














And another D3 shot.




Nikon D3 with Sigma 15-30mm f/[email protected]: ISO 200 1/40s f/4.5


----------



## Tang

back to my old ways.. sort of! In-camera double exposure.. living on the edge here, gents. I saw the man approaching from the left side of the frame and quickly burned through the menus to set it up. It'd be really nice if I could assign double exposure to one of my customization buttons but no dice. If anyone is curious, the left side is his reflection approaching and the right side is him shot through the same window he was originally reflecting off of. I have no idea what I'm trying to accomplish here.



seeing double by nrrfed, on Flickr

and a more normal shot. Stoked that I got the composition nailed in camera! No perspective correction 



a few of my favorite things by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Yeah, square format 120 gives a negative about 53mm square.
> 
> Here's an album of a selection of shots from the wedding: on Flickr.
> 
> 
> Also, everyone's gone Fuji crazy haha, nuts.



Those are great, man, and the venue is really nice. I really like your process on the B&W ones, and I dig the last three photos. The last one's insane that you got them sharp while they're walking and at 1.2 haha. The big group shot is a good one, too - those are always brutal to try and get everyone looking decent.


----------



## Tang

Can I say again how much I love the variety we've got going on this thread? Truly awesome.


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> Those are great, man, and the venue is really nice. I really like your process on the B&W ones, and I dig the last three photos. The last one's insane that you got them sharp while they're walking and at 1.2 haha. The big group shot is a good one, too - those are always brutal to try and get everyone looking decent.



Thanks man 

Yeah, I used the AF+MF focus for that! Works so well. Gotta love dem firmware updates.


So just how many people here own Fuji cameras now? We seem to have just had a wave of new Fuji folks!


----------



## feilong29

I have a Fujifilm x-e2 and XF 35mm. Have an XF 18mm on order


----------



## Tang

Believe me, I have a whole horde of lens I'll buy before I ever go Fuji. Looks like fun from this side, though. 

That XT-1 viewfinder though..

EDT: to clarify, I mean I feel like I haven't begun to scratch the surface on what I can with my Pentax and switching to anything else would be a side grade with the stuff I shoot.


----------



## Whammy

Happy new year everyone 

I'll eventually go mirrorless.
But when I do it'll be fullframe so that rules out Fujifilm as I'm sure they have no intention to make a fullframe camera.

I'm currently happy with my camera set-up and get the photos I need so I feel no need to rush into the mirrorless system. I'll wait until better bodies and more importantly, a better selection of lenses are out. (talking full frame mirrorless here)

If Fuji ever release a 35mm f0.85 lens that renders images as beautiful as the Canon 50mm f1.2 then I'll make the move 

I can however seeing myself getting a medium format camera in a heartbeat.
Actually yeah, for the price of a XT-1 and 56mm I could get an awesome medium format film camera with lens and an awesome scanner.


----------



## Rook

Indeed, my Hasselblad/V700 setup cost much less than just my X-T1 body, and I use it as much to be honest!


----------



## Whammy

Did you use the Hasselblad for the wedding at all?


----------



## Rook

No, too slow and noisy. As I do more weddings and get more comfortable with the routine I'll use the Hasselblad for the posed portraits I think, colour negative will be very flattering for that I think.

I just read your comment re a 35mm 0.85... Do you really use that thin a depth of field that much? I have to say, one of things I really like about smaller formats is how much extra depth of field you get for a given brightness, very useful for fast, low light stuff.


----------



## Skyblue

I have a strong love for buildings. 











Took these with the phone, processed in VSCO.


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> No, too slow and noisy. As I do more weddings and get more comfortable with the routine I'll use the Hasselblad for the posed portraits I think, colour negative will be very flattering for that I think.
> 
> I just read your comment re a 35mm 0.85... Do you really use that thin a depth of field that much? I have to say, one of things I really like about smaller formats is how much extra depth of field you get for a given brightness, very useful for fast, low light stuff.



I do. Nearly all the photos I post are at f1.2
Not for the shallow depth of field. To be honest it's too narrow and causes a lot of issues trying to nail focus. Having more than one person in the frame introduces more issues. Thankfully most of my shots are posed portrait.

I mainly use it at 1.2 for the bokeh rendering. I always try and have things in the background that will enhance the look when knocked out of focus. I've tried stopping my lens down to 1.8 or 2 and although the background is still nice it's just missing that extra bit of character.

If fuji's 35mm was a little faster or even just nicer bokeh rendering for the current f stop i'd probably be happy with it.
(Obviously I know a faster lens doesn't always mean nice bokeh)
With that being said I know I would be happy with their 56mm and 23mm. Both lenses do render out the background very nice indeed for the given f stops and I'd be more than happy to use them. But at the moment I do prefer Canon's bokeh rendering on their 85 1.2 and 35 1.4
The 35 is the weak link for me in the Fuji range. If the new version addresses my needs I may be tempted. 

tl;dr
I don't shoot at 1.2 for the shallow depth of field. 
I shoot at 1.2 because my lens creates beautiful bokeh at that setting.


----------



## Rook

That makes sense! The 35mm suffers from very sharp bokeh I think. I really like it on the 23 but obviously at the shorter focal length it's not so common...

I'd really like to see an improvement to the 35mm personally. The only reason I don't own that lens is the rickety, chattery focus - things like the 23 and 56 are worlds better IMO.


----------



## Philligan

Here are a few quick ones from today. We stayed with some friends in Windsor. These are all jpg (Classic Chrome) with a little tweaking in Photogene. The 6 Plus works a treat for editing, and the display is noticeably more vibrant, so I'm not over-brightening photos when I edit them on my phone like I was with the 5.


----------



## Tang

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/ar...s-see-your-absolute-favorite-shot-2014-a.html

created a 'best-of' thread for 2014 if anyone would like to participate.


----------



## Dalcan

Gone Skiing for the holidays.. too cold to bring the camera though.


Joe- Those shots are damn amazing.

Whammy- I love the color tones in the photo's you've posted.


----------



## capoeiraesp

I've not shared in a while so here's a fair few from what I've been up to.


----------



## Dalcan

Really loving that BJJ picture man!!! Do you train!?


----------



## Joe Harvatt

itsdoodoobaby said:


> Joe- Those shots are damn amazing.



Thanks man!

Cap - love that first shot.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Nah, just muay thai nowadays. Did a bit of BJJ but switched gyms and really enjoy sparring too much. I've been shooting a bunch of different comps for Judo, BJJ and a fight night. Hope to do more in future.





Thanks, Joe. It was an arvo where I just went out to shoot without expecting much. Quite pleased with the variety of shots I got.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Many more edits from Monday's shoot, exif is intact if you want any technical details.


----------



## Philligan

Here are a couple I just took of Dawn with the beauty dish. 35mm is definitely too wide for her face - I'll try the FD 50mm next time, and try not to talk myself into the 56 1.2. 



DSCF0070bw by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0086bw by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Negav

Wow you guys just motivated me to get in to photography. I'm thinking about buying a Nikon 5200 bundle. Any recommendations?


----------



## Joe Harvatt

5200 is a great camera and would be perfect to learn on. Then I'd recommend quickly getting the 35mm 1.8 lens. Cheap as chips, excellent optics and will enable more creativity.


----------



## Nats

I have the d5100 so I'd definitely recommend the 5200. I have both the 35 and 50 1.8s and while I've heard some say one makes the other semi-redundant, I use both of mine equally and love them both; just depends on the situation. I had the 85mm 1.8g last week and loved what it did, but the focus was off on 99% of the pics I took so I sent it back. Waiting for them to get more in so I can get another copy.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Nats said:


> I have the d5100 so I'd definitely recommend the 5200. I have both the 35 and 50 1.8s and while I've heard some say one makes the other semi-redundant, I use both of mine equally and love them both; just depends on the situation. I had the 85mm 1.8g last week and loved what it did, but the focus was off on 99% of the pics I took so I sent it back. Waiting for them to get more in so I can get another copy.



I agree they're totally different focal lengths, so having both can be a good thing. I too had to go through a few 85mm 1.8s before getting one with decent focus, though I still have to use the micro adjust on my body with my current 85.

I have a 20, 24, and a 15-30 zoom; who cares about overlap?


----------



## Whammy

I wouldn't say 35mm (50 equivalent) is too wide for those photos Phil. It creates a elegant and delicate look that an 85mm wouldn't be able to do.
Obviously your 50mm will give you the most natural look. But the 35mm really works here.

The lighting also really adds to the elegant look. Nice work.
I still want a beauty dish 


Philosopher...
We need more portraits on film. Really liking how those are turning out


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Whammy said:


> Philosopher...
> We need more portraits on film. Really liking how those are turning out



I'll have to do that, but film is getting scarce/expensive around here (especially 4x5 color film). I did find a box of Portra 120 stuffed away (5 rolls). All I have left for color in LF is expired and I have a little over 100 sheets of B&W film lying around. 

I've been kicking around the idea of shooting 4x5 B&W for clients and delivering silver prints as the final product, but the fee would be astronomical to even recoup the cost (ignoring the startup cost of needing to print a few first to have as showcase prints).

I think the D3 will have to do for a while until I can find the right deal on a used Mamiya or Hassy digital setup.


----------



## Philligan

Whammy said:


> I wouldn't say 35mm (50 equivalent) is too wide for those photos Phil. It creates a elegant and delicate look that an 85mm wouldn't be able to do.
> Obviously your 50mm will give you the most natural look. But the 35mm really works here.
> 
> The lighting also really adds to the elegant look. Nice work.
> I still want a beauty dish
> 
> 
> Philosopher...
> We need more portraits on film. Really liking how those are turning out



Thanks man.  I don't know how "real" the beauty dish is - I watched some videos about them (after I'd made this one of course) and the whole idea behind them seemed to be the opposite of what I was expecting. It seems like they're about getting an even light over the whole face to really light up makeup and stuff. I could be wrong, but I think the thing I made is more like a softbox, but I could be wrong.

I shouldn't be buying much these days, but I rewarded myself a little bit for my massive boxing day paycheque with a new lens. I ordered a Jupiter 11. It's a 135mm f/4 M42-mount that's supposed to basically be a Soviet copy of the Zeiss Sonnar. In hindsight, I wonder if I'd get more use out of an 85mm, but I figured 135mm would be more fun because it's such a change. It was also only around $70, so much better than a 56 1.2 or X100T. 

There are two. This is the older one, which is more or less the exact Zeiss copy. A slightly newer version (late '60s through the '70s IIRC) is shorter and fatter, but the few sources I could find that mention either all say the original version is more desirable, so I paid the extra $10 for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdYEOrbTxRY


----------



## Tang

Dude, 85mm is pretty damn good for full body portraits. I'd prefer a 135 personally, but an 85 will do in a pinch especially if it's fast. M

All on a crop body of course.

EDIT: to post shots! It's nice to shoot things that don't have a mind of their own for once 



downtown #1 by nrrfed, on Flickr



downtown #2 by nrrfed, on Flickr



downtown #3 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I'm gonna head out this afternoon and see if I can buy a plain white bed sheet on the cheap. I wanna try using it like a really big soft box. I figure if I can fold it once or twice, it'll be thick enough to cleanly diffuse a bare flash, but still large enough that I don't have to deal with any spillover. 

Dawn's busy today, so I just need to find someone to shoot with and I'll be set.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

It'll work, you just have to sure you have enough power to light it evenly and push through the fabric.


----------



## Philligan

Well that works out, because I got the cheapest one and it looks paper thin.  I was worried about it being too thin and not diffusing the light enough.

I'm glad I did this, because I can experiment with sizes before dropping more serious money on a softbox. I love the look of them, so I'll see what working sizes I like with this sheet first.


----------



## Philligan

No luck finding anyone to shoot with the bed sheet today, but I've got something lined up for tomorrow. 

I got tired of playing Far Cry, so I took a crack at product photography. It's not very good, but for a first attempt, I'll take it.

The setup. The X-T1 with the 35mm, my Yongnuo with the Fong style diffuser in front of two sheets of paper, my cheap video light with a blue gel (it's really warm compared to the speedlight) lighting up the backdrop, and the super cheap silver reflector I picked up from work filling in the right side. I taped a bunch of pieces of paper together, so I moved the bottle out as far as I realistically could and shot it at f/2. I still had to clean up the background a lot.



Forty Creek product setup by philbabbey, on Flickr

And the finished product. My biggest complaints are the specular highlights. If I'm feeling particularly ambitious next time, I'd drape white sheets everywhere and basically shoot through a little hole.



DSCF0055 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The bottom left corner of the frame is a bit hot, but not a bad attempt.


----------



## Philligan

That's gonna bug me now that I see it haha. Ah well, you live and you learn.


----------



## Whammy

Nice one Phil. Wouldn't have imagined that background was loads of white sheets.

I also had a go at product photography. But in a much more looser sense I guess. I wasn't going for the everything in focus look and shadeless background. I just wanted to mess around with the camera 

I used a grey roller blind for the background and sunlight from a small window on the right.
A reflector on the left bouncing some light back in.

There were a lot of crease marks on the blind itself so it took a while removing them. To make it a bit easier I took two photos. One at f1.2 and another at f2.8
I used the 2.8 version for the toy and the 1.2 version for the background. Made it a little easier getting rid of the crease marks along with getting some nice natural vignetting.

Went with the 85mm for a natural perspective of the toy.

I removed as much dust as possible before I lost interest 





Soundblaster and Ratbat by -Whammy-, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

ThePhilosopher said:


> I've been kicking around the idea of shooting 4x5 B&W for clients and delivering silver prints as the final product, but the fee would be astronomical to even recoup the cost (ignoring the startup cost of needing to print a few first to have as showcase prints).



That would be so awesome. It's such a shame that you can't do it. I'd imagine the only way you'd get clients willing to play that much would be if they have prior knowledge of the medium and thus, understand what they are getting.
It's slowly turning into a lost art.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Whammy said:


> That would be so awesome. It's such a shame that you can't do it. I'd imagine the only way you'd get clients willing to play that much would be if they have prior knowledge of the medium and thus, understand what they are getting.
> It's slowly turning into a lost art.



I'm actually pursuing this venture in an area where most of the clients are old enough to remember film and that's the marketing angle I'm going to take. As soon as I get the print-side of my darkroom set up I'll be doing tests for people. 

I have plenty of negatives lying around to test perfect my printing with. I've ordered some Foma velvet finish paper and warmtone developer to experiment with along with my standard stock.


----------



## Tang

My first attempt at using double exposures. Thanks for that option, Pentax


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Pretty cool stuff, Tang. You've also got a PM.


----------



## Philligan

I tried to use the sheet tonight, but my buddy wanted to work on a project for school and we didn't have a ton of time (he's taking photography). I'm hoping to do that soon. We busted out the salad bowl beauty dish, however. 



Dave b&amp;w by philbabbey, on Flickr



Dave by philbabbey, on Flickr



Teran b&amp;w by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's some nice light, what's the falloff look like?


----------



## Philligan

Thanks man.  What do you mean?


----------



## Wretched

Haven't posted in a while. Decided not to post any auto stuff in here any more, which tends to leave me with little else to post! haha

Anyway, here are a few shots from two great Aussie bands, Dead Letter Circus and sleepmakeswaves. They played at the Metro in Sydney on Dec 19.

Dead Letter Circus

























sleepmakeswaves


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> Thanks man.  What do you mean?



What does the light look like if you were to shoot a bit wider, say bust or waist up?



Wretched said:


> Haven't posted in a while. Decided not to post any auto stuff in here any more, which tends to leave me with little else to post! haha
> 
> Anyway, here are a few shots from two great Aussie bands, Dead Letter Circus and sleepmakeswaves. They played at the Metro in Sydney on Dec 19.



I was wondering where you went - good stuff here as well.


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> What does the light look like if you were to shoot a bit wider, say bust or waist up?



This is as wide as I got. I just realized how cold the white balance is on the one I posted earlier and it's driving me nuts. This is a lot more accurate.



Dave by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Skyblue

Philligan, I REALLY like these portrait shots. Great work  

Winter is (FLUFFING FINALLY) getting here, so here's a quick shot from the window of my new apartment: 





Took it with my phone, processed in VSCO.


----------



## Tang

Id love to think I'd enjoy shooting in the snow, but I'm a native Floridian and anything under 50*F requires a jacket. I'd freeZe my ass off, but man! Shooting street in the snow sounds like a wonderful opportunity.


----------



## Wretched

A recent car owner portrait. Two speedlites, with the main through a white umbrella on full power (at around f7.1 on camera) and a bare speedlite firing through the cabin on 1/8 power for rim light and to light up the dash...


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A good video on color grading stills: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bryq-jPrtiU


----------



## Philligan

I've never used Photoshop (been meaning to buy it for a while, but haven't wanted to spend the money), so all the videos I watch with PS retouching confuse the hell out of me. I still have trouble grasping the concept of layers.


----------



## Wretched

Dude! I can't imagine life without Lightroom and Photoshop! I haven't had any official training. Just played with it until I could do rudimentary stuff and kept watching tutorials etc from there.


----------



## Philligan

I really need to get Photoshop, because any videos I watch always baffle me haha. I use Lightroom, though. I really like the workflow. I've thought about Capture One, but it's probably not worth the money for me because I'm happy with Lightroom.


----------



## Wretched

Lightroom rocks!


----------



## Tang

Lightroom is amazing. Love it all day. 

I don't know why I take the pictures I take, but I like them. I was originally trying to clean the window to to get a better reflection, but this was way more awesome.


----------



## Tang

Looking to pick up one of these guys with my tax return because I can't really justify picking up a Hasselblad: Mamiya RZ67 Pro Sekor Z 110mm F 2 8 Hood 120 Back | eBay

What think you? The plan is to develop my own B&W shots and scan them with my Epson. I seriously doubt the v600 can resolve everything in a medium format negative but it's a start. After that I could take all the 'keepers' to my local pro scanning shop and get the good shit. 

Also, what's the consensus on developing C41 color negatives at home? Worth the effort or should I stick with B&W to start? I'm beyond infatuated with the medium format look (for lack of a better term) and no one down here really shoots film, let alone medium format film. I honestly think I have a good enough eye and compositional vision to really take my photography to the next level.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

B&W is definitely doable at home, but color (not just for the chemistry) is expensive. Developing color is far more sensitive to temperature (all chemicals and rinses/washes should be the same temperature) - not trying to deter you from doing it, but it's not as simple as buying the chemistry and dipping. 

I use a Jobo CPE2+Lift for my developing. I prefer stainless reels to plastic reels when it comes to roll film because I find it easier to load.

This is where I order most of my goods for film: Home | Freestyle Photographic Supplies.


----------



## Tang

Thanks Philosopher! I'm definitely going to start with B&W. I have several rolls of 35mm B&W film waiting to be developed and I'll practice on those before jumping into MF. 

Thanks for the link as well!


----------



## Wretched

Regardless, just be super careful. Those chemicals, for BW or colour, are so toxic.


----------



## Rook

I pay £4 a roll to get mine developed, and happy to haha.

I think you'll be surprised how good a job of scanning your Epson will do. The Mamiya is a cool camera, just make sure you check keh.com first


----------



## Khoi

Some new ones


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I was told to go and take some 'seaside' photos to go in the accommodation at the company I work for. I took about 150 photos, but nothing I would've bothered to take if I was out on my own. Nice way to spend a few hours at work though!


----------



## Philligan

That first one's awesome, man.


----------



## Tang

This I really like.


----------



## Philligan

I brought the Fuji to the bar for my boss's birthday last night and took a few photos. There weren't a ton I was thrilled with - they set us up at a bunch of tables put end to end, so it was really long and I didn't feel like walking around the table to try and shoot portraits of people. Also, it was dark, and it's tough enough shooting at f/2, never mind when you're half in the bag. 



Russell by philbabbey, on Flickr



Drinks by philbabbey, on Flickr



Matt by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Khoi

Saw this rather surreal door hanging on a tree branch today while location scouting for a short I'm working on.

I dig it


----------



## Rook

Just got in from an evening out and found I have my Iceland negatives back.

There goes tomorrow!


----------



## Tang

I might be joining Team Fuji soon, but perhaps not in the way you'd expect. 



and both of these were taken with the same 35mm lens. For the coffee shot I reversed the lens and handheld in front of the sensor in Live View. I set the lens to as close to infinity as I could set it and then focused on the bean by moving the body. I also had to handhold the aperture open because I really didn't want to tape it open, ya know? Getting the exposure was trial and error and I got pretty close the first time, but I did have to push it almost a full stop in post. As far as I can tell, the image is approx 2:1. Not bad for such a cheap solution.



coffee redux by nrrfed, on Flickr

I love this next shot for the sheer simplicity of it.



new year by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Joe, what are you doing to get your images rendering so sharply?
edit for something more awesome than my photography skills.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'll just leave this here: Splash Heroes: Superhero Models Wearing High Speed Milk (NSFW-ish)


----------



## Rook

I'm putting my guess in now and saying Tang's buying an instax.

Or a Fujica or something. All's I know is, if he buys the GF670 I'll be mad jelly.


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> I'm putting my guess in now and saying Tang's buying an instax.
> 
> Or a Fujica or something. All's I know is, if he buys the GF670 I'll be mad jelly.



I'll bring the peanut butter.

Maybe.


----------



## Philligan

Here are a couple from this weekend. The first one I took of a friend while we were bowling (as the photo suggests). I was sitting on the ground in front of the bench and using manual focus to catch what I could in the pretty much total darkness.



Emily by philbabbey, on Flickr

This next one is from today. We had to run to the grocery store, and figured we'd swing by the beach while we were nearby and see how it looked. It was cold.



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## feilong29

Some photos with my new 18mm  Taken at F/5.6 and Velvia sim I believe. I've been wanting to take some shots of this tower for a while; I have some other angles I want to capture next time. Loved that there wasn't a cloud in sight


----------



## Whammy

Big snow storm out where I am yesterday.
Both photos are just taken outside the house. Didn't get too far 

First photo is from my iPhone VSCOcam






Second is my 5d MKii with 85mm


----------



## Skyblue

Philligan, I absolutely love your pictures, every time. That beach shot looks straight out of Interstellar. 

Two pics from the last few days: 






I'm a bit nervous shooting when there are people around so the shot eventually didn't come out as I liked, but I don't think it's too bad. 






This, on the other hand, is down-right creepy. 

took the shots with the phone, processed in VSCO Cam.


----------



## Forrest_H

You guys are exceptionally talented.

Has anyone screwed around with any mirrorless cameras? I was thinking of buying the lady friend a Sony NEX 5T since she's really interested in photography and I don't have an SLR that isn't film laying around


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I have an Olympus E-PL3 - it's not bad, but it's not a replacement for my DSLR. A lot of guys here shoot the Fuji mirrorless stuff, and I have my Sinar that is mirrorless; though I doubt that's what you mean by mirrorless.


----------



## Negav

- From my research building 



 - Organic molecule crystals

Took these two with the VSCO app while at work. Will be practicing with the phone until I get the Nikon D5200.

Any suggestions?


----------



## metal_sam14

Well im taking the plunge, my Sigma 18-35mm is up for sale, once it clears I am going after a fuji x100s!


----------



## Forrest_H

ThePhilosopher said:


> I have an Olympus E-PL3 - it's not bad, but it's not a replacement for my DSLR. A lot of guys here shoot the Fuji mirrorless stuff, and I have my Sinar that is mirrorless; though I doubt that's what you mean by mirrorless.



I'm still sort of confused as to what exactly I mean lol. I know mirrorless generally isn't a replacement for DSLRs, I'm just looking for something small and easy to use that looks attractive (since she's a girl) with an interchangeable lens so she can screw around with different lenses.

It doesn't necessarily have to be absolutely flawless image quality, just something better than her old Powershot  that E-PL3 looks promising actually.


----------



## Philligan

Forrest_H said:


> I'm still sort of confused as to what exactly I mean lol. I know mirrorless generally isn't a replacement for DSLRs, I'm just looking for something small and easy to use that looks attractive (since she's a girl) with an interchangeable lens so she can screw around with different lenses.
> 
> It doesn't necessarily have to be absolutely flawless image quality, just something better than her old Powershot  that E-PL3 looks promising actually.



The Olympus stuff is really good, regardless of the price. IMHO, the mirrorless stuff is bordering on being able to replace a DSLR - it definitely has for some people.

The big trade-offs are battery life and autofocus speed, but you get a much smaller camera (smaller body, and they can make the lenses smaller). One upside, though, is because the mirrorless cameras use the actual sensor to focus as well as take the picture, the autofocus is usually more consistently accurate. DSLRs use a separate autofocus system, then the mirror flips out of the way so the sensor can take the shot, and sometimes those two actions can be out of whack with each other. So it's gotten to the point where DSLRs aren't hands-down better than mirrorless cameras anymore.

Not to keep blowing the Fuji horn (I'm one of the guys who switched), but if you can grab her a Fuji X-E1 (or X-E2 if you can find one in your budget), those are monsters. The Fujis and the Olympus's are the hippest looking cameras IMHO. The Olympus PEN stuff is good, too, but the Fujis will do better in low light, and if she doesn't feel like processing them on the computer, the Fuji photos look amazing right out of the camera. You can get cheaper Fujis that are still good, but like the Olympus PENs, they don't have viewfinders, just the screen on the back. That might not be a big deal, but if she gets into it seriously, there's a good chance she'll want a viewfinder. The X-E1/2 have a viewfinder in addition to the screen, so you can get the camera right up to your face.

Also, think about getting her a camera that has wifi (it's pretty common these days). My Canon had it and I ended up loving it, so when I switched to Fuji it was a requirement for me. It makes me take the camera out even more, because you can just bang a photo over to your phone and post it online right away, so you can use it to take awesome snapshots, too.

Sony makes great cameras, but their lens selection is mediocre and kind of expensive. The Fuji stuff can get fairly expensive quickly, but the lenses are all killer. The Olympus uses the Micro 4/3 lens mount, so you can use Olympus and Panasonic lenses on either brand of camera. They have the most selection for mirrorless cameras, good pricing, and since the sensor is a bit smaller than Sony or Fuji, the lenses are smaller, too. If you think she'll want to try a lot of lenses and will have a fairly tight budget, an Olympus would be her best bet. The OM-D E-M10 is an insanely good camera for the money. I was looking into one when I was planning on getting one in addition to my DSLR, but I ended up selling my DSLR stuff and spending more on the Fuji X-T1


----------



## Tang

What he said ^^

I got very, very wet today and so did my Pentax. Thankfully, everything appears to be in perfect working order and the weather sealing works as advertised. 

First shot I tried something a bit more cinematic and by cinematic I mean cropping the hell out of it! The horizontal bit is exactly as it came out of the camera but I did chop a good bit of the top off.



depth and motion by nrrfed, on Flickr

I love the reds in this shot.



the street billy joel by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## flint757

I bought the Panasonic GH4 to replace my 7D and love it. Wifi has become so important to my workflow as well. I can use my phone to physically control the camera and I can use my phones gps to geo-tag my photos via wifi negating the need for in-camera gps or a dongle that would have to be attached. Transferring photos to my phone also gives me a bit of peace of mind and like Philligan said I can then edit the photos from my phone and directly upload them to the web if I felt so inclined.


----------



## Decreate

My city


----------



## Rook

I think I'm gunna pick up the 27 2.8 for my X-Pro1 so I can keep it in my pocket. I realised since I sold the 18 I wasn't doing that any more :/


----------



## Philligan

I see the 27 available online at work once in a while and have thought about buying it. For a walk around, I'd love a 23mm pancake, but 27 should be close enough. I probably won't get around to that for a long time because of the 18 though. I'm pretty much tapped out for who knows how long, because after the wedding Dawn has teacher's college, and I've gotta find a job that can pay the bills during that time.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A little macro.




Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 200 1/200s f/32


----------



## Philligan

That's awesome. I like the bit of hair in the corner.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Well, damn. I bought a fuji xt1 and 56 1.2...


So long canon.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Thanks, Phil - I've got another shot that's a bit further back that I like a bit better to work on tomorrow.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

capoeiraesp said:


> Joe, what are you doing to get your images rendering so sharply?



Hey man - honestly, not much. Just boosting sharpening slightly in Lr, to maybe 18 or so but that's about it. I've recently not been shooting wide open, so I think my lenses might be performing better that way.

Got up to North Wales over the weekend.


----------



## Philligan

My M42 135 f/4 showed up today. And the verdict is... Hmm. 

It's in worse shape than the seller described - it came from the Ukraine so I was a bit worried about that, but it's still a bummer. It doesn't seem to line up straight in the mount, which shouldn't affect the images at all (the depth of field scale is a little off to the left). There's definitely some dust inside, but it looks like the focus ring is a bit out of whack. On the upside, it looks like I get infinity, but the close focus is off - I think I'd rather lose that than infinity. It has more wiggle than I expected, and it looks like the barrel extends a bit too far when you're focusing.

Another bummer is that the flair is really bad. Even in my living room, I had to be totally away from any sunlight to not get flair. That combined with the fact that it's 135mm on APS-C with no IS means that it might be too slow to comfortably shoot indoors, but could flair too badly to be shot outside. I'm gonna have to test it and see, but I'm thinking about seeing how much it would cost to ship it back to the seller, or at least see if I can get a partial refund or something. 

On a more positive note, it seems pretty sharp at f/4. I'm gonna try it on Dawn before I do anything rash.



Jupiter 11 by philbabbey, on Flickr



Jupiter 11 by philbabbey, on Flickr



X-T1 and J11 by philbabbey, on Flickr

And one with the lens, from the corner of my living room where there was no direct sunlight.



Moby Dick by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I picked up a Vivitar branded Komine 135 2.8 a couple of months ago on ebay for about £25. I'm really impressed with it. I'd recommend looking it up if you're not happy with your purchase.

Here's a couple of examples (just for the lenses sake)...


----------



## Khoi

Finally got my new website up.

It's still very much a work in progress, but it's somewhat presentable right now

Brian Nguyen


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Looks slick, is it WordPress?


----------



## Khoi

ThePhilosopher said:


> Looks slick, is it WordPress?



Yeah, no point trying to develop it myself when I was able to find a theme that had exactly what I wanted!

Pretty easy and looks great.


----------



## crystallake

Nice work Khoi!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A little less macro, a slight pull back from yesterday's shot.





Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 200 1/200s f/32


----------



## Tang

another shot from a few days ago. I kept going back to this one and changing things around and I think I'm happy with it now.



and a rainy afternoon to you too by nrrfed, on Flickr

AND speaking of 135mm manual focus glass of awesome: http://www.thephoblographer.com/2015/01/12/new-rokinonsamyang-135mm-f2-affordable-portrait-lens/

Sure, it's manual everything, but I've been shooting a manual focus 135mm f/2.8 from the 80's with zero problems. This lens will be mine and might actually postpone my medium format body plans.. shit. Oh man, I love 135mm lenses on APS-C so much and this looks just wonderful. As sharp as the Canon 135mm f/2L if you can focus the damn thing properly? For that price?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The only 135 is the Nikon 135 f/2 DC - I still have lens lust for this beast.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> The only 135 is the Nikon 135 f/2 DC - I still have lens lust for this beast.



So I've heard! Pentax isn't even making a 135 right now so I'm stuck with third-party, not that I'm complaining! Pentax bodies make using those all manual lenses pretty damn easy. Metering is done by setting your desired aperture (in manual) on the lens and pressing a small green button. When you press the button the lens stops down the aperture and calculates what shutter speed you'll need to get the desired exposure (which is set in exposure comp. I run mine at -1EV) After a good bit of practice I've gotten adept at this setup and can't wait to try this lens.

That being said.. that Nikon..


----------



## Philligan

I'm interested to try the focal length, but man, I'd kill for a 135 with IS. I can be kind of shaky to begin with, and I'm still getting used to the lightness of the X-T1. I definitely find it a bit tougher to keep steady.


----------



## Philligan

Here's a real world shot with the new lens. It's pretty sharp - this screen shot is 100%, wide open, and unsharpened. It looks pretty good, so I'll definitely take it out more before I'm too hard on it.



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr



Screen Shot by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## crystallake

What do you guys think of a Nikon D3200 as my first DSLR?

I'd rate myself a beginner still, even having used a Rebel in college (10 years ago) and taking Photo Illustration as part of my minor. 

I'd just be using this camera mainly to take better quality shots of my artwork to upload to my website, and occasionally to events/vacations.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

They're great cameras. Just make sure you have good lighting options for photographing artwork. Also if you're getting it with the kit lens, zoom out and take the photos from further away so your artwork doesn't get distorted.


----------



## crystallake

Appreciate it Joe! Should I look into something like this?

LoadStone Studio LDA134 - Best Buy


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Probably best for someone else to chime in about lighting - Wretched? I've only recently gotten into it. Got a Yongnuo 560 III flash for Christmas so still learning the ropes.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Cheap fluorescent lighting kits like that are not going to give you light of a consistent color and they could even be off by enough to create problems across your images. It also doesn't give the wattage rating, I would definitely stay away from any setup that doesn't have a good amount of information given. If you're going to be shooting artwork - invest in lights that are going to last and have an array of modifiers available; taking the cheapest route is almost guaranteeing you'll be buying again.


----------



## crystallake

Thanks guys. I'll look into some lighting options over the weekend, and talk to some people at the store.

In the meantime, I just ordered up the D3200 bundle with a bag, tripod, 18-55 and 55-200 lens.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

If the store you're talking about is BestBuy I wouldn't waste your time. I would say try to find some used AB800s used near you on CL or eBay.


----------



## crystallake

Van's Camera. I know better than to ask BB employees about products.


----------



## flint757

Philligan said:


> I'm interested to try the focal length, but man, I'd kill for a 135 with IS. I can be kind of shaky to begin with, and I'm still getting used to the lightness of the X-T1. I definitely find it a bit tougher to keep steady.



I would seriously consider getting a monopod if I were you. I've got a Benro for my video projects and it just makes everything easier.


----------



## Wretched

Get some Yongnuo manual speedlites. Models like the YN560 II or the YN565EX are both good and cheap. Also the Godox V850 with its Lithium Ion battery. They're plenty powerful and cheap! I'd say to start with two at least, so you have a main light source for portraits and another for rim lighting from behind or to light up a background etc...

Then get yourself some cheap light stands and white shoot-through umbrellas. Just buy a package from China or Hong Kong with two or three stands and umbrellas. You might also need speedlite/umbrella mounts for your light stands... and get some sandbags. All easily and cheaply gotten on eBay.

Midwest also specialist in 'strobist' stuff: Midwest Photo Exchange Home page


----------



## capoeiraesp

So, here's some first few day's thoughts on the XT-1 and 56 1.2 combo. It's been such a freakin' joy!

- The 56 1.2 is an incredible lens. It's quick, renders beautiful images, has lovely bokeh, and with Firmware 3.0, shooting at F1.2 in broad daylight at 1/10000+ of a second is just awesome.

- The EVF is like having bloomin' night-vision. Even without the focus assist light I was able to focus on the eye of my friend's black dog where I could barely see him, quickly too!

- With face tracking switched off I found that in a live concert setting it performed incredibly well. Even in S mode where it refocused between shots it was quick and consistent at hitting the mark.

- The metering and AWB is just wicked. I shot a concert in ISO priority mode up to ISO 1600 at F1.2 and 1/125 of a second - the consistency in exposures and colours is excellent.

- Knowing the Fuji system beforehand is a huge advantage. There are quite a number of settings that can be adjusted to really get this camera purring i.e. high performance mode, PRE-AF, viewing through EVF sensor only.

- Firmware 3.0's ability to make the D-Pad your AF point selector is great. I always missed the focusing stick of the 7D/5D on my 6D, but this is even better.

- It's light and small! ~850g with the 56mm 1.2. 

- It does sports and fast action stuff surprisingly well. I'm gonna test it out more tonight at an MMA class. I've already used it in a muay thai class and it worked 'well' although I didn't have it setup right in Continuous Focusing mode so it was hunting like it was drunk. I actually found Single Focus mode to be fast enough that I could capture exactly what I wanted. The PRE-AF mode, which I just switched on, sees it functioning much more like my Canon's in CF mode. 

Now I just need to suss out a solid flash system for it.


----------



## Forrest_H

capoeiraesp said:


> *encouraging comments about xt-1 that makes forrest want to buy one*



Good to hear. I'm seriously considering getting one for myself now 

I'm going out to the woods behind my work to retake some shots I did at 16, I'll post a few up here  I need to figure out how you guys are rendering so sharply, it seems like mine are either too fuzzy or way too grainy, I can't seem to find the middle ground. More tweaking will take place


----------



## capoeiraesp

Here's some samples from the first few days of shooting.











Basically shot in darkness with a black subject. Yep, it made focus quickly at F1.2. *not intended to be a sample of photographic skill





Bokeh sample.





Live stuff


----------



## Philligan

crystallake said:


> Van's Camera. I know better than to ask BB employees about products.



Hey, I work at Best Buy's sister company Future Shop.  I'm also the only one who actually knows about cameras though. 

My belated work Christmas party is Sunday, and it's gonna be drunk bowling. My Yongnuo is too big to comfortably sit on the X-T1, so I'm gonna try flash party photos with the kit flash and 18mm. Apparently the kit flash is more powerful than the EF-X20, so I hope it works great. If so, it'll be an amazingly tiny event rig.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

North Wales.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Looks like Canon's here to stay for fast action sports photography.
Took the XT-1 and 56 1.2 to my MMA group and well, it was pretty crook. I'd set it up as optimally as possible and tested for a good 2 hours across different modes and settings, but simply, its continuous focusing mode just isn't up to par. It rear focuses way too much, especially if there's stuff in the background.
Honestly, I expected/knew this going into the system but figured I'd give it a try. That said, it could also be the lens I'm using. 
The XT1 is definitely staying on for just about everything else though, which mainly ISN'T sports stuff.


----------



## flint757

I don't know. I took pictures at an indoor soccer game with my Canon 7D and it focused on the fence 90% of the time. I've realized in a lot of these situations it's either better to bring your /f stop down or just manual focus or both really (but I love manual focusing so I'm biased ). I took a ton of pictures and hardly any of them were in focus.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Yeah, I don't use my 7D indoors at all. My 6D though, has been a very reliable sports cam since I'm not a burst shooter. I've managed to shoot muay thai, Judo and BJJ tournaments/fights with a very high success rate on the 6D with my Sigma 35mm and Canon 135mm.


----------



## Philligan

capoeiraesp said:


> Looks like Canon's here to stay for fast action sports photography.
> Took the XT-1 and 56 1.2 to my MMA group and well, it was pretty crook. I'd set it up as optimally as possible and tested for a good 2 hours across different modes and settings, but simply, its continuous focusing mode just isn't up to par. It rear focuses way too much, especially if there's stuff in the background.
> Honestly, I expected/knew this going into the system but figured I'd give it a try. That said, it could also be the lens I'm using.
> The XT1 is definitely staying on for just about everything else though, which mainly ISN'T sports stuff.



Apparently the 50-140 is quick, but it's also $1500. 

Have you tried manual focus? If you're constantly shooting stuff all over the place it would probably be tougher, but if you're shooting people that are more or less the same distance from the camera, the manual focus could make things easier. I more or less pre-focus and then wait for things to be highlighted with the peaking. Or use AF+MF and AF to get in the general area, then fine tune with MF.

In other news, I got a new guitar today.  It was hiding in the back of the store and went on clearance, and the boss made me a ridiculous offer to get it out of the store because we're purging clearance stuff right now.

To keep it OT, this was f/2 and 6400. I love how clean the Fuji files are.



SGJ by philbabbey, on Flickr



SGJ by philbabbey, on Flickr



SGJ by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

The stuff I was shooting had way too much depth and general movement so it had a really hard time and manual focusing was just out of the question. A few of the fighters are UFC guys. It's all good though, I'll try another lens in time but if it means I use my Canon gear for fight stuff, no worries.
On another plus for the XT-1 though, I got 650 images without using all the battery. It still had charge with the 1/2 battery indicator, which doesn't mean half full of course. Still way more images than what most people are quoting.


----------



## Rook

I have to say, the times I've shot more active stuff, I've manually zone focussed and waited for things to come to me - and the X-T1 is one of the easiest cameras to do this with.

Put this way, if I were ever gunna have a camera that wasn't right for sport, this would be it haha.

I took two Fuji batteries on a trip to Germany last year and didn't even finish 1 the whole time I was there - no chimping, EVF only plus sensor, switching off between places; every time I held it to my side in fact. I probably got 7-800 shots off the cycle I'd say.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Battery and display wise that's exactly how I run mine, Rook. 
In time I'll get to try some more appropriate lenses for sports on the XT1 but for now I am more than amazed at the results in all other fields with the 56 1.2.


----------



## Skyblue

Grabbed this quickly at work today (I work at Ben Gurion Airport)






Phone pic, processed in VSCO.


----------



## Philligan

Great shot. 

I've got a belated work Christmas party tonight, and it's bowling and beer, so I'm gonna bring the X-T1 with the 18mm and the kit flash and see how that does at party photos. I'd love a real speed light, but my Yongnuo is way too big to comfortably fit on the Fuji, and I haven't gotten around to getting the i40. I realized the insane amount of distortion the 18mm has shooting raw (Fuji doesn't worry about it and corrects it in-camera, so the corrected jpg is actually 18mm and the raw is a wider focal length - fun fact), so I'm gonna shot small fine jpgs in Classic Chrome all night and see how it goes. I say how much I like the Fuji jpgs, so I'm gonna put my money where my mouth is and commit to it for a night.

Hopefully there will be decent photos to follow.


----------



## Philligan

So I was going through the photos from tonight and realized that you guys obviously wouldn't know anyone and therefore wouldn't care, so I'll just post one so everyone knows that it worked. 



Work Party by philbabbey, on Flickr

What I learned from tonight:

1) Fuji's JPGs look great, and still clean up well in Lightroom. I did a mild edit on one (highlights, shadows, vibrance, tone curve) and pasted it to all the others.

2) JPGs are so much faster in Lightroom.  I made smart previews for ~250 photos in two or three minutes, compared to probably 20+ with RAWs. They also edited instantly and exported in a second or so, compared to ~5 seconds.

3) I'm drunk.


----------



## tank

here my first official photoreport, suicide silence+thy art is murder+fit for an autopsy.
this is my favourite from the set,not that much PP, just B/W conversion in lightroom, no grain reduction, nikon d7000 with sigma 24/70 f2.8 (the old one,not the stabilized one)


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Last shot from my beauty macro shoot:




Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 200 1/200s f/32


----------



## the.godfather

I love looking through this thread at some of the great shots. 

I'm a complete newbie when it comes to DSLR's and photography as a whole if I'm honest. But I've been wanting to get into it for a while now and this year seems a good time to start. Generally even if it's just to start taking better shots of instruments and when on holidays/trips. If you guys were going out and buying a 'beginner' DSLR without spending the earth, what would you guys buy and recommend? Help much appreciated. I don't mind buying new or used if need be.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'd go to a shop and see what fit in my hand well as far as ergonomics are concerned. I'd then make a decision about features and price point after deciding upon which brand (of the big 3 or 4 DSLR mfgs) works best.


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> I'd go to a shop and see what fit in my hand well as far as ergonomics are concerned. I'd then make a decision about features and price point after deciding upon which brand (of the big 3 or 4 DSLR mfgs) works best.



This. Consider a DSLR vs a mirrorless camera, too. In a nutshell, you're trading smaller size for less battery life with a mirrorless. Image quality will be pretty much the same across the board.


----------



## Rook

Indeed, believe it or not, having a mirror in a camera doesn't make the light going through the lens any nicer haha.

I think you'll find though, DSLR's will probably be the cheapest option at the lower end of the price scale, Mirrorless suit the mid to high end market best I think.


----------



## metal_sam14

Aww yis!


----------



## flint757

What's all this battery life stuff about? My battery life for my GH4 is pretty damn good. I can go a couple days without recharging with casual use. I've never gone hours in a row, but I always turn my camera off between shots anyhow and I have my sleep setting set to a really short time frame. In any case batteries and battery charges are pretty cheap. I just carry a couple in my pocket. I love the form factor of mirrorless cameras. I get excited just thinking about it.


----------



## Tang

I get about 1,200 shots on a full battery with my K5ii.

to
anyways, i havent shot much because i woke up monday morning with something called saturday night palsy in my right arm which basically means my right hand is totally useless. its been 48 hours with no improvement so i went to a orthopedic doctor today to start the process of figuring out what the hell was wrong with me. ive got a nerve conduction test next week and ill know more then. i cant do anything i really enjoy (guitar is impossible.. it's easier to play my guitar right handed than try to force my fingers to work) so ive been catching up on my reading and tv shows.

i went out tuesday and shot but after i dropped my camera i figured it was better to just go home. these are the shots from that day.




windows by nrrfed, on Flickr



shadows of the past by nrrfed, on Flickr



fbc by nrrfed, on Flickr



connect four by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Indeed, believe it or not, having a mirror in a camera doesn't make the light going through the lens any nicer haha.
> 
> I think you'll find though, DSLR's will probably be the cheapest option at the lower end of the price scale, Mirrorless suit the mid to high end market best I think.



This. It makes me so angry, the amount of customers at work who won't listen to me when I tell them they take the exact same photos.  I'm pretty much the only one who's comfortable/enjoys going into the camera department, and it's 99% stupid arguments and nitpicking over $100 point and shoots. Not worth it for the one or two intelligent conversations I have a month. 

I kind of agree about the pricing. The more entry-level mirrorless cameras still take good photos and mount the same lenses (the Fuji X-M1 is around $500 and has an X-Trans sensor) and they mostly have the same level of functionality as an entry-level DSLR, but the killer is it's almost impossible to find one with a viewfinder. A small handful of them don't have hotshoes, but the missing viewfinder is pretty much unanimous, and is a huge detriment to serious shooting IMHO.



flint757 said:


> What's all this battery life stuff about? My battery life for my GH4 is pretty damn good. I can go a couple days without recharging with casual use. I've never gone hours in a row, but I always turn my camera off between shots anyhow and I have my sleep setting set to a really short time frame. In any case batteries and battery charges are pretty cheap. I just carry a couple in my pocket. I love the form factor of mirrorless cameras. I get excited just thinking about it.



My X-T1 battery life is fine, it's just nowhere near a DSLR. If I'm bad for using the wifi and playback a lot, I'll get about 300 shots, and if I'm careful and just shooting with it, I can get a good 700 sometimes. It's just that if you want to do stuff like shoot the odd video, playback photos, or have the screen up a lot, you can nerf your battery fairly quickly. Whereas with my 70D, unless I was using a ton of live view, I could get easily double that off the battery. I find it's not a big issue unless I'm doing a long job like a wedding. Having to charge your battery every night on vacation or bring a spare for a longer trip isn't the end of the world, but having to carry 4+ batteries instead of two for a day of hectic shooting is a bigger deal, not to mention having to keep a closer eye on your battery life throughout the day.


----------



## flint757

Yeah, wifi probably kills battery life by a lot. Most of my long day shooting is in a lot of sunlight so live view isn't really an option anyhow, too much glare. I just end up using the viewfinder to frame and playback shots. Video definitely kills the battery life by a lot though, but I don't feel a dramatic difference from my old 7D to my GH4 as far as that's concerned.

I also swap lenses constantly so changing batteries is the least of my concern when shooting.


----------



## Philligan

So a couple people from work added me on Instagram. Turns out the one girl in sort of internet famous, and has a few thousand followers on stuff like Twitter and Instagram. She posted a photo I took and got like 250 likes so far, and I'm kinda wishing I got a tag or shout out. 



DSCF0006 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Completely agree.

And get I could get 3-4000 out of my 6D.


----------



## capoeiraesp

3-4000 photos on your 6D? Damn! I've never pushed mine that hard to see what was achievable.


More XT-1 and 56 1.2 goodness! How I love the 1/32000 max shutter in broad daylight.










































This is basically a straight JPEG. The others have a bit more tweaking.


----------



## Rook

Yeah, I never used image preview and two of my three lenses were manual, I could fill a whole 32GB card on one cycle.


----------



## metal_sam14

So I am loving my new x100s! I have been messing around with the advanced colour filters, this one was monochrome + yellow, which composition do you all prefer? 



Yellow Glove 2 by TasmanSam, on Flickr



Yellow Glove by TasmanSam, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

Finally got around to testing out my new gear! A Jinbei DC II 1200 battery and flash head kit, 22in beauty dish (I also bought a 150cm octa and strip light) and YN622 triggers with HSS capability...

Also, as a huge surprise, my partner Tess offered to model. Only happens about once every three years!  Both shots using 22in white beauty dish and single flash head (I bought two):






This shot is using HSS. Camera settings were ISO 160, 1/6400sec @ f3.5. That rim lighting was at about 3pm DST, so the sun was still very high and strong, yet the yard looks black. Yay for overpowering the sun with a DSLR!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I love overpowering the sun - it's part of my "look" for outdoor work.


----------



## feilong29

Did a short "hike" this morning... more like a trek with a group of annoying kids. A little different than my normal editing style.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That second shot is killer.


----------



## feilong29

ThePhilosopher said:


> That second shot is killer.



Thanks! I wish there were better angles or positions to capture the lighthouse, but this will do lol


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Some random stuff around the backyard.


----------



## spn_phoenix_92

Had a good snow yesterday so I took some pics at the cemetery down the road from my apartment cause I'm weird 

This is the result of editing one of them


----------



## Nats

First Nikkor 85mm 1.8g I got front focused like a mofo. Got a new copy and it's pretty freakin sweet. 



snyo by jpm_326, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

finally got enough use back in my hand to feel comfortable shooting.



four lights by nrrfed, on Flickr



cwack by nrrfed, on Flickr



top gun by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

So we got a Sony A7 in at work. Someone ordered it online with the 35 2.8 and 55 1.8 and cancelled their order after it had shipped. I had to take it out and play with it. I only took out the 55, and didn't have much time because I was on the clock, and the box wasn't supposed to be open. 

First impressions: I didn't find it too comfortable. The grip is nice and wide but too shallow, so my right hand fingertips kept pressing against the face of the body. I don't have big hands, either. The shutter button is too high up, too. It felt a bit cheaper than the X-T1. With the clean edges it felt a little more precise, but it was lighter and more plasticky - the Fuji felt more dense and solid. I tried the 55 1.8 on it, and while the lens seemed great, even a standard 1.8 prime was front-heavy on the body.

The AF was funny, too. Compared to the Fuji 35 it was silent and smooth, but it hunted more, and would fully rack focus and completely give up a lot more often. The viewfinder was almost as big as the X-T1, but not nearly as clear. I think it's curved a little bit, because other than the part of the image you were looking at straight on, every other part was blurry. It seemed more like a flickering TV signal, for lack of a better description.

I didn't do anything to these files, other than raise the shadows on the shot of the headstock. The photos suck, but I just wandered around the store shooting some stuff to get a feel for the camera. I didn't have time to do an ISO ramp up, sadly. All shots seem to have some kind of strange grain going on, and I'm not sure if it's noise or what. Pretty much all of these are ISO 100-160.

All in all it's an interesting camera, but the lens size required for the full frame sensor makes it kind of redundant, IMHO. It doesn't balance well with heavier lenses, so for serious work I'd want a DSLR, and if I was getting this as a secondary camera, I'd rather a Fuji or M4/3 for the size. The only thing I could really see getting it for is adapting legacy glass, which would definitely be awesome. But for a working camera, I'd rather a DSLR (or Fuji ), and for an all-purpose camera, I'd rather Fuji or M4/3.

It's crazy how little DoF you get at 1.8, but then again, I rarely shoot the Fuji 35 faster than f/2, so I'm guessing I could get similar results at 1.4. I wish I'd thought to bring it to work so I could really A/B them. I'm off tomorrow, so if I have some time I might stop by and try and recreate some of the photos with the Fuji and 35 at 1.4 to see how different they really are.

The 55 is insanely sharp wide open, though, and the out of focus bits are really smooth. From the little time I had with it, I'd say the lens performs great. I love the 35mm focal length, but I didn't have much time, and 2.8 is far less interesting than 1.8, which is why I tried the 55 today.

Edit: Proof.







DSC00008 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSC00027 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSC00029 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSC00031 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSC00033 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

That's basically my exact experience of the A7.

And don't forget Zeiss make both a 32 1.8 and 50 f2 for fuji!


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> That's basically my exact experience of the A7.
> 
> And don't forget Zeiss make both a 32 1.8 and 50 f2 for fuji!



I saw those, I almost grabbed the Zeiss 35 when I first got the X-T1, but I figured the Fuji lens would focus a bit more reliably, and now that the 56 1.2 is out the Zeiss 50 is old news. 

Just did a quick and dirty product shoot for a friend who sells hockey figures. I'm building the smart previews as I type, so I'm still not totally sure how it went. If it goes well, we'll probably shoot more when he has more done.

For this one, I used three sheets of bristol board - one on the bottom, one behind, and one off to the side as a reflector. It worked alright. I would have liked to have a larger background to let me move the figures farther out from it, so I could use a smaller aperture to get everything in focus, but still blow the background out of focus. I find a defocused white background way easier to work with to hide any imperfections or seams.

I shot tonight with the salad bowl for the convenience of constant light. For next time, I'll probably use two speed lights (I ordered a second Yongnuo, should be here any day now) and set up a white sheet so I have a lot more seamless white to work with.


----------



## Tang

So many photographs.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Can't stop thinking of the Sigma 30mm f1.4 Art in work today. Anyone got any experience with it? I use the old 30 1.4 on a Canon for Daemoness Guitars sometimes and it's great. 

Thinking about it to replace my Nikon 35mm f1.8 - really want to get shallower DOF. Probably just a phase.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The 35mm f/1.8 and the 30mm f/1.4 have about the same DOF at minimum focusing distance wide open and at 5' from the subject the 35mm will actually have slightly less DOF.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Blown my mind.


----------



## Philligan

Don't you shoot like a D600, too, Joe? The Sigma 30mm's crop only. Supposed to be really good for the money, with semi-bad chromatic aberration, but that's an easy fix in Lightroom. I was looking into it back when I had the 70D. Honestly, I'd take an OEM 35 1.8 over it, though, purely for most consistent autofocus. The 35 1.4 Art would definitely be worth the upgrade, though.

I'm not thrilled with how shooting those hockey figures went, but that was my second time ever trying like a product style shoot, so what can you do.  I used white board as a base, backdrop, and reflector, and the salad bowl beauty dish. Next time, I'd use a big white sheet so I could get a more consistent background, and I'd use two speed lights to get everything brighter and a bit more evenly lit. I shot these at 1600, which is still really clean on the Fuji, but it would be cool to shoot at 200 or 400 to get as much detail as possible.



DSCF0041 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0050 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I'm on crop actually - D7100. Thanks for the advice guys, guess I'll just stick with the 35 1.8 for now (it is good!). It's probably the full frame advantages that I'm lusting after. 35 1.4 is way out of my price range to consider building an obsession over. I've got a couple of old AI/S lenses, 50 1.8 and 135 2.8 so maybe a full frame upgrade before new glass would be the sensible option.

Now, does anyone know how to earn some fast cash?


----------



## Tang

For nonprofessional use, I think some of the higher end lens we all lust after aren't really needed. Sure, I'd love the 35 Art, but I can do pretty much anything with my 35mm f/2.4. I get enough DOF for the way I shoot and it's certainly sharp enough on my 16mp body.

Every shot I've posted in the past month or so was taken with it and IMO it punches way above it's $200 price tag.


----------



## Philligan

Joe Harvatt said:


> I'm on crop actually - D7100. Thanks for the advice guys, guess I'll just stick with the 35 1.8 for now (it is good!). It's probably the full frame advantages that I'm lusting after. 35 1.4 is way out of my price range to consider building an obsession over. I've got a couple of old AI/S lenses, 50 1.8 and 135 2.8 so maybe a full frame upgrade before new glass would be the sensible option.
> 
> Now, does anyone know how to earn some fast cash?



Take deposits for a run of custom guitars?


----------



## Sean1242

Never realized this thread existed. Might have to share a couple things


----------



## Sean1242

I've been messing with a GoPro Hero 4 black since I bought one during black friday and it's been a blast so far. Photobucket really took the quality down on these as they're all originally 4000x3000.

Here are a few recent ones


----------



## Azyiu

Some friends of mine commented there is hardly ever any people in my shots... now I give you people!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Hey dudes, I've kind of been on a hiatus from photography lately. I had my Canon 50mm 1.4 stolen and my work schedule has been so taxing that on days off, I barely even want to leave my bed. Anyway, I have another concept/fashion shoot coming up in a couple of weeks and I promised the agency some individual shots of the girls, so I wanted something longer to work with than my 17-40 for those. I deliberated between grabbing another prime and going for a 24-70mm 2.8 so I can shoot everything with that rather than switching between group shots and individuals. I made my choice and picked up a new lens today. What I'm going to do is take some shots when I get a chance (hopefully in the next day or two), and let you guys take a guess at what it is.


----------



## Tang

85 f/1.whatever?


----------



## Jonathan20022

Hey guys! I just got a Sony A7 and started messing around with photography a bit more. I spent yesterday and today getting used to the camera and really learning how to use it. I have my old NEX-5 that I used but I can't say I was ever really knowledgable about photography. Excited to get into it a lot more, if you guys have any tips/advice that'd be awesome.

Right now I'm only running the kit lens but I plan on grabbing a 55mm lens soon.


----------



## Tang

Awful glare is awful 

Still like the shot though.


----------



## Philligan

In harsh contrast to Tang's latest photo of a guy biking in a t shirt, here are a couple I just took of Dawn.  

I wish the snowflakes were fatter and falling slower, and it would have been nice to be at Dawn's mom's place, because it's in a small cottage town so the scenery would be a lot nicer. Still, these turned out okay.



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## flint757

What kind of light did you put under the umbrella? I dig the aesthetic of it.


----------



## Philligan

It's a Yongnuo speed light. Dawn just held it up by her face.


----------



## flint757

Neat idea. I may have to steal that idea sometime and give it a go.


----------



## Azyiu

Philligan said:


> Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr



Love this one!!!


----------



## Tang

Goddamn. The one day we had snow flurries her (the first time in a decade!) I was stuck at work. I looked out the windows multiple times that day hoping for a chance to run out with camera but it never happened.


----------



## Tyler

So Ive been busy with school starting back up but Ive had some great fun in my down time to get some shots


----------



## Azyiu

Tyler said:


> So Ive been busy with school starting back up but Ive had some great fun in my down time to get some shots



She looks cute... though the focus of this shot looks a bit soft to me.


----------



## Nats

Tried some makeup face contouring and selective coloring in Photoshop with this pic. It's different enough from the original that I like it. I was hoping for falling snow in this pic, but the snow didn't start falling till after the daylight went away 



Untitled by JAPAMM, on Flickr


----------



## Tyler

Azyiu said:


> She looks cute... though the focus of this shot looks a bit soft to me.



Yeah Ive been having focus issues when using my speedlite. Im not sure why its been doing this.. it was also very dark which makes my 5diii act weird when trying to focus.


----------



## flint757

For shots where you can pace yourself I'd get a light on her face with a phone or flashlight or something, get the focus right and then disable autofocus, turn the light off and let the speedlite do its thing. Either that or get a receiver/transmitter as some of them have a built in red light to help you focus.


----------



## Tyler

flint757 said:


> For shots where you can pace yourself I'd get a light on her face with a phone or flashlight or something, get the focus right and then disable autofocus, turn the light off and let the speedlite do its thing. Either that or get a receiver/transmitter as some of them have a built in red light to help you focus.



Great idea, I'll try that next time. Also I keep hearing to use AdobeRGB, whats the deal behind this vs sRGB?


----------



## flint757

From what I understand AdobeRGB is mostly for print and sRGB is for pretty much everything else. AdobeRGB has a wider range of color, but most everything uses sRGB. It just depends on where your pictures are going to end up. Likely your monitor won't even display all of the colors if you use AdobeRGB as most monitors don't even display all colors that are possible in sRGB. If you're not sure which you're going to be doing then maybe shoot in AdobeRGB and then convert your photos to sRGB when you want to put them up on the web. Just make sure you do or it will display wrong on your browser. If you shoot RAW it's a moot point as I believe it uses an entirely different color space. Just make sure you select the right color space upon exporting or printing.


----------



## Philligan

flint757 said:


> For shots where you can pace yourself I'd get a light on her face with a phone or flashlight or something, get the focus right and then disable autofocus, turn the light off and let the speedlite do its thing. Either that or get a receiver/transmitter as some of them have a built in red light to help you focus.



This. I'm not sure what speedlite you have, but see if it has an AF assist beam. My $120 Yongnuo 565 II does, but it doesn't work with my Fuji. Worked great when I had the 70D, though. It uses infrared to help the AF, so it's a lot less invasive than a regular LED assist light. 

That's honestly probably the biggest thing I miss with my Fuji. It has an assist lamp built into the body, but it's a white LED so it's a lot more annoying and doesn't have the range of an infrared. Fuji Rumours is saying a pro flash system should be announced this quarter, so I'm really hoping for a native flash that's sized for the X cameras and supports HSS and has an IR AF assist.

On a related note, my speedlite showed up today.  I just got a Yongnuo 460, the $40 one. I got it because it's so cheap, with the intent of hoarding a handful of these for off-camera use. At $40 a pop, I can get three of them for the price of my first Yongnuo, so I can be a bit more reckless with them. It's small enough that I can sort of use it on the X-T1, too. I almost got the Nissin i40 for on-camera stuff, but I'm glad I didn't yet, because I wanna see what Fuji comes out with first.


----------



## Tyler

Ive got a YN 560III so unless Im wrong then I dont think it has one. I'll try some more diy methods like a cell phone next time though


----------



## Tang

all taken with the 35mm f/2.4.



insert coins by nrrfed, on Flickr



down the middle by nrrfed, on Flickr



florida sunsets by nrrfed, on Flickr



five dimensions by nrrfed, on Flickr



hallways of faith by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## mikemueller2112

Anyone here use Instagram to share their photos? Lately, that's been my main platform for posting my images. Website doesn't get a whole lot of traffic (randoms via Insta have seemed to help) but for the ease of use, Instagram seems to be somewhat effective.

If anyone else is using it, post your usernames. Mine's @mikebmueller if anyone gives a shit.

Been trying to get out and shoot as much as I can. The winter is a killer for me. I work in the middle of the prairies, so the scenery is pretty bland overall. When I'm home I try to make a trip out to the mountains but that only happens so often (life gets in the way!).


----------



## Philligan

Woohoo, published! 

Photo Of The Day ? Wednesday February 4th 2015 | windsoriteDOTca News - windsor ontario's neighbourhood newspaper windsoriteDOTca News


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A good read: Corrupting the Youth


----------



## Tang

ITS HAOPENNING. 

pentax just announced their first full-frame DSLR! No specs yet but I'll be saving my pennies.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Just keep saving: Pentax 645D 40MP Digital SLR Camera Body 888 027075183841 | eBay


----------



## Sean1242

mikemueller2112 said:


> Anyone here use Instagram to share their photos? Lately, that's been my main platform for posting my images. Website doesn't get a whole lot of traffic (randoms via Insta have seemed to help) but for the ease of use, Instagram seems to be somewhat effective.
> 
> If anyone else is using it, post your usernames. Mine's @mikebmueller if anyone gives a shit.
> 
> Been trying to get out and shoot as much as I can. The winter is a killer for me. I work in the middle of the prairies, so the scenery is pretty bland overall. When I'm home I try to make a trip out to the mountains but that only happens so often (life gets in the way!).



Been using Instagram as well, it's my favourite social network by far and it's nice to have a bunch of others check your stuff out


----------



## Skyblue

Barely had time to shoot anything lately. 







Phone pic, processed in VSCO.


----------



## metal_sam14

I went to the beach today with my partner and took the Fuji x100s with me to give it a good test. I was a bit heavy handed on the exposure comp but the raw files took to lightroom extremely well and I am really happy with most of these: 



Blow Hole by TasmanSam, on Flickr


Blow Hole by TasmanSam, on Flickr


Bicheno Jetty by TasmanSam, on Flickr


Tinnie by TasmanSam, on Flickr


Tinnies by TasmanSam, on Flickr


Bicheno Boats by TasmanSam, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Everybody seen the 5DS?

Does anybody care?

My only interest is if my dad gets one, then I can pinch his 5D2 and use some canon lenses for stuff every now and again. 50 megapixels on a sensor that small is too damn high!


----------



## Negav

About to pull the trigger on a Nikon D5200 kit to begin my journey into photography. Any other brand/model I should check out before buying?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I agree Rook, 50MP is ok for MF (I wish they'd work on a cost-efficient 4x5 sized sensor). I'm looking at these used H3D and H4D I keep seeing for sale and think I need to snag one.


----------



## Whammy

50MP on a full frame camera is a little silly. Thankfully the 5DS is not the successor to the 5DMKIII

Would be nice to see the MKIV stay in a sensible MP range but with meaningful improvements in every other area. I'm hoping Canon can live up to my expectations for the MKIII successor. If not then I'll start looking at changing systems.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> My only interest is if my dad gets one, then I can pinch his 5D2 and use some canon lenses for stuff every now and again. 50 megapixels on a sensor that small is too damn high!



Technically, it's the same pixel pitch as the 70D and 7D2. 

My opinion: meh. If I was a working photographer and shot Canons then I could see it being nice to have one sitting around for when I wanted massive resolution, especially for something like fashion. As much as I love my Fuji, there are still times I think it would be nice to have an SLR in addition to the X-T1 (I'm looking at you, D750), but when the 5Ds was announced I had no desire to even check one out.

More options never hurt, and I can see where it could be useful, but it doesn't do anything for me. 

I think 24MP is the sweet spot for me. Growing up on 12MP and shooting seriously with 20, I notice the little bump in detail with 24, but the file sizes are still reasonable. I'm happy with the 16 of the X-T1, but when the time comes for me to replace it, if there's a 24MP option that doesn't sacrifice dynamic range or high ISO performance, I'd go for that.


----------



## flint757

Whammy said:


> 50MP on a full frame camera is a little silly. Thankfully the 5DS is not the successor to the 5DMKIII
> 
> Would be nice to see the MKIV stay in a sensible MP range but with meaningful improvements in every other area. I'm hoping Canon can live up to my expectations for the MKIII successor. If not then I'll start looking at changing systems.



Are you sure? Almost everything I've read thus far indicates that this may be the mkIV. There was rumor of them going higher resolution to get the camera 4k ready. I'm not quite certain the logic behind that since my camera has only 16mp and shoots quality 4k. 

I'd personally be scared of how huge those files probably are. I'd be curious to know if they got the mp count that high and retained DR and high ISO performance. I doubt it personally and those things are far more useful for a videographer than higher resolution.


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> Technically, it's the same pixel pitch as the 70D and 7D2.



That in my opinion is a bad thing! The smaller the pixel, the smaller the intrinsic sensor ISO, the more you're essentially 'push processing' the files to get light into them and thus the more detail and dynamic range you lose and the more noise you introduce as the amount of light you're getting onto the sensor goes down.

If I were a fashion photographer, I'd want dynamic range all day long - a 16mpx full frame sensor or digital medium format. Same for weddings in fact.

If Fuji made an 8mpx low light and dynamic range master camera, I'd use it for 75% of my work, and _everything_ for web - I bet the files would be actually life changing haha. I just don't need these outrageous resolutions. I even bought a medium format film setup for the few jobs I've had where I thought I might need it, but I'm yet to actually put it to good use haha. Maybe this year I'll finally get something that needs big prints and I can pretend my Hasselblad was money well spent hahaha.

Also, Canon have done this before. The 1D's for a while were split into 1D and 1DS, which had differing specs, and each one was updated on alternate years - one was full frame and slower, the other a speed demon. Now they've merged the lined again with the 1DX, which is both full frame and a speed demon haha.

And yeah, I don't know why you'd need more sensor resolution for 4k video, that has no logic...


----------



## flint757

Well, the whole MP race has never had much logic to it either.  

Most of the cameras out there with ridiculously high MP count are cameras you'd never use to print giant pictures typically in the first place.


----------



## Rook

I quite agree - bigger print = bigger format for me.

The leaf Aptus backs are actually affordable used these days, a painfully tempting proposition... They need to hurry up an make a full frame medium format sensor that isn't £15,000...


----------



## Philligan

flint757 said:


> Are you sure? Almost everything I've read thus far indicates that this may be the mkIV. There was rumor of them going higher resolution to get the camera 4k ready. I'm not quite certain the logic behind that since my camera has only 16mp and shoots quality 4k.
> 
> I'd personally be scared of how huge those files probably are. I'd be curious to know if they got the mp count that high and retained DR and high ISO performance. I doubt it personally and those things are far more useful for a videographer than higher resolution.



Canon's specifically said the 5Ds isn't a 5D3 replacement.  The 5D4 is expected to be announced about midway this year. They say in their 5Ds rundown video that it sits alongside the regular 5D model.

You pretty much answered your own question about 4K video. 4K is only about 12MP. We have a 5k Retina iMac in at work, and about a 14MP photo will fill that display pixel-for-pixel.

The Sony A7s was designed with 4K in mind, and AFAIK is supposed to be the best stills camera for shooting 4K, and it's 12MP. I don't think the 5Ds is really designed for video, but they just included it to not totally cripple the camera.

Like I said, if dynamic range and high ISO performance are decent (the D800 is great at high ISO so that doesn't have me too worried, but being Canon I'd worry about the dynamic range), I can see there being a place for this camera, especially for working photographers who don't want to sink $40k+ on a single camera, or photographers who want the speed of an SLR. But the 5Ds is a very niche product.

I'm interested to see what dynamic range is like. After working with Nikon files, I was really blown away by the difference in DR compared to Canon. If Canon doesn't catch up soon, or start using Sony sensors, it'll be interesting to see where they go as a company.


----------



## flint757

It'll certainly be interesting. I'm curious as well about the DR of it. At 50mp I don't expect it to be Earth shattering good that's for sure.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Ok, well I didn't make good on my promise to shoot something with my new prime cuz it's just too fvcking cold out and I haven't been taking my camera anywhere.

Either way, I DID get to shoot this with it. It's a little preview of where I'll be doing my next shoot. The photo is cropped a bit so I'll just go ahead and tell you guys it's another 50mm. Given how much I loved the Sigma 30mm when I shot on a crop sensor, I decided to go the Sigma route again with the 50mm 1.4 art lens. It's sharp like nobody's business... not that my style really demands it, but I'm a huge fan of these new Sigma lenses none the less. Optics aside, they're really nicely built and the AF is snappy as hell.






However, I do seem to be having an issue with my 6D lately. The focus has been incredibly indecisive. Sometime's it'll hunt for a few seconds before focusing, and even more frustratingly, it quite often will hunt and hunt and then just give up when it can't decide on a point to use. If I select a single AF point, it'll still snap right to it, it's just when I'm using all AF points. I thought at first that it was a lens thing, but it's been an issue with all of them. Do any of you guys know what might be causing this?


----------



## Tang

The new 5D's? Yawn.


----------



## Nats

a whole lotta hot 



Untitled by JAPAMM, on Flickr


----------



## feilong29

Had a mini shoot for a friend who's daughter turned 3. This shoot made me fall in love with portrait photography all over again, and now I've decided to sell the 35mm and upgrade to the 56mm. I think I'll be set with a 18mm and 56mm. Here are a few samples:


----------



## mikemueller2112

I'm hoping with the release of the 5Ds that the price comes down a bit on the 5DmkIII. Wouldn't mind upgrading my MKII.

Spent some time out in Banff on the weekend. Few shots from the rainy Friday:


----------



## Azyiu

I am pretty happy with what my 5D3 can offer as it, and at this point I have zero interest in upgrading to the 5Ds.


----------



## Taylor

First time posting in this thread. Took some shots of the corals in my saltwater tank. Not the best pictures but I think they aren't too terrible.


----------



## Tyler

With my summer job I'll be working at my university it'll give me enough to snag a 16-35 f/4 so needless to say Im pretty excited about that. 

I've also been looking at either a 50mm 1.4 or 1.2 but Im still deciding.


----------



## Philligan

Tyler said:


> With my summer job I'll be working at my university it'll give me enough to snag a 16-35 f/4 so needless to say Im pretty excited about that.
> 
> I've also been looking at either a 50mm 1.4 or 1.2 but Im still deciding.



Check out the Sigma 50 1.4 Art. I haven't used it, but I've shot with the 35 Art, and it's amazing. I'd take it over the Canon primes personally.

I haven't been shooting much lately (been really busy planning the wedding), but Affinity Photo just got released for public beta, so I downloaded and played around with it. I have no desire to quit using Lightroom, but from what I understand so far, Affinity is supposed to be an alternative to Photoshop, not Lightroom. I'd like Photoshop for stacking/layers and the like for landscapes, and it would be cool to use it for a bit of retouching, but I don't want to pay Photoshop prices. So I downloaded the Affinity beta to see if it'll do the trick instead - if so, it's only gonna be $49 when it launches.

So far the workflow seems pretty sensible, but super foreign to me. I'm a creature of habit and basically learn what I have to to get by, and I've only used Lightroom, so this may or may not feel more familiar to someone who's already used Lightroom. I don't have anything to work with for multiple exposures of landscapes or starscapes yet, so I just edited an existing photo of Dawn. It can't seem to handle the Fuji RAWs yet, so I exported a straight JPG in Lightroom and worked with that. I didn't get too deep into the masking or anything yet (that still confuses the hell out of me ) but the cloning and healing works great.



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tyler

Philligan said:


> Check out the Sigma 50 1.4 Art. I haven't used it, but I've shot with the 35 Art, and it's amazing. I'd take it over the Canon primes personally.



I definitely looked into that but from what Ive seen, its been that Sigmas are hit or miss


----------



## Philligan

Tyler said:


> I definitely looked into that but from what Ive seen, its been that Sigmas are hit or miss



From what I've read the Art stuff is a huge step up, and the 35 and 50 both were in most sites' lists for top lenses the year each of those was released. I know a few guys who shoot for a living who all swear by the 35.


----------



## Tyler

Philligan said:


> From what I've read the Art stuff is a huge step up, and the 35 and 50 both were in most sites' lists for top lenses the year each of those was released. I know a few guys who shoot for a living who all swear by the 35.



Thats great news! I'll definite look into those. I wouldn't be opposed to renting both the 35 and 50 to see what suites me better. Thanks for the recommendation!


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Been playing around with the menus on my camera in work. How do you guys have your High ISO noise reduction set usually?


----------



## Tyler

Joe Harvatt said:


> Been playing around with the menus on my camera in work. How do you guys have your High ISO noise reduction set usually?



I usually alternate between normal and high but havent noticed any extravagant differences, but in the long run I do believe it helps


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr



She looks very red, masking is nothing to be afraid of - it's just a way to apply adjustments locally.
I put a curves adjustment layer on top of a black to white gradient to change the colors. The mask for the curves adjustment is below the image. Where the mask is lighter the curves adjustment is more prominent and where it is darker it is not having as strong an effect. Black is no effect, white is full effect - masks are simple


----------



## MrYakob

Tyler said:


> Thats great news! I'll definite look into those. I wouldn't be opposed to renting both the 35 and 50 to see what suites me better. Thanks for the recommendation!



Another +1 for the Art series, the 50mm pretty much never leaves my 6D and now that they've announce the 24 1.4 art I'll be picking that up too!


----------



## Tang

I'm back!


----------



## Philligan

Joe Harvatt said:


> Been playing around with the menus on my camera in work. How do you guys have your High ISO noise reduction set usually?



I pretty much keep it turned off. AFAIK it only affects jpgs, and I pretty much always shoot raw, but I always thought that if the noise was bad enough that it was distracting/overly noticeable, the photo would be better off in B&W anyway. Either that or I'd add some grain to try and hide it, but I rarely used NR in Lightroom.

I honestly don't think I ever had the 70D set to shoot jpgs (something I regretted after taking it on a family vacation and realizing I didn't want to process several hundred snapshots from raw ), but with the Fuji, I find their noise reduction a bit too heavy-handed, and I like how the noise is grainy as opposed to colour noise, so even with JPGs I keep it turned off.



ThePhilosopher said:


> She looks very red, masking is nothing to be afraid of - it's just a way to apply adjustments locally.
> I put a curves adjustment layer on top of a black to white gradient to change the colors. The mask for the curves adjustment is below the image. Where the mask is lighter the curves adjustment is more prominent and where it is darker it is not having as strong an effect. Black is no effect, white is full effect - masks are simple



Awesome, thanks man.  I'm gonna play around with that some more. That still confuses me  but I'm gonna look into it more to try and get a feel for it. I think I by far struggle with accurate skin tones the most, and I feel like this would really help me get better with them.

So I found out today that my work is donating $10k to an elementary school's robotics program next week, and they want me to shoot the release.  This will just be for the company, not any news outlets, but it'll still be fun. I miss working - as much as it can get repetitive sometimes, I like it because it forces me to shoot and puts me outside of my comfort zone a lot. Especially during winter, where it's a lot more of a hassle to just wander around with my camera.

I'm not expecting anything crazy. They wouldn't have hired a photographer normally, and I'm pretty sure I'm just shooting this in lieu of someone taking a snapshot with a cell phone, so it's probably gonna be fairly quick and dirty and I won't have much time to set stuff up and try and make it look really good. I'm pretty sure the boss just asked me because he knows I like shooting, but I'm down with that. It's still cool that I'll be able to shoot the odd event for the company and have it published internally, and maybe it'll get me in touch with the marketing department. This was just a part time retail job that I got while I was still in school, and I don't want to make a career in retail, but I'd definitely consider moving up in the company if I could get involved higher up and do something with my degree. I'm hoping too that I'll maybe be able to network a bit with some of the local news teams that are there in case the chance to work for a paper ever pops up.


----------



## aciek_l

Just a quick photo from little A3-Club spot yesterday. Horrible light.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Philligan said:


> I pretty much keep it turned off. AFAIK it only affects jpgs, and I pretty much always shoot raw, but I always thought that if the noise was bad enough that it was distracting/overly noticeable, the photo would be better off in B&W anyway. Either that or I'd add some grain to try and hide it, but I rarely used NR in Lightroom.
> 
> I honestly don't think I ever had the 70D set to shoot jpgs (something I regretted after taking it on a family vacation and realizing I didn't want to process several hundred snapshots from raw ), but with the Fuji, I find their noise reduction a bit too heavy-handed, and I like how the noise is grainy as opposed to colour noise, so even with JPGs I keep it turned off.



Ah, that makes sense. I'll have to look into it, to see if it's the same jpeg only thing with Nikon. I do the same thing sometimes with high ISO noise, B&W and we've got nice grain instead of purple and green dots.


----------



## flint757

It should be the same. The idea of raw is that you have all of the original data as the picture is being taken. This way you can add NR after the fact. Whereas with jpeg it all happens in-camera making in-camera NR an absolute necessity.


----------



## Tang

back to my old ways with stationary objects. and a whole new processing style!



sky #4 by nrrfed, on Flickr



sky #2 by nrrfed, on Flickr



IMGP3708 by nrrfed, on Flickr



IMGP3651 by nrrfed, on Flickr



sky #11 by nrrfed, on Flickr



sky #3 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## feilong29

Didn't get as many shots as I wanted when I visited the Byodo Temple here in Hawaii :/ but these two stuck out:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A composite from yesterday; I took a few shots of her posing and then moved the light off the stand to illuminate the tree in different sections using the built-in intervalometer.




Nikon D3 with Nikon 80-200mm f/[email protected]: ISO 100 1/200s f/6.3


----------



## Philligan

That's pretty surreal looking, man. 

So it's a holiday today (gotta love Family Day ) but it's been hitting -40 with the windchill, and I haven't been out shooting in a while. I saw the light hitting my coffee mug and figured I'd try something. I got a small (15" or so) reflector from work for a few dollars a while back, but it's too small to really be useful and I haven't really tried it out. I thought I'd try it on my mug, and I didn't realize how much of a difference it would make. I'm currently hunting for a larger one on eBay.

There's nothing special about these photos, and other than pulling the highlights a bit and just barely upping the sharpness and clarity, I didn't touch them. I thought I'd see what the reflector really does.

This first one is no reflector, just the light coming in from the window.



No reflector by philbabbey, on Flickr

For this one, I held the reflector a foot or two away, and managed to angle it and hit the mug.



Far reflector by philbabbey, on Flickr

And for this one, the reflector is a lot closer, probably 6"-8".



Close reflector by philbabbey, on Flickr

I'm really looking forward to trying this on a person now. Speed lights are fun, but I've been trying to find ways to work with natural light more, so I'm finding and creating photos, instead of just making them (if that makes any sense). I've been trying to look for nice photos, even if I don't have a camera on me, because I think I struggle with creativity the most. And a reflector really seems to be able to add that extra pop and add a bit more texture and depth to a photo without totally lighting it artificially.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> That's pretty surreal looking, man.



It's all in the masking.


----------



## Tyler

We started getting slammed with snow here at my University, so I went to the arboretum while it was still fresh powder


----------



## ThePhilosopher

16x9 crop and natural light - what am I thinking?





Nikon D3 with Nikon 80-200mm f/[email protected]: ISO 100 1/320s f/4


----------



## Philligan

Did you stitch that, or are you just really far back?


----------



## Philligan

I took these of a friend's dog today. I love greyhounds, they're really laid back.



Odie by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> Did you stitch that, or are you just really far back?



I'm just far away - that's even cropped a bit. I'll try stitching next time.


----------



## Tang

been digging around old SD cards for things I might've missed the first time around..



bird of winter by nrrfed, on Flickr



mall symmetry by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## MetalBuddah

Here are a few of my favorites from the Periphery and Thank You Scientist sets at the 2/13 stop of the tour at The Fillmore in Silver Spring, MD.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Last one from this set, I promise. I'll try removing the wrinkles near the bottom - good ol' dodge and burn.




Nikon D3 with Nikon 80-200mm f/[email protected]: ISO200 1/200 f/7.1
Calumet Travelite 750 in 16x20 softbox above and camera left of model


----------



## Philligan

I helped a friend shoot a project for school this evening, and since we shot it at the school, I messed around with the white seamless cove they have in the studio. I'm not used to having this much space to work with. 



Dave by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Holy shit guys, this is seriously brilliant. 

New Artificial Lighting Tricks Human Brain into Seeing Sunlight | Urbanist

Can't wait for this to be cheap enough for the common man.


----------



## Nats

Friend asked me to shoot her daughter's baptism this past Saturday. Here's one from that shoot. 



Untitled by JAPAMM, on Flickr


----------



## Tyler

Are there any good places that have RAW files available for download to work on practicing retouches? Ive been wanting to experiment with some new things and while my images arent bad, I really do need some better glass before I think I can be really satisfied with how things come out.


----------



## Philligan

Tyler said:


> Are there any good places that have RAW files available for download to work on practicing retouches? Ive been wanting to experiment with some new things and while my images arent bad, I really do need some better glass before I think I can be really satisfied with how things come out.



What lenses are you working with right now?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tyler said:


> Are there any good places that have RAW files available for download to work on practicing retouches? Ive been wanting to experiment with some new things and while my images arent bad, I really do need some better glass before I think I can be really satisfied with how things come out.



This place: ModelMayhem.com - Challenges, Contests, and Samples, though most of these require an account to get the images from the thread creator there are some that just post links up to the RAWs.


----------



## Tyler

Philligan said:


> What lenses are you working with right now?



Canon 50mm 1.8 its not bad for what it is but theres definitely sharper


----------



## flint757

It's an amazing lens for how cheap it is.


----------



## Skyblue

A few photos from some hiking I did with my friends a while back. 











Both phone pics, processed in VSCO.


----------



## Philligan

Tyler said:


> Canon 50mm 1.8 its not bad for what it is but theres definitely sharper



Honestly, man, that lens will still more than do the job. I had that and the 50 1.4 and didn't see a noticeable difference in image quality, especially stopped down. If you want a different focal length to work with that's one thing, but if you're looking at spending for a more expensive 50, you're better off buying lighting gear or train/plane tickets to shoot more IMHO.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> Honestly, man, that lens will still more than do the job. I had that and the 50 1.4 and didn't see a noticeable difference in image quality, especially stopped down. If you want a different focal length to work with that's one thing, but if you're looking at spending for a more expensive 50, you're better off buying lighting gear or train/plane tickets to shoot more IMHO.



If you're gonna spend money on a 50 might as well go all the way and pick up the Sigma 50 1.4 ART. It's a no brainer, unless you like to travel light.


----------



## Rook

I've had to opportunity to try the 50mm ART recently, so I'm gunna do my usual thing and play Devil's advocate haha.

I didn't like it (flame shield on).

It's sharp, sure, but the bokeh was meh, and on the whole the images don't pop like other lenses I've tried. It was also big and heavy for a 50mm, which both kinda go against the whole reason I'd use one in the first place.

Build was OK.

I wouldn't buy it. For that money I'd stick with the softer, nicer-blurring canon or the even cheaper, even softer still but wonderfully deep looking Zeiss 50 1.4. Sharpness just isn't a big factor for me at all though, and I've found the images from both the ART lenses I've tried now very sharp but very flat looking. Not for me. Not to mention the size haha.

That said, nobody who ever looks at your pictures will notice difference between a canon 50 1.4 or sigma 1.4. Maybe, if they were looking, they might with the Zeiss, but for all its contrast and colours and softness it's a general pain to use, patience required haha.


EDIT: Phil, I'd have agreed with you but having recently been editing some photos from our site taken between the 1.8 and 1.4, the images from the 1.8 (at 1.8) were only usable if you took the middle of the frame, there's all kinds of nasty shit at the edges but the 1.4 had no such problem. As I say, I'd have agreed with you before but I've kinda changed my mind now. I'll try dig out some examples on Monday.


----------



## Rook

Also I took some shots for a music duo the other day, thought I'd share a few:



B&amp;C3 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



B&amp;C4 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



B&amp;C2 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr



B&amp;C5 by NickNickNickHowlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tyler

Tried a 24-70 2.8 today and maybe I borrowed a fluke but it would never give me any signal of it being in focus. Almost all my shots were out of focus and the motor was making a weird sound. This is the only one I found optimal from the whole day







As for my 50mm 1.8, its just been strange because I get a lot of noise even at ISO100 and its not incredibly sharp. I dont think it would be my body though.


----------



## Tang

I need more Iceland pics.

Film pics. Also, you think the Sigma is too sterile? I did notice the shots took a bit more 'oomph' in post, but it didn't really bother me. Granted, this was with the 17-35 f/1.8 but I imagine the performance between the three are very similar.

And here is more of my shit.



name goes here by nrrfed, on Flickr



IMGP8331 by nrrfed, on Flickr



IMGP8409 by nrrfed, on Flickr

and this with a special appearence by Phil



light by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

The Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART is a nice lens, that's for sure. It's quick and sharp but there's really not much character to it. I sold mine and still much prefer the 35mm 1.4 mainly because I like that 35mm perspective.

I got to play with a supremely nice old FD 50mm f 0.95 yesterday. Good god that lens has some character.


----------



## flint757

Tyler said:


> As for my 50mm 1.8, its just been strange because I get a lot of noise even at ISO100 and its not incredibly sharp. I dont think it would be my body though.



Post an example?

When I still had mine it was defective. My 7D wouldn't always recognize it and the auto-focus got stuck every now and then.


----------



## Tyler

flint757 said:


> Post an example?
> 
> When I still had mine it was defective. My 7D wouldn't always recognize it and the auto-focus got stuck every now and then.



This would be a pretty good example I think. They just seem kind of grainy when I zoom farther in to edit, but when looking at similar examples of other shots I never see the same thing.


----------



## aciek_l

Friend's band concert yesterday, small club, bad light, but quite a lot of fun, as I have very little time for photography nowadays.


----------



## Azyiu

An old shot from several years ago, and I came across to it just the other night.


----------



## Philligan

So that school presentation thing went alright. Head office had a pretty unrealistic shot list - mostly candid shots of students in classrooms and during the event, which the school wouldn't allow. There were only three or four kids whose parents' had signed consent forms for photos. I also got pretty much no time to work.  The school principal was shooting for the local paper, and took everything on her iPhone, and didn't think I needed more than one shot of anything and rushed the whole thing. 

One of the requirements was an exterior shot of the school. This is one of the first landscape shots I've actually taken with the X-T1, and took this with the 18mm. The detail is great, but I can't believe the dynamic range on this thing. I don't think it would stand up to a full frame Nikon sensor, but it absolutely destroys my old Canon files. I've been trying to make landscape shots look natural without making them look like HDR, and this seems to do a great job of it. I pushed the shadows somewhere around +100 to keep the entryway from looking like a black hole, and it still looks great. My 70D would have left a noisy mess.



School by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Decreate

Just got the Sony A7II a couple of days ago, really enjoy playing around with it. Here's a few I took with the Nippon Kogaku 50mm f1.4 lens


----------



## capoeiraesp

yummy!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Back from Hiatus with a new instalment of "Jeff takes weird pictures of girls".


----------



## Tang

That sounds awesome, man. I need some models (that aren't my dogs)!

speaking of which..



buddy by nrrfed, on Flickr



mona #2 by nrrfed, on Flickr



dexter by nrrfed, on Flickr



mona #1 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I really like that last one, man.


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> I really like that last one, man.



it was a recreation of one of the very first shots I took with my first Pentax body, with the kit lens. It's actually the very first shot I ever uploaded to flickr, too! It's almost the exact same focal length (37mm @ f/6.3) but the processing is, uh, pretty lacking. I'm fairly certain that was shot in .jpg.



Ramona and her crazy ear-hair. by nrrfed, on Flickr

EDIT: actually, it looks like it was shot in RAW, but with ZERO adjustments made.. obviously I had no idea what I was doing! It's just very flat.


----------



## Philligan

I shot a buddy today out on the lake. Man, processing photos with snow sucks, I can't wait for spring. 



DSCF0153 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0158bw by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0186 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Bump up the exposure and suck all the highlights out!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Philligan said:


> I shot a buddy today out on the lake. Man, processing photos with snow sucks, I can't wait for spring.



Everything about winter sucks for taking photos. Actually everything about winter sucks for everything. Unless I have paid work or specific projects, I don't do shit with my camera in the winter. I think I need to move somewhere warmer.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang, that shot looks quite green to me, but I just woke up.



Philligan said:


> I shot a buddy today out on the lake. Man, processing photos with snow sucks, I can't wait for spring.



Post one of them up in the RAW challenge thread.


----------



## soliloquy

contemplating picking up either of these lens for my pentax k5 body:
sigma 10-20mm f3.5
sigma 10-20mm F4.0-5.6
pentax 20-40mm f/2.8-4

the pros for the pentax is that it is weather and dust sealed, like my k5. thus it is more versatile in a sense. it is on the lighter side in terms of weight. and all metal construction. though pricey. and mixed reviews. though HD is a cool aspect, its sharpness, going from reviews, is a hit and miss. 

the sigmas are not weather sealed. the 3.5 is a constant 3.5 that stays through the range, which i think is pretty cool. though it is pricey comparing to its counterpart. the 3.5 is a little sharper too than the 4-5.6 as well. 
the sigma that is f4-5.6 is a little on the heavy side. 

current lenses i do have are 18-135mm WR pentax (my walk-around lens) and my 50mm prime 1.8f pentax lens i use from time to time. fun lil guy. 

trying to get more into landscape and night photography. so i'm kinda leaning more towards the 10-20mm f3.5 lens. 

would you guys suggest anything else?


----------



## Tang

Philospher: I actually had a color temp program turned on on my laptop when I was processing those shots. I just looked at them on my phone and you're exactly right. Way too green.

solio: pick up the sigma 10-20 3.5. You've already got the 20-40mm covered, and while the 20-40 might be sharper I'd be more inclined to get a focal length I don't already own. That Sigma is pretty calm good too.


----------



## Philligan

Consider getting a prime, too - especially if you get into astrophotography. Check out the Bower/Samyang/Rokinon primes like the 10mm 2.8 or 14mm 2.8. 

Philosopher: I'll do my best to remember when I'm on the computer next. 

I'd like to start shooting B&W and developing it myself now that I have some spare time. At the least, I want to start scanning my own negatives, because all the local prints suck, but I can get colour film developed no problem. 

At work we have a generic $80 Canon scanner that does 4800 dpi. Will that be enough? If not, a friend of mine was showing me how he scans negatives with his macro lens, and it seemed to work well. I don't have a macro (and don't think I want to buy the Fuji 60mm macro), but Fuji announced extension tubes, so I could do my scans that way if it would work better than a scanner.


----------



## Tang

made sure my colors were good on these 



rainy by nrrfed, on Flickr



IMGP3292 by nrrfed, on Flickr



ode to dragonforce by nrrfed, on Flickr



trails by nrrfed, on Flickr



riverside castles by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Considering how much I've liked the new Sigma lenses I've owned and tried, I know exactly what my next purchase is going to be:

Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens for Sigma SA 401-110 B&H Photo

I've been lusting after the Canon 24mm 1.4 for documentary-style photography (as well as my admittedly strange approach to portrait and fashion photography) for quite some time now, and now that Sigma's releasing one for about half the price, I'm sold. Book it.


----------



## Whammy

I haven't been around these parts lately  I have a lot of pages to flick back through.

Been very busy with my kid so no time for casual shooting. I miss this part of the forum. Other photography forums suck 

Just some quick short words to get back into things...

On the snow note.
I love taking photos in the snow 
What annoys me here during winter is that we only get 6 hours of sunlight.






Loving the colors on that first photo Tang. I love those cold blue cinematic tones.

Jeff, love the lighting in those photos. Care to share?


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Don't seem to have much time for photography at the moment, I'm pining to get out with my camera. Here's a shot of my American Standard Precision Bass.






For anyone interested, I recently joined Hark as bass player. First set of gigs is a European tour supporting Prong in April.


----------



## spn_phoenix_92

Got a Nikon D3200 a couple days ago, this is the result of me messing around with the Macro lens.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Here's some shots taken on either a Nikon FG or F301 with 50 1.8 AI-s


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Whammy said:


> Jeff, love the lighting in those photos. Care to share?



Thanks, man. The first two were actually natural light. The pool had huge windows not only behind the girls, but also to their left.

The second one was two huge softboxes, just positioned to offset shadows as much as possible - one to my left and one to my right.

And the third was one of the softboxes, positioned up above and directly in front of the girls. My camera was actually held right against the stand for that one.

I don't really do the whole lighting thing much, but I promised individual shots of the girls to the agency for their portfolios, so I had to give them some more "fashion" type stuff, so the lighting was necessary.

Even though it's not exactly my thing, I do think I got some shots I'm sure the agency will be happy with, along these lines (also used both softboxes for these):











I think my exports were a little too hi-res for flickr's liking because it's been really roughing them up in the last couple of posts, but whatever.


----------



## Tang

we got new fridges at work and you know me.. I used to think my 35mm wasn't fast enough @ f/2.4 wide-open but my mind is changing. It's a perfect mix of size/portability/weight and DOF, imo.



new fridge day by nrrfed, on Flickr

and a coworker just picked up a Instax..



instax by nrrfed, on Flickr

something weird is going on with the rightmost light-pole in this shot, but I still like the shot.



IMGP3829-4 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## soliloquy

placed an order for 10-20mm f3.5 sigma lens. i hope my next long weekend i get, i can drive up north to do some star trail and star photography


----------



## Azyiu

I just upgraded to the Canon 16-35mm L f/2.8 II, and I guess it is time to salute my trusted 17-40mm L f/4 that, served me very well over the past 6 years; and traveled around the world with me during that time, thank you!


----------



## Philligan

I acquired Photoshop CS6 today. 

I know I did a terrible, terrible job of this, but I just tried doing my first stitch. I've been wanting PS for a few things lately, so I'm glad I got it. After dinner when the light's a bit nicer, Dawn and I are gonna head outside and I'm gonna try and do a proper stitch. 

This was shot with the 35mm. I'll probably the one outside with this and give the FD 50 1.8 a go, too.



First Stitch by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Azyiu said:


> I just upgraded to the Canon 16-35mm L f/2.8 II, and I guess it is time to salute my trusted 17-40mm L f/4 that, served me very well over the past 6 years; and traveled around the world with me during that time, thank you!



I've been using a 17-40mm as a 1A lens along with my 50mm for the past year. I love it, and it's great quality for a lens you can pick up for only $500 second-hand.

On another note, here's some of that oooooold, expired Polaroid 669 I got a while back. I shot these in NYC in October, just never got around to sharing.


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> I acquired Photoshop CS6 today.
> 
> I know I did a terrible, terrible job of this, but I just tried doing my first stitch. I've been wanting PS for a few things lately, so I'm glad I got it. After dinner when the light's a bit nicer, Dawn and I are gonna head outside and I'm gonna try and do a proper stitch.
> 
> This was shot with the 35mm. I'll probably the one outside with this and give the FD 50 1.8 a go, too.



Gotta love that large format look.

Go as long and fast as you can for the most prevalent results, I think. Worked amazingly with my 6D and 85 1.4.

Also, I have two options:
Sell my Hassy 50 and 250 and buy the Hassy 60, so I have 60, 80 and 150 

OR

Sell my Hassy 50, 80 and 250 and buy the Hassy 100 3.5, so I have the 100 and 150, a 50 and 75mm equivalent. Then later I'll probably chop my 150 in toward the 180.

I'm basically only using the set up for the kinda thing I used to use my 6d and 50 1.2 for, and the 50's just not right, the 250's too big long and heavy so I never use it, the 150's gorgeous but too tight for every day stuff and the 80's great and compact but if it were just a teeny bit tighter it'd be perfect.

I own the standard, vanilla Hasselblad setup. The 60, 100, 120 Makro and 180 are what one would consider the 'next level' stuff, and costs more, but if you know what you want it's worth it, they aren't dabblers' lenses.

I briefly debated going for a focal plane body and selling my 500CM so I could get the 110 f2 and 50 2.8 or 150 2.8 but the bodies are less reliable, the lenses are bigger and everything's more expensive. Won't get enough use, definitely off the cards.


----------



## Philligan

I don't own a Hasselblad, nor have I used one, so I can't really make a suggestion. 

Right now the longest Fuji lens I have is the 35. I'd like to pick up the 56 next, but who knows when that'll be. I tried some panos, but there's too much snow, and PS has been having trouble figuring out what to put there. I need to find a more detailed background, and I need to start with less photos. I tried I think five altogether, with about 15-40 shots per pano. I'm not sure if it was my computer (it's a Macbook Pro, but the motherboard is dying and I have to plug my internal HDD externally through the USB port), but it just wouldn't finish stitching a couple of the groups. I tried the smaller ones and it worked better, but it ran into trouble with the background because it was so plain I think. Ah well, you live and you learn. Next time I'll stick with the 35 and try something tighter, and keep it down to a few shots until I get better at it.

On a more positive note, I used the Jupiter 11 today, and it's actually pretty useful.  I was getting ridiculously bad flaring the first time I tried it, but it wasn't that bad when I took it outside. As long as the light is decent and you can keep your shutter speed fast enough, it's not bad at all. It seems useably sharp, and it's got a really nice kinda smoothness to the photos. These are both shot with it.

The one of the birds is nothing special, and not very sharp, but I saw them flying and quickly manually focused and got this, and I think it's pretty cool. The weird orange glow is from the sun as it was going down.



DSCF0166 by philbabbey, on Flickr

I really wish I could have taken this somewhere with a nicer background. I love the glow it has, and I can't believe how well it's handling the backlighting. This one's pretty much straight out of camera.



DSCF0169 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

This is just one speed light and a dark room. I did the healing in Photoshop, and it was amazing.



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I caved and ordered the battery grip for the X-T1 today. It's $249 in Canada, and we got it on the website at work so I was able to get it for $150 on staff pricing.  I keep wondering if I'll use it much, but I remember that every time I'm doing portraits or "serious" photos, I find myself wishing I had the grip for the extra heft.

I ordered Fender Modern Player Mustang from work because it went on clearance and I got it for $220 on staff. Currently trying to decide between keeping it, or returning it and ordering a Rokinon 12mm f2. I know I'd like the Rokinon eventually for starscapes, but do you guys think a 12mm would be useful when we do our honeymoon in New York? I've already got the 18, but I'm not sure if I'd want something super wide or not. I can't afford the Fuji 14 2.8 or 10-24, sadly, or I'd do one of those in a heartbeat.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Finally got a second to break out the camera in between my race this past Saturday and studying for my two exams tomorrow.


----------



## MrYakob

Does anyone here have any experience with the original x100? I've been dying for some variation of an x100 for ages but I just don't have the cash to dish out for the S or T. From what I understand that final firmware update to the original made some big improvements and I can pick one up for about $500 used. Is it worth trying out as a stop gap until I can justify splurging on the T?


----------



## Philligan

As long as you know what you'll be getting, I can't see it hurting. People liked it for what it was, and everyone says the firmware makes a huge difference. You can always resell it down the road for little or no loss since you're buying used.


----------



## Tang

Just remember the first x100 does not have an X-trans sensor and is only 12mp. Personally I'd go for it, especially for street work.


----------



## Rook

I'm gunna play devil's advocate: the original X100 doesn't have really any of what makes Fuji X so desirable these days. It's a Bayer sensor, some pretty average contrast detect AF and an all round sluggish package.

I don't know about where you are but a used X100S goes here for about £400 which is ridiculously cheap, I honestly think you'd get a lot for from the S. It's a much more usable camera, and the price gap is closing by the day, as used T's are steadily making their way into the market.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm a proponent of "the stop-gap body is just a waste" camp in that it is you're spending money that could go towards the body you actually want without actually getting the performance you're after.


----------



## Rook

Better way of putting it haha.


----------



## Philligan

And what I didn't think of, is that there isn't a huge difference going from the S to the T. Mildly better AF, but same lens, same chip, and same processor. So you're mostly paying for the wifi, OVF + EVF option, and the firmware, which is probably gonna hit the S sooner rather than later.

I use wifi constantly on my X-T1 so that would be a deal breaker for me, but if you're not too worried about that, then you could be better off getting the S.


----------



## Tang

Sometimes bokeh is fun. 







I reprocessed this shot in B&W and I love it. 






I love elaborate compositions in portraits.


----------



## soliloquy

i just got my 10-20 mm lens. haven't had much of a chance to use it, but the 2 pictures i took to contrast it with my 18-135 and 50 mm lens is shocking! i never knew what i was missing till i saw the difference side by side. i'll post it tomorrow or sunday when i get a chance.


----------



## Forrest_H

Took some shots of my buddy's Saab and Volvo back in January, never got around to processing them. After writhing around awake for an hour, decided to do so:











Since I wasn't getting paid, I was able to try out some ideas I've had for awhile now. I think they could look better, but still pretty cool


----------



## Skyblue

Both phone pics, processed in VSCO.


----------



## soliloquy

as i said, here is a demonstration of how wide things can get with the new lens. none of these shots were touched up in anyway shape or form, and they are not artistic by any stretch of the imagination. i just wanted to see what the big deal is. so here are the shots using my 50mm, my 18-135mm, and then my 10-20mm lens at last. i had the camera on my tripod and didn't move anything. kept it at the back wall and took the pics from that point

50mm





18-135mm at 18mm





and then the 10-20 mm at 10mm





the 10mm is perfect for interior decorators, or even engineers. or just about anyone for that matter. just a perfect lens



so far, i'm loving its sharpness and i'm loving how it light sensitive it is. still need to go out and explore the lens under different lighting condition


----------



## Philligan

That's really cool. As much as I want every Fuji lens, the 10-24 and 56mm are the two that I'd really like to get as soon as I can afford them. An ultra wide would make a really fun walk around lens on top of being awesome for landscapes and architecture. 

Here's basically a snap shot I took of Dawn when we were going over wedding planning. I'm actually really happy with how it turned out, for what it is. I didn't realize my camera was set to jpg, and shot this in Classic Chrome and converted it to B&W in VSCO. I thought I had noise reduction turned off because it was set to 0, but apparently 0 is standard.  Since her skin was a little creepily soft from the noise reduction, I added a bit of grain in VSCO to give her some texture back. 

For being an in-camera jpg that I edited on my cell phone, I really like the look of this one:


----------



## Decreate

Having fun with the Voigtlander 21mm f1.8 lens


----------



## Wretched

Haven't posted for a while. As always, some nice stuff being posted!

Here's a portrait from a recent shoot. Just a single speedlight through a white umbrella to camera left for main light and a little fill to camera right hitting the bike on low power...






Here's the bike! Multiple hits from a single speedlite through white umbrella on full power, layered up in PS:


----------



## Tang

I always feel awkward posting after Wretched, as he's one of my favorite posters in the thread and his work kicks total ass!

That being said.. I've been on a more experimental streak.



bubbles by nrrfed, on Flickr



mini by nrrfed, on Flickr



flares by nrrfed, on Flickr



to the right by nrrfed, on Flickr



sunsets by nrrfed, on Flickr

as you can see, my little 35mm flares like a bitch..  I guess I can't complain seeing as it's a $150 lens.


----------



## Wretched

Love the 2nd and last shots, Tang. The bokeh in the second one keeps me looking at it!


----------



## Azyiu

Decreate said:


> Having fun with the Voigtlander 21mm f1.8 lens



Decreate, you were in Hong Kong again? As for me, I am heading to Macau for a business meeting tomorrow...


----------



## Philligan

Here's one I took of Dawn at a coffee shop earlier today with the 35 1.4.



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

I've said it before... you're damned lucky to have a partner who tolerates having her photos taken! Especially as much as you seem to to do it!


----------



## Tang

Wretched said:


> I've said it before... you're damned lucky to have a partner who tolerates having her photos taken! Especially as much as you seem to to do it!



Ain't it true? I'd be utterly hopeless at portraits if it weren't for my better half.


----------



## Decreate

Azyiu said:


> Decreate, you were in Hong Kong again? As for me, I am heading to Macau for a business meeting tomorrow...



I've been back working in Hong Kong since August last year.


----------



## Philligan

My buddy's doing a Year Beard and is at the halfway point.  He wanted some photos. I like how these look a bit grimy, but I wish I could have gotten a little more punch out of them. I couldn't punch contrast because his beard turned all black. I wish I could have balanced the salad bowl beauty dish with the ambient light a bit better, too, but we had a pretty tight space to work with with an immediate overhead light.



Josh by philbabbey, on Flickr



Josh by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

let's get weird. I got caught in a rainstorm while I was out shooting after work and I wasn't about to make a run for my car, so I set up shop under a local resteraunt awning and started messing with reflections. The first shot was manually focused in Live View because I wanted to get the stick in focus (thus leaving the reflection itself in a bokeh haze) and I got as close as I could, time allowing. I only had one chance so I had to make it work! Second shot was a bit easier, but the composition is very intentional. I knew it would look awesome flipped vertically.



stormy by nrrfed, on Flickr



puddle, please by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Phil, post those up in RAW challenge-I'll get them to pop.


----------



## Philligan

On my way.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

What's the raw challenge thread called? I can't find it.


----------



## Philligan

SS.org RAW challenge thread. (Go figure ) It's the second thread in the art sub forum, it's not stickied


----------



## ThePhilosopher

All this macro talk got me thinking, I should shoot a little something...
Click for larger view:


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Updated my homepage to not have as much text: D.Bartkowiak Photography: Houston Portraiture

I'm also toying around with the idea of having a projects page, it's only populated with a single idea as I didn't want to build the whole thing and scrap it: http://www.bartkophoto.com/projects.html

Thoughts?


----------



## Philligan

That's pretty cool man.  I only saw two photos of eyes, but you should definitely keep going with that idea.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> That's pretty cool man.  I only saw two photos of eyes, but you should definitely keep going with that idea.



For right now it's a placeholder in the design, the thing with the eyes is still evolving and ongoing.


----------



## Philligan

I just found out about this. The company's called Konost, and they're making an all-digital true rangefinder with a full frame sensor. It apparently uses a secondary sensor and algorithms to replace the mirrors and prisms of an analog rangefinder, so they say you don't need to worry about calibration or CLAs. Apparently the digital system keeps the cost down, too.

I'm still scared to see how much it costs, but if it's under $2k I'd probably look at this instead of a film rangefinder, and since it looks like it's an M mount, I could adapt the glass to my Fuji easily, too.

Konost |


----------



## Tang

New lens day! Details soon 

EDIT: ok, firstly.. here are some recent shots.. all taken with the 35mm 2.4

glorious, glorious light:



the bux by nrrfed, on Flickr

awesome coworker that gives me free reign to take portraits, during down times:



lunch break #5 by nrrfed, on Flickr

I love espresso:



espresso by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

A shot from a recently published shoot on an insane 1000hp GTR Skyline. Made cover 

Both shots are light painted.


----------



## Tang

nice, Whammy!

Ok, here we go. Introducing the 70mm f/2.4. It's tiny. It's really freaking small. Obviously they made a design choice to sacrifice aperture to keep the size small and I have no complaints.. for most of what I shoot f/2.4 is more than fast enough.. most of the time  all metal everything so even though it's DAMN SMALL it feels quite solid on the camera.

pic of lens:






and of course the first shot I take with it has to be of a pet:



meow? by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A little more macro.


----------



## Decreate

Trying out the Canon 50mm f1.2 LTM lens...


----------



## Philligan

Here's a dump of "mobile" photos from the last month or so. These all got wifi'd to my phone from the X-T1 and processed there - I didn't post them because I never got on the computer to work on them.

Before, I'd pretty much always use the Classic Chrome sim, and touch them up in Photogene. I find Photogene can look a bit artificially smooth when you play with the tone curve, and there's no option for grain that I can find, so I've started using VSCO. I usually use the the T1, I think it is, or a B&W sim. I typically use those presets around the half power setting, then I'll go in and touch them up a bit more, usually just to add a bit of grain to high ISO stuff. If I want vignetting, I'll pop it in Photogene after, because VSCO's vignetting is insanely feathered, and I haven't found it useable yet.



Josh by philbabbey, on Flickr



Odie by philbabbey, on Flickr



Boats by philbabbey, on Flickr



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Negav

So I just pulled the trigger on my first DSLR , Nikon D5200! I'm hyped af, will be here in about a week. Excited to be able to learn on a decent camera for once. 

I will be starting with the kit lens, but plan to get a 35mm 1.8 some time. 

Any recommendations in lens, software, etc?


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Negav said:


> So I just pulled the trigger on my first DSLR , Nikon D5200! I'm hyped af, will be here in about a week. Excited to be able to learn on a decent camera for once.
> 
> I will be starting with the kit lens, but plan to get a 35mm 1.8 some time.
> 
> Any recommendations in lens, software, etc?



D5200 with 35mm f1.8 will be excellent. Software-wise get yourself a copy of Adobe Lightroom.


----------



## Tang

Sa forum news is sad


----------



## capoeiraesp

Guys! We're gonna have to find somewhere else to share our 

stuff.SevenString.org - Announcements in Forum : Art, Media & Photography

" 1) Non-gear related threads will be moved and contained to the Off-Topic section. Sections that will be removed are: Politics, Movies, Computers, Health, Photography and Sports."


----------



## Philligan

Are you kidding me? So all non-guitar subforums are being consolidated to off-topic. 

So I'm guessing this thread is going to be moved to off-topic without a sticky, where it's gonna get buried with all the random stuff posted. There goes easy access to threads like the Raw Challenge, too.

I'm not crazy about this. I don't like the change in general, especially with the requirements for posters in the Classifieds, but generating traffic seems to be what it's about these days. Thoughts on moving to another forum? I think I still have the info for that one I made a while back.


----------



## flint757

Yeah, Alex is successfully killing what made this forum great.


----------



## feilong29

Philligan said:


> Are you kidding me? So all non-guitar subforums are being consolidated to off-topic.
> 
> So I'm guessing this thread is going to be moved to off-topic without a sticky, where it's gonna get buried with all the random stuff posted. There goes easy access to threads like the Raw Challenge, too.
> 
> I'm not crazy about this. I don't like the change in general, especially with the requirements for posters in the Classifieds, but generating traffic seems to be what it's about these days. Thoughts on moving to another forum? I think I still have the info for that one I made a while back.


 
I'd be down to join another forum for us to share our photography. What's another forum to keep me occupied during the day???


----------



## loqtrall

Post in here to get his attention.

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/feedback-suggestions/291815-whats-up-incoming-changes-4.html


----------



## spilla

Just as I buy my camera and start getting back into photography this happens!


----------



## Tang

Holy ...., man. This is awful news to wake up to.

And what's with the censoring?


----------



## flint757

Censoring has been in place for a long time now. Has something to do with ad agreements.


----------



## Azyiu

feilong29 said:


> I'd be down to join another forum for us to share our photography. What's another forum to keep me occupied during the day???



I have been on the Bluray forum since 2008... there is a small but interesting Photography Thread, and other A/V and gaming related topics

Blu-ray Forum - Blu-ray Community and Forums


----------



## Philligan

I made a really ghetto free forum a while back, so there's that if we get desperate.

Home | The Photography Board


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I joined Phil.


----------



## Philligan

Nice.  Let me know what you think, if it'll work, and what to change. If anyone's comfortable with programming or web design or what have you, let me know so I can make you a mod or admin.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Fvcked around w/ the on-camera MX function at the greenhouse today. I'm a fan.
Also, There's a 5DmkIII sale on ebay for $1,999. I have very little self-control with these matters...


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> Nice.  Let me know what you think, if it'll work, and what to change. If anyone's comfortable with programming or web design or what have you, let me know so I can make you a mod or admin.



I'll have to try post some things first to see how it goes. Maybe subforums for things like Portraiture, Macro, Automotive, etc - these would be handy should traffic increase.


----------



## Philligan

JeffFromMtl said:


> Fvcked around w/ the on-camera MX function at the greenhouse today. I'm a fan.
> Also, There's a 5DmkIII sale on ebay for $1,999. I have very little self-control with these matters..



Those look great, and not like your typical double exposures.

What do you like about the 5D? Honestly, if I had a choice between the two, I think I'd rather the 6D. The overall AF and tough body of the 5 would be awesome, but the 6's centre focus point is better and it has better IQ.



ThePhilosopher said:


> I'll have to try post some things first to see how it goes. Maybe subforums for things like Portraiture, Macro, Automotive, etc - these would be handy should traffic increase.



Thanks for the feedback, man.  Even though there are three of us so far, I'm probably gonna start posting some stuff in some of the subs, just to have a conversation piece for any new users that might join. I'll probably make a few subs and see how those work. Or keep one sub but have some stickied threads?

I'm considering posting the link over at Metal Guitarist, too. Literally like 90% of the posts in the thread there are mine, but there are a few guys who post once in a while.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Philligan said:


> Those look great, and not like your typical double exposures.
> 
> What do you like about the 5D? Honestly, if I had a choice between the two, I think I'd rather the 6D. The overall AF and tough body of the 5 would be awesome, but the 6's centre focus point is better and it has better IQ.



Purely for AF. My 6D has been driving me insane with the hunting. With my 7D, I always liked using all AF points but even in good light, sometimes it's just not possible to use my 6D that way as it freaks out and can't decide what to do, sometimes just giving up and focusing on nothing at all - even with a stationary subject in studio-quality light. It's quick enough on single point AF, but I'm not always in a situation in which selecting my AF point is convenient or even possible, given timing.


----------



## Philligan

JeffFromMtl said:


> Purely for AF. My 6D has been driving me insane with the hunting. With my 7D, I always liked using all AF points but even in good light, sometimes it's just not possible to use my 6D that way as it freaks out and can't decide what to do, sometimes just giving up and focusing on nothing at all - even with a stationary subject in studio-quality light. It's quick enough on single point AF, but I'm not always in a situation in which selecting my AF point is convenient or even possible, given timing.



Good point.  I pretty much always use single point, so I didn't even think of that.


----------



## Tang

On vacation right now and I'm at 500 shots taken. In 2 days. 



Both of these are from the 70mm wide open.


----------



## Wretched

Bugger.


----------



## feilong29

Joined Phil!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A cool indoor shot of some flowers.






Took a break from tracking because the light was awesome.


----------



## Tang

starting to work my way thru vacation shots.. I am pleased with more than I thought I would be.. I wasn't feeling good about most of my shots but having a day off did wonders for my frame of mind. I am so happy I decided to just wait til I got home to work on these.



jenn #531 by nrrfed, on Flickr



obligatory subway bokeh by nrrfed, on Flickr



IMGP4367 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Skyblue

Some street photos from the last few days: 





















All taken with my phone, and processed in VSCO.


----------



## Tang

I feel the XT-1 calling my name. I knew this day would come. 

Ah, as tempted as I am to sell everything and start over I know it's just the GAS talking. My Pentax serves me just fine and to be honest I'm more than a little attached to it. I just felt the need to speak the Fuji love out loud and get it out of my system.


----------



## Philligan

If you're happy with your Pentax stuff, no reason to leave. But if you really want a Fuji, spend some time with a demo model at a store. There are a few things I prefer about a DSLR, but if I had to choose one or the other, I would absolutely choose the Fuji. Not to mention, I feel like it would really suit your shooting style.


----------



## Tang

I'd definitely try before I buy, for sure.



in memory they live on by nrrfed, on Flickr



yes? by nrrfed, on Flickr



jenn #533 by nrrfed, on Flickr



dc metro by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Decreate

More flower shots


----------



## Tyler

So Ive been using my 5dIII for a bit now for portraits/landscapes sometimes and maybe some concert stuff once in a while. While I want to eventually get into wedding photography sometime I really just prefer doing portrait sessions. Would selling it for an X-T1 or Sony a7s be a good move? I know theres pros/cons to both mirrorless and the dslr but for the sake of quality and durability Im torn between the decision.

Also I never shoot video unless its a guitar play through or something


----------



## Philligan

Tyler said:


> So Ive been using my 5dIII for a bit now for portraits/landscapes sometimes and maybe some concert stuff once in a while. While I want to eventually get into wedding photography sometime I really just prefer doing portrait sessions. Would selling it for an X-T1 or Sony a7s be a good move? I know theres pros/cons to both mirrorless and the dslr but for the sake of quality and durability Im torn between the decision.
> 
> Also I never shoot video unless its a guitar play through or something



There are definitely times when I miss the size, battery life, and focus speed of a DSLR, but there are more times that I appreciate the size/discreetness, form factor, wifi, and AF accuracy of the X-T1. 

The PDAF of a DSLR like the 5D3 will smoke the X-T1 in low light, but the Fuji is still useable IMHO, and using manual focus with focus peaking can be faster sometimes. The on-chip AF is amazing for accuracy, though, and is way faster than a DSLR in live view. So think about how much the speed of PDAF is crucial to you.

IMHO the A7/s/r are really uncomfortable, although I haven't tried the A72. The Focus is smooth, but seemed to rack focus more than the Fuji, and the lens selection for Sony's is abysmal. Also, the lenses are pretty fat, because you've still gotta cover a full frame sensor with an autofocusing lens. The Sony 55 1.8 is awesomely sharp, but it's probably three times the size and weight of the Fuji 35 1.4, and more than double the price. I love how Fuji's lenses are still small, and the JPG engine in that camera is amazing.

A good handful of us here have happily switched to mirrorless, but you've gotta decide if it's right for you by trying them. IMHO, if you're not shooting professionally (or doing sports/wildlife), the speed won't make a huge difference, so you should concentrate more on the form factor and lens selection.


----------



## Philligan

Also, this happened tonight. Got an offer on an open box at work that I couldn't say no to. 

I plan on using it to give people a photo at the end of the odd jobs that I do, and since Dawn and I have like four weddings to go to this summer, to give a photo to the bride and groom near the end of the night.


----------



## Philligan

Good thing I got a big discount on the last thing I bought at work. I just got laid off today.  They're closing the store and turning it into a Best Buy, and canned all of the sales people.


----------



## Tyler

Philligan said:


> There are definitely times when I miss the size, battery life, and focus speed of a DSLR, but there are more times that I appreciate the size/discreetness, form factor, wifi, and AF accuracy of the X-T1.
> 
> The PDAF of a DSLR like the 5D3 will smoke the X-T1 in low light, but the Fuji is still useable IMHO, and using manual focus with focus peaking can be faster sometimes. The on-chip AF is amazing for accuracy, though, and is way faster than a DSLR in live view. So think about how much the speed of PDAF is crucial to you.
> 
> IMHO the A7/s/r are really uncomfortable, although I haven't tried the A72. The Focus is smooth, but seemed to rack focus more than the Fuji, and the lens selection for Sony's is abysmal. Also, the lenses are pretty fat, because you've still gotta cover a full frame sensor with an autofocusing lens. The Sony 55 1.8 is awesomely sharp, but it's probably three times the size and weight of the Fuji 35 1.4, and more than double the price. I love how Fuji's lenses are still small, and the JPG engine in that camera is amazing.
> 
> A good handful of us here have happily switched to mirrorless, but you've gotta decide if it's right for you by trying them. IMHO, if you're not shooting professionally (or doing sports/wildlife), the speed won't make a huge difference, so you should concentrate more on the form factor and lens selection.



Thanks! The biggest problem has been not having anywhere around to try one out. I might just end up renting one of them for a few days to see how it feels.


----------



## Furtive Glance

Does anyone have experience/samples of using a Zeiss 21mm Distagon T (Canon-mount, if possible)? I've only found slim pickings through the magic of Google. The want is strong, but more info is always good. 

I was going to make a thread for this but enough people come through here that it might work. PM me any replies so I don't clutter it up.


----------



## Tang

Damn, Phil. I'm sorry to hear that  I good you find something soon!


----------



## soliloquy




----------



## Kobalt




----------



## Taylor

So my Xiphos had been needing some TLC for a while now, and I thought I might as well try my hand at taking some pictures. Most of the stuff I take is mediocre at best, and it seems that for every ten photos I take may be one will be workable. Care to critique my photos?











Frets were quite oxidized.





Before oil:





After oil:








































Constructive criticism is appreciated!


----------



## Philligan

Dawn and I went out to the pub with some friends the other night and I tried to take some photos. It was super dark - f/2, 1/60, 6400, and the photos were still underexposed. There's really not a tonne of information to work with so they look pretty rough, but ah well. I tried to work with what I had, and decided to try doing a more cinematic look. For my first try, they came out alright.



Paddy&#x27;s by philbabbey, on Flickr



Paddy&#x27;s by philbabbey, on Flickr



Paddy&#x27;s by philbabbey, on Flickr



Paddy&#x27;s by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## spilla

The rain stopped long enough to grab this pic... wish i had had a chance to play with the aperture a little. Might try again if its still raining lightly tomorrow.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Focus looks a little off (or it is buried deep on the stamen), that shot could really use more DOF and a square crop. I'd try pushing the yellows to be a touch warmer and the greens a bit cooler.


----------



## Tang

more recent stuff:


----------



## flint757

That little girl looks creepy.  Very cool...


----------



## spilla

ThePhilosopher said:


> Focus looks a little off (or it is buried deep on the stamen), that shot could really use more DOF and a square crop. I'd try pushing the yellows to be a touch warmer and the greens a bit cooler.



Thanks for the feedback Phil, im going to need a lot of that with my posts. Any tips, hints or suggestions are greatly appreciated! 

Tried again. I would have preferred all of the petals to be in focus. I raised the aperture to around f5 for this shot. Thought that would have given the DOP i wanted. Guess ill have to try a few different settings tomorrow and see what works best.


----------



## Tang

Much better, spilla. Looks good, at least on my phone.


----------



## Tang

clouds and highrise series!



clouds and highrise #2 by nrrfed, on Flickr



clouds and highrise #1 by nrrfed, on Flickr



clouds and highrise #3 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Got the Fuji out for a change.


----------



## Rook

Furtive Glance said:


> Does anyone have experience/samples of using a Zeiss 21mm Distagon T (Canon-mount, if possible)? I've only found slim pickings through the magic of Google. The want is strong, but more info is always good.
> 
> I was going to make a thread for this but enough people come through here that it might work. PM me any replies so I don't clutter it up.



It's not clutter and I can't be bothered to PM sorry haha.

I have a bit of experience with it. Borrowed one briefly when I was considering one and went 18mm instead. The 18 is better for distortion and vignetting I believe, is cheaper, arguably sharper at the edges, and obviously wider which I loved.

Frankly all the Zeiss ZE (and ZF.2) lenses are fantastic, unmatched build quality in this world of plastic lenses, and have either outrageous IQ or a fantastic 'look' at the expense of IQ. It's manual only but you'll get used to that fast, and if you decide to look into the 18, you'll find you not only don't have to focus (put it on f8, set and forget), but you also have a compact lens you can easily take everywhere.

If I ever go back to an SLR, it'll be all Zeiss glass for me.


----------



## Tang

speaking of zeiss.. and a hassy.



moon hass by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> It's not clutter and I can't be bothered to PM sorry haha.
> 
> I have a bit of experience with it. Borrowed one briefly when I was considering one and went 18mm instead. The 18 is better for distortion and vignetting I believe, is cheaper, arguably sharper at the edges, and obviously wider which I loved.
> 
> Frankly all the Zeiss ZE (and ZF.2) lenses are fantastic, unmatched build quality in this world of plastic lenses, and have either outrageous IQ or a fantastic 'look' at the expense of IQ. It's manual only but you'll get used to that fast, and if you decide to look into the 18, you'll find you not only don't have to focus (put it on f8, set and forget), but you also have a compact lens you can easily take everywhere.
> 
> If I ever go back to an SLR, it'll be all Zeiss glass for me.



On that note, I think I'm gonna pick up a Samyang/Rokinon for my ultra wide. I've been wanting something wider for landscapes and astro stuff, and to try a super wide perspective when I'm sitting at a table (I spend a lot of time in coffee shops and pubs). If we have enough extra money, I'm gonna grab the 12mm f/2 at B&H when we're in NYC for the honeymoon. I'd love the Fuji 14 2.8, but the Rokinon seems to perform about as well, and it's wider and faster. I'd love AF, but at that wide and with the MF options for the X-T1, that won't matter. I don't shoot MF a whole lot as is, but I shoot it way more than I would have guessed.

On an unrelated note, I got a cheap soft box off eBay and it showed up the other day. It sucks because the stand mounts through the box, so you can't angle it. Wish I'd thought of that before, but it was so cheap that I'm not too worried.

I shot this in my living room, with the soft box and the FD 50 1.8, around f2.2 I believe. I'd metered for the box being farther away and Dawn moved closer, so this is with the highlights pulled about -80 or so. Fuji's highlight recovery is crazy.



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

The only thing with Rokinon is the sample variance isn't great. Hope you get a good copy, Phil.


----------



## Philligan

I just posted my RG for sale because I never play it. If it sells, I'm gonna get a Pentax 645, probably the 55 2.8, and some B&W film and a developing kit. 

I really like the medium format look and think I want to give it a shot. I like shooting film, so I've been meaning to get the developing stuff anyway. I'm gonna order film with my developing stuff to qualify for free shipping from B&H, so I'm gonna wait a bit and see if I get the camera. If so, it'll be some 100, 400, and 3200 Ilford 120, and if I don't get the camera, I'll probably order some 100 and 3200 135.

I found out my grandpa has a slide scanner that cost him around a grand, so I'm gonna check it out and find out how good it is/if it'll do 120. Here's hoping.


----------



## Tang

Aw, hell yeah. Welcome to Pentaxland!

Hopefully b


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> I just posted my RG for sale because I never play it. If it sells, I'm gonna get a Pentax 645, probably the 55 2.8, and some B&W film and a developing kit.
> 
> I really like the medium format look and think I want to give it a shot. I like shooting film, so I've been meaning to get the developing stuff anyway. I'm gonna order film with my developing stuff to qualify for free shipping from B&H, so I'm gonna wait a bit and see if I get the camera. If so, it'll be some 100, 400, and 3200 Ilford 120, and if I don't get the camera, I'll probably order some 100 and 3200 135.
> 
> I found out my grandpa has a slide scanner that cost him around a grand, so I'm gonna check it out and find out how good it is/if it'll do 120. Here's hoping.



Get a Hewes SS reel and a SS tank - it's superior in every way to plastic junk that comes in the kits. HC110B or Rodinal  is a good place to start for developer. I use water for a stop bath, the Arista Rapid Fixer, and finish with Photo-Flo.


----------



## Tang

Back in action with.. street stuff? And a street portrait? Pushing myself, guys. This was the first time I asked a stranger if I could take a portrait and he said yes! I did see him shooting with an Instax so I figure he'd be more amicable to the idea. 

Also, absolutely wonderful, perfect light this evening. For a good hour.



one spark #2 (who ya gonna call) by nrrfed, on Flickr



one spark #1 by nrrfed, on Flickr



john (one spark portrait #1) by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> Get a Hewes SS reel and a SS tank - it's superior in every way to plastic junk that comes in the kits. HC110B or Rodinal  is a good place to start for developer. I use water for a stop bath, the Arista Rapid Fixer, and finish with Photo-Flo.



That's awesome, thanks man.  I was looking at B&H because of free shipping to Canada and had found mostly Ilford stuff, is that any good?

Also, happy birthday to Whammy.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The Ilford Fixer is good stuff, I've never used their developers though.


----------



## Philligan

Thanks man.  I might stick with that for now, to get a large enough B&H order to get free shipping. If I don't sell that guitar, I'll probably get it and some 35mm for the AE-1. I have a few B&W rolls from last summer I can practice on, and I really want to pick up some super fast film, like 3200.

We went to Windsor today. It was really ....ty outside, but I got a couple photos I liked.



Ambassador Bridge by philbabbey, on Flickr



Detroit by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

You need to come back to Florida, man! Weather is beautiful. It was around 90F (or.. uh.. 32C?) and partly cloudy. Great day for photography.

Also, I got to play with a Leica M6 today and it was everything I ever hoped a Leica would be. That rangefinder mechanism.. phew boy.


----------



## Taylord

I got this one today with my T3I. Thought it was pretty!


----------



## Tang

more street'ish stuff.. having tons of fun just wandering and shooting.



one spark #5 by nrrfed, on Flickr



pawns and king (one spark #6) by nrrfed, on Flickr



one spark #3 by nrrfed, on Flickr



one spark #4 by nrrfed, on Flickr



rock and roll by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I took the Fuji to a local show and shot a bit last night. It was ridiculously dark - 3200-6400, 1/125, and 1.4, and I was still underexposing some stuff. Anything off the stage was pretty much black.



DSCF0150 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0091 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0077 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I have to get my passport renewed, and got talking to the girl at the Walmart photo studio. She turned out to be the manager, and basically offered me a job.  She said they won't be hiring officially for a few weeks, but she'd like to interview me and get a resume beforehand, so when hiring time comes we won't have to waste time then with the interview process. It's just part time, and not much more than minimum wage, but I'll take what I can get right now. I'm having trouble because I'm over qualified and I think it's scaring most minimum wage employers off (in their defence, I'd be ditching a minimum wage job as soon as I got something with my degree, so I can't blame them), so I'll take anything right now. I'm sure it'll suck doing pre-setup portraits for young kids and crack heads, but at least taking photos will be better than stocking shelves or working as a cashier. The manager shoots for a couple magazines on a semi-regular basis, so I'm hoping maybe I'll be able to meet some people through her.

I just organized a portfolio album on Flickr. I don't have the money for a proper print portfolio at the moment, and wouldn't be able to decide on one quickly enough anyway. She asked if I had one, and didn't want to whip my phone out and sift through my mess of a Flickr feed. When I bring in my resume next week, I'm gonna bring Dawn's iPad and at least have something more streamlined to show her.

This is what I've got at the moment. Thoughts? I know a lot of them aren't portfolio worthy, and are probably at least a little out of place, but I figured it at least shows a few different styles. This isn't anything serious, and she doesn't technically require a portfolio, it's more just off the record to see what I'm into. So I figured variety is the safer bet.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/philbabbey/sets/72157651908482525/


----------



## Philligan

My friend (who happens to be my barber) and I went to see a local cover band play. The bar ended up being a total dive and only a few other people showed up, but it was laid back and the band was great. I shot this of him outside between sets and processed it on my phone. I'm really happy with how it came out.


----------



## Tang

Another from my portrait series:



one spark #8 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> I just posted my RG for sale because I never play it. If it sells, I'm gonna get a Pentax 645, probably the 55 2.8, and some B&W film and a developing kit.
> 
> I really like the medium format look and think I want to give it a shot. I like shooting film, so I've been meaning to get the developing stuff anyway. I'm gonna order film with my developing stuff to qualify for free shipping from B&H, so I'm gonna wait a bit and see if I get the camera. If so, it'll be some 100, 400, and 3200 Ilford 120, and if I don't get the camera, I'll probably order some 100 and 3200 135.
> 
> I found out my grandpa has a slide scanner that cost him around a grand, so I'm gonna check it out and find out how good it is/if it'll do 120. Here's hoping.



Any particular reason you're going Pentax 645? The Mamiya stuff is both better *and* usually cheaper IMO, you could probably get a proper 6x6 for your money then.

Or buy a Pentax 6x7 because frankly the bigger the format the better hahaha.


----------



## Philligan

I was seriously looking at the 67, but I need to find out exactly what my grandpa's scanner can handle first. My dad bought it with him a few years ago and said it'll handle 35mm for sure, but that's all I know at the moment. Mailing my rolls out to get developed and scanned really isn't something I can afford to do on a regular basis right now, hence my plan to buy B&W and develop it myself.

Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places, but all the Mamiya bodies I found were running $500+. The Pentax 67s are $700+. I've found good condition Pentax 645s for $250-300 with a back or two, and in some cases a lens. I'd prefer both of those (I've had my eye on the Pentax 67 for a month or two now), but I can't afford it. And paying more for a Mamiya 645 won't affect the image quality, which is the main reason I want to start shooting medium format.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Retouching Series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eylH7O0DB-g


----------



## Rook

Weird, Mamiya 645's about as cheap as you get here!

Usually if a scanner can do MF, exact format won't matter, there are so many variations.

Pentax has some good lenses, $700+ for a 67 sounds a lot but if you can get a 645 for the money you're talking about it's a great option.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I haven't had much time to shoot due to school and some health issues, but I got to retouch this shot from December. At first I was put off by the softness, but it grew on me as I saw it more in the files I had set aside for working on.
Click for a closer look at that vintage softness.



Nikon D3 with Helios 44-2 55mm f/2: ISO 200 1/100s f/2


----------



## Decreate

Weather was quite nice today so I went out and took a few pics.


----------



## Philligan

Here we go. My friend just got a DSLR a couple weeks ago, so we got out to shoot. This first one's the bridge to the USA. Everyone in my town has shot it, so nothing special here.  I'm amazed at how much I could push the shadows, coming from my Canon.



Bluewater Bridge by philbabbey, on Flickr

And this is one I shot of him in front of the chemical plant. I'm not thrilled with the framing or the look, because it was bare flash, but this was one I more randomly shot while we were setting up, and I'm pretty happy with it.



Josh by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Nice shots everyone


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Love the filaments in that first shot, Tang.


----------



## Decreate

Here's another I shot today


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I've been kind of on the fence about how much I like the Fuji for what I'd been intending to use it, and I think it came down to 35mm not being quite wide enough so I sprung on the wide conversion lens. Given that on my last couple of pro shoots, I've found my sweet spot between 20 and 30mm because of the more cinematic feel, I'm hoping the 28mm swings it for me and I finally feel good about making the decision to spend on a high-end compact. But as it stands right now, I've still preferred the images I'm getting from my 6D. If this doesn't do it, then I'll probably end up selling the Fuji and picking up a 24mm prime for my Canon.

Anyhow, I'm going back to Guatemala on Tuesday and I've decided that this time, I'll be leaving more cameras as home, including the Canon. I'll have the Fuji for digital, along with some compact analog cameras in my LC-A and Yashica T4. It's a great place to shoot street, so these should be the perfect cameras for it and the perfect opportunity to get the most out of them.


----------



## rahul_mukerji

Some of my recent pieces


----------



## Skyblue

Continuing with my love for street art. 






Took it with my phone, processed in VSCO.


----------



## Philligan

JeffFromMtl said:


> I've been kind of on the fence about how much I like the Fuji for what I'd been intending to use it, and I think it came down to 35mm not being quite wide enough so I sprung on the wide conversion lens. Given that on my last couple of pro shoots, I've found my sweet spot between 20 and 30mm because of the more cinematic feel, I'm hoping the 28mm swings it for me and I finally feel good about making the decision to spend on a high-end compact. But as it stands right now, I've still preferred the images I'm getting from my 6D. If this doesn't do it, then I'll probably end up selling the Fuji and picking up a 24mm prime for my Canon.
> 
> Anyhow, I'm going back to Guatemala on Tuesday and I've decided that this time, I'll be leaving more cameras as home, including the Canon. I'll have the Fuji for digital, along with some compact analog cameras in my LC-A and Yashica T4. It's a great place to shoot street, so these should be the perfect cameras for it and the perfect opportunity to get the most out of them.



IQ goes both ways for me. The Fuji stuff looks great, but in a different way. The colours and grain are awesome, but I think it comes at the expense of some detail at high ISOs. I'd still love a 6D with a couple go-to lenses to go with my Fuji stuff. Mostly for the AF speed, battery life, and size/brickness for certain situations.

Anyway, I just discovered the Fuji colour profiles in Lightroom. Oh man. I heard about them and thought it was like "cheating" by just using a jpg preset, but it's the actual colour profile, and you still have a blank slate for the whole Develop panel.

Here's a SOOC jpg I wifi'd to my phone at the bar. It's Classic Chrome, and I touched it up with about +6 of T1 in VSCO and added a bit of grain to give his skin a little more texture. This is what got uploaded while I was at the bar.



Cory Wifi JPG by philbabbey, on Flickr

Here's a Lightroom'd raw using the Classic Chrome colour profile. I literally did almost nothing to this file. Maybe +10 vibrance to warm his skin up a bit, pushing the blacks a bit in the tone curve, adjust the Detail slider, and about +10 saturation brushed over the lights in the background. Thats it.



Cory Classic Chrome by philbabbey, on Flickr

And just for fun, here's a B&W edit I did from scratch in Lightroom. This is before I discovered the colour profiles.



Cory by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

And here are a few more from the night.



That Dirty Racket by philbabbey, on Flickr



That Dirty Racket by philbabbey, on Flickr



Tyler by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Oh boy. This is way too awesome.


----------



## Philligan

Excellent. How does it balance?


----------



## capoeiraesp

It works surprisingly well. The 135 is a little trickier since the depth of field is fixed at its widest so it's very shallow. The Sigma is brilliant! This is just a 'putting it to the test shot' with the Sigma. @F1.4 1/32000 - yep, 1/32000 in full sun.


----------



## Philligan

Here are a couple from our walk tonight. I started messing around with the colour profiles in Lightroom - I just found them the other day.



Dog by philbabbey, on Flickr



Dawn by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Azyiu

Some street photos from this old district in Hong Kong.


Before there were those big box electronic stores, there were these old fashioned / neighborhood electronic stores like this one.







An old fashioned neighborhood shoes store.













A typical neighborhood Chinese BBQ shop


----------



## spilla




----------



## Tang

First shot from my Galaxy S6. Not too shabby.


----------



## rahul_mukerji

Some pics from our local park here 

trying some experimentation with slow shutter effect


----------



## spilla




----------



## Tang

Some more from the Galaxy S6. It's fun shooting with a phone again.


----------



## Philligan

My friend and I made a really ghetto product box last night. The setup was this, a speedlite on each side shooting through tissue paper windows, and I used the salad bowl beauty dish as a key light.



Setup by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSC_0394 by philbabbey, on Flickr

Then I put a black granite tile under it for this one.



DSC_0396 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## spilla

Damn, that worked well. Will have to remember that.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I remember doing that back in the day (though I used the beauty dish I still have today and a silver reflector), it got decent results.


----------



## Tang

Phil, in the future I would definitely consider stopping down a good bit so you can get all of the mounted lens in focus. I didn't think anything if it until i saw Philosophers shot.


----------



## Philligan

Yeah, that was a bit of a necessary evil, sadly. The main light I was using isn't very bright, so I was at something like 2.8, 1/80, and 400 already.


----------



## Tang

Totally understand, Phil. 

I've been having way too much shooting with the Galaxy. It's at least as good as my fiancées iPhone 6 and probably better in good light. Seriously impressive stuff. My one complaint is that Samsung's jpg engine can over sharpen which can make high contrast edges look a bit weird. Other than that I love it, and if Samsung ever let's us shoot RAW with the Galaxy that won't be a problem. 

Enough words. More shots.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> Yeah, that was a bit of a necessary evil, sadly. The main light I was using isn't very bright, so I was at something like 2.8, 1/80, and 400 already.



It spits out this data: /2.8, 1/100, ISO200 for both of those shots. You just need more power. Put those flashes in manual and crank the power to max.


----------



## Rook

JeffFromMtl said:


> I've been kind of on the fence about how much I like the Fuji for what I'd been intending to use it, and I think it came down to 35mm not being quite wide enough so I sprung on the wide conversion lens. Given that on my last couple of pro shoots, I've found my sweet spot between 20 and 30mm because of the more cinematic feel, I'm hoping the 28mm swings it for me and I finally feel good about making the decision to spend on a high-end compact. But as it stands right now, I've still preferred the images I'm getting from my 6D. If this doesn't do it, then I'll probably end up selling the Fuji and picking up a 24mm prime for my Canon.



Which reminds me!

I too am very much a fan of that kind of focal length and after having tried the Zeiss ZE 25mm f2 (check it out, it's gorgeous) I've always wanted something like that as an everyday instead of the typical 50 or still-common-but-less-typical 35mm (equivalents).

Low and behold, Fuji have just launched the 16mm 1.4, which is a perfect 24mm f2 equivalent, so needless to say I'm gunna be buying one of those! I might even sell my 10-24 for it to be honest, and it would be an ideal travel lens and for the editorial stuff I do now where the f4 of the 10-24 just can't get any background separation.

Initial impressions look great too.


----------



## Tang

After shooting a week with the Galaxy and it's 28mm effective FOV, I'm itching for a prime with around the same FOV.


----------



## Rook

There's always the Fuji 18mm too.


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> It spits out this data: &#402;/2.8, 1/100, ISO200 for both of those shots. You just need more power. Put those flashes in manual and crank the power to max.



They were in manual.  The main light I was using is just an LED lightbulb, and that was already maybe a foot away from the stuff we were shooting. I couldn't get anymore brightness out of it. 



Rook said:


> Which reminds me!
> 
> I too am very much a fan of that kind of focal length and after having tried the Zeiss ZE 25mm f2 (check it out, it's gorgeous) I've always wanted something like that as an everyday instead of the typical 50 or still-common-but-less-typical 35mm (equivalents).
> 
> Low and behold, Fuji have just launched the 16mm 1.4, which is a perfect 24mm f2 equivalent, so needless to say I'm gunna be buying one of those! I might even sell my 10-24 for it to be honest, and it would be an ideal travel lens and for the editorial stuff I do now where the f4 of the 10-24 just can't get any background separation.
> 
> Initial impressions look great too.



I want that 16 1.4 so bad. The 56mm is next on my list, hopefully sometime in the next couple months, and after that, I need to decide between the 16 and 23. I'd probably get the 23, because I feel like I need the 18 and 35 when I'm walking around, and a 35mm equivalent would be able to replace both of those. I'm really happy with the 18mm for people photos, but I've been shooting in low light a lot lately, and that extra stop comes in really handy sometimes.

16, 23, 56 would be the perfect working kit. Some day...



Tang said:


> After shooting a week with the Galaxy and it's 28mm effective FOV, I'm itching for a prime with around the same FOV.





Rook said:


> There's always the Fuji 18mm too.



This. I had trouble getting used to the 18mm when I first got it, but once I realized it was basically the same FOV as my iPhone, something clicked and I really like the perspective now. I find that when I'd normally just take an iPhone photo of something, I'm pulling out my camera because I know how it's gonna look.


----------



## Philligan

Also, as cool as the HDR and panorama merging will probably be, I don't think I'll be buying Lightroom 6. It seems like they haven't done anything to help with the algorithms for the Fuji files, and they're not going to be doing major updates to LR6 - only to LR in Creative Cloud. I don't really want to pay monthly to rent editing software, so I'm about to download the Capture One trial.


----------



## flint757

Yeah, I'm very much against the creative cloud being the only thing Adobe offers. It's only a good deal for people who upgrade their software annually. For anyone else the CC Suite is just a rip off compared to owning it outright. It's frustrated me so much I've found alternative for pretty much everything I used to use through them.

Good news for me is that my current setup is already supported with lightroom 5. So until I upgrade my rig it's a non-issue.


----------



## soliloquy

just a theoretical question.
seeing as how pentax has announced a full frame camera by the end of this year, i'm wondering what happens to lenses that are designed for crop cameras?
for example, i have a pentax k5 right now, with a 50mm, 18-135mm and 10-20mm. in a full frame, do those measurements go up? are they even compatible? the pentax full frame is supposedly k-mount, so all k-mount lenses will work just fine. but will a 10-20 mm lens turn into a 15-25mm or something like that?

in other news, finding an ND filter for an 82mm thread is really hard to do. i wanted to get an 8 or 10 stop ND filter that wasn't a variable filter. all i kept finding were SUPER cheap variable that went up to 8-10ish or so but with horrible color cast and loss of sharpness. i ended up getting a 6 stop hoya filter. gonna try pairing it with a CP filter to see how that goes...


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The APS-C lenses may not cover the full frame sensor is one possibility, another is the camera will switch to a crop mode like Nikon cameras do, and a final option is it will not work at all like Canon EF-S lenses.

They are going to be pricey, but here are some 10-stop 82mm filters: Neutral Density (Solid) | B&H Photo Video


----------



## Tang

solio: the 50mm will work as a 50mm on the Pentax FF. The 18-135 and 10-20 will probably operate in crop-mode, but no details have come out yet.


----------



## Philligan

Are any of you guys familiar with the Nikon Coolscans? Dawn and I are gonna be renting my grandpa's house from him because he lives in the US, and I found out he's got a Coolscan V ED. It doesn't look like it'll do 120  but it does 35mm. Going by camera standards the specs look terrible haha but I don't know what the standards are for scanners. Is it still worth using? If so I'll probably order some B&W developing gear after the wedding, and start buying more C-41 so I can pay less for developing and just get the negatives.


----------



## Rook

The Nikon Coolscan stuff is some of the most desirable scanner tech available. 

Definitely get your hands on that if you can haha. Search for it on Flickr and you'll see what I mean, it shows up as the camera.


----------



## Philligan

Excellent. He got it something like 7 years ago to scan some old slides he had. Once he scanned the slides he didn't need it anymore, but didn't want to admit that he paid so much for something he didn't need anymore, and it's just sat around.  I don't know if I can officially have it until he wills it to me or something, but I am definitely gonna have around the clock access to it.


----------



## Tang

I haven't used my real camera in about 2 weeks..



the day the earth turned sideways by nrrfed, on Flickr



filament by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

We head to New York on Sunday.  I haven't been shooting much, but it's been crazy with the wedding. I've got all my stuff packed up camera-wise. I'm skipping the flash, because that and the triggers take up a decent amount of space, and I doubt I'll use it. I'm just bringing the X-T1, 35, 18, a cheap tabletop tripod, the Instax, and a small flashlight. 

I'm gonna bite the bullet and shoot small JPGs most of the time. If I see a nice shot I want to set up and it looks pretty serious, I'll shoot raw, but after shooting a whole Florida vacation in raw, I'm never doing that again.  Besides, Fuji's JPG engine is really good, and I want to force myself to trust it a bit more. 



Packed bag by philbabbey, on Flickr



Contents by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

If I had a Fuji I'd be comfortable shooting in .jpg. My Pentax on the other hand.


----------



## tank

any advice? I can't decide between the nikon d750 and the canon 6D..
for live photography for the most..


----------



## Philligan

Get the one that feels better in your hands, unless you already have some decent glass from either company.

The D750 is *technically* a better all-around camera, but IMHO it's not enough to warrant switching brands if you're already invested in Canon. The D750 basically has slightly better image quality, more resolution, a little faster burst rate and better tracking AF, and I think that's more or less it for major differences.

When you say live photography, I'm assuming bands. The D750 is technically the best high ISO DSLR at the moment AFAIK (short of a D4s/1Dx), but it's not that much better than the 6D. The fact that it's a little better *and* higher resolution is worth mentioning, but again, that's not enough to switch brands.

The D750's AF is technically way better on paper. It'll definitely do better tracking and area AF, and has way better coverage of the frame. The 6D still has something going for it, though. It's centre focus point is one of the best on the market. The D750 is rated to AF in the same light (or dark) levels as the 6D, but all the reviews I've read say the 6D is still more consistent at focusing in near-darkness. Even the 5D3, which isn't rated to focus as dark as the 6D or D750, still kept up with - and kind of out-performed - the D750. So if you want to do a lot of tracking or continuous shooting, hands down the D750. If that's not a huge concern for you, and you do a lot of single point AF, they're pretty evenly matched IMHO.

The Elephant in the Room: Canon's low ISO dynamic range vs Nikon's. A lot of people rag on Canon for being behind Nikon in dynamic range. It's true - you can push shadows pretty much to the max on Nikons and still get useable images, while the pushed Canon files get really messy after a stop or so. What a lot of people/articles fail to mention, though, is that this is only true for ISO 100-800, maybe 1600. At 3200 and up, Canon catches up to Nikon's dynamic range, and I think the 6D might even pull ahead a bit. So if you're shooting weddings, daytime events, or stuff like landscapes, the D750 is a clear winner. If you're shooting dark stuff like concerts or astrophotography, the Canon is just as good, if not better. The D610 isn't as good as the D750, but I read an article where an astro guy switched from the D610 to the 6D because the 6D had cleaner high ISO and more high ISO dynamic range. The D750 might be better, but it just goes to show that those blanket statements definitely don't apply to every person or situation.

IMHO: The D750 is technically better for almost all situations. I would want to get one, but I really don't get along with Nikon's feel or button layout, and I like Canon's lens selection a bit more. I'd probably end up going for the 6D, especially if I was gonna be shooting shows primarily.

If you are gonna be shooting in bright situations a lot and would benefit from being able to expose for highlights and push shadows on your subject, you should definitely get the D750. There's a world of difference with what you can do there compared to Canon. Generations of difference.

However, if being able to push shadows at low ISOs isn't a big concern for you, then the 6D still holds its own and is still a totally viable option. In that case, you should either get the one that you already have glass for, or the one that feels better in your hands, or the brand that your friend shoots.


----------



## Tang

the pentax reenters the fray! the first two are extremely low-light. At this point I can either get a faster lens (something 1.4.. preferably a 35mm) or go full-frame. Or hell, just keep pushing the Pentax.



night watchers by nrrfed, on Flickr



night gardening by nrrfed, on Flickr



shadow selfie by nrrfed, on Flickr



puzzling by nrrfed, on Flickr

and one from the galaxy s6. I can see where having a nice EVF can come in handy with things like seeing live exposure at all times.



kitchen solar system by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I really like that last one.  I used to not shoot below like 2.2 because I was worried about the lens being soft (my old Canon 50mm probably wasn't the greatest wide open), but I've started doing it more. I'd still be nervous using it for a paid shoot unless it was for a handful of posed portraits. When I was shooting those local shows, I was at 1.4 just to maintain 6400 and 1/125. I've stopped worrying so much and have gotten some pretty cool results wide open. I can't wait til I can afford the 56 1.2.

So I just wiped my Quick Menu and rebuilt it from scratch. It sucked, but I'm glad I did it. I got rid of the settings I never touch, and organized it so it seems to make some sense. I'm also randomly a little OCD, and I'm really satisfied that I took out the four settings I have programmed to custom buttons. 

Also, the official decision is in. I'm shooting bracketed jpgs: Classic Chrome, Velvia, and B&W. If I see something or plan a shot that I want to take more seriously, I'll shoot it in raw, but I'm gonna force myself to stick to mostly jpgs. I'm shooting bracketed because, aside from potentially editing a few on my phone to post while we're there, I want to be able to have some variety in the look of the album without having to sit down and process a bunch of stuff.


----------



## capoeiraesp

trust the Fuji JPEGs, they rule. I've shot most of my stuff on the XT-1 in JPEG and they're so workable and I simply love Chrome.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Back from Guatemala with some photos. I shot some film which I need to get developed, but barely shot anything with the Fuji, which is the only "real" digital camera I took with me. As I'm consistently finding, I used my phone more than anything. I love it for its convenience, its quality is outstanding for what it is (with good light, it can be incredible - the giraffe photo, for example), and its discreteness is priceless. Given the focal length of its lens, this makes me believe that a Ricoh GR would have been the right choice for me over the Fuji X100s which I initially opted for as a compact because of the viewfinder, which the Ricoh does not possess.

All of the following were taken with the iPhone 6 and edited in-phone with the VSCO app.


----------



## capoeiraesp

The iphone photo master. Love ya stuff, Jeff.


----------



## Tang

Excellent, Jeff. Also congrats to Phil on his wedding day!


----------



## Philligan

Thanks man! 

Great things happened today:









This lens is basically perfect. Amazing balance and feel, super sharp, fast focus, and I see in 35mm so I pretty much never have to move to get the right frame after I've put the camera up to my face. Shooting jpg has been going fine. Gonna wait til we're home and post a collection of my favourites.


----------



## Wretched

I thought this thread was being shut down?! Good to see it hasn't!

Some non-automotive stuff. Really just textures that I've shot at the beach near my new house that I post to my Flickr account as free high-res stock/texture images. But I like 'em... All natural light with my 100mm f2.8L Macro lens:

















Note the water spout!


----------



## Tang

Nice to see you back, man!



calf by nrrfed, on Flickr



shadow figures by nrrfed, on Flickr



diagonals by nrrfed, on Flickr



3-4-5 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

So we were walking, and saw a bunch of guys in yarmulkes outside smoking. We got closer, and of course it's B&H.  That store is pretty terrifyingly huge. It took all my willpower to not look at the film cameras, or film. 

Picked up this for Dawn's Rebel SL1/100D today. 





Similar focal length, drastically different size and price compared to the 23 1.4.  That lens is a miracle. Perfect field of view, super sharp, and the ability for some focus falloff while still having some workable depth of field. 

This is wide open in Times Square.


----------



## Skyblue

I really don't get a chance to shoot anything lately, I'm kind of stuck in the same sleep-eat-work routine which is a bit annoying. 











Also, I really want to upgrade my phone to something with a better camera. Thinking of going for the LG G3, as I'm not an iPhone fan.

Those were taken with my phone (Galaxy s2) and processed in VSCO app.


----------



## soliloquy

humm...circular ND filter, or linear ND filter...

i've been told that the cheaper the filter, the worse the quality. yet most of the videos i've seen of people using ND filters (for videos or photography) are using linear filters rather than circular filters. and looking around, linear filters are MUCH MUCH cheaper than circular filters. plus, linear can be slapped in numerous lenses without step up/down rings...

downside to linear filters is that they are a bit on the bigger side as they have their own lens mounts and stuff...


----------



## Wretched

A few recent car shots:

Light painted Commodore





Light painted Golf





Light painted Commodore... going for a more subdued look





Another Commodore





Bike shot using flashes


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I really dig that third shot with the "subdued look".


----------



## UnderTheSign

First actual camera since my 3 megapixel digital shooter ten years ago (and my dads old Pentax analogs before that). Samsung NX300. Got this one because it was on sale and &#8364;150-200 cheaper than anything by Sony and Fuji this way _and_ came with a free copy of Lightroom 5. Otherwise I might've gone for a Fuji but looking at the image samples I don't know if there's a massive difference in quality considering what I'll be using it for. 

Still, them Fujis looked awfully neat... 

Did some test shots simply to get the hang of it again. What else to shoot than the garden spawn of Satan? Could've used some more background blur, this was shot at f5 but hey, just testing stuff here. All I can say is shooting RAW after many years of low quality JPG is awesome.
(click attachment for 1024x resolution)


----------



## Philligan

We're hopefully nearing the end of a very long and delayed train ride home. I'm super bored, so here are some photos from the ride.


----------



## Tang

In Atlanta for a music festival. So far I've seen (in order of my favorites) Mastodon, Brand New, Manchester Orchestra, and Klutch. The rest of the time I've been taking pics downtown.


----------



## Tang

So I have to vent because I'm not happy. At all. 

I just shot a whole day with my phone in 6 megapixel mode. Seriously. My favorite shots from the last 2 days and I do something that dumb. 



Maybe I'll feel better when I wake up tomorrow and will share the shots.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Unless you're printing them, that's plenty large enough. Although I've made some 24x36" prints from my Olympus E-1 when I had it.


----------



## Tang

Yeah man, I'm totally over it. I overreacted in the moment, but I still love the shots.

And here they are. Hopefully Samsung will roll out RAW support to the S6 soon. That would make an awesome camera even better.


----------



## Philligan

And I officially have a honeymoon photo album on Flickr. JPG FTW. 

Going forward, I'd probably shoot medium, or maybe large JPGs. The smalls are around 1mb each IIRC, and it doesn't take too much zooming to start seeing pixels on my laptop screen. I believe larges are 16MP, mediums are 8MP, and smalls are 4MP, so at least I can show them on a tv still.

There were definitely a handful of shots (I don't think more than 10) that I wish I'd shot in raw, but shooting the whole trip in jpg was a really good thing for me to do. At first, I'd still touch up a couple on my phone, but after that I just stopped and would pick whichever sim I liked best and post it SOOC. I thought I'd rarely use Velvia, but I actually preferred it to Classic Chrome in a lot of bright daylight situations, even for people photos. An album of all Classic Chrome would look fine, but when you compare it to Velvia on a sunny day, CC can look so desaturated. Pretty much every low light photo looked better in CC, though. I didn't use B&W a tonne, pretty much only when the colours were awkward with interior lighting. 

Thankfully now I can go back to shooting raw and doing jpg conversions in-camera when I want them, but I have way more faith in the Fuji jpgs now. I'm probably gonna stop running them through VSCO or Photogene unless I really feel like a photo needs something, like vignetting or grain. Super happy with how these photos turned out. Having a choice between three colour profiles made me forget what I was missing out on with raw - I started looking for the good in each profile instead of thinking about what I could change.

/rant. Sorry for the huge novel, it's the English major in me.  Here are a few of my favourites. I've got 50 or so of the ones I really like in a Flickr album, and I'll probably end up throwing around 100 up on Facebook. I probably shot around 1000-1200 in total, not counting multiples from the jpg bracketing.

Album:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/philbabbey/sets/72157650259788703/



DSCF0010 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0095 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0189 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0373 by philbabbey, on Flickr

First shot with the 23mm:



DSCF0480 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0715 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0721 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0822 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0887 by philbabbey, on Flickr

Bored while Dawn looks at makeup. 



DSCF0987 by philbabbey, on Flickr

Awesome food truck:



DSCF1013 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF1033 by philbabbey, on Flickr

Our Central Park tour guide, Martin, and his horse Luke.



DSCF1256 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF1278 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF1298 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF1361 by philbabbey, on Flickr

With the electronic shutter on the X-T1 I can shoot wide open pretty much whenever. Even at 23mm there's practically no depth of field at 1.4.



DSCF1461 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF1508 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF1520 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF1571 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF1637 by philbabbey, on Flickr

Back of the seat in front of me on the train ride home.



DSCF1804 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

At that focal length you've gotta get way close to get any appreciable DOF. It's a cool effect, though. I wish Pentax had a super fast 35mm equiv!


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Recently got back from a 16 date European tour supporting Prong. Didn't get my camera out as often as I had planned to, but here's a couple of shots I'm happy with.


----------



## Wretched

Pretty excited to have my first cover shoot for Street Commodores. I've written plenty of cover stories over the years and used to be its editor, but this is my first photographic cover... light painted inside his shed south of Sydney. Phil and his wagon are icons of the Commodore scene and the burnout fraternity here in Aus. 

Here's the cover:





This is my favourite shot from the shoot:


----------



## Philligan

I always dig your stuff, man.  I've really been meaning to try that sometime. I partly haven't really had to time to drag a car somewhere cool and shoot it, and I'm partly nervous it'll turn out really bad.


----------



## Wretched

Just jump in and try it! Failing shouldn't stop anyone!


----------



## spilla

Yeah, thats really cool. Looked up a couple of tutorials on ytube today. Will be giving it a try (smaller scale) myself.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Quick snap of one of my basses.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I haven't had much time to shoot this semester with a full load of graduate school, but I did manage to get this natural light shot of my breakfast - the light was just too good to pass up.


----------



## Philligan

I can't believe no one's posting this. I'm really sad that I have to wait about a month, but I'm still really excited and grateful. Compare this to the AF problems a lot of people have been having with the 70D and Canon's refusal to acknowledge anything.

The video's not great at explaining what's actually being added, just some of the stuff you can do with it. Basically, they're adding separate tracking AF modes, kind of like the D4s. There's one geared towards wide angle lenses, where you choose a starting point and it'll track an object over the entire frame. There's another one geared towards sports which is basically like single point continuous AF, only you can select zones and it'll predictively track within that zone. They recommend using the centre 3x5 spread, because those are the phase detect AF points.

What blows my mind is that they don't announce the general improvements to the existing AF. They're supposed to be making everything faster, and the phase detect AF points are getting updated from a 2.5EV sensitivity to 0.5. It blows my mind that they can change EV sensitivity via a firmware update. Low light AF is definitely the X-T1's number one weak spot for me. It's not so bad that I regret totally leaving a DSLR system, and the manual focus is so good that it pretty much makes up for it, but shooting something like a dark wedding reception or a show in low late definitely shows off the AF's weak points. 0.5EV gets it near the ballpark of an acceptable DSLR AF system, so I'm really excited to see what kind of difference it makes.

After this, the only thing I'll really feel I'm missing from the system is an IR focus assist with flash. The built-in AF assist lamp is fine, but you get way more range and way less distraction from a speedlite's IR lamp. The Nissin i40 (which is almost definitely going to be my next purchase, because wedding season is coming up and I'm shooting dance photos at a few friends' weddings) doesn't have that, but it has a video LED lamp that can function as an AF assist, only it doesn't work with Fuji cameras. That's the only real bummer for me. If they could develop (or work with) a better AF assist system, I'd be totally fine with the camera's AF limits.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm so far behind on camera tech - I'll just keep shooting my D3 until it dies (and then probably have the shutter replaced).


----------



## Tang

Some more from the vacation. It should be fairly obvious which camera was used for each shot


----------



## soliloquy

i'm loving the ND filter. its also teaching me to use the exposure meter a bit too. fun lil thing


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Those all look a bit softer than normal (or bad jpeg compression); I have a small collection of B+W ND filters, they're fun.


----------



## Philligan

I really like that photo of the tree, man.


----------



## Tang

this turned out exactly like I wanted. I dialed in about -2.3EV to match the exposure to just how damn dark it was the in the venue. I managed to capture the light in such a cool way.



surf rock by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## soliloquy

ThePhilosopher said:


> Those all look a bit softer than normal (or bad jpeg compression); I have a small collection of B+W ND filters, they're fun.



interesting you picked up on it. my eyes aren't as experienced, nor my photography skills as polished. but i uploaded them onto facebook, then uploaded them onto imgur. supposedly uploading them on facebook deteriorates image quality. the only thing i was able to pick up was a slight deteriorating in the colors as before the pictures were far more vibrant. facebook makes the pictures smaller, so they are easier to deal with.

and i dont shoot in raw either as computers and i dont get along much. so i'm not sure how to manipulate images on the computer to enhance/alter them. thus jpegs are what i normally use. most i do on the computer is change their brightness level.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

If you're going to upload to FB resize to 2048 on the longest side - it's one of the optimal sizes for FB compression. Shooting in RAW isn't terribly hard and there a slew of resources on RAW workflow out there on YT.


----------



## flint757

If you ever decide to jump in to shooting raw I find Lightroom is pretty intuitive to use compared to software like GIMP or Photoshop. Both require a slight learning curve, but between the auto settings and presets you can get some nice results with minimal effort if that's what you desire. If you decide to dig deeper it's just a matter of manipulating the sliders. Fairly simple overall.

Not sure what camera you have, but you could also transfer the jpegs to your phone and use an app like VSCO to make simple tweaks. From my limited knowledge of uploading photos to Facebook it's best left as a last stop for your photo as they do some nasty things to them during compression.


----------



## soliloquy

flint757 said:


> If you ever decide to jump in to shooting raw I find Lightroom is pretty intuitive to use compared to software like GIMP or Photoshop. Both require a slight learning curve, but between the auto settings and presets you can get some nice results with minimal effort if that's what you desire. If you decide to dig deeper it's just a matter of manipulating the sliders. Fairly simple overall.
> 
> Not sure what camera you have, but you could also transfer the jpegs to your phone and use an app like VSCO to make simple tweaks. From my limited knowledge of uploading photos to Facebook it's best left as a last stop for your photo as they do some nasty things to them during compression.



just like Tang here, i'm a pentax fan-boy. currently i'm using a pentax k5 (one model older than the one tang uses). it does shoot in RAW when needed. 

the program i use to change the brightness on the pics is just the standard builtin programs that computers come with. nothing fancy at all. just help you crop stuff, or change saturation, brightness, and some other options that are hardly ever used, if at all.


----------



## Tang

If you ever decide to I'd definitely look into shooting RAW. imo, the Pentax jpgs, while certainly usable, don't do justice to how good Pentax's RAW files actually are. 

If you have any questions about Lightroom certainly feel free to ask.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Kodak Tri-X 400 pushed to 1600 shot with the Lomo.


----------



## Rook

^Tri-X recently became my go-to daytime black and white stock, I love it!

Phil, I saw the update and am very excited about that, I just keep forgetting to check in here, haha! Should be awesome though.

Finally, people saying 'it has no depth of field', when what they mean is 'it has a wide depth of field' is one of my pet peeves haha. If something is all in focus, it has loads of depth of field hahahaha. Minor...

Anyway, not been here much lately, hope everyone's well.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Spent some time out bush recently here in Oz camping in a caravan park and riding each day. Great times with the XT-1 & xf56 and xf18.


----------



## UnderTheSign

What kind of settings did you use for the first shot? Loving it.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Honestly?
Aperture priority at F1.2 whilst shooting through a bus window at 90 kph. That's about it. The electronic shutter did the work here and it's a case where the sensor roll worked out well.

I learned a big lesson about how good pre sunrise light is. Most of these shots are just before or at sunrise.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Finally, people saying 'it has no depth of field', when what they mean is 'it has a wide depth of field' is one of my pet peeves haha. If something is all in focus, it has loads of depth of field hahahaha. Minor...



If you're referring to the photo of Dawn where I mention that, that's what I meant.  Even at further distances, the falloff from that lens is pretty much instant.


----------



## UnderTheSign

capoeiraesp said:


> Honestly?
> Aperture priority at F1.2 whilst shooting through a bus window at 90 kph. That's about it. The electronic shutter did the work here and it's a case where the sensor roll worked out well.
> 
> I learned a big lesson about how good pre sunrise light is. Most of these shots are just before or at sunrise.


Looking at the grass I could've guessed  F1.2 is impressive though. The fastest Samsung lenses (or the ones I've found anyway) go is 2.something ish.

Spent the weekend in London and took some shots. Only had the NX300 for a couple days so it's the first time really shooting with it. The weather was dreadful at times (heavily clouded so I got the dreaded pale white sky going on in a lot of shots) and I only have an 18-55mm kit lens but I'm liking the way most shots turned out. Some editing done in Lightroom like managing exposure and white balance but that's it.

Here's my freshly set up photostream:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

And here's some highlighted shots.






















And since I bought an aftermarket Pentax K-mount to NX adapter I figured I'd give that a shot too. My dad has a decent collection of Sigma and Pentax lenses and I liked the idea of playing around with them. 600mm mirror tele, 400mm tele, a bunch of standard (80-200, 30-80, etc) lenses and this pretty neat 28mm which I might start using more often. I have to shoot full manual but the manual focus is smooth and this lens is 30 years old and still super solid...


----------



## Philligan

Just picked this beauty up. 28mm 2.8 for $40. It's scary clean, looks brand new. I just sold a guitar, and I'm gonna stop back at the lens people's house to see what other lenses they've got.


----------



## Tang

mm, old glass.


----------



## MoshJosh

can anyone point me in the direction of a good lense for wide angle landscape stuff, preferably on the cheaper side.

Camera is a Canon t3i

Thanks in advance


----------



## Tang

MoshJosh said:


> can anyone point me in the direction of a good lense for wide angle landscape stuff, preferably on the cheaper side.
> 
> Camera is a Canon t3i
> 
> Thanks in advance



how wide do you want? There are these two off the top of my head:

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Lens 9518A002 B&H Photo Video

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro DX Autofocus Lens ATX116PRODXC

I don't think you could go wrong with either.. I'd check out the reviews and maybe look up some comparisons.


----------



## Philligan

The Tokina is awesome. If you don't want to spend that much, check out the Canon 10-18 STM. It's light, sharp, and has good IS.

I grabbed a Kiron 80-200 4.5 from those guys, too. It was all they had other than some mediocre zooms. I'll mess around with it on the X-T1 for now to see how it holds up.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Is that a Sigma lens Phil? I used the exact same one in the post above yours. Awesome how well built these things are.


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> Is that a Sigma lens Phil? I used the exact same one in the post above yours. Awesome how well built these things are.



I don't think so, but I haven't heard of Kiron before, so it could be a same lens/different brand thing. It's an old FD mount lens from the '80s. I got it for cheap from some old people who were clearing out their camera gear.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Love those shots on Tri-X on the previous page, Jeff.

I moved house last month to a greener area of Bristol...


----------



## Wretched

Took the old 7D and 100mm macro lens down to the beach yesterday afternoon at low tide to grab some texture images for my Wicked Wednesdays texture days that I post to my blog (I offer free high-res texture and stock images for other creatives to use in their own projects). Found a huge colony of star fish. Here are a few of my favourites:


----------



## UnderTheSign

For those into the older stuff I documented all the old cameras and lenses I could find around the house. (there's bound to be more in the attic in some boxes...)

https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157652747595068










*Camera list:
Ricoh AF-50
Nomo (?) T-22
Voigtländer 30mm Brilliant AF
Pentax ME (Asahi) 2x (one defect)
Pentax K1000 (Asahi)
Pentax MZ-50
Pentax Pino 35
Exakta IIb
Exakta RTL1000
Fodorflex

P/K mount lenses:
Panagor Auto Macro Converter
Sigma 600mm 1:8 Mirror Telephoto
Sigma 28mm 1:2,8 Mini-Wide
Sigma 125mm 1:3,5 Mini-Tele
Pentax-M 80-200 1:4,5 Zoom (Asahi)
Pentax-M 40-80mm 1:2,8-4 Zoom
Pentax-M 50mm 1:1,7
Pentax-A 100mmm 1:4 Macro
Pentax 55mm 1:2 (Asahi)
Pentax 35-80mm (plastic lens, kit w/ MZ-50)
Vivitar 400mm 1:5,6 Auto Telephoto
Cosina 35-70mm 1:3,5-4,8 Macro
Pallas 135mm 1:2,8

Exa mount lenses:
Meyer Optik Görlitz 50mm 2,8
Meyer Optik Görlitz 50mm 1,8
Fodor 135mm 1:3,5
*


----------



## Tang

I'll take all those K-mount lenses off you. No problem.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I just bought a K mount adapter so sorry, not up for grabs right now. Might save up for a Pentax dslr at some point too.


----------



## Tang

been shooting my Pentax a bit more.. turns out in can take shots my phone can't  apologies for all the dog shots. They just have a knack for hanging out in great light!



naps by nrrfed, on Flickr



sid and the light by nrrfed, on Flickr



mona by nrrfed, on Flickr



phones #2 by nrrfed, on Flickr



horizontal by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## soliloquy

just messing around with light painting


----------



## ThePhilosopher

New Gear Day: Paul C. Buff Vagabond Mini Lithium - I'm awaiting a stand mount that I ordered, but this will simplify my location shooting significantly.


----------



## Philligan

Awesome.  I'd love to pick up a couple Alien Bees sometime, for the faster recycle times and modelling lights. His stuff is really well priced.


----------



## ghostred7

I pretty much hate you all lol (not really, but still dammit)

I'm *STILL* stuck with my only camera being my phone


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I usually don't use his lights, I am mostly a Bowens/Calumet user. I do have an ABR800 that I don't use all that often.

Ghost: You can do some good work on composition and such with just a phone. Getting the technical side down to shooting in manual is tougher with a phone, but there are almost always good deals on 35mm film cameras with lenses and you could shoot and develop b&w film at home if you're really eager to learn.


----------



## ghostred7

ThePhilosopher said:


> Ghost: You can do some good work on composition and such with just a phone. Getting the technical side down to shooting in manual is tougher with a phone, but there are almost always good deals on 35mm film cameras with lenses and you could shoot and develop b&w film at home if you're really eager to learn.



Ya, and I do prac comp and such with the phone, it just gets discouraging (and cramping on the hand lol) using it like I used to use my SLRs. I think I still have an old 35mm somewhere in this house. I haven't seen it since the move and had my old DSLR (at the time, RIP 1st gen digital Rebel/300D) so didn't look. 

When we finish remodeling and remediation on black mold, I'll probably start scouring pawn shops and the like. At this point I think my old glass is MIA w/ the old film body. Only one I can find is the stock EF-S 18-55mm (?) that came w/ the body.


----------



## UnderTheSign

So one for the camera buffs here. I've had my Samsung for close to a month now and the image quality is great, handling is alright (would prefer different dials compared to the small wheel and lens mounted dial) and even with the 18-55 lens it fits in my jacket pocket, sort of. I've tried though but I just can't get over the lack of viewfinder. The tilting Lcd comes in handy often but I also miss having a viewfinder more than I thought. 

So I'm considering returning it and getting something different. The Samsung NX30 is an option But sized more like a dslr so don't know if it is very pocketable. Olympus has a deal going on the O-md E-M10 where if you return your old camera you get an extra &#8364;100 discount so it'd be a pretty cheap option including a 14-42 lens. Reviews for it seem alright though nothing stellar.

And then there's the Fuji X Pro 1 and E-X1. I've seen some of you praise Fuji and have heard good things in general. The Pro 1 is available with either an 18mm lens and for the same price I can get the E-X1 with an 18-55. 

Any tips? The 18-55 is nice and all but I noticed I don't use the zoom a lot (yay cropping) and it might make it less pocketable. Just an 18mm might be a little too one sides though, and is the X pro 1 that much better than the E-X1?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'll let the Fuji folks chime in on that, but I don't think the E-M10 is going to be very pocketable either (and I'd skip the kit lens - it's junk, as are most kit lenses). I'd recommend a body only and use some of the money saved there to get a proper lens to start shooting (wide aperture prime or a zoom with a wide constant aperture).


----------



## Tang

Shoot with your phone! I love shooting with my phone, but I realize it isn't for everyone.


----------



## UnderTheSign

The Fujis and Olympus are roughly the same size it seems. The nx300 is very small though the 18-55 lens adds a lot of size. I think with a small lens the Olympus would fit my pockets (read coat/jacket pockets, not jeans) decently. I'd love to hear some more opinions though. I'd get a used Pentax in a heartbeat if Dslr cams weren't so huge, too bad there's no decent K mount mirrorless anymore 

The X Pro 1 with 18mm lens looms looks best right now but I'll give it some more thought and maybe drop by the dealer again.


----------



## flint757

For those without a viewfinder you could get a sun hood or an LCD Viewfinder to make better use of the LCD; although it makes your camera obviously much less pocketable and a lot more conspicuous.  

People typically use them with video work, but it helps when the sun is right in your face and the LCD might as well not even be there.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

UnderTheSign said:


> The Fujis and Olympus are roughly the same size it seems. The nx300 is very small though the 18-55 lens adds a lot of size. I think with a small lens the Olympus would fit my pockets (read coat/jacket pockets, not jeans) decently. I'd love to hear some more opinions though. I'd get a used Pentax in a heartbeat if Dslr cams weren't so huge, too bad there's no decent K mount mirrorless anymore
> 
> The X Pro 1 with 18mm lens looms looks best right now but I'll give it some more thought and maybe drop by the dealer again.



If pocketability is important to you, skipping the Fuji might be the thing to do. I bought the X100S because of its perceived portability, and I don't use it any more than I use my Canon 6D, to be honest. If you're looking at shooting with a prime and want small, you may want to look into the Ricoh GR which also comes with an 18.3mm lens (28mm equiv.). It's cheaper and more pocketable than the Fuji, and it's got its reputation for a reason. I've been considering selling my Fuji and grabbing a Ricoh for that very reason and kind of regret not going that route in the first place because, like you, the lack of viewfinder didn't sit well with me. FWIW though, the Ricoh can be paired with an external viewfinder which you get for free if you order from B&H.


side note, I shot some promo stuff for a pub yesterday, and love how this photo of the cooks through the pass came out.


----------



## UnderTheSign

those add on viewfinders don't offer any information or useful control over focus etc though do they? If that's the case I could just get one for my current Samsung but I'd rather have one that gives me some info and control much like on a dslr.

Edit: I also think my 'pocketable' remark mightve been confusing. When I said that I just meant 'not dslr sized' like some of the higher end Samsung and Sony mirrorless cams, not necessarily the tinier cameras to fit into a small pocket.


----------



## flint757

That info may very well be on the viewfinder. I have an extended LCD that goes from my hdmi port and if I wanted to I can display all the info that's on the LCD to the second screen. Considering a viewfinder is essentially a second screen I don't see why it wouldn't be present.


----------



## UnderTheSign

It is on some cameras (the Samsung nx200 had one that connected to the hotshoe and then an extra nub that went into a data socket) but the optical ones for the Ricoh mentioned earlier don't do that, they're purely viewfinders for those who prefer composing through them.


----------



## Negav

Guys, what are your thoughts on used lens?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Most of my lenses are used.


----------



## metal_sam14

It's been a while! I went away this weekend just gone and took some sunset shots of a local wind farm.



Musselroe Bay by Sam Locke, on Flickr



Musselroe Windmills by Sam Locke, on Flickr



Mussleroe Bay by Sam Locke, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> So one for the camera buffs here. I've had my Samsung for close to a month now and the image quality is great, handling is alright (would prefer different dials compared to the small wheel and lens mounted dial) and even with the 18-55 lens it fits in my jacket pocket, sort of. I've tried though but I just can't get over the lack of viewfinder. The tilting Lcd comes in handy often but I also miss having a viewfinder more than I thought.
> 
> So I'm considering returning it and getting something different. The Samsung NX30 is an option But sized more like a dslr so don't know if it is very pocketable. Olympus has a deal going on the O-md E-M10 where if you return your old camera you get an extra 100 discount so it'd be a pretty cheap option including a 14-42 lens. Reviews for it seem alright though nothing stellar.
> 
> And then there's the Fuji X Pro 1 and E-X1. I've seen some of you praise Fuji and have heard good things in general. The Pro 1 is available with either an 18mm lens and for the same price I can get the E-X1 with an 18-55.
> 
> Any tips? The 18-55 is nice and all but I noticed I don't use the zoom a lot (yay cropping) and it might make it less pocketable. Just an 18mm might be a little too one sides though, and is the X pro 1 that much better than the E-X1?



I'd stay away from the X Pro 2 and E1 IMHO. They autofocus too slowly, so unless you're shooting stationary objects, I think you'll find it frustrating. I'd say get the X-E2 at the very least. 

I looked into the Olympus E-M10. The reviews just point out what it's missing from the E-M5 and M1. It's a great camera. The body isn't much different, but the lenses will be significantly smaller than Fuji. Definitely check it out. Play with one in a store and see how it feels.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Thanks Phil, thats the kind of stuff the Fuji fanclub on dpreview doesn't tell . I was under the impression that the focus issues with the Fujis were already fixed through firmware updates. 

When you say smaller lens do you mean aperture wise or physically? Wouldn't mind the latter. Right now the Oly is pretty cheap so it'd be a good option. I'll head down to the store this week and try some stuff.


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> Thanks Phil, thats the kind of stuff the Fuji fanclub on dpreview doesn't tell . I was under the impression that the focus issues with the Fujis were already fixed through firmware updates.
> 
> When you say smaller lens do you mean aperture wise or physically? Wouldn't mind the latter. Right now the Oly is pretty cheap so it'd be a good option. I'll head down to the store this week and try some stuff.



They're definitely better through the firmware updates, but they're still considered pretty slow by current standards. I haven't spent much time with the X Pro, but when I played with one in the store, the focus was definitely slower. If you like to shoot moving things or low light, I'd probably avoid it as your only camera. 

The M4/3 lenses are physically smaller. Since they need to project an image over a smaller sensor than DSLRs, they can make the lenses smaller while still taking in the same amount of light (a M4/3 1.8 lens lets in the same amount of light as a full frame 1.8 lens, but is probably 1/3 or so of the size).


----------



## Tang

So I definitely just ripped Phil off by taking shots of a smoker smoking.

Meat, that is. Meat smoking.



Also, NGD! Got a fantastic deal on an Alvarez acoustic.



alvarez by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

Philligan said:


> They're definitely better through the firmware updates, but they're still considered pretty slow by current standards. I haven't spent much time with the X Pro, but when I played with one in the store, the focus was definitely slower. If you like to shoot moving things or low light, I'd probably avoid it as your only camera.
> 
> The M4/3 lenses are physically smaller. Since they need to project an image over a smaller sensor than DSLRs, they can make the lenses smaller while still taking in the same amount of light (a M4/3 1.8 lens lets in the same amount of light as a full frame 1.8 lens, but is probably 1/3 or so of the size).


Makes sense, yeah. 

Thanks for the comments on the focus again, that's a point worth noticing.

Also, now that I've got the NX300 dad has gotten into photography again as well. Considering his pretty vast collection of K-mount lenses he's looking into getting an entry/mid range Pentax DSLR. What's good these days? From cheapest to slightly more expensive there's the K500, K50 and KS1. The K5II is a couple hundred more expensive than either of those and we've seen used regular K5's for around the same price as a K500 or K50.


----------



## Tang

I use the K5ii myself and it's a great body, but I can also heartily recommend the K50. It has a great sensor and like you said, it'll mount all those old K-mount lens.


----------



## Philligan

First photo post in a while. I've been busy lately and everything I've been shooting I've just been posting to Facebook from my phone. This is the first raw Lightroom edit in a while. I've been bringing my camera to work since I started, and it finally paid off. I haven't gotten the chance to shoot at work yet, but I came out at the end of my shift today and caught the tail end of a crazy sunset.



Late to the sunset by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Khoi

Hey dudes, it's been a while.

Last you heard from me, I was shooting set photos while crewing. Well now, I'm pursuing cinematography full-time and haven't really been shooting many pictures but rather short films and narrative work!

It's been quite a journey, but I think I finally have a decent reel to share with you guys.

Let me know what you think!

https://vimeo.com/128937373


Also - some of you guys might like the song


----------



## MrYakob

Incredible work dude! I've been finding myself leaning more to video work than photography over the past year as well, and watching that has me super inspired to shoot


----------



## Negav

That was amazing Khoi!!! Keep it up!


----------



## Tang

Everytime I watch something with gorgeous cinematography I always think to start practicing..

Never do.


----------



## Whammy

Haven't been around these parts lately. Probably because I haven't been taking many photos with my main camera.

Still using the same gear although I'm starting to feel the pull from Fujifilm.
If Fujifilm actually make a 33mm f1.0 I may jump ship. Until then I'll keep carrying my brick around with me


----------



## Philligan

Whammy said:


> Still using the same gear although I'm starting to feel the pull from Fujifilm.
> If Fujifilm actually make a 33mm f1.0 I may jump ship. Until then I'll keep carrying my brick around with me



That photo is great. 

I'm really happy with the 35mm 1.4, but I'd love the 33/35 1.0. As long as the AF isn't any slower, I'd gladly give up some size for the extra speed. There are times where even 1.4 is pushing it, especially at shows, and if they can squeeze even a little more performance out of it by 1.4, that would be great. 

A lot of people are waiting for the weather sealed 35 f2. I believe Fuji said they were mainly making it for faster AF and performance, to gear it more towards a walk-around lens. Personally, for a walk-around, I'd rather a WR 23mm f2. I find 35mm a bit tight on APS-C, and see it as more of a portrait lens.


----------



## Rook

I think the 35 f2's gunna be great, solves two of my problems, 1) no small carry around lens and 2) no 50mm equivalent.

I like the 23mm for my 'work', but a 50 equivalent and 25 equivalent are my street favourites, I think, and if they're always at f8 the wide open aperture doesn't really matter too much.

Anyhow, figured I'd throw my Fuji 2 cents in.

I have the X-Pro1 and X-T1, and the Pro1 was my first Fuji which I bought will still owning my Canon 6D, 50 1.2, 85 1.4 and 18 3.5.

Honestly, the X-Pro1 is a little on the fiddly side, but it's nowhere near as some people make out. It isn't instant focus or anything even close, but if you're just shooting general *stuff* and subjects that don't move a whole lot, it's perfectly acceptable. I even used mine at a wedding earlier this year. I have to add, I don't get too caught up on AF speed these days, I work slowly and since I've been complimenting my stuff with film, even having AF (as long as it works) to begin with is enough for me.

There are some great deals on the Pro1 now and it's a lovely camera to use, I wouldn't rule it out myself. Just me though. If you're looking to shoot sports, nothing shy of a 7D and decent lens will suffice anyway, so whether something takes .1 of a second or .5 of second... Not a huge thing for me.

And Phil, no I wasn't referring to you, your post just reminded me of it haha.

Shooting a job tomorrow with my Fuji and Hasselblad, really looking forward to it.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Honestly, the X-Pro1 is a little on the fiddly side, but it's nowhere near as some people make out. It isn't instant focus or anything even close, but if you're just shooting general *stuff* and subjects that don't move a whole lot, it's perfectly acceptable.



I've been seeing them go for really cheap and one love one for the form factor, but I wouldn't want an everyday carry camera without wifi, and don't want to buy Eye-Fi cards just for that. 

Even with the 23 1.4, I still want an X100T, which is pretty much the same thing.


----------



## Tang

Alright dudes, trying some new things out. Does it work?



the illusion of safety by nrrfed, on Flickr



ever to the sky by nrrfed, on Flickr



houston, we&#x27;ve landed by nrrfed, on Flickr



smoker #2 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

Philligan said:


> I've been seeing them go for really cheap and one love one for the form factor, but I wouldn't want an everyday carry camera without wifi, and don't want to buy Eye-Fi cards just for that.
> 
> Even with the 23 1.4, I still want an X100T, which is pretty much the same thing.



899 here right now for the Xpro1 with the 18mm and 27mm lens plus an ugly leather case, pretty sweet deal indeed. No 18-55 or similar lens included though so if you want zoom that's an extra couple hundred :/

I hope to have time to visit the local dealer this Friday to try out some cameras. The Fuji is just really attractive but if I can get an Olympus E-M10 with similar lenses for significantly less that might be the better deal. Then there's the whole feeling of how it handles which might become the biggest factor anyway.

That first pic is real cool Tang.


----------



## Khoi

GASing HARD for rangefinder-like camera right now.. I would really like a Fuji 100XT, but also considering a real film rangefinder, a LEica M3 maybe.. I know the two are completely different, but I like the size. DSLR can get pretty tiresome after a while.

Any tips on where to start?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Leica M stuff is quite great - but it gets costly quickly.


----------



## Rook

Get a Fuji GF670 yumyumyumyumyum


----------



## Philligan

Khoi said:


> GASing HARD for rangefinder-like camera right now.. I would really like a Fuji 100XT, but also considering a real film rangefinder, a LEica M3 maybe.. I know the two are completely different, but I like the size. DSLR can get pretty tiresome after a while.
> 
> Any tips on where to start?



X100T, always.  But seriously, if you want it as an everyday camera, and would take it out with friends and such, I'd suggest it for the wifi and excellent jpgs. I've mostly stopped editing wifi'd photos on my phone, and usually just post SOOC jpgs. I usually shoot raw so I have it if I want it, and if I take a photo I want to post right away, I'll convert it in-camera before I transfer it. That keeps me from being tied down to any film sims. 

Leica stuff is cool, and I've looked at used M3/4/5s, but if you want film and don't want to spend as much, check out the Voightlander stuff. You can get one new from B&H for like $600, and you're not as limited for lenses. They have three Bessa models, just with different viewfinders. One is optimized for 21-40 framelines, one is like 35-75, and one is 50-90 or so, IIRC. Something along those lines at least.  If you know you'll be shooting say wide a lot, you can buy the wide body and save having an ugly viewfinder in your hotshot. The Bessas have their own lenses but use the M mount, so you can either buy Leica lenses for it, or if you buy the Voightlander lenses, you'll have a kit of lenses that would work on a Leica if you ever got one.


----------



## Khoi

I'm seriously considering the X100T. Kinda scaring me because I don't want to spend any money right now!


----------



## Rook

My GF670 suggestion was a joke, but honestly if you're gunna go film... Medium format or larger actually gives you some advantages over digital which 35mm can't.

Film's a pretty big commitment if there isn't a benefit to it - was my view.

Anyway. Coming from the perspective of someone who only shoots RAW, doesn't use wi-fi or anything like that... The X100T is a good camera, and it'll be useful if you ever plan to play with flashes. It's also silent, has a cool hybrid focus thingy so you can use the window viewfinder with digital focusing and digital manual focusing. The X Pro1 would also give you that feel and makes a nice pocketable (coat pocket haha) setup with the 18, 27, or 35 if you have big pockets. You could pick one up used, get it out of your system, and feel better for having all that spare money.

And if you want the Leica experience, use the M Mount adapter, pick up some Leica lenses and use the focus assist function. The AF 'problem' goes out the window, and you get a nicely made camera with dials, a window viewfinder and quick access to a 100% zoom digital view to focus with focus peaking, and you get the same quality sensor as what's in the most modern Fuji cameras. The IQ hasn't changed, only the addition of phase detect AF pixels.

There are options!


----------



## Philligan

If you want to keep it even cheaper, there's the Canon QL17, too. It's a real rangefinder, with a leaf shutter, and the lens is a 40 1.7.


----------



## UnderTheSign

So I bit the bullet and went shopping again. The dealer gave me &#8364;250 for my Nx300m which had cost me &#8364;350... Including a free copy of Lightroom so keeping those costs in mind that's a pretty swell deal. Because I went with the Olympus E-M10 I also received another &#8364;100 ppromotional discount bringing the Oly to a grand total of &#8364;249 including a kit lens (the non collapsible). I'll be shopping for a nice prime online soon. All in all a pretty good deal.


----------



## Philligan

Nice.  Check out the Oly 17 1.8. It's supposed to be amazing, and 35mm is a great focal length for a single prime.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I was looking into that one yeah. I figured M4/3 lenses would be cheaper than Fuji but they aren't  The Panasonic 20mm 1.7 gets good reviews too though it doesn't have the same build quality as the Oly 17. Sigma has some good ones for a third of the price too but I'd rather get something really good as opposed to something on the same level as the kit lens.
The 45mm is apparently a really good lens as well but that might be a less useful length.

The one in the store also had the grip screwed on which while it's &#8364;65 over here (roughly 70-75 USD) but man, did it make the camera feel good in my hands. That's on the wishlist as well!

Now... Does anyone have recommendations for a nice bag? Either a backpack/carrier bag for the camera + laptop and other stuff, or a smaller bag to stuff into my backpack. Dunno if anyone has seen this one - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/town30/emissary-camera-bag-unlock-mount-shoot-everyday but gods, the bag looks sexy.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I have the Sigma 60mm f/2.8 which makes one nice portrait lens on my E-PL3.


----------



## soliloquy

Negav said:


> Guys, what are your thoughts on used lens?



i currently have 4 lenses, and 2 bodies, all used. they work for me, all were kept in decent condition. i got to save ....loads as well. cant complain...


i need your help folks. seeing as how i'm really enjoying messing around with the ND filter, i need a better tripod. the one i have currently was a cheap $50 tripod from walmart. nothing fancy, just uses al aluminium 3 legged guy that is a) kinda heavy if you lug it around for a while and b) WAY too big. it wont fit in any of my suitcases. c) not really the sturdiest thing out there. 

so what i'm looking for in a tripod is:
carbon fiber
light(er) weight
small compact design 
sturdy 

so i guess a travelling tripod? 

though whatever i'm looking for, do they even have that in travelling tripods? budget is about $200-250ish CAD? prefer used?

thanks folks


----------



## flint757

Nearly all of my gear is used except for my main video camera, but I got that heavily discounted so it worked out about the same as used. All of my lenses are used for my current setup.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Khoi said:


> I'm seriously considering the X100T. Kinda scaring me because I don't want to spend any money right now!



If the WiFi isn't 100% necessary for you, I've got an X100s with wide conversion lens I've been thinking about selling...


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> The 45mm is apparently a really good lens as well but that might be a less useful length.



If you've ever used a cheap 50mm on an entry-level DSLR, that's about the same angle of view. I still really like it, but now that I've been going wider with my Fuji lenses, I wouldn't find it as useful. Still, Fuji's equivalent is next on my list. If you're into portraits, you'll definitely get a lot of use out of it.



UnderTheSign said:


> Now... Does anyone have recommendations for a nice bag? Either a backpack/carrier bag for the camera + laptop and other stuff, or a smaller bag to stuff into my backpack. Dunno if anyone has seen this one - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/town30/emissary-camera-bag-unlock-mount-shoot-everyday but gods, the bag looks sexy.



Wow, that bag looks awesome. I wish I could afford one - I didn't realize how easy it was to start hoarding bags.  

If your budget can swing $200 or so, check out the Think Tank Retrospective line. I believe you can get a bag with a laptop sleeve for $220 or so. I'm completely happy with mine. The build is great, and it looks discreet while still looking nice, not just like those plain black bags that look like they're carrying electronics. My only complaint is that the padded inserts aren't quite as customizable as my LowePro bag, but I've been considering ordering a pack of LowePro inserts and taking matters into my own hands.



soliloquy said:


> i need your help folks. seeing as how i'm really enjoying messing around with the ND filter, i need a better tripod. the one i have currently was a cheap $50 tripod from walmart. nothing fancy, just uses al aluminium 3 legged guy that is a) kinda heavy if you lug it around for a while and b) WAY too big. it wont fit in any of my suitcases. c) not really the sturdiest thing out there.
> 
> so what i'm looking for in a tripod is:
> carbon fiber
> light(er) weight
> small compact design
> sturdy
> 
> so i guess a travelling tripod?
> 
> though whatever i'm looking for, do they even have that in travelling tripods? budget is about $200-250ish CAD? prefer used?
> 
> thanks folks



I'm not sure if you'll be able to hit that budget, but check out 3 Legged Thing Tripods. They're really geared towards travel, and I think they have a couple in that budget.


----------



## Philligan

Here's a sunset from a couple days ago.



DSCF0043 by philbabbey, on Flickr

And here's a shot from a mini storm chase a buddy and I did last night. Sadly, there was too much cloud cover and it was far away, so this is all I've got. This was 30s, 5.6, and ISO 200. I wish I'd shot it at 4, or gotten less foreground in the photo, but cropping it any more seemed weird.



DSCF0049 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

I received the fuji xf16 for my 30th this weekend....


It's alright...


----------



## Rook

Ah man I was just about to get one of those.

Pls pls pls make with the images hahaha, I wanna see!


----------



## soliloquy

UnderTheSign said:


> I was looking into that one yeah. I figured M4/3 lenses would be cheaper than Fuji but they aren't  The Panasonic 20mm 1.7 gets good reviews too though it doesn't have the same build quality as the Oly 17. Sigma has some good ones for a third of the price too but I'd rather get something really good as opposed to something on the same level as the kit lens.
> The 45mm is apparently a really good lens as well but that might be a less useful length.
> 
> The one in the store also had the grip screwed on which while it's 65 over here (roughly 70-75 USD) but man, did it make the camera feel good in my hands. That's on the wishlist as well!
> 
> Now... Does anyone have recommendations for a nice bag? Either a backpack/carrier bag for the camera + laptop and other stuff, or a smaller bag to stuff into my backpack. Dunno if anyone has seen this one - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/town30/emissary-camera-bag-unlock-mount-shoot-everyday but gods, the bag looks sexy.



this is the bagpack i'm currently using:

DSLR SLR Camera Laptop Canvas Backpack bag for Sony Canon Nikon Olympus, with Rain coat, take out insert for schoolbag-in Camera/Video Bags from Consumer Electronics on Aliexpress.com | Alibaba Group

i have a dslr, and 5 lenses in it with bunch of filters, and can store a laptop or tablet in it and bunch of other things too. it doesn't look like a regular camera bag either.


----------



## Philligan

capoeiraesp said:


> I received the fuji xf16 for my 30th this weekend....
> 
> 
> It's alright...



After the 56, that's next on my list. Then I'm realistically done, other than the 50-140 some day.


----------



## Philligan

Went out to smoke with a buddy today, but it was too rainy and windy.  I at least got some cool photos. 



DSCF0110 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0128 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## soliloquy

Philligan said:


> I'm not sure if you'll be able to hit that budget, but check out 3 Legged Thing Tripods. They're really geared towards travel, and I think they have a couple in that budget.



looking around, i dont trust the <$100 carbon fiber no-name tripods on ebay.
though these MeFOTO roadtrip tripods seem pretty cool. their carbon fibre versions are more expensive, and slightly lighter. though their aluminium ones seem to do the job just right


----------



## capoeiraesp

Rook said:


> Ah man I was just about to get one of those.
> 
> Pls pls pls make with the images hahaha, I wanna see!



OK!  It's a damn fine lens a copped a lot of abusive weather - rain, snow, hail etc.
It focused super fast, as expected and is probably my favourite Fuji lens in terms of balance and feel when matched to the XT-1. Has minor vignetting wide open and disappears somewhere in the F2 range.

Shots at F1.4 because? Why not! Chrome JPEGS with my own tweak.






















Bokeh at F1.4






Some long exposures at F16










and some XF56 shots for good measure at F1.2






and F16







Now to decide on what lens to purchase to go with the XT-10 that I'll be getting as my backup for weddings. Tossing up between 50-140 or the new 90mm. The 50-140 is just sensational.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Rad shots Cap.

I was in Norway the other day, here's a few shots...
All of these except the second and seventh photo are taken with my Vivitar (Komine) 135mm f2.8 which I picked up for about £25. It's amazing when I've got space to frame with it. Don't get a chance to take it out much.


----------



## Tang

oh hi there everyone.. hope everyone is out there getting great shots 



starship enterprise by nrrfed, on Flickr



subtle cat by nrrfed, on Flickr



dog go woof by nrrfed, on Flickr

I love the lighting in that last shot.. the dog was standing in the doorframe and sun was setting just behind me.. just perfect light.


----------



## soliloquy

capoeiraesp, what are you doing to get your sky's so blue?


----------



## UnderTheSign

Bit the bullet and bought the 17mm 1.8, should be here this Wednesday. GAS satisfied... For now. 12mm f2 and 45mm f1.8 look lovely too though the former is more expensive than my camera. Oops.


----------



## Rook

capoeiraesp said:


> OK!  It's a damn fine lens a copped a lot of abusive weather - rain, snow, hail etc.
> It focused super fast, as expected and is probably my favourite Fuji lens in terms of balance and feel when matched to the XT-1. Has minor vignetting wide open and disappears somewhere in the F2 range.
> 
> Shots at F1.4 because? Why not! Chrome JPEGS with my own tweak.



Well f_u_ck, I'm convinced.

And regarding the rest of your post, I was having a similar dispute. Think I'm gunna go 90mm because I can't imagine ever needing something between that and the 56, and I won't need to go out to 140 often at all. I'll save £350 and the extra weight and bulk I think.

That'll make it 16, 23, 56, 90 - just need a 35 and I'm done! The 16 and 23 will be great for my documentary and editorial stuff, 56 and 90 for portraits, and the lot for weddings.

The X Pro's fine as a second body, so now I have the battery grip for the X-T1 I don't think I'll both with another body until the X-T2 comes out.


----------



## Philligan

Man, that was a lot of insane photos I just scrolled through. Here's a sunset from tonight that I shot on my way out from work. It's super handy that I can drag it around with me now. I'm considering looking into a smaller bag yet for everyday carry, and so I'm not compulsively bringing all three lenses with me everywhere I go. 



DSCF0040 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

soliloquy said:


> capoeiraesp, what are you doing to get your sky's so blue?



It's basically the classic chrome setting with some tweaks. The fuji JPEGs get some wicked blues. I'll screenshot the settings some time.

Nick, sounds like I'll be following your kit.


----------



## Whammy

That fuji 16mm f1.4 lens looks great.
Gives me the urge to starting using my 24mm f2 more.


----------



## Rook

Well I ordered it, from one place who said they had stock then cancelled, then from Amazon who also said they have stock but it hasn't shipped yet for some reason.

So really I've no idea whether I'm getting this lens or not.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That is the pits - I had that happen one time; I ended up cancelling that order. On a better note, I will have another new gear day post for Friday.


----------



## Rook

Order confirmed, getting it tomorrow.

Great success.


----------



## Philligan

capoeiraesp said:


> It's basically the classic chrome setting with some tweaks. The fuji JPEGs get some wicked blues.



 This is from a raw, but still. I actually pulled the blues back a little for this photo. Took it on the way to a friend's yesterday. The water looked crazy, so I pulled over to the side of the road and shot it.



DSCF0052 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

17 1.8 was supposed to arrive today but UPS screwed up  
Also ordered the grip and a Pentax K ring so it's playtime this weekend!


----------



## Khoi

I have a Fuji X100T coming this Friday, just in time for my camping trip to Big Sur next week!!!

I'll of course give you guys a run-down once I get it in my hands and how I like it. Unfortunately, I didn't buy it, but I just rented it for a week. I'll be hiking a lot, and my 5D III with a 50mm won't really cut it, mainly the weight being the limiting factor..


----------



## Forrest_H

Haven't posted in here in forever, and I'm still seeing much better shots than mine 

Dumb Axe FX/Studio Shot:







I'm probably going to take some pictures of my buddy's BMW's (E36 328i and E90 335i) with a (hopeful) new lens, so I'll post some up after that.


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> 17 1.8 was supposed to arrive today but UPS screwed up
> Also ordered the grip and a Pentax K ring so it's playtime this weekend!



Excellent.  I love battery grips, especially on smaller mirrorless cameras. I'd be happy leaving mine all the time, except for when I want to look as discreet as possible.



Khoi said:


> I have a Fuji X100T coming this Friday, just in time for my camping trip to Big Sur next week!!!
> 
> I'll of course give you guys a run-down once I get it in my hands and how I like it. Unfortunately, I didn't buy it, but I just rented it for a week. I'll be hiking a lot, and my 5D III with a 50mm won't really cut it, mainly the weight being the limiting factor..


----------



## ZakkB

Drift by Zack Berwick, on Flickr



Untitled by Zack Berwick, on Flickr



Flying Whales by Zack Berwick, on Flickr



Animals by Zack Berwick, on Flickr

It's been awhile since I've posted here, but here are some of my more recent composite photography examples.


----------



## Tang

what i've been up to:



storms a comin&#x27; by nrrfed, on Flickr



#5r by nrrfed, on Flickr

and i dont know what the .... lighting gave my friend a black eye, but it's super weird. And we like it.



chris by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Andromalia

UnderTheSign said:


> Now... Does anyone have recommendations for a nice bag? Either a backpack/carrier bag for the camera + laptop and other stuff, or a smaller bag to stuff into my backpack. Dunno if anyone has seen this one - https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/town30/emissary-camera-bag-unlock-mount-shoot-everyday but gods, the bag looks sexy.



That lens cover mount is actually a genius idea. I've lsot count of how many replacements I've had to order, theyre the photographer's picks, really.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Andromalia said:


> That lens cover mount is actually a genius idea. I've lsot count of how many replacements I've had to order, theyre the photographer's picks, really.


Haha I can imagine, I've lost quite a few in the past too... Plus the bag is dead sexy!

Also, new lens day  was able to pick it up from the local UPS point this afternoon.






quick snap @ f1.8 with auto wb and tint from VSCO presets in lightroom. Still trying to understand the whole preset thing :lol


P6040023.jpg by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

It came!

Only had time to piss around in the garden for 30 minutes but holy hell. Focus is a little quicker than the 23 but nothing to write home about. Lens is BIG but feels great. All about what I expected.

This thing is sssshhhhharp. Not only that, Fuji have finally gotten round to using more than 7 aperture blades, so the blur is entirely non-distracting throughout the aperture range.

Sadly they don't seem to have done the same for the 90, but if the quality of that lens is anything like this one, I know it's one I'm looking forward to.

Anyway, here are some silly garden pics.



Square Flower 1 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Square Flower 2 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Square Flower 3 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr

NB the second one is at 6400 ISO and with rough grain added in post (which I often do, makes the picture look sharper believe it or not)


----------



## ThePhilosopher

My buddy Pratik doing some retouching work.


----------



## Philligan

Alright, guys. Almost a year in and I finally found a couple dust spots on my sensor. 

Suggestions for cleaning it? I'm currently looking at the stuff from Visible Dust. Considering just ordering a couple sensor swabs from Henry's. I'm terrified to clean it myself.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I have mine professionally cleaned by a place in town, but I'm in one of the largest cities in the US (so finding a well-recommended place was relatively easy and I can write it off).


----------



## Philligan

Got it.  

I had two or three spots that I started noticing shooting a sunset at f/16. Not sure how long they've been there, but I could see one of the spots as wide as 5.6, and I know I've shot wider than that recently. I got all but one off with a blower, and was starting to get worried it was really on there.

It was showing up near the top of photos. I forgot that images are reversed coming through the lens, so I popped the lens off indoors in good light and used a flashlight to find the dust spot near the bottom of the sensor. I just went hard at it with the blower and got it off after a while. 

Lesson learned: I turned the ultrasonic cleaning back on. Because of the EVF and the sensor being on so much, I turn the X-T1 on and off a lot more than my Canons. Way back in the day, I'd turned the auto sensor cleaning off so it wasn't constantly running. Of course, I probably wouldn't manually run it more than once a month or so.  I just set it to auto run when the camera is switched on. I figured on and off would be overkill, and the sensor's getting exposed when I'm switching lenses, so with it set to on, it'll run after I've switched lenses.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

On the topic of dust. I seem to have collected dust on the inside of the eyepiece (attached to the glass of the eyepiece, on the inside) on my D7100. Any idea what I can do about that?!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Slide the eyepiece cover upward to remove it, then the eyepiece should unscrew so you could change out or clean the eyepiece - it may have a lever to close a shutter inside the pentaprism to prevent dust from entering while the eyepiece is off (this needs to be closed).


----------



## Joe Harvatt

ThePhilosopher said:


> Slide the eyepiece cover upward to remove it, then the eyepiece should unscrew so you could change out or clean the eyepiece - it may have a lever to close a shutter inside the pentaprism to prevent dust from entering while the eyepiece is off (this needs to be closed).



Taking out the two screws either side of the eyepiece doesn't seem to let me remove the eyepiece itself. I can live with the dust, but if there's an easy way of getting the eyepiece out without removing all the exterior casing then I'd give it a go.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Your camera doesn't appear to have a removable eyepiece after looking at it. The instructions I have work well for cameras with removable eyepieces (for some reason I read D7100 as D700).


----------



## Rook

Phil have you just taken an air blower to it yet?

I leave sensor cleaning on always and do the same thing you do!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

So as to not disappoint here is some a cumulative shot of my new gear: PCB Vagabond Mini and Speedotron 22" Beauty Dish modified to fit Bowens strobes. I'm really excited to use a dish on location again as my 28" eBay dish is far too heavy for location work without an assistant.







Light output is 1/200s f/11 ISO200 at about 6' with the light on 1/8 power.


----------



## Tang

Meow


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Phil have you just taken an air blower to it yet?
> 
> I leave sensor cleaning on always and do the same thing you do!



Yeah man. I tried the blower before I freaked out, and there was one spot I couldn't get off. I basically tilted the camera at a bunch of angles and crushed the blower as hard as I could until I got the last spot. 



ThePhilosopher said:


> So as to not disappoint here is some a cumulative shot of my new gear: PCB Vagabond Mini and Speedotron 22" Beauty Dish modified to fit Bowens strobes. I'm really excited to use a dish on location again as my 28" eBay dish is far too heavy for location work without an assistant.



I can probably imagine the answer, but do you find a 22" beauty dish useful? I love the dish look and dig my salad bowl, only it's not bright enough. I was in umbrella/soft box mode and imaged that a 22" dish wouldn't be big enough. But if it's big enough for normal work, I'd happily grab a speed light mount one. I've tried replicating my salad bowl shots with an umbrella and it doesn't have the same look.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang said:


> I do love my natural light.. I'm still awful at strobes


You just need more practice.



Philligan said:


> I can probably imagine the answer, but do you find a 22" beauty dish useful? I love the dish look and dig my salad bowl, only it's not bright enough. I was in umbrella/soft box mode and imaged that a 22" dish wouldn't be big enough. But if it's big enough for normal work, I'd happily grab a speed light mount one. I've tried replicating my salad bowl shots with an umbrella and it doesn't have the same look.



The 22" is the most common size of BD on the market. I find it to be very useful for anything 3/4 length or shorter (though it can be used for a full length shot). The light is very snappy and directional. 

The issue with not being bright enough is probably a culmination of two issues:
1. The salad bowl design isn't optimal for throwing light outward.
2. Speedlights.

The Mola Demi and the Speedotron dish are very similar in design, here are some posts from Mola's blog: Search for "demi" - mola-light blog


----------



## Philligan

The salad bowl's got a 40w daylight temp LED lightbulb in it.  If I can find one with a speed light mount for cheap I'll pick it up for sure. I really like the look and want to be able to replicate the salad bowl headshot lighting with something less ghetto.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

eBay might be the way to go for speedlight stuff, I don't know jack about speedlights.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A quick shot of my wife.


----------



## Azyiu

On my way to the Columbia Icefield, I came across to my first ever wild bear!  







Here is a shot of the Icefield


----------



## Philligan

Here are a couple dogs from a local art festival this past weekend. As you can tell, the art wasn't that exciting. 



DSCF0003 by philbabbey, on Flickr



DSCF0009 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Here's one of Dawn from a walk today.



DSCF0045 by philbabbey, on Flickr

And here's a selfie. 



DSCF0076 by philbabbey, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

Got my Pentax K to M4/3 ring and the weather was lovely so I busted out the Pentax 1:4 100mm macro and a Panagor macro converter and went shooting.

In a hurry so here's a RAW straight from Lightroom, no editing done yet.


P6100125.jpg by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr

Edit: just some auto tone/wb in LR then highlight reduction cause Lightroom loves to overexpose stuff. Threw a bunch of them up on Flickr.


P6100148.jpg by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr

Also gave nighttime/star photography a shot with the 17mm 1.8 last night. Still have to get the hang of that. Couldn't find the moon for some reason or I would've busted out the 600mm mirror tele and 400mm tele for some good shots.


P6100058-Edit-Edit.jpg by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Astro can be super tough if you want absolutely no blurring in your images; that's a nice image.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Thanks! It surprised me how much post processing astro requires, this was a black background with some faint white specks on it when I loaded it into LR! It's also tricky over here because the light pollution is pretty high (nearly the entire country is a red zone on light pollution maps). Next time I'll try using a higher ISO though, this was shot at 200 but looking back it caused me to lose a lot of detail.


----------



## Philligan

I found out a grocery store here develops film - they actually ship it out to Fuji. I shot a couple rolls of expired Kodak Gold to test it out. Seems okay, so I'm gonna get my Ektar and Portra rolls developed through them.



4882240-R1-18-6A by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



4882235-R1-01-23A by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



4882235-R1-12-12A by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



4882240-R1-08-16A by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



4882240-R1-11-13A by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## cdf294

UnderTheSign said:


> Also gave nighttime/star photography a shot with the 17mm 1.8 last night. Still have to get the hang of that. Couldn't find the moon for some reason or I would've busted out the 600mm mirror tele and 400mm tele for some good shots



Nice Astro shot man. I noticed the exif showed a 25s exposure. Were you using a GEM?

In observance of you not seeing a moon, here is my weak attempt at a moon shot.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I don't know what GEM is :lol I started out at 30 but that gave me some minor trails so I just experimented and went down from there. Using the 600 rule I'd have to use a 17s time (600/35) but that was too short so I upped it a little.

I hope to make a trip to the coast on a cloudless day sometime this summer and take a shot at getting more stars and possibly some milky way. Moon shots planned too.


----------



## cdf294

Obviously you have done some research and that's why I asked.
A GEM is a German Equitorial Mount. This is the next progression you will find out about if you become super serious about astrophotography, especially if deep space shots with longer focal lengths interest you.

Basically, the GEM allows whatever is attached (camera and/or telescope) to automatically follow the earths rotation allowing for longer exposures without following the 600 rule.


----------



## Furtive Glance

I went to Norway!



















That's enough for now


----------



## UnderTheSign

cdf294 said:


> Obviously you have done some research and that's why I asked.
> A GEM is a German Equitorial Mount. This is the next progression you will find out about if you become super serious about astrophotography, especially if deep space shots with longer focal lengths interest you.
> 
> Basically, the GEM allows whatever is attached (camera and/or telescope) to automatically follow the earths rotation allowing for longer exposures without following the 600 rule.


Ah, right. Never heard of that before! I know there's some addons for some DSLRs that make your focus point move slightly to prevent trailing but the mount is new to me. Deep space photography sounds amazing but my current rig cost me roughly $600 and I'm sure a proper one would be 10x that. Some day though...

Your moon shot turned out pretty decent I'd say! Hope my first attempts turn out that well. What did you use to shoot it?
Edit: oh, 400mm f5.6, that's the same as I plan on using. Either a 400mm regular tele or 600mm mirror tele.


----------



## zilla

Azyiu said:


> On my way to the Columbia Icefield, I came across to my first ever wild bear!
> 
> Here is a shot of the Icefield




welcome to Alberta!


----------



## cdf294

UnderTheSign said:


> Your moon shot turned out pretty decent I'd say! Hope my first attempts turn out that well. What did you use to shoot it?
> Edit: oh, 400mm f5.6, that's the same as I plan on using. Either a 400mm regular tele or 600mm mirror tele.



Thanks!
The moon shot was taken with a Canon 70D and a 100-400L at 400mm. The picture was heavily cropped but at least the focus was solid, 
I am hoping to drag out my telescope and do some afocal (for moon crater shots) and prime focus shooting this year. 
I will again try some deep space photography but it will require me to load up the car with gear and travel for several hours since I need dark skies.
Deep space photography and light pollution have proven not to be a good mix.

If you are going to do some more Milky Way shots, you may find the following links helpful- It will give you an idea of the best times for the best results.
For moon shots, the following links won't do you much good.

This link allows you to choose a chart for your area:
http://www.cleardarksky.com/csk/index.html#chart_list

This link explains how to use the chart:
http://www.cleardarksky.com/c/Blackfootkey.html?1

As for the gear required, it's pretty much like any hobby. You can make due with the minimum or you can drop a small fortune.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Thanks for the link! Unfortunately they don't have charts for Europe which is where I'm at. Telescope shots sound great


----------



## cdf294

^^Oops. I saw "West Coast" but missed the Netherlands part. Guess I should learn to read. 

Here is my photo donation for the day.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I tried again last night but light pollution was so strong even at ISO 800 and 10s shutter speed the skies were too bright


----------



## Philligan

Here are some SOOC JPGs from the past few days that only made it to Facebook and/or Instagram.



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

Because of the electronic shutter, I was able to shoot this wide open at 1.4. I think it's 1/5000s or so. It's super sharp, apparently. I didn't realize how sharp this lens could be. 



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Luminosity vs Brightness: http://pratiknaik.tumblr.com/post/121864322722/this-brightness-vs-luminosity-video-instantly


----------



## Thanatopsis

I wouldn't really consider myself a photographer, but for some reason I like this picture of me. A friend said I look as if I'm plotting something diabolical.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Got my 'last' bit of cam kit for wedding shoots. Holy smokes... the new firmware is great!
I grabbed the xf27 pancake and Nissin i40 too. With the XF27 on it the XT-10 is shorter than the x100 series and every so slightly taller and wider than it. Still pocketable but with all the performance and features I love about the XT-1.
The new zone AF is really quite good! I haven't tested it extensively but based on the minor testing I've done so far, it's FAR more accurate in S and C mode now at tracking.
The Nissin i40 flash is fantastic! Tiny, simple and very powerful. The XT-1 + XF56 and battery grip with the flash on is still much lighter than my Canon rig and balances really well.


----------



## Philligan

That's killer.  You're approaching my dream setup.  Next up is the 56, then hopefully the 16 sometime and I'll be set for everything I need.

I'm probably gonna get the i40 in a few weeks, because I'd really like it for a couple weddings coming up. How do you find the power compared to something like a 430EX?


----------



## UnderTheSign

I didn't know the x-t10 was out already, seems stores over here don't have it yet. How do you like it?


----------



## capoeiraesp

Philligan said:


> That's killer.  You're approaching my dream setup.  Next up is the 56, then hopefully the 16 sometime and I'll be set for everything I need.
> 
> I'm probably gonna get the i40 in a few weeks, because I'd really like it for a couple weddings coming up. How do you find the power compared to something like a 430EX?



I haven't compared it to the 600ex I own, but I am very impressed with how well the Nissin exposes with Fuji's TTL system. I'll keep you posted.


----------



## Rook

Well it's a 40 guide compared to a 43, should be similar in power.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Didn't even look at specs (for once). Just trusted a very good wedding photographer who shoots with Fuji.


----------



## Philligan

Almost didn't bring my camera to an engagement party last night, because I didn't know many people who were gonna be there. I didn't shoot anything at the party, but I'm glad I brought it because I saw a sweet tree on the way there. 



DSCF0170 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

Do you guys use filters on your lens and if so, what do you use? Always have an UV filter on there but I was looking into getting a polarising or ND filter... Problem is the info out there is confusing as hell  circular polarising is the best apparently but it also sounded like a bit of a hassle with the fine tuning?


----------



## flint757

Just went to a wedding and the photographer they used was using an entry level camera, kit lens, and no flash. I can only imagine how much noise those photos are going to have as even my cell phone had trouble getting good shots with no flash.

That aside, big props as I'm way too chicken to do wedding photography myself. I do not want to be responsible for ruining someones big day.


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> Do you guys use filters on your lens and if so, what do you use? Always have an UV filter on there but I was looking into getting a polarising or ND filter... Problem is the info out there is confusing as hell  circular polarising is the best apparently but it also sounded like a bit of a hassle with the fine tuning?



Different filters serve different purposes. I'm on my phone, so Google the differences between them. UV filters aren't too useful these days - they're left over from the film days. They'll protect your lens now, but cheaper ones will hurt your image quality. 

Circular polarizers will darken the sky a bit and apparently help cut through haze a bit. I have one and don't really use it - again, we can tweak so much on digital files that it's not worth the hassle messing with it when you're shooting. 

ND filters are still very useful. They darken everything evenly ("Neutral Density"). This is good for slowing your shutter speed for long exposures during bright days, or shooting wide open or using a flash in bright sun. 

Graduated filters are dark on top and transition to clear to darken the sky and help balance it with the ground. Between pushing shadows and the option of HDR, it's not a necessity but I'd probably get one if I shot a lot of landscapes, just because I don't really do HDR stuff.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> Circular polarizers will darken the sky a bit and apparently help cut through haze a bit. I have one and don't really use it - again, we can tweak so much on digital files that it's not worth the hassle messing with it when you're shooting.



CPLs are also very helpful for cutting reflections, and I find this to be their primary usage. Achieving super blue (colorful) skies is more easily attained through multiple exposures or the use of other filters (graduated ND or reverse grad ND for sunrise/sunsets) so that you achieve a balance with the foreground exposure and the sky.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Thanks guys. From what I read I was under the impression a polarising filter given you 'better' colours on bright days and can also help battle harsh skies. I'm mostly asking because when I shot some.trees at the Kew Gardens in May, it was very cloudy but still bright, causing the sky to look like a massive, harsh white background in a lot of photos. Some people suggested that a polarising filter could help in those situations a bit.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Some more on the XT-10 and firmware 4.0

Continuous focus with zone tracking is brilliant! Managed to shoot a fair few different settings of kids running around and some sports stuff. The xf56 at f1.2 worked a treat with both lateral and depth change examples. At f5.6 for a basketball game every burst was spot on, including players coming straight towards the camera. The xf16 also tracked brilliantly in wide and zone focusing. This is seriously like a different camera.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I spent the weekend exploring Cornwall (southern most county in the UK).


----------



## ThePhilosopher

UnderTheSign said:


> Thanks guys. From what I read I was under the impression a polarising filter given you 'better' colours on bright days and can also help battle harsh skies. I'm mostly asking because when I shot some.trees at the Kew Gardens in May, it was very cloudy but still bright, causing the sky to look like a massive, harsh white background in a lot of photos. Some people suggested that a polarising filter could help in those situations a bit.



If it was overcast, the filter will not be of much help. If the clouds were patchy then it might help, it would really depend on your angle relative to the sun's position and the exposure difference between the sky and your subject.


----------



## UnderTheSign

ThePhilosopher said:


> If it was overcast, the filter will not be of much help. If the clouds were patchy then it might help, it would really depend on your angle relative to the sun's position and the exposure difference between the sky and your subject.


Right, cheers! Not gonna bother with it then. I was hoping a filter might decrease the harshness of overcast backgrounds (which we have a lot here in spring and fall).


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A good grad ND will help with that (or multiple exposure blending, not necessarily in an HDR context though that is an option) or use the blown out sky to your advantage creatively.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

ThePhilosopher said:


> A good grad ND will help with that (or multiple exposure blending, not necessarily in an HDR context though that is an option) or use the blown out sky to your advantage creatively.



Reckon that would cure my problem here? -






Fairly happy with it, but the blown out sky is a bit boring. I'm not really too much of a fan of the HDR look though. Anyone have any tips for shooting at the sun? Is the flare avoidable when such a bright source is in the shot?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

If you use a hood and are quite careful with your composition you can get rid of the flare. A reverse grad ND is helpful in that scenario, though it would darken the trees in the background as well. 

Personally, I would shoot 3 shots in your situation above: 1 for the sky, 1 for the foreground, 1 half way in between and blend them manually as a composite.


----------



## UnderTheSign

ThePhilosopher said:


> A good grad ND will help with that (or multiple exposure blending, not necessarily in an HDR context though that is an option) or use the blown out sky to your advantage creatively.


Thanks, I'll try that next time.

This tickles my fancy. First Hands On Review of the Venus Optics Laowa 15mm F/4 1:1 Macro Lens - DIY Photography though there's no MFT or Fuji X mount version in the works.


----------



## Philligan

Here are a couple from a wildlife reserve last night before a big storm rolled in.



DSCF0092 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0097 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0112 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Go back and reshoot that last as a stack of long exposures .

Here's one from a shoot I had today.



Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D: ISO 100 1/200s f/4


----------



## Nats

Joe Harvatt said:


> Reckon that would cure my problem here? -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fairly happy with it, but the blown out sky is a bit boring. I'm not really too much of a fan of the HDR look though. Anyone have any tips for shooting at the sun? Is the flare avoidable when such a bright source is in the shot?



I'd drop in a sky if I were you. Doesn't even have to be anything crazy. Maybe something with a few clouds just for texture. Could really make it pop. Great picture.


----------



## Rook

If it's shot RAW, a graduated filter in post could just be enough.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Another from yesterday, a more natural summery look.



Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D: ISO 100 1/200s f/11


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Last one for the day, I promise.



Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D: ISO 200 1/40s f/5.6


----------



## soliloquy

i've been in a middle of a move, thus not active here too often. with that being said, i recently got a mefoto roadtrip tripod. its AWESOME! and its small enough for me to take it anywhere with me. though now i have it, i'm wondering if i should have gone with the backpack version instead as its smaller and lighter. carbon fiber would have been ideal, but its also pretty pricey. 

i'm also looking to get a messenger camera bag. the ones i have are decent, but also getting heavy. i'm looking into either a zlyc leather bag, or ecocraftworld leather bag, or some sort of a canvas bag. 

also, with the mefoto tripod and the ND filter, i'm going a lil crazy with pics. and now that the tripod goes with me, its easy to take em anywhere/everywhere

here are some stuf i've been taking pics of as of late




[/IMG]






the 10-20 sigma lens does create some vignetting towards the edges when its at its widest






























with that being said, i am curious about these tripods that ebay and amazon sell under several different brands. they are the k555 or q666. both come in carbon fiber options and are very affordable. they do get pretty decent reviews too. and from the looks of it, the are the copy of meFOTO at a fraction of a price.


----------



## flint757

After owning both twist lock legs and flip lock legs I wish all of my monopods and tripods had the latch type. Twist locks are such a pain.

I don't have that particular brand, but I have one that is similar and it works well enough. My only complaint with the one I've got is that when the camera has some heft to it it's a pain to get positioned as it doesn't stay locked down at the ball joint all the way. If it's off center it'll fall down slightly. I believe the brand I have is Ravelli for my smaller tripod. Benro and Manfrotto are by far my favorite brands though. They're more expensive, but they just work with minimal hassle.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I concur, twist locks are terrible for any sort of serious adjustment or usage - my light stands have a twist lock for the unfolding base and the slippage is awful. I'm looking to upgrade all my stands to something with lever or screw down locks when I can.

You may want to look for used tripods and heads on eBay or other used sites.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Joe Harvatt said:


> Reckon that would cure my problem here? -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fairly happy with it, but the blown out sky is a bit boring. I'm not really too much of a fan of the HDR look though. Anyone have any tips for shooting at the sun? Is the flare avoidable when such a bright source is in the shot?



Did a re-edit with a grad in the top, not sure which I prefer. I think bracketing would have been the answer, but then again I'm not sure the sky had much detail, and with the focus blown out it might have just looked grey anyway. Here's the new edit:






Also - checked in to see the finish on my Daemoness V yesterday. '....'


----------



## Philligan

Shooting a band right now. Becoming drunk.  These are wifi jpgs.


----------



## Azyiu

So, for my recent Japan + Western Canadian trip, I borrowed a Ricoh GR1V from a friend of mine, and used a roll of AGFA Color Plus ISO 200 film for the below shots. With virtually no touch ups done to any of them, I think they turned out quite pleasing... oh, by the way, the first shot was taken in Hong Kong.


----------



## A-Branger

Joe Harvatt said:


> Reckon that would cure my problem here? -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fairly happy with it, but the blown out sky is a bit boring. I'm not really too much of a fan of the HDR look though. Anyone have any tips for shooting at the sun? Is the flare avoidable when such a bright source is in the shot?



Hey guys Ia photographer here new to the forum.


now for this shoot, you are going to have blown out sky no matter what. You are shoothing against the sun, so you either expose for the sun in order to get some color on the sky (leaving everything else dark) or have blown out sky.

HDR wont really help much in this photo. Multiple exposures maybe do some help. But in the sense that you manually merge them in photoshop, not HDR.

yes, you are going to have flare if you shooting to the sun. If the sun is out of the frame, like by just, you would have a flare or more likely than not Haze. Some ppl like it, I hate it (you cant work much with it), but it can be reduced by using a hood, shadow, hand, etc. Now if the sun is right in the middle of the frame, you will ahve that flare no matter what. But again, as you see the sun, the flare and haze gets justified. 

due to the position you are shooting against the sun a circular polarize filter wont do anything at all. If you were shooting 180 degrees from it, yes, it would have made a lot of difference on your sky.

ND wont have done anything

graduate ND, yes it would ahve help, but it would have made the back trees too black, the sun is just there, you wont have any colors. If the sun was already set, yes, you would be able to get some colors in the sky as the difference between the sky and the grass darkness wont be as big as in your shoot.

so what could you have done shooting against the sun?

expose for the shadows, close as you did. And re-compose your shoot. BE sure you have everything you are shooting in the "shadows" as you expose for those, everything would be "equal" with a nice orange rim light from the sun.

That sky is not interesting, neither is the sun or the flare for your composition, so instead of fighting to make it work, you could have re-composition the shot to focus more on the grass, and maybe have the sun flare coming from an angle, or if you want to leave some sky, leave what you had happening on the left side with the boke-balls from the trees, rather than having a big white space


----------



## A-Branger

UnderTheSign said:


> Thanks guys. From what I read I was under the impression a polarising filter given you 'better' colours on bright days and can also help battle harsh skies. I'm mostly asking because when I shot some.trees at the Kew Gardens in May, it was very cloudy but still bright, causing the sky to look like a massive, harsh white background in a lot of photos. Some people suggested that a polarising filter could help in those situations a bit.



actually yes, they do give you better colors. 

Like others said a CP filter cuts down reflections, if you ever had any pair of sunglasses with polarized lenses you will understand better. Like in fishing it helps to reduce the glare so you can see the fish underwatter

it cuts down the glare and reflections, hence why the sky gets bluer. If you shoot against a lake it could be the difference between having "white spots" on the watter surface, or having a glare free surface with the colors


If you shoot lets say a car, you can eliminate the reflection on either the windows or the body panels. Thats how they shoot car advertising. Multiple exposures to eliminate different areas of the glare.

And the why is circular?, so you can adjust how much you want, the angle of from were the glare is coming from, and to you when you go from portrait to landscape. It only takes couple of seconds to view trought the viewfinder to spin it till you are happy. Thing is, you need to be aware of it if you change from portrait to landscape. Cool trick, grab those sunglasses if you have them polarized, look the sky and twist your head sideways 90degrees. Thats how you know if they are really polarized or not.

So as you get rid of the glare on watter and glass surfaces, it also gets rid of the glare on Leaves too, hence why you will get bit more colors on plants and trees on bright sunny days

They also work wonders for sunsets, they bring massive amount of colors on the sky. by making only the sky darker


Personaly I much muhch much rather have one than shooting 3 exposures. Everything you can do to save you time on photoshop worths its weight on gold. By spending 4 min putting a polarize filter and click a shoot, you save yourself 30 min or more blending 3 different shots in photoshop to make it look real.

think about if you shoot against a big tree, how much time you will spend cleaning the edges of the layers along the leaves and branches? or a models hair?. or the fact that you would have to take 3 shoots everytime with a model, be sure you wont move too much to make them easier to align.

not onyl that but as you darken the sky, you can actually expose better for your main subject and have a closer exposed photo that wont require much editing. Instead of sacrificed your main subject value and under expose him in order to have a sky bit over expose so you can push the RAW values in post to blend more, push shadows up and highlights down... almost HDR


IMO a CP filter is an amazing tool for either portraits or landscapes. And the more you shoot the better you would realize the "I would fix in post" is not the way to go.

It all depends on what do you want to achieve. Some ppl love having a blue sky, some ppl live the white blown up look

get a cheap one if you want to try it out. If you like, spend cash on it.... if you already have a good lens of course,


also I must said, in your case if the day is cloudy or overcast, then you wont have colors ont he sky. There is a massive cloud there, the filter wont get rid of it


----------



## A-Branger

flint757 said:


> Just went to a wedding and the photographer they used was using an entry level camera, kit lens, and no flash. I can only imagine how much noise those photos are going to have as even my cell phone had trouble getting good shots with no flash.
> 
> That aside, big props as I'm way too chicken to do wedding photography myself. I do not want to be responsible for ruining someones big day.



Naaaah is not that scary.

I work shooting weddings for already couple of years. 

yes, it is bit intimidating at the beginning, but is not that much big of a deal ppl make it seem. Just be sure you know your ...., your camera, your lighting, flash if you use it, and just wing it

fake it till you make it.

thats how I started, my boss booked us 4 weddings before either of us had shoot any (photography) as we both already were doing videos for weddngs. And jsut smile and shot shot shot away. Slowly you will fix your issues and learn.


Key thing to remember is: Is NOT your day or your shoot, or are either you on control. Its their day and you are just there to document what is happening around you...... if thats the time we have, cool that what we have.......if thats what the bride wants to go/do, cool, thats what we would do..... she only wants 1 shoot, cool, she will get just 1.....If uncle bob decides to jump in every frame to take his shoot, cool, try to work around him, let him have his shoot but get yours latter, try to talk to him, if everything fails, well, thats uncle bob for you, you cant control him..... etc etc whatever happens, happens


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A-Branger said:


> If you shoot lets say a car, you can eliminate the reflection on either the windows or the body panels. Thats how they shoot car advertising. Multiple exposures to eliminate different areas of the glare.



This is grossly oversimplifying the case of car advertisements, which are huge productions in post today with multiple layers of work in post.



A-Branger said:


> They also work wonders for sunsets, they bring massive amount of colors on the sky. by making only the sky darker



To some extent, but a CPL also affects the whole scene by about 1 to 2 stops depending on which filter you're using. It doesn't just work "by making only the sky darker", but with the proper composition (sun/camera relationship) you can have the CPL do more work for you by having only the aligned rays enter the lens.



A-Branger said:


> not onyl that but as you darken the sky, you can actually expose better for your main subject and have a closer exposed photo that wont require much editing. Instead of sacrificed your main subject value and under expose him in order to have a sky bit over expose so you can push the RAW values in post to blend more, push shadows up and highlights down... almost HDR



Since a CPL affects the whole scene, this may or may not work well as the exposure on the subject will be dropped in EV by just as much as the sky (though the colors of the sky may be more vibrant due to the polarization). 

A better way to do this in camera is to use an off-camera flash setup to overpower the sun and invert the exposure difference down so that the subject is actually brighter than the background.


----------



## A-Branger

ThePhilosopher said:


> This is grossly oversimplifying the case of car advertisements, which are huge productions in post today with multiple layers of work in post.



yup, I know. Hence why I said multiple layers. They take a photo for just the whindscreen, one for the hood, one for the headlights, one for the left panel, etc etc. They also in most cases use external source of lighting. But the CPL is a tool they use to achieve it, I was mention a simpler version of what undergoes





ThePhilosopher said:


> To some extent, but a CPL also affects the whole scene by about 1 to 2 stops depending on which filter you're using. It doesn't just work "by making only the sky darker", but with the proper composition (sun/camera relationship) you can have the CPL do more work for you by having only the aligned rays enter the lens.



Yup I know, for bright daylight, Its a small blesing in disguise for me a couple of times as it allowed me to keep my aperture wider while shooting a subject with my flash without going into hi-speed sync. And yeah the CPL afects more-less the sky (in this example) depending on your position to the sun, so it could range from a deep blue, to practically nothing. It all depends on were you shoot, your camera angle and the angle of the filter. It takes no time to "spin" the filter and move yourself to quickly learn that.

And as it works well for bright daylight, it also works well for sunset times. It wont make the sky "dark", but it will help a lot to have a way more balance exposure.

And yes, depending of the filter you loose some stops, but nothing you can quickly compensate in camera with shutter speed/ISO/aperture. ITs gonna happen, so no need to talk it in every example.




ThePhilosopher said:


> Since a CPL affects the whole scene, this may or may not work well as the exposure on the subject will be dropped in EV by just as much as the sky (though the colors of the sky may be more vibrant due to the polarization).
> 
> A better way to do this in camera is to use an off-camera flash setup to overpower the sun and invert the exposure difference down so that the subject is actually brighter than the background.



yup I know about the off-camera flash. Thats my main technique I work during sunsets. I use speedlites and softboxes. I also do multiple layers to get rid of un-dessired spills on the ground and to mask out the light stand/softbox, so in that way I can get the light as close as I want keeping the composition pretty wide.... but thats another topic, hence why I didnt mention....... a CPL again depending on your angle of the sky..... it will give more vibrance to the color of the sky, making it seem "darker", as in your camera could be the difference of a white sky vs colors. Yes the subject may be affected but not much really as at this point he would be already on a shadow (rulling out the drop exposure of the filter itself). Yes its a balance of flash or video lights to match the sky, but the balance would be less if the filter helps to reduce the amount of brightness of the sky.....

day time its the difference of having a light blue sky vs deep blue, sunset it will deep the colors and yes, you need external source of light, but I was just mention it does affect sunsets too



I was trying to simplify what it is a CPL, I use them a lot when I started and I found them extremely helpfull, till the point were if I didnt see a blue sky I tough I had a bad photo. Now I have couple of years without using them as in my current work Im using a different size lens so my filter wont fit and couldnt be bothered to buy a new one. My shooting style has changed a lot sinse them, but wouldnt mind to start using them again. 

I found them a great tool, just wanted to explain the benefits as I feel he got scared away from some of the comments here


----------



## Tang

and I'm back.



h20 by nrrfed, on Flickr



downed tree by nrrfed, on Flickr



downed tree #2 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

A-Branger said:


> HDR wont really help much in this photo. Multiple exposures maybe do some help. But in the sense that you manually merge them in photoshop, not HDR.



This is the technique used for HDR photography.


----------



## Philligan

Just downloaded Firmware 4.00. Man, it's like a new camera. AF is probably a good 30% faster at least, and the 35mm definitely hunts less. It's noticeably better in bad light, too. The 23mm kind of does a but of a shuffle when it finds focus, and it still does that a bit, but it does is faster. This is definitely getting into DSLR AF speeds.


----------



## Philligan

Here are a few from a bar show I shot Saturday night. Really wishing I had FW4 for it.  The band wants to do a promo shoot, hopefully sometime this week. 

edit: These were all (I believe) shot at 1.4, 1/125, and ISO 3200. Mostly 23mm, with some 35 here and there. I pulled out the 18mm once, but I don't remember if any shots made it in the final album.



DSCF0202-2 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0222-2 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0230 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0260 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0273-2 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0277 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0283-2 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0495 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0505 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## A-Branger

Joe Harvatt said:


> This is the technique used for HDR photography.



I was referring more into the One exposure for the sky, one for the grass, one for the trees etc. Merge all those using mask layers in photoshoop. As in the grass is only the photo 2 the sky is only from the photo 1 etc etc

Wasnt talking about the auto HDR technique people use to merge everything together. Like if you were pushing the shadows all the way up and the highlights all the way down x1000 kinda thing


----------



## soliloquy

i've tried a few manfroto tripods and didn't like the weight nor how limited they were in what they could do. most of them lacked a hook for you to hang your bag or weigh it down to make it more stable. 

a lot of them had one lock that lets you pan horizontally AND vertically which i found a lil annoying. i rather have one lock for horizontal and one lock for vertical.

i didn't like that they weren't compact from the ones i've tried. even their befree model was bigger than some other brands out there.

they were also heavy regardless of size.

also, the few manfroto tripods i tried, none of them flip backwards. not that i do macro photography, but i may do it at some point. plus, not being able to flip on its own also makes them slightly bigger. 

as for locks, i have no real preference. i like the twist locks as they are super fast to set up. i can set up the entire thing within a few seconds. the other locks take a little longer, but i dont mind that. so far

cost isn't much of a factor here. at retail stores they were pretty affordable. at online, its almost half the price of retail, making them more affordable (for me at least). 



in other, non-tripod related stuff, if i am to stack a 6 stop ND filter along with a 4 stop ND filter, AND a CP, would that allow for ANY light to seep in at all? i mean, 6 and 4 are adding up to 10 stops. then the cp, from my understanding, is usually 2 stops of light. would that give enough light to take a picture (i'm guessing i'll have to take an exposure of more than a minute?)

also, i understand not all filters are created equally. however, i have a hoya 6 stop ND filter. will it skew colors if i stack it with a tiffen 4 stop ND filter? i wanna get another ND filter, but hoya is pricey, and they are one of the 'cheaper' brands out there for ND Filters. there is B+H and some others that rack up the price really high. i'm sure they are worth it, but i'm not willing to spend that much on a filter currently..


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The NDs may introduce some color shift, you may also experience some color distortion on longer exposures in the corners of your image if your sensor starts to get warm (this is highly camera dependent).

The vertical/horizontal locks you're referring to are part of the head (of which there are many types and brands). There are plenty of Bogen/Manfrotto legs that have a reversible center column (I have an older 3221 and that is one such model). Travel tripods are not something I have a lot of knowledge on as I've had no need for one, but in general, tripods are always a tradeoff of stability, size, cost and max load.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Been waiting for the moon to pop up over the houses behind ours and there it was, finally. No clouds to be seen. Grabbed a legacy Vivitar 400mm tele and Sigma 600mm mirror tele and started shooting. 200 iso, 250/s shutter speed. Manual focus and hand held because my tripod is still at the workshop. PP in Lightroom.

Pretty content with my first time results. Keep in mind these have been 'processed' by Facebook as well. Resized to 2048px.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

A few more photos from my recent trip to Cornwall.


----------



## Philligan

I took a few photos at the fireworks last night that came out pretty interesting.



DSCF0044 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

The three stages of a firework's life:



DSCF0046 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And this nebula-looking thing:



DSCF0053 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Here are a couple I took of Dawn yesterday.



DSCF0150 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0232 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Here's one from a short wedding I helped a friend with this past Saturday.



DSCF0435 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Fun fact: The X-T1 focuses better in the dark than Dawn's Rebel. 

I had a bunch of camera stuff out, and since I've read that Fuji's meter more generously than other cameras, I thought I'd compare it to Dawn's SL1 just to see. It's true - 6400 at 1.8 on the Rebel is more like 6400 at 1.6-1.4 on the X-T1, so I'd ballpark it at about half a stop (aka what a Fuji would meter as 6400, another camera would probably meter around 5000). However, the Fuji looked better at 6400 than the Canon did at 3200, so I'm not complaining. 

This is where the autofocus came in. At those settings, with the new firmware, the X-T1 focused fairly quickly (under a second) and locked on the water bottle I was shooting. The Canon would just rack focus once and give up, no matter where I put the AF point. I never would have guessed that.


----------



## A-Branger

yaaaay got new toys






New octa box from Wescott 








new china 600ex-rt copies. at 1/3 of the price from the canon one I couldnt resist. I still got my canon, so from now would stay as the master or any on-camera duties... (and yes, these still work with canon and with the radio trasnmiter technology, and ETTL ) woooooo








and a quick selfie to try the octa. Quick shot, would do some more test and better shots latter... too late now


----------



## UnderTheSign

Toy hunt time again. Anyone have experiences with portable printers like the Polaroid Pogo , Zip, Fuji SP-1, etc? I shot my graduation party last week and as it was the last time seeing a lot of the people there I kept wishing I had a small printer or something to print the memories right away.

The PoGo never did well in reviews but looks to be the smallest of the bunch. Not available new in Europe anymore though. The SP-1 is slightly bigger but still portable enough. About the same size as the Instax cameras (which I've also considered but I'd like digital versions to go with the prints). The Zip is new and doesn't have wifi. There's also the Canon Selphy printers but they look a bit on the big side.

I'd like to just print directly from my Wifi enabled camera and bypass the phone option but if that doesn't work I'm open to other suggestions.


----------



## Rook

To Phil's point, my Fuji's are consistently almost exactly a stop darker for a given setting than any of my film stocks.

My canon 6D was about 1/3 stop darker.


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> Toy hunt time again. Anyone have experiences with portable printers like the Polaroid Pogo , Zip, Fuji SP-1, etc? I shot my graduation party last week and as it was the last time seeing a lot of the people there I kept wishing I had a small printer or something to print the memories right away.
> 
> The PoGo never did well in reviews but looks to be the smallest of the bunch. Not available new in Europe anymore though. The SP-1 is slightly bigger but still portable enough. About the same size as the Instax cameras (which I've also considered but I'd like digital versions to go with the prints). The Zip is new and doesn't have wifi. There's also the Canon Selphy printers but they look a bit on the big side.
> 
> I'd like to just print directly from my Wifi enabled camera and bypass the phone option but if that doesn't work I'm open to other suggestions.



What camera do you shoot?

Some of the more recent Fujis got a firmware update to print directly to the SP-1 printer, which is awesome. I have an Instax and I'd still like to get the printer sometime. That's only some cameras, though, so if you're shooting something else, you'll have to wifi it to your phone, and then from your phone to the printer.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I still have the Olympus OMD E-M10 and also just grabbed a second hand X-pro1 with 18mm lens for real cheap to get into their stuff. The Oly has built in wifi, might get an 8 gig Eye-Fi card with the Fuji if it turns out I like that. 

Apparently wifi transfer and printing from your phone with the SP-1 is pretty easy. The Polaroid zip has cheaper paper but is a lot slower apparently.


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> I still have the Olympus OMD E-M10 and also just grabbed a second hand X-pro1 with 18mm lens for real cheap to get into their stuff. The Oly has built in wifi, might get an 8 gig Eye-Fi card with the Fuji if it turns out I like that.
> 
> Apparently wifi transfer and printing from your phone with the SP-1 is pretty easy. The Polaroid zip has cheaper paper but is a lot slower apparently.



I'm not too familiar with the Zip, but I know previous Polaroid stuff was digital and was supposed to be pretty bad. AFAIK the Instax stuff is the best Polaroid substitute on the market.

How do you like the X-Pro 1 so far? I'd love to get one for the handling and viewfinder, but since it doesn't have wifi it wouldn't replace the X-T1 as my everyday camera, which is what I'd want it for.


----------



## UnderTheSign

WiFi is the one thing I do miss on the x-pro. Didn't think I'd miss it but I do. Handling wise I prefer it over the Oly though. Part of the reason I got one was because while the Oly had superb images (and the built in stabilisation is a blessing with legacy lenses) I never really connected with it. The x-pro is a more fun camera to shoot with. (which is something I've heard others says as well, also when comparing the Pro and x-t1)

The AF speed is also good enough for me. Using the optical vf takes some getting used to because you don't know for sure whether you're focusing on what you want but image review solves that. One thing that confused me at first was the framelines in.the optical didn't match the final image... Turned out there's a 'corrected frame line's option since the center of the ovf of course isn't the center of the lens. 

X-pro bodies are pretty cheap right now so if you're interested you can get one for less than the price of a lens. I don't regret getting it and will probably drop the Oly, get an Eye-Fi card and upgrade to the X-t1 when that becomes cheaper or the x-pro2 at some point.


----------



## Tang

grown increasingly bored of photography so I decided to branch out a bit. all shot with the Galaxy S6.



there are three lights by nrrfed, on Flickr



devious by nrrfed, on Flickr



hal&#x27;s sunset friendly cousin by nrrfed, on Flickr



survey by nrrfed, on Flickr



879 by nrrfed, on Flickr



reaching out by nrrfed, on Flickr



obsolete by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Just got back from Ireland after shooting an amazing wedding and enjoying a bit of a holiday. Sure love the country and its people. Some quick shots from XT-1/10's small jpegs.


----------



## A-Branger

great pics.


wtf is with those ppl on the river?


----------



## Philligan

Is that Moher I see? Awesome photos man. I'd love to go back to Ireland with what I've learned now, instead of six months into owning a camera.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Sure is Moher!
The river shot is just locals fishing.


----------



## A-Branger

oh cool, is just the way all of them are standing in a nice equal distance makes it kinda creepy lol


----------



## capoeiraesp

oh yeah! exactly what caught my eye about it all.


----------



## Philligan

Here are a few from this afternoon.



DSCF0019 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0040 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0006 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0009 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## zilla

was at the Calgary Stampede for a work function last week and brought my kit 55-250mm canon lens. We were seated 1st row on the 2nd level.



IMG_1509.jpg by Tim Gorjanc, on Flickr



IMG_1530.jpg by Tim Gorjanc, on Flickr



IMG_1534.jpg by Tim Gorjanc, on Flickr



IMG_1867.jpg by Tim Gorjanc, on Flickr



IMG_1953.jpg by Tim Gorjanc, on Flickr



IMG_2185.jpg by Tim Gorjanc, on Flickr


----------



## soliloquy

debating on picking up a new toy....

either a 30mm f1.4 lens. or a flash.

current lenses i have are 10-20mm, 18-135mm, 50mm F1.4

i wanna try more night photography, and i'm finding the 50mm a lil too zoomed in. but i do like its f1.4. thus thinking of going for the 30mm. but at the same time, i also wanna get more into portraits, thus again, the 30mm.

on the other hand, a flash would also help with portraits, and debating on going into wedding photography....humm...


----------



## Rook

What camera do you have?

I heard the sigma 30 1.4 is a piece of s_h_it


----------



## soliloquy

Rook said:


> What camera do you have?
> 
> I heard the sigma 30 1.4 is a piece of s_h_it



i have a k5. debating on upgrading it to the k3 in the near future.

and i've heard 2 things about the sigma 1.4 30mm. review one: amazing! super sharp, a lil fuzzy on the edges, but still workable. 
review two: it wasnt working properly, so they sent their camera and lens to sigma, they calibrated it, and now its their go-to lens. 

from the pictures i've seen, it seems to get pretty decent results.


----------



## Philligan

From what I've read (I was seriously looking into it back when I had the 70D), the old 30 1.4 isn't bad, probably good for the money these days, but the AF could be hit or miss. The newer 30 1.4 Art is supposed to be great - the worst thing about it is some colour fringing at wide apertures, but that's one of the easiest things to fix in post.

I'd recommend looking for some kind of 24 or 28mm prime, too. My 23mm on my Fuji is my favourite focal length, and I mostly shoot people. Again, Sigma makes a 24 and 28 1.8, but I don't remember as much about them.

See if you can track down an old Pentax 24mm f/2. It's supposed to be a great lens. I'm not sure if it'll AF on your body, but it will on a K3 for sure.


----------



## A-Branger

soliloquy said:


> debating on picking up a new toy....
> 
> either a 30mm f1.4 lens. or a flash.
> 
> current lenses i have are 10-20mm, 18-135mm, 50mm F1.4
> 
> i wanna try more night photography, and i'm finding the 50mm a lil too zoomed in. but i do like its f1.4. thus thinking of going for the 30mm. but at the same time, i also wanna get more into portraits, thus again, the 30mm.
> 
> on the other hand, a flash would also help with portraits, and debating on going into wedding photography....humm...



30mm wont do any good for you as a portrait lens. Only if you are doing environmental portraits, like you are showing more of the suroundings rather than your subject. Your 50mm is better suited for portraits 

even if you have a crop sensor camera, the 50mm keeps being a better choice. 50mm is the bare minimum for a portrait, and (in a full frame world), for a close up portrait you even have some lens distorsion introduced, so for that a 80mm would be best.

for night photography landscapes. Yes a 30mm is better, but maybe a 24mm would suit you best.


also another trick you can do in the mean time is to take your shot with the 50mm and leave it in manual focus. Rotate the head of the tripod to the corner of your previous shot. take another pic, do the same in the suroundings of your main shot. Merge them in photoshop in panorama and presto!, now you have a wide angle lens 

also what kind of flash are you thinking?... for portraits you can also start by getting a 5 in 1 reflector. Best accessory I could buy when I was starting. For portraits you need your main light coming off-camera angle, so no idea on your camera but you need to learn how to fire the flash using your pop-out flash, or how to bounce the light. On-camera flash is the worst that you can do for a portrait, and if you know where to look you can creat far better portraits with no extra help using the available light or with just a reflector, IMO is great way to learn that way.

Now for weddings, yes, you need a flash and you better get one and know how to use it for receptions, for photoshoot meh, it all depends how you shoot, but more likely you would end up using available natural light, due to lack of time and ease to shoot specially if you are by you own. Now for weddings Im not sure how good is your camera or not, but you need to be sure is good enough for low light environments, learn how much youcan push your ISO without having too much grain.

I would say get a couple of outdoor photoshoot sessions with some girl/friend/couple, and if you wanna do a wedding. Go for it, the only wy to learn is by doing it


----------



## soliloquy

i thought this turned out awesome and i plan on making something similar to this in my basement once i finish it (prolly towards the end of the year). the ring of light seems to create some awesome results, and this is an extension of it by creating a star of light. the catch-light in the eyes turns out awesome (albeit a bit demonic) 



and truth be told, i have no idea what kind of flash i want. i do like the feature of the head being able to change angles to have it used as bounce photography from the ceiling. i've seen a lot of different pics of portraits or just regular indoor shots with bounce flash and the results seem very beautiful with 'natural' lighting. 

and reflectors seem very intriguing and versatile. they aren't too bad online for about $45 with a stand too. humm...that seems very intriguing indeed!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Cheap, maybe, but holy crap that thing looks unwieldy to use.


----------



## soliloquy

ThePhilosopher said:


> Cheap, maybe, but holy crap that thing looks unwieldy to use.



which thing? the reflectors? or the ring of light? or the lens? or the flash?


----------



## flint757

I'm assuming the ring light.

If you want the best indoor shots IMO an off camera flash is mandatory. Most people starting out don't seem to think so, but even though your eyes may be okay with the light your camera really isn't. You end up either pushing your ISO causing noise/grain or have to go with a slow shutter or shallow depth of field or all of the above to get acceptable photos. If there's any movement in the scene forget about it. A flash comes in handy in more scenarios than it doesn't IMO. Obviously you can work around the lack of light, but it isn't a whole lot of trouble IMO to keep one handy and off brand flashes go for pretty cheap.

It's a pet peeve of mine to see paid photographers not using a flash on a gig that takes place indoors.


----------



## A-Branger

one of the main things in photograpy that makes a pic go from a snapshot to a pro is light. Without light you dont have anything. Like a pro wedding photog I follow Jerry Ghionis says: "there is nothing worse than a beautiful girl in bad lighting"

The one thing that separates the amateurs, hobyst, semi-pros, pros, and amzing/OMSFG is the ability to "see light" and to know how to use it. Either by natural resources or artificial. Its all about the size of it, the color of it, the angle of it.

Light is more important than any 1.2 shallow DOF shot. I have seen the most amazing WOW shots being at f5.6 for example


That ring thing its cool. Cool project, but dont think it would benefit you much at this point. that concept of "ring flash" but taken into a bigger ring, it a light shaping tool. But at this stage you might need something that its more versatile. If not you would be better off getting those light bulbs materials, build a box with them, trow a diffuser material on top of it, and you have a soft box. Make the shape of the box more rounded for better catchlights if you want to. And with one softbox you can have a big arrange of different "moods" and lighting scenarios.


The thing you need to start learning about light is, first: The bigger the source of light in respect to your subject, the "softer" the light would fall into your model as the light would be able to wrap around them. A small source lets say a small speedlite flash, a torch, would create a harsh shadow as the light is very directional and wont be able to overpass your model. Smae with the sun, its tiny compare to your model. So how you make your sun light "bigger", think about a cloudy day, now the whole big cloud is one source of light, hence why it all looks better on a overcast day. So a diffuser would trow light everywhere, making the source of light the size of your diffuser. A reflector would bounce it back, making the source of light, the size of the bounce disk, or a wall, a table, a cloth, a t-shirt, etc.

Lots and Lots of info out there in maggazines and internet to learn first  But I would say, start with a 5 in 1 reflector, you get a diffuser disk, a white side, a silver side, gold and black. So start with that, its cheap. Even when you get all expensive with big flashes you would still use your reflector of fill in some light



also one last quick tip I learn from one of the masters of Speedlite photog Syl Arena: "You cant see the light if you cant see the shadows. In order to see light, you first need to see the shadows.." That quote just flip my world when I was learning about flash and lighting


----------



## soliloquy

A-Branger, thank you mate! i should be ordering the reflectors with the stand prolly sometime next week. though i'm guessing the stand would be rather useless outdoors if the wind is anymore than 2km an hour. 

as much as i've learned in the last few months regarding landscape photography and night photography in the last lil while, i've come to realize that smog plays a bigger role in terms of the sky than any other type of sky. if its too smoggy, you dont see stars, nor do you see any blue skies nor clouds. so it does become a giant defuser. though also creating pretty harsh light, so really, a nasty defuser. 

i still have much to learn, but enjoying every tid bit i'm learning along the way


----------



## Philligan

flint757 said:


> I'm assuming the ring light.
> 
> If you want the best indoor shots IMO an off camera flash is mandatory. Most people starting out don't seem to think so, but even though your eyes may be okay with the light your camera really isn't. You end up either pushing your ISO causing noise/grain or have to go with a slow shutter or shallow depth of field or all of the above to get acceptable photos. If there's any movement in the scene forget about it. A flash comes in handy in more scenarios than it doesn't IMO. Obviously you can work around the lack of light, but it isn't a whole lot of trouble IMO to keep one handy and off brand flashes go for pretty cheap.
> 
> It's a pet peeve of mine to see paid photographers not using a flash on a gig that takes place indoors.



This. One of my favourite things for using a flash indoors (if I'm shooting an event or something like that) is to stick a speedlite or two on stands and point them into a corner. I don't like using on-camera bounce flash, because you've gotta constantly be keeping track of where the wall/ceiling is and moving things around. If I'm shooting something like a wedding party getting ready, and the paint on the walls is a workable colour, I'll put a flash on a stand with a trigger and point it at a wall or ceiling. My favourite is when I can point it up on an angle into a corner, so I get light bouncing back in at least three different directions. 

That usually works really well if you've gotta balance a room with a big window, too. One wedding party was getting ready in a hotel room with a big window on one wall. I had huge falloff going from the window to the other side of the room - at least 3 stops IIRC. I pumped a flash into a corner at that end of the room and was able to balance that side with the light closer to the window.

A white wall and a flash or two are a handy way to imitate a big window, too.


----------



## UnderTheSign

https://www.dropbox.com/s/pquipt7petacs42/DSC_0196.JPG

Travel kit for the weekend. Going to a nature reserve with the gf and I tried to find balance between flexibility and weight. So it's the X-pro1 with 18mm, Pentax 100mm macro (just in case I find bugs!) and Pentax 80-200mm zoom for the birds. Last time we were there there were a lot of hawks and apparently there's an eagle nesting there though im not sure if it's still around. Also found a mini tripod so let's see how that works out. Not pictured is an ancient shutter release cord which I've come to love when shooting the moon. Considered taking a 400mm prime or the 600mm mirror tele but those are just too heavy...


----------



## A-Branger

soliloquy said:


> as much as i've learned in the last few months regarding landscape photography and night photography in the last lil while, i've come to realize that smog plays a bigger role in terms of the sky than any other type of sky. if its too smoggy, you dont see stars, nor do you see any blue skies nor clouds. so it does become a giant defuser. though also creating pretty harsh light, so really, a nasty defuser.



hence why you dont see great stars photos in the city 

more than smog is light pollution. In order to have an amazing sky full of stars you need to be many many many miles away from a city or a large populated area. Also at a time of night were the moon is not up in the sky either. And to make the best shot, best if you shoot towards the milky way. There are lots of phone apps to show you were it would be if you cant see it


----------



## UnderTheSign

Pentax manual focus 4.5 80-200mm zoom, shot at f8 I think. Pretty happy, took a damn while for me to get used to the way this zooms and then focusing on fast moving birds. It might not work as well as a Canon or Nikon, but Fuji can pull off the birds!


DSCF1250 by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr

I might get the Fuji 50-230 soon as it's the lens that appeals to me most right now. It's much more compact than the Vititar 400mm I have, probably sharper than the 600mm mirror tele and a lot more practical than this 80-200. If the upcoming teleconverter works with it... That'd be heaven.


----------



## Tang

I've mainly been focusing (heh) on writing my album recently, so all my cameras are sadly gathering dust 

I need to make some changes.


----------



## Tang

to get back into the swing of things, I headed to my backyard. 



6012 by nrrfed, on Flickr



6018 by nrrfed, on Flickr



what do you want, human? by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## soliloquy

i got a gig for an indoor engagement shoot for this saturday. first one, so i'm not sure what to expect. i had some ideas, but i wanna reserve them for a later day as i'm still new to this. the bride and groom to be were shocked that i didn't ask for any money aside from printing the pics (or USB if thats what they want). i'm no professional, and dont have a portfolio. and i told em that i cant guarantee anything, thus, i'm not charging anything. just that if i get anything decent, if i can use it for a potential portfolio...


in the mean time, was just messing around with my camera and realized that my camera can take tilt-shift type pics without using a lens-baby lens, or a tilt-shift lens. nothing really artistic, but interesting effect. it makes everything looks like toys. i havent updated these pics in anyway shape or form. everything was done in the camera












and toying with a silly 'portrait' of sort. still need to figure out a sweet spot for that glass sphere to ensure that image is sharp and still maintaining the details of the background


----------



## Philligan

Fun fact: Since our eyes work like camera lenses, the closer we focus on something, the smaller our depth of field is. A tilt-shift/lens baby/free-lensing takes a far away scene and throws much more than usual out of focus, which tricks our eyes into thinking we're looking at something very close up. That's why tilt-shifts make photos look like miniatures.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

soliloquy said:


> in the mean time, was just messing around with my camera and realized that my camera can take tilt-shift type pics without using a lens-baby lens, or a tilt-shift lens. nothing really artistic, but interesting effect. it makes everything looks like toys. i havent updated these pics in anyway shape or form. everything was done in the camera



Or you could free lens


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Broke out the Oly and a C-Mount Computar 12.5mm for playing around with.
Shot in camera at 16x9:

















Some native format:


----------



## Philligan

That's some awesome swirling.


----------



## Berti_smb

Finally rain has fallen from the sky in this hot summer so i took a picture with my Canon 550D and Tamron 17-50 2.8


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> That's some awesome swirling.



Thanks, I'm hoping to find a little longer lens that I could use as a portrait lens that just barely covers the &#956;4/3 sensor - the key to swirly bokeh.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

ThePhilosopher said:


> Thanks, I'm hoping to find a little longer lens that I could use as a portrait lens that just barely covers the &#956;4/3 sensor - the key to swirly bokeh.



I don't know about swirly but I can recommend having a look into the Vivitar 135 2.8 made at the Komine factory early 80's I believe. Here's a shot at f8 from maybe 10 feet from the subject. I paid about £20 for mine.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I've got my eyes on some fast 1" and 2" c-mount lenses (which are 50mm and 100mm EFOV on the 2x crop cameras).


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A quick shot of my new customized Seiko 7s26:


----------



## A-Branger

I was bored and I tried a selfie with my guitar








Shot with a Canon 5D mkIII with a Sigma 24-105mm, at 1/200 f5.6 ISO320

Shot with two speedlites. One at camera right with the Westcott Apollo Orb octa as my main light, I tried to put a reflector at camera left (didnt do much, as couldnt find how to keep it in a nice position) And a speedlite on the back camera left with the Lastolite ezybox softbox for the rim light.


Guitar is a LTD EC-256 with the EMG Hetfield set in chrome


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Spent 10 days in Greece...


----------



## Khoi

had some fun at work with an Angenieux 25-250mm Optimo Style DP lens ($56,000 cinema lens) mounted on an A7s just because. 

The lens weighs 16 lbs alone.


----------



## Tang

lol superzoom.



glorious, glorious manual focusing mechanism.


----------



## A-Branger

LOL


----------



## Philligan

So can you still hook your BlackRapid to the camera body?


----------



## Tang

eh, it's like an addiction.



6241 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Might go full frame this week...


----------



## A-Branger

Joe Harvatt said:


> Might go full frame this week...







the weirdest thing when you do the change would be to re-learn your zooms and what your lenses look like. also seeing that now you lack of zoom range and you will hit the bump on the lens more often than not trying to get that close up you were used before. In other hand, now you wont need that wider angle lens you were craving before lol. Once you see how good it looks in low light and the shallow depth of field... mmmmmm


I just order a canon 6D today too. I cant keep using the cameras from my old work as now Im shooting for other ppl so I need to get my own gear. Quality image is same as 5DmkIII, less features on it. The biggest downfall is that now I need to buy a bunch of SD cards, and all my CF would collect dust for a while. 

Plan is to keep it in the mean time to keep me going without breaking the bank too much till they release or announce the new 5D (or other camera alike)


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Should be a fairly smooth transition, I use Nikon 35mm cameras quite a bit.


----------



## Rook

I agree, transition is very simple, only change is focus fall-off, it's not even depth of field.

The difference between APS-C and 'full frame' just isn't what it was. And a lot of the changes are more to do with the quality of cameras they put full frame sensors in compared to crops anyway haha.

It's a lovely look anyway.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

He does still exist.


----------



## Rook

Who, me?


----------



## Rook

Edit: double post...


----------



## Tyler

Im super stuck right now between deciding which glass to get next. Im looking at either a Sigma ART series 35 f/1.4 or the 50mm. Then also between the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II, or the 16-35 f/4. 

So much deciding, so little money to get them all in a span of the year 

In the mean time, here's a recent grad photo I did with my 50mm f/1.8. I think I may need to make a micro adjustment because of possible front focusing though.


----------



## Philligan

I might have some serious regular work coming my way. 

I had an unofficial job interview with the creative director at a local marketing company last night. Now that I've got my BA I'd like to start working in my field, but it's hard to start writing without any existing published work. I'm working on that right now, but I found out the company is looking for a photographer to contract jobs out to, and I've more or less for sure got a couple jobs coming up in the future. It's mostly editorial work, which is what I really want to get into.

I'm fine with working freelance or part time around another job as I get a foot in the door, but I hope the ball gets rolling soon. I really don't want to work at a jeweller's forever. 

edit: Here are a couple SOOC jpgs from the last few days.



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Tyler, the Sigma 35 is a great lens! Love mine to bits even though I shoot mainly with my Fuji rig now.


----------



## Rook

That's a pretty wide spectrum of choices!

When I've had to chose between lenses, I've rented them, seen how excited I've been by them, how much I've used them, and so on.

Like when I used to have those Zeiss lenses. They're totally impractical, the 85 on paper is 'worse' than any of its competition (no AF, focus breathing, front focusing on close subjects, the lens is soft, chromatic aberrations everywhere), but I absolutely loved using it. I got so excited putting it on my camera, loved holding it, looking at it, looking through it, and the images had so much character.

There's no way I could have made that decision if I'd just gone on what seemed better and bought what made sense.

If you don't wanna pay to rent, maybe someone will let you borrow one for the afternoon?

Or you could buy used and sell them on? You won't lose any real money then.

Lots of options. Yours sounds much more like a practical decision though, which makes things easier.


----------



## A-Branger

Tyler said:


> Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II,



Get the Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD. At the moment in B&H is 500$ cheaper than the canon. The website I use as I live in Australia, they ship from HK and they have it almost 1000$ cheaper than the canon.


Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM on Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III versus Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD Canon - Side by side lens comparison - DxOMark

comparison on the two lenses. On paper both are almost the same. On the field I have shot with both of them, we only have canon at the office and we got the tamrom a year ago, For video is awkward to use it as the way it zooms/focus, so I end up using it mainly for photography as out of 4 canon ones we had, 1 or 2 were bad, so by using the Tamrom I was sure I was using the right one lol

I have never seen a difference in image quality, sharpness, or focus speed. In fact a few months ago I grab all the 70-200 in the office, shot same image of a fence with same settings at same different focal mm, with camera on tripod. Only to find the faulty lens. And couldnt see any diference at all between the Tamrom and Canon.


now the only two downfall IMO.
1- is for canon users, Nikon would be happy as, other brand no idea. The zoom ring travels on the same way as Nikon lenses does. So when I change lenses quick I always end up twisting the zoom ring the wrong way. It might take you 1 sec to adapt, but when I do a quick lens change on a middle of a Ceremony, or when during any point of the wedding something happens, kids finally smile, bride grabs groom for a kiss, etc. That split second can make you loose the shot. Having say that, you adapt quick, till you change lens again lol

2- The focus ring is way to close to the zoom ring. In canon is camera/zoom/focus, on Tamrom is camera/focus/zoom. So problem is that when your hand is on the zoom ring + holding the weight of the camera, the focus ring is jsut right there and if you are not careful it might be touching your hand, and if you are not more careful, you might take the shot out of focus, specially if you are at 2.8. I understand the design as in you can do everything with one hand position, like using two fingers to zoom and using another finger to focus. But for my taste I much rather have the focus ring out of the way in order to avoid accidents, as I use auto focus 99,99% of the time on that lens

for your other choices, the Sigma art lenses are amazing.

now for your indecision on focal range, I dont know what to say lol. Make up your mind hahaha.

What camera do you have??. full frame or crop?. Maybe you need a change of camera instead of lens?.

I at one point I was craving badly for a 16-35mm. That was when I was shoting with a 7D (1.6 crop factor), and I was shooting lots of events and nightclub photography, as I really needed that 16mm. Once I started shooting with a 5D (full frame), I didnt need the 16 mm anymore as now my 24-105mm was doing the job properly as I wanted back then (no more 1.6x so now my 24mm was 24mm).

I tried once the 17-40mm f4. Didnt like it, way too wide for my shooting style.

but that could be an option for you, as its waaaay cheaper than the 16-35mm 2.8 . It all depend on what is your intended use.


----------



## Tyler

Thanks for all the great suggestions! That Tamron actually looks pretty great, I'll have to do some more research on it

Im using a 5D III right now. I mainly do portrait sessions but also love to go hiking. The longer range may be more practical for terms of doing grad photos, portraits, weddings etc that I'll be doing whenever I can find a gig. 

Im gonna try and rent a 35 as well, just because I havent used one yet and want to see how I prefer it to a 50 for a variety of uses.


----------



## A-Branger

well if your plan is to do more portraits, and go into the weddings a 70-200mm is a must. But if you find mroe gigs in events then a 24-70mm or a 24-105mm would be better

for your other choices, think how many times you currently use your 50mm? is enough to justify getting a new expensive model over your f1.8?? is the image quality that bad on your 1.8? I know that canon plastic cheap lens feels like a toy and it might wont be the fastest to focus, but it makes the job.

a better question would be, what do you need for your work?, what would improve your business and would bring you more jobs so you latter can get the money for new gear. I recon you need the 70-200 more for portraits and weddings, and you would still be able to get away easily with your current 50mm until you get the next pay check. What other lens do you have? as for weddings you might need something wider too.

also for weddings as its my field. You need a good amount of memory cards, hard drives(depending how often you shot), and speedlites (one for reception shots, general shooting. Two or more if you want to do night time portraits with off camera flash) Also at least 2 or 3 camera batteries, plus your sets of AA for the speedlites. Another things to consider first if you dont have them 

the 16-35, if its just for your bushwalking, tourist shot, then the 17-40 f4 would be better and wont break the bank. at 17mm you wont really notice the difference on depth of field of f2.8 and f4 unless your subject is really close to camera. For landscape I cant really talk much as dont have much experience but the 2.8 would come more handy if you are shooting stars, but again a 24mm 1.4 or a 14mm prime would suit better for that.

if you happen to have a zoom lens, try shooting with it at 35mm "locked" to see if you like that range of mm, and yeah prob test it first before commit $$ to a prime


----------



## A-Branger

Philligan said:


> I'm fine with working freelance or part time around another job as I get a foot in the door, but I hope the ball gets rolling soon.



congrats on the job  and yeah it will star rolling. Lucky, and sadly, in the photography world as in any other job, is who you know rather than who you are. Keep doing good works, and keep ppl happy, they would start referring and one day you would meet someone who takes you to the next step and next jobs.


In other note, doesnt your GF gets annoyed at you for shooting her that much 

perks of having a photographer as partner  I did the saem with my previous GF but she didnt last that long before she got annoyed to be the test model of everything lol


----------



## Tyler

All I have right now is the 50 1.8 and the kit lens thats 70-300 f/5 I believe?

And yeah the 1.8 definitely gets the job done, its just not the sharpest lens ever, so thats why I think the 70-200 would really help out, especially in the realm of portraits etc.


----------



## Rook

I realise I haven't posted any actual work in a while, so here's some of the paid editorial junkalunk I've been up to!

Gone overboard a little but eh.



Clarett 1 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Clarett 2 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Clarett 3 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



RedNet 1 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



RedNet 2 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



RedNet 3 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



RedNet 4 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



RedNet 5 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



RedNet 6 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



DMF 1 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



DMF 2 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



DMF 3 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



DMF 4 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Launchpad 1 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Launchpad 2 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Launchpad 3 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Launchpad 4 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Launchpad 5 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Oh and I'm still shooting film!

500 C/M, 2,8/80 Planar C T* (looks like it's at 2.8), Portra 400.



My Father by Nick Howlett, on Flickr


----------



## A-Branger

cool photos!, love your post-procesing. I usually like my blacks black, never pushed to "wash" it out. I always go for the "contrast" more "real" looks, seem you are making the tone curve bit more "flat" by limiting the blacks and whites. Just did a quick try and kinda like it, but I also like it without LOL. I need to refresh myself I might being getting stuck on the same "looks". Maybe on one special shoot would do it do test it more and see if I can add a new "look" to my arsenal


----------



## A-Branger

I also got a NCD! 







my new 6D just arrived. Same size as my 7D, and a tad lighter. I dont have a 5DmkIII with me now to compare side to side.

would have to wait till my next wedding comes up in a few weeks to see differences if any in image quality (it shouldnt be any) and in overall performance on the day

layout of the controls and menus is different. Couple of things cool I like, couple of things I dont like, but well. It would do the job more than fine. Idea is to keep me going so I can get a new 70-200mm lens and save some money latter and wait till new announcement for a new 5D (mkIV or X),

another thing it surprised me a lot was the focus points. The layout is exactly the same as the 5DmkII, even my 7D has more focus points... weird... In reality I only use one point, but I do like the option to be able to move it across the screen, and the option to have a small square of 3x3 small points like my 7D and 5DmkIII does. I know they needed to make things different with the 5 to make ppl still buy that one, but not sure what happened here. Also my flash sync speed would drop from 1/200 to 1/180 

Havent tried the wi-fi function yet, need to learn how to use it. Ideally I want to see if I can use it for thetered previews on my computer?.. not sure if I can do that. If not, for me would be a pretty useless function then. Remote shutter with my phone? again not sure if I can, that could work for a couple of scenarios but still nothing "wow" for me. Same with the GPS, I dont see use in my shooting.

as it only has one SD slot, all my CF cards would go to collect dust while Im waiting for my other order from B&H with some goodies, SD and couple of memory car pouch and AA batteries organizers 

and other thing, I hate the shutter sound LOL


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Rook said:


> I realise I haven't posted any actual work in a while, so here's some of the paid editorial junkalunk I've been up to!



Great, as always, Rook.

Recently I've decided to limit myself to only using my old Sigma Mini-Wide II 28mm 2.8. It's pretty cool, and focuses super close.






Here's a shot with it.


----------



## Whammy

These are photos I've taken in the last month.
Been focusing a lot on portraits.

The indoor portraits used two Ikea lamps 
I'm actually placing an order for a proper lighting set-up.

Ugh, gotta love how Flickr is over sharpening the photos


----------



## Whammy

Philosopher,
What is the lowest wattage you'd need to run lights at in order to shoot wide open?
I know it's not a straight forward answer, just wondering what your experience with it is.

The lights I'm looking at go as low as 12 watts


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Awesome. What lens are you using for these, Whammy?


----------



## Whammy

All of them were on the Canon 85mm f1.2
I keep meaning to use something wider but never get around to it


----------



## A-Branger

Whammy said:


> Philosopher,
> What is the lowest wattage you'd need to run lights at in order to shoot wide open?
> I know it's not a straight forward answer, just wondering what your experience with it is.
> 
> The lights I'm looking at go as low as 12 watts



think it all depends on how much power you need your lights to be. How much ambience light gets into your studio, and how much you want to over power that. Even with a 1.2f lens you can still shoot at 1/8000 and ISO 100. You have continous lights, so ideally you can shoot at any given shutter speed. Thing to bare in mind is if your lights would flicker or not, that could be a deal breaker for you as it might wont show up on a photo at a fast shutter speed. Also you can turn down the power on the lights, block them, diffuse them, or use an ND filter

not really sure if I understanded your question and step up answering something completely different lol...


----------



## Whammy

A-Branger said:


> think it all depends on how much power you need your lights to be. How much ambience light gets into your studio, and how much you want to over power that. Even with a 1.2f lens you can still shoot at 1/8000 and ISO 100. You have continous lights, so ideally you can shoot at any given shutter speed. Thing to bare in mind is if your lights would flicker or not, that could be a deal breaker for you as it might wont show up on a photo at a fast shutter speed. Also you can turn down the power on the lights, block them, diffuse them, or use an ND filter
> 
> not really sure if I understanded your question and step up answering something completely different lol...



No you pretty much answered it 
An ND filter is a last resort but obviously an easy solution. Just don't want it messing up on auto focus.
I don't plan on there being much ambient light for studio shots. But I'm obviously stuck with the sync speed on the strobes so going up to 1/8000 isn't an option.
Thankfully I can go to ISO 50 on the camera.

Got the lights ordered (Elinchrom D-Lite RX 2) so I'll just experiment with them when I get them.
Everything I've done thus far is with natural light so I'm looking forward to trying them out.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Whammy said:


> Philosopher,
> What is the lowest wattage you'd need to run lights at in order to shoot wide open?
> I know it's not a straight forward answer, just wondering what your experience with it is.
> 
> The lights I'm looking at go as low as 12 watts



I haven't been able to shoot wide open without using ND filters, but then again I'm usually looking for a little more DOF out of my shots. 

This was shot at f/4 without an ND and I believe somewhere between 1/16th and 1/32nd power on my 750 w/s head with a 22" BD with the light right in front of the camera (~1m)
http://www.bartkophoto.com/Selah/2015-06-23_Beauty/SelahS_0032.jpg

This was shot wide open...on my 4x5 (f/5.6).
http://www.bartkophoto.com/Selah3/Selah_45_0003.jpg

Outdoors, I have always needed a lot of distance and an ND to cut the exposure down.

f/3.2 ~6m: http://www.bartkophoto.com/EmilyA/EmilyA_0014.jpg
f/4 ~infinity: http://www.bartkophoto.com/AndreaG/2015_02_15/AndreaG_0050.jpg
f/11 no ND (just for you, Branger): http://www.bartkophoto.com/Alex-THP/Alex_0056.jpg


----------



## A-Branger

Whammy said:


> No you pretty much answered it
> An ND filter is a last resort but obviously an easy solution. Just don't want it messing up on auto focus.
> I don't plan on there being much ambient light for studio shots. But I'm obviously stuck with the sync speed on the strobes so going up to 1/8000 isn't an option.
> Thankfully I can go to ISO 50 on the camera.
> 
> Got the lights ordered (Elinchrom D-Lite RX 2) so I'll just experiment with them when I get them.
> Everything I've done thus far is with natural light so I'm looking forward to trying them out.



so are you getting flash or continous lights? Think I got it wrong lol.

also in a world of studio shooting you dont really need stuff shot at 1.2. If not you want the whole subject to be sharp. Remember you dont have background so not really much point trying to get stuff out of focus. That unless you are doing like a close-ups or headshots stuff that a 1.8f would add a nice out of focus look and you would be able to see it. Full body shots, even half body shots you wont be able to tell as plain background is plain, if not is a high risk to shot like that as you prob already know how easy is to miss focus at wide appertures. So might aswell shot safe and get your subject sharp and get creative with the lighting

in fact when you see like a tutorials for studio lighting when they use a light metter they have a "backwards" way to think from us outside "natural portrait shoothers. In that they lock the camera at ISO100 of course, put the shutter speed at their flash sync (around 1/200) and then they metter the light from the flash head and tweak the camera for correct exposure with the aperture. And they are like *pop*, well we have a power of f11, that seem right, and for this other light I wanted less so *pop* and the metter says f9 so I would turn down the power on the flash head, test again *pop*, f7.1... yup that would do...

Im like f11?? whats that devils number??? lol


----------



## Joe Harvatt

ThePhilosopher said:


> This was shot wide open...on my 4x5 (f/5.6).
> http://www.bartkophoto.com/Selah3/Selah_45_0003.jpg



So good.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Thanks man, it had a few degrees of front tilt to get the focal plane to just miss other parts of the image, having the full range of movements available is fairly awesome.


----------



## Whammy

ThePhilosopher said:


> This was shot wide open...on my 4x5 (f/5.6).
> http://www.bartkophoto.com/Selah3/Selah_45_0003.jpg



Ah man I love your large format photos. Makes me want to throw away my stuff in favor of large format.


----------



## Whammy

A-Branger said:


> so are you getting flash or continous lights? Think I got it wrong lol.
> 
> also in a world of studio shooting you dont really need stuff shot at 1.2. If not you want the whole subject to be sharp. Remember you dont have background so not really much point trying to get stuff out of focus. That unless you are doing like a close-ups or headshots stuff that a 1.8f would add a nice out of focus look and you would be able to see it. Full body shots, even half body shots you wont be able to tell as plain background is plain, if not is a high risk to shot like that as you prob already know how easy is to miss focus at wide appertures. So might aswell shot safe and get your subject sharp and get creative with the lighting
> 
> in fact when you see like a tutorials for studio lighting when they use a light metter they have a "backwards" way to think from us outside "natural portrait shoothers. In that they lock the camera at ISO100 of course, put the shutter speed at their flash sync (around 1/200) and then they metter the light from the flash head and tweak the camera for correct exposure with the aperture. And they are like *pop*, well we have a power of f11, that seem right, and for this other light I wanted less so *pop* and the metter says f9 so I would turn down the power on the flash head, test again *pop*, f7.1... yup that would do...
> 
> Im like f11?? whats that devils number??? lol



Yeah I hear what you are saying.
The reason I would use a shallow depth of field is as you said, for a upper body headshot. I do like the natural vignetting too 
The only other reason would be if I used a wallpapered background and if I preferred it out of focus.
I have a few boards with different wallpaper so I can switch them out easily.

I tested my main lens before for its sharpness sweet spot. Turns out it was f8
Here is the photo if anyone is interested.

Original photo at f1.2 (so much vignetting )






I then took the exact photo at various different f stops up to f16.
Here is f16






Here is a 100% crop of the end of the handle.






I was surprised how sharp it was at 1.2 considering it was wide open. Thought it would be softer than that.
f8 though 

*TL;DR
f8 for the win*


----------



## UnderTheSign

Caught this hermit crab at the beach trying to burrow


DSCF1442.jpg by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr

And finally did my 'wide open grass in the wind' hipster shot 


DSCF1450.jpg by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr


----------



## A-Branger

Whammy said:


> I do like the natural vignetting too
> The only other reason would be if I used a wallpapered background and if I preferred it out of focus.



Photoshop!! lol


----------



## Philligan

Tyler said:


> All I have right now is the 50 1.8 and the kit lens thats 70-300 f/5 I believe?
> 
> And yeah the 1.8 definitely gets the job done, its just not the sharpest lens ever, so thats why I think the 70-200 would really help out, especially in the realm of portraits etc.



I forget if I said this earlier, but the Sigma Art primes are amazing. I've shot with the 35 and love it. Apparently the 50 is only better. Depending on your use, as much as I love the Sigma, check out the Canon 35 f/2 IS. It kind of flies under the radar because of the Sigma, but it'll be around $300 cheaper IIRC, and it's lighter, smaller, and nearly as sharp. The Sigma is amazing, but it's huge and heavy (not quite as big, but in the realm of a 24-70). The 50 is even bigger. That's probably fine if you shoot events or portraits, but for everyday use, it's hefty and conspicuous. The Canon is a lot more portable, and more subtle if you're shooting street or candids of friends, etc. I shoot a lot in the dark and love fast lenses, but f/2 is still fast and can give you tiny depth of field if you want it. IS doesn't help with moving subjects, but for still subjects, it can more than make up for the lost stop of aperture, and even though I don't really need IS for a lot of what I shoot, it's nice to have it for the extra piece of mind so you don't have to worry about camera shake as much.

TL;DR: IMHO, as amazing as the Sigma 35 Art is, Canon 35 f/2 IS is a better everyday lens, if that's what you're after.

If you're looking into portraits, check out the 135 f/2 L over the 70-200. I've played with a 70-200 and they're awesome, but the 135 is one of the cheapest L lenses, and is a gem. It's an early L lens but it's still really sharp and has so much character. You could pick up a 135L and 35IS for the price of a 70-200. I find the 70-200 range isn't huge, and you can make up for it in a few steps pretty easily, so unless you're specifically looking for the compression at ~200mm, the 135 would be a great choice, too.


----------



## Tyler

I just did some research on the 135 and really seem interested. I'll try to see if I can rent them and A/B it between the tamron 70-200. the f/2 definitely would help me in low light situations, so I'm kind of leaning towards it as well as its smaller size. Thanks!


----------



## capoeiraesp

The Canon 135 F2 L rules! Love mine to bits even with my Fuji rig.


----------



## A-Branger

yeah the canon 135 could be a great option, but I would say if you go down that path maybe would be agood idea to pair it up with a 80mm. 135mm is a great range, and yeah depending of your portraits you might wont need the 200, (I do for ceremonies and speeches in reception, need to adapt fast, cant be runing up and down with a prime lol)

but 135mm would limit you a fair bit if you want to do wider portraits, like the onesWhammy just put.

also I suport the sigma art series lenses they are amaaaaaaazing. I ahve the 24-105mm f4 canon, and my boss have the sigma 24-105mm f4 art series. The diference between the two is earth to the moon in sharpness, plus it "feels" better in the hands hehe. The only thing I didnt like about it is that its not weather seal as the canon L are.


----------



## Neilzord

First off, Some lovely work in here! 

Great to distract myself from guitars with my other main creator of GAS!! haha

I was playing with the sigma 35mm 1.4 Art the other day and the build quality really is great, sharpness is beautiful too!! I've literally just picked up an L series 24-105 F4. After playing with the Art series on Friday I wish I had held out!! Next on the list is to get my own 35mm 1.4 Art series. 

Then a 70-200 2.8 as after using one at a recent studio launch night the range is so "comfortable" 
As you mention you can move in and out from the subject without physically running in and out and disrupting the "mood" of the event! 


Another question...has anyone used the 24-70 2.8 Tamron? As I was considering selling my 24-105 to fund on in the future, Sharpness is meant to be great and at half the price of the Canon AND having IS, it sounds like the sensible option on a budget?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I had a Nikon 28-70, but sold it as I didn't use it that often - it's great if you're a wedding/event photographer. It's not a great portrait lens and was too heavy for a walk around lens.


----------



## Whammy

I never gelled with my 135mm.
Granted it was f2.8 which I found too slow (would have preferred f2) but I never got used to the focal length. Something just felt wrong 
Sold the lens a few months back.
I prefer 85mm for portrait. But I would love to try 180mm or 200mm.

Actually maybe I should give the 135mm f2 a chance. Maybe it was just the aperture I was unhappy with.


My father-in-law just got me this 18th century buggy for photography work.
I've been doing a lot of baby and toddler portrait work lately (work is work ) and this will be an awesome prop in photos.
Never though I would be excited about a buggy


----------



## Tang

Whammy, nice portraits man. Really enjoy your dog shots too.

Also, all this gear talk? Barf! 

Also, I really like this shot. 1/30s, f/3.2, ISO800. I stopped down (the lens is f/2.4) just a hair so I knew all of Sid would be in relative focus. However, if I stopped down any more the shape of the aperture blades would become apparent and I'm generally not a fan of that.



sid by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

You can already tell it's a 6-bladed aperture.


----------



## Rook

Thanks folks 

And yeah, another 135mm f2 fan. I traded mine for my zeiss 85, because it was too long for what I was doing then. I definitely plan to sub it for the 90 f2 for my Fuji system now.


----------



## Philligan

I've been seriously thinking about 135 and wondering if it would work for me instead of an 85 (but shooting a lot of stuff in bars and dark halls, I really want the 56 1.2 for the speed).

I shot with a D610/750 the other weekend and mostly used the 85 1.4 G. First off, I realized how much I don't like Nikons.  I find them so uncomfortable, all the dynamic range in the world couldn't make me take one over a Canon. 

But anyway, I used 85mm for the first time since I sold my Canon stuff last fall, and I really miss it. I find 50mm kind of boring, and 85 is still wide enough to be versatile. It's better than 50 for headshots, but I realized just how close I still had to get. If portraits are a priority and low light isn't a huge concern, I think 135 is maybe a safer bet because it can give your subjects more breathing room.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> You can already tell it's a 6-bladed aperture.



yup


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I don't see a problem with it, most of my Nikkor lenses produce lovely heptagonal bokeh 

A "quick" shot I did today to take a break from studying for finals.




Sinar Alpina 4x5 with Schneider Xenar 150mm f/5.6 with front tilt and a little front swing: Kodak Tri-X 320 2s f/16


----------



## Furtive Glance

Rook said:


> It's not clutter and I can't be bothered to PM sorry haha.
> 
> I have a bit of experience with it. Borrowed one briefly when I was considering one and went 18mm instead. The 18 is better for distortion and vignetting I believe, is cheaper, arguably sharper at the edges, and obviously wider which I loved.
> 
> Frankly all the Zeiss ZE (and ZF.2) lenses are fantastic, unmatched build quality in this world of plastic lenses, and have either outrageous IQ or a fantastic 'look' at the expense of IQ. It's manual only but you'll get used to that fast, and if you decide to look into the 18, you'll find you not only don't have to focus (put it on f8, set and forget), but you also have a compact lens you can easily take everywhere.
> 
> If I ever go back to an SLR, it'll be all Zeiss glass for me.



Bought a used 21mm this week for literally half of what they go for brand new. Going to test it out this weekend, at least for a little bit. Solid little bugger!


----------



## Whammy

My lighting rig arrived yesterday.
Did a little test shot today in my father-in-laws house. He has so much retro stuff that I decided to put it to good use.

I have so much to learn with using lights.

First time I used my 24mm in a long time.


----------



## UnderTheSign

So I might be getting a Mamiya M645 (the original one) with 80 and 150mm lenses from an acquaintance. Not sure which versions the lenses are. I was just wondering if anyone else here shoots 120 film, 6x6 or 6x4.5 and what your favourite film is? If it's still fully functional I might use it for solely black & white stuff and more 'artsy' shots.


----------



## Promit

Just gonna leave this iPhone snap here...


----------



## Rook

UnderTheSign said:


> So I might be getting a Mamiya M645 (the original one) with 80 and 150mm lenses from an acquaintance. Not sure which versions the lenses are. I was just wondering if anyone else here shoots 120 film, 6x6 or 6x4.5 and what your favourite film is? If it's still fully functional I might use it for solely black & white stuff and more 'artsy' shots.



I shoot a Hasselblad medium format setup (there's a shot on the previous page of my father from it).

My go-to film stocks are Portra 400 and Tri-X 400. On a medium format system, unless you need to print BIG, 400 speed will easily give you anywhere between 16 and 30 megapixel files depending how fussy you are.

Resolution aside, they're a nice balance between outrageous film dynamic range and over-contrastiness. 

I love the character of Portra 800, but it's expensive, too bright for any shallow depth of field use in day time, has fussy reciprocity (colour suffers the longer you expose the film) and you can't get huge files off it, but I find the look very attractive. I think portra 800 and Ilford Delta 3200 are my two favourite films, Delta would be my desert island film if nobody else was gunna look at the pictures haha.

I use my film setup for everything now, I want to at least, I just chose at the point at which I pack up a) do I have time for film and b) can I be bothered to carry it. Often it's yes and yes. 

I'm a lot less wasteful and a lot more considered when using my Hasselblad setup, and I feel like a better photographer for it. I love the surprise of getting my films back and the whole scanning process too. It's like taking the picture a second time.

Takes forever though hahaha.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

My favorite 120 films were Neopan 100 for B&W and Astia or Provia for color. Ektar was ok, but not my cup of tea nor were the Portra films. 

Rook, you just need to invest in home dipping.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Cheers guys!

Do you get your stuff developed then scan the shots yourself? There's a film lab here that develops but only offers a cdr (I know right?! ) with 1mb scans on it as an option. Seems like I'd be better off scanning them myself. I also have 20 years of 35mm prints to scan still so I might invest in a semi decent scanner. Ken Rockwell (yeaaaah I know) raved about the Epson 4990 and how it was able to give him 100mb files but Im not sure how true that is and the Epson is outdated by now. Surely there's a decent option for 250ish bucks out there?


----------



## Rook

ThePhilosopher, you're right. I'd love to do it myself, I'm just a little daunted by it.

If I could shoot in the morning and be scanning in the evening, I'd use my Hassie every week. Maybe I should just man up haha.

As for scanning; this may seem a little extreme, but to me letting someone else scan your negatives and deliver some jpegs on a CD is a bit like shooting a bunch of RAW files then letting Jeff behind the counter at the local drug store mess with them in lightroom and give you the converted files. The scan is a process for me, and a negative is really a blank canvas for a huge amount of post-process interpretation. May just be me, but actually exposing and developing the film is only half the process.

As for scanning; Epson perfection stuff is excellent. Try not to be too swayed by how big a file the scanner claims to be able to deliver, though, resolution in and of itself is meaningless. This is just like those cheap point and shoots with 30mpx+ sensors. A ....ty file that's really big is still a ....ty file!

With that said, I have some scans of Provia 100 that I've done which are about 120mpx TIFF files taking up a whopping 300MB. Unless you plan on printing massive files and carrying out a lot of processing, these are completely unnecessary, after all you still have the negative (or positive in this case) and can always re-scan. I don't keep my TIFF's unless the file was particularly tricky to get right; colour correcting scans can be a whole world of pain haha.

I think I paid about £300 for my second hand V700 and it's excellent. Once you get to V600/V700 level, you can easily pull the same quality as the very high end scanners, all that changes is how much time and work it takes to achieve that. The expensive stuff knows what film you're scanning and can auto-correct a lot for example, so you basically get fantastic results straight out, the cheaper stuff might take a little more fiddling.

I'm gunna chill out now, getting a little over-enthusiastic.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I develop and scan at home. I have an Epson V500, but wish I had spent the extra money on a V750.

Rook, I've always found 120 to be easier to load on reels than 35mm (especially when using good quality stainless reels like, Hewes). It just takes some practice. You can sacrifice one roll for loading to practice with in the light, then with your eyes closed, and finally in your place for developing. After loading film on the reel, all that is required is putting it in the tank and locking the light trap lid on (the rest you can do with the lights on).

Black and white is a lot less sensitive to temperature changes between chemicals than color film, and is in that sense more forgiving. However, there are so many combinations of developers and films available for B&W that it can be hard knowing where to start to get "your look". 

You can get some Rodinal and do stand development if you don't want to the whole agitation bit, thought it takes a good deal longer for the negatives to come out.


----------



## UnderTheSign

What would you suggest for me? I won't delve into developing at home anytime soon, short on space as is already  so I could get the negatives developed at a lab (local ones develop 120 film into 12,5x12,5cm photos) and scan those, or is scanning negatives an option as well? I don't mind putting in some work post processing etc, that all sounds like part of the fun. 

The Epson v600 falls right into my budget so I'll have a look at that!

Edit: more stuff...

How necessary is an exposure/light meter in addition to a camera? When me and dad used the Pentax slrs, the k-1000 har a small black marker and the ME actually had a sort of automatic meter. Nowadays with digital I either let the camera do it or follow the sunny/16 rule. So is a light meter worth getting when I get the Mamiya?

Also I sold the Oly EM-10. It is in nearly every technical aspect a better camera than the Fuji X-pro1 but the Fuji is much much more fun to shoot. I also feel the 'slowness' of the Fuji suits me better and prevents me from shooting hundreds of mediocre shots.


----------



## Rook

Definitely scan negatives, no prints, they hold significantly more colour information.


----------



## Philligan

Dawn's in a wedding today. We're friends with the bride and groom. The hired photographer is shooting in auto, with the pop up flash (on an awesome overcast day), and an 18-200 kit zoom. She saw me with my camera and complained about amateurs with cameras.  

I also set up a sweet shot of the couple and she jumped in front of me and stole it. 

Pics or it didn't happen.


----------



## Tang

Oh my god, Phil. 

Popup flash is unacceptable in all but the most emergency situations.

Moar shotz:


----------



## Philligan

Here are a couple wifi JPGs of Dawn from today. She got on the zip line.


----------



## Philligan

There was a goose named Hank who hung around everybody all day. Someone put a glow stick necklace on him. This is why I carry my camera with me everywhere.



DSCF0365 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## A-Branger

Philligan said:


> Dawn's in a wedding today. We're friends with the bride and groom. The hired photographer is shooting in auto, with the pop up flash (on an awesome overcast day), and an 18-200 kit zoom. She saw me with my camera and complained about amateurs with cameras.
> 
> I also set up a sweet shot of the couple and she jumped in front of me and stole it.
> 
> Pics or it didn't happen.





who in teir right mind do that (shot like that) and call them selfs "pro".... in the sense of charging people for a job and have enough confidence in order to tackle a wedding day with that approach. 

How much did they pay for those photog??.... wooow. I would kick the arse of them if that happen on a close friend/family wedding, like "move, I shot now lol....

poor of the guy who would have to do my wedding (if that day ever comes lol)


also, nothing related with photography or performance, and sorry if any of you do this too, but I kinda hate how some ppl hold the camera like those chicks. Like there are two types of photog, the ones who use their left hand over the lens and when they go into portrait the right hand would go under the camera. And the ones who shot with the left hand under the lens and i portrait their right hand goes up...... I know is personal preference, and has nothing to do, but every time I see someone shooting like those girls Im like "daaahhhhhhhhggggggg tha F you doing! uuuhhgggggg..." LOL also I tend to label that technique as amateur , as the mayority of ppl I ve seen doing it just happen to be first timers, clueless girls, uncle Bobs etc....  having say that I have seen pretty good photog shooting like that. Just that my OCD brain cant function haha


speaking of weird. Once I did video for a wedding where one of the two photographers used to shoot the whole time using Live View mode on her camera..... that was a real WTF moment lol


----------



## Whammy

Woah Phil, didn't realize there are wedding photographers out there that shoot auto with a pop up flash 

Tang, the focus fall off is lovely in that first shot.

Testing out the strobes some more.
There is a lot more to shaping shadows than I thought.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Crank up the modeling lamp if you want the pupils smaller.


----------



## Whammy

Didn't think of that.
I was going to shine a torch into his face before taking the photo to make the pupils smaller but it is hard enough getting him to sit still for a few seconds. 

Turning up the modeling light is a great idea. Just need to figure out how to control that independently from the main flash.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

If you have D-Light RX's then you should be able to push the button on the top row to the left to cycle between Proportional/Min/Max/Off for your modeling lamp.


----------



## Whammy

When I had it set to Min (2nd mode) and increased the output it also turned up the modeling light 
I must have done it wrong. I'll check it again.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Kids are active, big eyed and curious, I think the large pupils in this shot suit that!


----------



## Negav

Took these ones at the University of Michigan's Nichols Arboretum during my stay this summer. Thought I should share. 



Bloomed Peonies by Nelson Garcia, on Flickr



Nichols Arboretum_5 by Nelson Garcia, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Another edit from June:





Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D: ISO 100 1/200s f/11


----------



## UnderTheSign

Tried to catch some shooting stars Saturday night. Too low ISO (400) and not really happy with how 'harsh' some of the bright blue stars came out. This is gonna take some more practise.


DSCF1468.jpg by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Astro is so tough, best of luck.


----------



## Philligan

Here are a couple more from the wedding on Saturday. I just grabbed a few raws I knew I'd like - building previews for the whole thing right now. Hope there end up being some decent ones in there. 

We got out for this one at the perfect time. It was amazing and overcast all day to begin with, but as the sun started going down, it hit Dawn with enough light, but left the sky behind her dark enough to not blow out at all. The light all day was ridiculously soft, I couldn't believe it. I really wish I had more chances to actually shoot at this wedding, but I was there as a guest and the hired photographer wasn't happy about me having my camera with me. 

This was the 35 1.4 wide open.



DSCF0324 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

Here's the bride and groom having their first dance. This was on the deck of the cottage, with trees and Christmas lights behind them. I wish I had more room and a longer lens to blow the background out more, but I was kneeling on the ground, already backed up against the wall of the cottage, and had to shoot up because there were people sitting in chairs behind them.  Still, I'm happy that I was able to get them to pop against the softer background. This was with the 23mm at 1.4.



DSCF0279 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

ThePhilosopher said:


> Astro is so tough, best of luck.



Yeah,my first attempt a while ago was decent for a beginner so I got excited and optimistic... Not seeing.improvement and realising how tough it actually is was a reality check  I might grab some books or take a course on this stuff at some point. 

By the way Phil, do you use the Fuji chrome on most of your shots? Those colours are great!


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> By the way Phil, do you use the Fuji chrome on most of your shots? Those colours are great!



Thanks man.  

It's a total crapshoot. For any JPGs that came straight out of the camera, they're almost always classic chrome. I used to touch them up in Photogene, but a few months ago started posting them as-is. Now, usually the only time I'll do anything extra is if I want to push shadows or add some vignetting.

As far as recent photos go, the headshot of my wife is pure classic chrome. The one of her on the zip line I believe started out as a CC JPG, but I touched it up in Photogene to pump up the saturation and contrast to get her to pop out, and probably added some vignetting for the same reason.

In Lightroom, I usually don't start with any of the Fuji colour profiles. I'm not sure why, because I'm pretty sure they'd look great, but something about it throws me off. When you choose the CC colour profile in LR, it changes the whole look of the photo to a more finished product, but all the sliders are still zeroed. Something about that puts me in a really weird space, and I'm never really happy with the whole editing process. If it worked more like VSCO, where it basically edits the photo for you and you can see the changes it made in the panels, I'd probably use it more.

I kinda emulate it for a lot of photos now, though. I really don't do much to the Fuji raws. I'll tweak the exposure and usually add some contrast, and adjust the highlights and shadows to taste. Then I'll adjust the detail slider, add a little sharpening, and finish with the tone curve and usually some vignetting. I rarely touch the colour sliders unless I feel the need to tweak something specific. Lately I've been pulling the saturation down a bit for most people photos, but that's about the extent of it.

In other news: I have a shoot today with a girl who wants to get into hand modelling. I've never done this before, and have no idea how it's gonna go. 

I'm looking forward to it, but I'm a little worried. I kinda knew the girl before this, and we get along well, but she's given me absolutely nothing to work with leading up to today. I don't know if she's consciously doing this because she thinks the photographer should have the vision, or maybe she just assumes I'm better than I am, but I have no idea what her expectations are. She's specifically targeting nail polish companies and stuff like that, I told her to show me some of the brands or photos that made her want to get into this, and got one Instagram account that reposts followers' pictures. She even asked me what outfit to wear, and what kind of nail polish and colour/design she should do.  I know nothing about nail polish, nor do I know what clothes she keeps in her closet. So I'm really hoping I get some kind of feedback today as we go to get some direction. As is, my plan is to sort of copy the better photos that I've seen on some Instagram nail polish accounts, then try and get a few more generic, natural-looking photos, and go from there.

Hopefully I'll have some good news later today.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Ah right. I usually dial in the Fuji simulations in Lightroom first as that's what I shoot in (and see through the viewfinder) anyway. If I don't like it I just turn it off and continue as usual. CC is the only simulation the XP1 doesn't have unfortunately 

So last weeks Mamiya 645 didn't work out (though I did get to play with it and liked it immediately) but I found a guy selling a whole Bronica SQ setup. Paid him a visit today. He had a very tempting offer of 2 bodies (SQ & SQ-A), a stack of lenses and if I bought the whole lot he'd throw in a Lowepro bag and small tripod too but I contained my GAS and only got part of his stuff. 

Bronica SQ-A, chimney finder with light meter, waist level finder, simple prism finder (no meter in that unfortunately ), Zenzanon PS 150mm, Zenzanon S 40mm, S-18 close up ring (works wonders with the 150mm as it normally has a 1.5m/5ft minimum focusing distance), 120 6x6 film back_ and _120J 645 film back and a speed grip. Not shown are a couple rolls of Porta 400 and TMAX 400 he threw in. 

Weighs a ton. 2.1kg (4.6lbs) with the chimney and grip. Probably even more with the prism finder. That's like 4x the weight of my X-Pro1 



The 40mm is awesome. It's roughly a 24mm FF equiv. 87° angle. At 97mm I don't think the average filter if gonna fit on there...



It was sunny out so I started shooting as soon as I got home. Loaded the 645 back with TMAX400 and the 6x6 with Porta 400. Really excited to see how everything turned out. Once I finish the rolls I'll get them developed.

Next on the wishlist... A new scanner.


----------



## Rook

Amazing!

Get a lift meter app on your phone. It's all I use and it's never let me down haha.

Also; I don't know if you've been a film user up to now but if not, be aware TMax 400 is quite a gritty, high contrast film. Best used to add punch to reasonably flat-lit situations. I wouldn't put it out in anything high contrast personally, it gets a little out of hand a little too quick for me! Tri-X is much smoother.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I *used* to be, 35mm but we shot Kodak colour film back then. I'm new to b&w. I gotta say I wanted to go b&w for the gritty/contrasty look though.

Think I'll fill these two rolls pretty quickly just to see how things turn out and move from there.

I'll use the light meter app when I have the prism finder attached, for portrait stuff etc.


----------



## soliloquy

i ordered a flash from amazon a few weeks ago....*sigh* i dont like waiting...i've had bad luck with ebay taking super long for things to get to me, so i switched to amazon as normally things would get to me a week tops. though this flash is a different story...3 weeks and counting...estimated delivery is second week of september....

dont like paying the crazy amounts at retail, and not easy finding used stuff here. guess i'll just suck it up and wait some more....


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A pair of shots of my newest Seiko, I picked this guy up brand new for $40 and put a nice olive/brown leather strap on it. Not too bad for an automatic I don't think.










And trying out some portraits of a friend's baby who just turned 6 months not long ago.


----------



## Tang

Recently went through and reprocessed some shots.. you guys might remember this one. I can do more than pet shots 



untoward by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

One from today.




Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D: ISO 200 1/200s f/8


----------



## Philligan

Went through those wedding photos finally. Some not bad ones, but I didn't work on much - there weren't too too many I was thrilled with, and I'm not that close with the couple, so I probably wouldn't have posted them on Facebook anyway. Got a couple of Dawn that I like, though (go figure ).

This one's the closest I got to shooting this awesome location.



DSCF0194 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And this is just a headshot with the 23mm. It's wide open at 1.4, and this thing is so sharp, it's ridiculous. Also, that light is purely from the cloudy skies. 



DSCF0240 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



Screen Shot 2015-08-14 at 10.57.01 PM by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## flint757

What caused those blurred patterns in your first photo? Did the out of focus areas cause that patterning or was it intentional? Looks awesome either way.


----------



## Tang

flint757 said:


> What caused those blurred patterns in your first photo? Did the out of focus areas cause that patterning or was it intentional? Looks awesome either way.



looks like leaves or branches that are out-of-focus in front of the subject.

this is fun:



we&#x27;ll all float on, alright by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Bought a 5D MkII yesterday for £350, just needs the mirror replaced, I know a guy who can do it for me for £70.

Made my week!


----------



## UnderTheSign

Rook, when you scan do you just scan or do post processing as well? Are there any guides on that you'd recommend?


----------



## Rook

Yo.

Yes, I do. Just like one would in a dark room!

My approach is that there are two goals to creating an image while actually out shooting. One is to frame, get your depth of field and focus right, and so on. Basic composition. The second, however, isn't about getting the light perfect (the 'getting it right in camera' Ken Rockwell JPEG nonsense), it's about creating as dense a negative as possible.

This means metering in order to store as much information on the negative as possible, to give yourself the latitude to get the light perfect at the point of creating a print (or JPEG out of Lightroom).

In brief, this basically boils down to not blowing out highlights or shadows, but also (on negative) giving yourself about 2/3 stop more exposure on your key-lit subject. I usually meter the brightest point of my subject and add two third as I say, and outside, I use the exact meter reading. You basically only ever want to be pulling exposure down in post. This also means that when you want to add contrast to what will likely come off the scanner as a pretty flat-looking file, you won't get a load of grain artefacts, because you can up contrast then pull exposure.

As for guides, I don't know to be honest. In brief, when scanning, all you need to do is create the smallest resolution you need to print, with the most colour info (bit depth) you need for the post processing, and colour correct as much as possible.

Colour correcting post-scan is a huge pain, and so is dealing with 300mb plus 6400dpi 64-bit colour files you end up converting to a 1000px square JPEG and posting on the internet haha. Remember, if it comes out well you can always save your settings and re-scan.

Aside from that, it's just a matter of keeping your scanner and negatives impossibly clean, and keeping your film flat. 

Aside from that, it's simple


----------



## flint757

I love doing children photography as they're so spontaneous, but damn it was hard to get one of them to ever smile. I ended up just going with some of his crying pictures as they can pass somewhat for a smile. 

I will post a couple after I've gone through them, which will take time as again with children you have to just blast the camera in hopes you caught something that might resemble a smile.

Quite an enjoyable shoot either way despite the heat outside.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Thanks Rook! So that means basically setting my iso dial on the film back to 200 while the film is iso 400, or taking one or two steps slower shutter speed than my meter suggests, right?

The scanning sounds easy enough  biggest I'll be printing is a4 so I don't need no 300mb files...


----------



## flint757

...and just like that I've got another photo shoot lined up. 

That escalated quickly considering I have no real desire to become a professional photographer (I don't like turning hobbies into jobs, kills the fun of it).

Any suggestions on relative pricing? This weekend consisted of one free shoot for a friend and the other I got paid $50 after they saw the jpeg versions (I'm editing the raw files).


----------



## ThePhilosopher

It depends on what you're doing really. I usually charge by the hour at differing rates for different types of shoots and have additional fees for MUA, location, different times of day, etc...

PM me if you're looking for more detailed information.


----------



## Wretched

Haven't been in here for a while, but glad to see they haven't shut it down as was previously thought!

Just posting some recent work. All light painted:


----------



## Dalcan

Been MIA due to work. I hate it.



ThePhilosopher said:


> A pair of shots of my newest Seiko, I picked this guy up brand new for $40 and put a nice olive/brown leather strap on it. Not too bad for an automatic I don't think.



That watch is real hot!! Nice shots too.



Philligan said:


> Went through those wedding photos finally. Some not bad ones, but I didn't work on much - there weren't too too many I was thrilled with, and I'm not that close with the couple, so I probably wouldn't have posted them on Facebook anyway. Got a couple of Dawn that I like, though (go figure ).



That portrait is great dude.


----------



## Philligan

flint757 said:


> ...and just like that I've got another photo shoot lined up.
> 
> That escalated quickly considering I have no real desire to become a professional photographer (I don't like turning hobbies into jobs, kills the fun of it).
> 
> Any suggestions on relative pricing? This weekend consisted of one free shoot for a friend and the other I got paid $50 after they saw the jpeg versions (I'm editing the raw files).



Like Philosopher said, it totally depends on what you're doing. A big thing I think about too is how comfortable you are with it/what you can deliver, what the demand is like, etc.

I'd consider the absolute bare minimum to be about $20/hr. If you're doing something for say a family friend, or if it's something you're not too experienced with and you're not sure what you can deliver, $20/hr for shooting time, and maybe some more depending on how long post processing takes you. I enjoy processing and once I get in the groove it doesn't take me very long, so I usually don't really factor it in to what I'd charge. 

If it's something you're more confident in, and you know you can deliver a pro grade finished product, I'd say $50-$100/hr is more reasonable, and depending on the amount of photos you're dealing with, definitely clock your post processing time.

From there, the sky is really the limit. Peter Hurley charges $1200 for an hour-long headshot session.

Personally, I think the biggest thing is your comfort/skill level. I see so many people (not saying this is you, just making a point ) who get their first DSLR in my town and start their "Precious Moments Photography" Facebook page, and within a couple months are charging $1500 to shoot their first wedding, when the experienced wedding photographers here charge around $2500. I'm shooting a wedding this Saturday for one of those girls. Never shot a wedding before, shoots JPGs in auto, and her fee for weddings is $1500. Stuff like that bothers me to no end. Obviously everyone has to start at the beginning, but if you're charging beyond your skill level, it's not ambition, it's dishonesty. IMHO of course haha. So, IMHO again, if you get asked to do a shoot of some sort and you're not sure what the end result will be, you should price it accordingly, and shoot a bit on the lower side. 

One way to look at it is this. If you undersell yourself and deliver good photos, you'll be out a bit of extra money but will have built up your reputation as a good photographer. If you oversell yourself and end up delivering subpar photos, it won't just be about the photos, but the client could end up feeling ripped off. And that'll be way worse for your reputation than the quality of your photography.


----------



## flint757

Philligan said:


> Like Philosopher said, it totally depends on what you're doing. A big thing I think about too is how comfortable you are with it/what you can deliver, what the demand is like, etc.
> 
> I'd consider the absolute bare minimum to be about $20/hr. If you're doing something for say a family friend, or if it's something you're not too experienced with and you're not sure what you can deliver, $20/hr for shooting time, and maybe some more depending on how long post processing takes you. I enjoy processing and once I get in the groove it doesn't take me very long, so I usually don't really factor it in to what I'd charge.
> 
> If it's something you're more confident in, and you know you can deliver a pro grade finished product, I'd say $50-$100/hr is more reasonable, and depending on the amount of photos you're dealing with, definitely clock your post processing time.
> 
> From there, the sky is really the limit. Peter Hurley charges $1200 for an hour-long headshot session.



Yeah, it's all a bit more clear now for sure. I think I've got a solid game plan in mind if I continue to go down this road. I always have a hard time putting a price tag on things I enjoy doing. Freelance just may not be my thing unless I do it with someone. That's the updated plan at the moment as I might tie it into my video work, CGI and web design. That's more me attempting to utilize all my skills though than necessarily a good business plan. 



Philligan said:


> Personally, I think the biggest thing is your comfort/skill level. I see so many people (not saying this is you, just making a point ) who get their first DSLR in my town and start their "Precious Moments Photography" Facebook page, and within a couple months are charging $1500 to shoot their first wedding, when the experienced wedding photographers here charge around $2500. I'm shooting a wedding this Saturday for one of those girls. Never shot a wedding before, shoots JPGs in auto, and her fee for weddings is $1500. Stuff like that bothers me to no end. Obviously everyone has to start at the beginning, but if you're charging beyond your skill level, it's not ambition, it's dishonesty. IMHO of course haha. So, IMHO again, if you get asked to do a shoot of some sort and you're not sure what the end result will be, you should price it accordingly, and shoot a bit on the lower side.
> 
> One way to look at it is this. If you undersell yourself and deliver good photos, you'll be out a bit of extra money but will have built up your reputation as a good photographer. If you oversell yourself and end up delivering subpar photos, it won't just be about the photos, but the client could end up feeling ripped off. And that'll be way worse for your reputation than the quality of your photography.



Agreed on all counts. I went to a wedding in June where someone did just that. I knew at the wedding the pictures were going to be average to horrible. A couple weeks later they posted some on facebook and I was 100% right. Blown highlights, soft focus, too much noise reduction, etc. Even the BW photos you could tell were an attempt at salvaging the photos. 

I'm not new to photography, just new to selling it as a service. I do most of my family/friends events and usually do it on the house. This past weekend is actually my first time getting paid for my work, hence my noob question.

The only thing I'm seriously lacking to make this a more pro level thing is backup gear in case something fails or quick lens changes. That and my comfort level with holding someones precious memories in my hand. That is one hell of a burden.  It's also a burden you have to take on to get used to so that's more me just needing to man up than anything I suppose.

I don't think I'd be tackling a wedding unless I was doing it for free and they weren't actually expecting anything or as a #2 shooter at first.

One of the people I'm teaming up with is actually very organized and a good planner. She'll likely be helping me setup the shots. I also intend on having some demo shots done beforehand so they can see what they'd be getting and decide on a 'post processing style'. I've gotten 5 or 6 of them done so far.


----------



## metal_sam14

Upgraded my 650D finally! I'm doing some paid video work of late so the 70d was a no-brainer.


----------



## Philligan

70D FTW. 

I don't regret switching to Fuji, but there are definitely times where I missing having a DSLR. The 70D is a beast, too.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

All this new gear makes me want to upgrade too.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Fellas, I'd love some insight, feedback, and tips on product photography with a particular focus on guitars. Long story short, Perry at Ormsby Guitars wants me to shoot the GTRs when they come in and he's a big fan of PRS's look, which is damned hard to achieve.
The shots below are shot with 2 speedlites - 1 through a westcott rapid box and the other just through an umbrella. I don't have a backdrop so I just used a cremeish wall in my house with the guitar about a meter in front. I can see in the full shot where I'm getting the light fall off but what I'm aiming for is a more dynamic image and obviously good background separation. Keep in mind, the guitars I'm going to shoot are all flat tops are feature nice bold colours or solid blacks so I'm not going to be plagued with the same issues of a carved top.
Finally, I'm thinking perhaps a 3 light on a boom over the top may be of use?

FIRE AWAY!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'd say use the biggest modifier(s) you have available and try to get even light across the guitar with only the edge picking up any specularity (maybe 1/2 to 1 stop difference on either side). 

Without modeling lamps it's going to be tough to get the placement right, so just tweak the light positioning for the first few shots. A CPL could be helpful for cutting any undesired reflections. Product photography is as much post as it is getting the perfect one (or twenty) shots right as a starting point. Best of luck.


Aside: If you compare PRS product shots to Schecter product shots, you'll see PRS is using light to define the contours where Schecter is using the shadow (probably lighting that is parallel or nearly parallel to the face of the guitar).


----------



## capoeiraesp

Thanks dude. I ordered a generic strip softbox today that's 90cm long or so and I may get a bigger softbox than the current 65cm octa that I have. Could explain a bit more by what you mean with 'edge specularity' please?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

It's easier to show an example I think, the edge/binding is getting the catchlight here while the majority of the guitar face doesn't have much light spilling on it.

http://www.ibanez.co.jp/products/images/eg2015/back/RG7421PB_CNF_1P_02_CU_Body_Top.jpg
http://www.ibanez.co.jp/products/images/eg2015/back/RG652FX_CBM_00_01_CU_Body_Top.jpg


----------



## Philligan

So, the hand modelling thing went alright. She basically wouldn't give me any feedback, so I had a hard time figuring out what look she was going for. Also, she wanted to use all branded stuff in the photos - not sure if that's good or bad.



DSCF0072 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0124 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0129 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0203 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And here are a couple wifi JPGs from Sunday night.



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

ThePhilosopher said:


> All this new gear makes me want to upgrade too.



Likewise. My camera body is starting to feel old



Philligan said:


> So, the hand modelling thing went alright. She basically wouldn't give me any feedback, so I had a hard time figuring out what look she was going for. Also, she wanted to use all branded stuff in the photos - not sure if that's good or bad.



What an odd photoshoot 
I can imagine having branded stuff may go against her. Not sure 


Well, I just got hired for a wedding. It'll be my first wedding and it's a big one too 
Think I am only going to rock out with a 85mm 1.2 & 35mm 1.4 on two bodies. (need to rent the 35mm and second body)
I'm super attached to my 85mm and a 35mm would complement that perfectly.
A 24-70 zoom would be alright but I imagine I would hang around the 35-50 range and I'd find the 2.8 aperture a bit slow. So I'd rather have a 35 prime with a wider aperture as I use it a lot.
I'll have a 24mm manual lens just in case I need something wider. But I'm fairly sure a 35mm & 85mm will suit me fine.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

My body is probably 7 or 8 years old now, the problem with upgrading from what I have is it's so damn expensive. I would imagine that would be a good setup for a wedding, I like to get close so I tend to shoot with my 24mm quite often for weddings.


----------



## capoeiraesp

ThePhilosopher said:


> It's easier to show an example I think, the edge/binding is getting the catchlight here while the majority of the guitar face doesn't have much light spilling on it.
> 
> http://www.ibanez.co.jp/products/images/eg2015/back/RG7421PB_CNF_1P_02_CU_Body_Top.jpg
> http://www.ibanez.co.jp/products/images/eg2015/back/RG652FX_CBM_00_01_CU_Body_Top.jpg



Thanks man. I think it's gonna be a case of a lot of experimentation even on the day(s) we shoot the guitars.


----------



## A-Branger

Whammy said:


> Likewise. My camera body is starting to feel old
> 
> 
> 
> What an odd photoshoot
> I can imagine having branded stuff may go against her. Not sure
> 
> 
> Well, I just got hired for a wedding. It'll be my first wedding and it's a big one too
> Think I am only going to rock out with a 85mm 1.2 & 35mm 1.4 on two bodies. (need to rent the 35mm and second body)
> I'm super attached to my 85mm and a 35mm would complement that perfectly.
> A 24-70 zoom would be alright but I imagine I would hang around the 35-50 range and I'd find the 2.8 aperture a bit slow. So I'd rather have a 35 prime with a wider aperture as I use it a lot.
> I'll have a 24mm manual lens just in case I need something wider. But I'm fairly sure a 35mm & 85mm will suit me fine.



yeah thats a good setup for most of the day. Perfect setup for the photoshoot session, and pretty good for preps if you have a good place were they are getting ready. I got a friend who only shoot preps using a 50mm for video. Altough its pretty good, I have found myself lots of times having to rely on 24mm (or the wide side of my 24-105mm) as the room Im shooting doesnt allowed me to stand back more to get the shot.

having those two lenses Id say the 24-70 is not really necessary. f2.8 its actually more than enough for you. If not I shoot the mayority of my wedding photos at f4 as I only have a 24-105mm and a 70-200mm f2.8. I might miss that 1.4 shallow "arty" "bokeh" shot, but Im not relying my shooting style on that. Theres more in photography than pretty out of focus light balls  heheheh. But also is because mayority of the day Im shooting a couple, so altough I want out of focus things, I dont want her right eye on focus and the rest of her and him blur out. I think a situation were it could look amazing is either single portraits or when the couple are so small in the photo that the shallow DOF wont affect them that much. But for any full size-med and close portraits of them together its too shallow.

For night time and receptions shots, yes 1.2-1.8 its a game changer..... but so its a speedlite (if you know how to use it properly) So for me its speedlite. Even at f4-5 so I could get most of the ppl on a small group or table shots in focus.


I think you main problem could arise is during ceremony and speeches. The 85mm might wont be enough zoom to take the shots without being too intrusive, plus the lack of zoom to quick adapt to a different shot without running all over the place lol.


good luck. Weddings are not that hard as ppl think they are. Just smile and be friendly all day and guest would love you.


----------



## Philligan

Whammy said:


> What an odd photoshoot
> I can imagine having branded stuff may go against her. Not sure



I would have guessed to, too. I doubt it's gonna go anywhere, but the I know the girl fairly well and she offered to exchange services (she's actually really good at dying hair), so maybe I can at least get Dawn some hair stuff out of it. 




Whammy said:


> Well, I just got hired for a wedding. It'll be my first wedding and it's a big one too
> Think I am only going to rock out with a 85mm 1.2 & 35mm 1.4 on two bodies. (need to rent the 35mm and second body)
> I'm super attached to my 85mm and a 35mm would complement that perfectly.
> A 24-70 zoom would be alright but I imagine I would hang around the 35-50 range and I'd find the 2.8 aperture a bit slow. So I'd rather have a 35 prime with a wider aperture as I use it a lot.
> I'll have a 24mm manual lens just in case I need something wider. But I'm fairly sure a 35mm & 85mm will suit me fine.



I used a 24-70 for the beginning of the day in the last wedding I shot, and found it boring. Once in a while I used it for perspective, but for a lot of wedding stuff, perspective isn't a huge deal IMHO, and it just felt weird using the zoom for composition.

I switched to the 85 1.4 for the ceremony and portraits and felt way more at home. Shooting an inspiring focal length is worth trading convenience for. And it's always nice to have a faster aperture available. I've used the Sigma 35 and it's great, but in your position, I'd be tempted to say rent the Canon L instead. The AF is supposed to be a lot better, and I'm sure the look will fit nicely with your 85.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I was hoping for a deal on a Nikon D600 recently, but it didn't happen. I find I'm using my manual primes more these days, so I'm craving the benefit of having a bigger sensor to capture all they're capable of, especially the shallower DOF available.

I got back from a 9 day tour of Europe with Hark last week. Here's a couple of shots from Geneva, Switzerland taken with Nikon 50mm 1.8 AI-S pancake and Sigma 28mm 2.8 Mini Wide II respectively.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A few more from last week, more f/11 goodness .




Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D: ISO 200 1/200s f/11





Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D: ISO 200 1/200s f/11


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Marathon Navigator




Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 200 1s f/22


----------



## Whammy

More kids photos.

For most of my shots with young children I have an adult present in the frame keeping the kid safe and to direct them.
Afterwards I would take the same photo but with nobody in the shot.
Then I overlay the two images and remove the adult.


----------



## Neilzord

Really effective way of getting the child to look content but on their own!! awesome shots.

The Nerves are growing for me today. First wedding shoot tomorrow! 
Got a 70-200 f2.8 / 35mm f1.4 and my 24-105 f4. Hopefully they will serve for all I need!!!
Luckily it's for a friend who doesn't really mind but I still want to do the best possible obviously!


----------



## Whammy

^ Good luck man.
Sounds like you have what you need. Do you have one or two bodies for the wedding?



I had nothing to do today so just took another portrait of my son.
I actually would have preferred to take the shot with a 35mm or 24mm as I wanted more of the tree tops.
I also wanted him standing still looking up with no bike.
Ah well


----------



## Whammy

Tested out the strobes some more today.


----------



## Philligan

Awesome photo. 

Sorry if I missed it, but what modifier(s) are you using?


----------



## Whammy

Two cheap 66 x 66 cm (26 inch) softboxes.
Both up high left and right of the camera. I used a 24mm lens.

I would have preferred to use one high above the camera but I don't have a boom stand and the camera was against a wall so I couldn't put it behind it.

I used a polarizer to minimize reflections on the table.
For ages I kept getting the softboxes showing up in the windows. No matter where I moved them they could be seen. I was at it for a good 30 minutes until I released that I could just open the windows 

This is the actual photo I used as.




The original photo I posted is how they both were at the moment. I then took a photo with the grandad to suit the grandson and edited him in.


----------



## Philligan

My brutal day is finally over. I've been dreading this wedding all summer. 

A girl Dawn went to high school with messaged her and said she liked my work and wanted me to shoot her wedding. That's great. She said she wasn't really interested in formal portraits, more candids throughout the day. Awesome. I should mention this girl is a quasi-photographer - she has her own website, but she didn't really learn much and isn't good. 

I knew money was tight, so I told them pay what they could afford. She's never shot a wedding and her wedding fee starts at $500 for a 6 hour day, so I was expecting around $1000, maybe $800. She's paying me $200.  That's with Dawn there as an assistant, too. On her website she specifies needing the full payment in cash on location. I saw no money today, and she said she "didn't think to bring any cash today - we'll figure it out later." 

She also decided she wanted a bunch of portraits, specific shots, and all-day coverage. Including driving (about an hour each way), we put in 10 hours. That's 10 hours total (two hours' worth of gas), two people, and a full wedding, for $200. 

To top it off, she was telling people I wasn't an actual photographer, just someone who likes to take photos. My title was "designated picture taker". 

/rant. Sorry for the rage, guys, I just had to get it out of me.  Dawn's never shot any paid work (she only takes her camera out a few times a year) and thinks I'm making too big a deal of it. So I needed a place to vent haha. 

I'll at least hopefully have some decent photos up in a bit.


----------



## Tang

what the actual ...., phil! that's awful. bull..... "designated picture taker"? I would've walked out.

Or not 



storm 2 by nrrfed, on Flickr



fly by nrrfed, on Flickr



bricks by nrrfed, on Flickr



hmm by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Good god. The first and third photos are ridiculous, man.


----------



## Philligan

I forgot to mention the biggest achievement of the night. I shot the entire wedding on one third party battery.  

Granted, I didn't shoot as much as I typically do (that's partly because of the exposure preview with the EVF, and partly because of my attitude this wedding haha). But still, I got over 600 shots on that battery - it's down to two bars, which for a Fuji could mean anything. I used the grip all day and had a third battery in my bag, but didn't even kill off the first one. The Fuji battery was in the camera, and I had a DigiPower battery that I got on staff at the electronics store in the grip.


----------



## flint757

What a hypocrite that chick is. How rude it is to essentially insult someone while they're doing you a favor as well (especially given the hypocrisy involving time/pay).

You are a better man than I as I likely would have given her a piece of my mind at some point. 

Seeing people claim to be able to do weddings, charging or not, when they aren't any good makes me sad. Totally ruins a beautiful day for the happy couple, assuming they care I suppose. Seeing how many mediocre photographers make a descent living makes me even more sad as it basically means your average joe has very low standards.


----------



## Furtive Glance

I went to the Abbotsford Airshow 2 weekends ago. I rented a 100-400mm v2 for it because the longest lens I have is the 105 end of the 24-105L. Never really shot stuff like this so it was an interesting learning experience.











 (this was with my new Zeiss 21!)


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> I knew money was tight, so I told them pay what they could afford. She's never shot a wedding and her wedding fee starts at $500 for a 6 hour day, so I was expecting around $1000, maybe $800. She's paying me $200.  That's with Dawn there as an assistant, too. On her website she specifies needing the full payment in cash on location. I saw no money today, and she said she "didn't think to bring any cash today - we'll figure it out later."
> 
> She also decided she wanted a bunch of portraits, specific shots, and all-day coverage. Including driving (about an hour each way), we put in 10 hours. That's 10 hours total (two hours' worth of gas), two people, and a full wedding, for $200.
> 
> To top it off, she was telling people I wasn't an actual photographer, just someone who likes to take photos. My title was "designated picture taker".



That's horrible man. It's insulting and disrespectful of her to do that.
I've been in similar situations and it's not nice.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> I knew money was tight, so I told them pay what they could afford. She's never shot a wedding and her wedding fee starts at $500 for a 6 hour day, so I was expecting around $1000, maybe $800. She's paying me $200.  That's with Dawn there as an assistant, too. On her website she specifies needing the full payment in cash on location. I saw no money today, and she said she "didn't think to bring any cash today - we'll figure it out later."



I would have turned my camera off the moment she said I wasn't an actual photographer. Tell her to order her images from her hired pro for her wedding since you're just a GWC (guy with camera). People like this girl drag the industry down the tube.

You own the copyrights, there is literally nothing she can do besides pay you to get your images. I would be sure to charge a grip on the invoice too; full rates + late payment penalty. 

If she had paid beforehand, her wedding (assuming she would have bought a copyright release) would have cost her $3K USD for me to shoot without an assistant, closer to $3500 with an assistant for that length of time and more if you worked after midnight.

Always sign contracts and collect payment up front for events. Ask her what hour of coverage she would like for $200.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Furtive Glance said:


> I went to the Abbotsford Airshow 2 weekends ago. I rented a 100-400mm v2 for it because the longest lens I have is the 105 end of the 24-105L. Never really shot stuff like this so it was an interesting learning experience.



This is a great shot, I'd love to see it in the RAW Challenge thread .


----------



## Tang

Oh yeah, Phil. 

That lightning shot was taken with my phone. These are amazing times.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

One from a dreary day in February - I wanted to push to see if I could get it to be a little bit more lively. I'm not sure I like the processing, but it was a fun experiment.




Nikon D3 with Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D @200mm: ISO 100 1/640s f/2.8


----------



## neurosis

This is getting me riled up. 

At my wedding two of my wife´s work colleagues offered to prepare decoration and scout locations. We would pay them for that and since they are friends and working as a team they offered to shoot the wedding half price and as a gift give us two books with the photographs. 

We paid them what they asked, which was well over the thousand mark and they were not just at the wedding to take pics but also two of the short list of guests we actually had at the dinner/wedding party.

I have worked as a creative and art director all my life and while I understand that certain struggles come with this sort of work the only thing that gets me is other people´s blatant underestimation first and audacity second.

It looks like you felt obliged and took on the project because of the proximity of the relationship and the gig coming in through your wife´s acquaintance. Now you find yourself in an itchy spot. I understand it might feel too late to speak up and certainly to reverse the payment situation, but you have to make sure you get paid the miserable amount you two agreed on and stress out how you went beyond of what the agreement included as far as work on your behalf. It´s not really about getting pissed and emotional over it, but rather making her understand that this is your work and not just a fun thing you do for ....s and giggles or friendly support. 

I am sure you did excellent work. I have been following this thread on and off for a good time and see what you´re all up to. I says don´t burn the bridge but make sure she gets the message. It might burn a little but next time she goes to somebody and they want to pay zero for her efforts it will ring a majestic bell in her mind. 

Good luck and keep up the good stuff!




Philligan said:


> My brutal day is finally over. I've been dreading this wedding all summer.
> 
> A girl Dawn went to high school with messaged her and said she liked my work and wanted me to shoot her wedding. That's great. She said she wasn't really interested in formal portraits, more candids throughout the day. Awesome. I should mention this girl is a quasi-photographer - she has her own website, but she didn't really learn much and isn't good.
> 
> I knew money was tight, so I told them pay what they could afford. She's never shot a wedding and her wedding fee starts at $500 for a 6 hour day, so I was expecting around $1000, maybe $800. She's paying me $200.  That's with Dawn there as an assistant, too. On her website she specifies needing the full payment in cash on location. I saw no money today, and she said she "didn't think to bring any cash today - we'll figure it out later."
> 
> She also decided she wanted a bunch of portraits, specific shots, and all-day coverage. Including driving (about an hour each way), we put in 10 hours. That's 10 hours total (two hours' worth of gas), two people, and a full wedding, for $200.
> 
> To top it off, she was telling people I wasn't an actual photographer, just someone who likes to take photos. My title was "designated picture taker".
> 
> /rant. Sorry for the rage, guys, I just had to get it out of me.  Dawn's never shot any paid work (she only takes her camera out a few times a year) and thinks I'm making too big a deal of it. So I needed a place to vent haha.
> 
> I'll at least hopefully have some decent photos up in a bit.


----------



## Philligan

neurosis said:


> It looks like you felt obliged and took on the project because of the proximity of the relationship and the gig coming in through your wife´s acquaintance. Now you find yourself in an itchy spot. I understand it might feel too late to speak up and certainly to reverse the payment situation, but you have to make sure you get paid the miserable amount you two agreed on and stress out how you went beyond of what the agreement included as far as work on your behalf. It´s not really about getting pissed and emotional over it, but rather making her understand that this is your work and not just a fun thing you do for ....s and giggles or friendly support.



Good points. I don't think I necessarily felt obliged, because I'd never met her and she told Dawn she liked my photos and wanted me to shoot her wedding. Because she went to school with Dawn, and since I knew she was a photographer (or "photographer"), my big flaw was telling her she could pay what she could afford. I had absolutely no idea she would blindside me with such a low price that close to the wedding. Lesson learned - never give people the benefit of the doubt.

I'm about halfway through the photos right now. Will post at the end when I've seen them all.


----------



## flint757

In my experience people are inherently cheap. When you give people the option to pay less they usually will.


----------



## neurosis

The good thing is you got to shoot the wedding. So if you got nice shots that´s at least an extra you can put to use. 

She´s definitely a "" I have yet to see professionals underpaying for other creative's work. And I hope not to. Usually people come to fair agreements, cash or otherwise. 

Looking forward to seeing the work. 



Philligan said:


> Good points. I don't think I necessarily felt obliged, because I'd never met her and she told Dawn she liked my photos and wanted me to shoot her wedding. Because she went to school with Dawn, and since I knew she was a photographer (or "photographer"), my big flaw was telling her she could pay what she could afford. I had absolutely no idea she would blindside me with such a low price that close to the wedding. Lesson learned - never give people the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> I'm about halfway through the photos right now. Will post at the end when I've seen them all.


----------



## Whammy

ThePhilosopher said:


> One from a dreary day in February - I wanted to push to see if I could get it to be a little bit more lively. I'm not sure I like the processing, but it was a fun experiment.



I really like that processing. Alot!


I did another photo from the retro portrait set today.






Also did some pet portraits the other day. Here are some of the black & white ones...


----------



## flint757

I really dig those paintings in the background.


----------



## tank

BEST sony A7 prime lens for you?
i'm thinking about an used A7 as portable camera, but I don't know what to shoose, 35 f2.8 or 28 f2? for street photography ofc


----------



## Tang

I did a little personal challenge of just taking pictures of things in my backyard. Good times.



red by nrrfed, on Flickr



lizard by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Sorry to hear of that experience, Phil. That sucks!

Grabbed a few quick photos of this last night. My new guitar. Looking forward to doing a proper photo set soon, I'll stick up a NGD thread too.


----------



## Philligan

Man, that's sick.


----------



## Philligan

Here are some I really like from the weekend. I'm tempted to give them to her first - hopefully she'll feel guilty and pay more. 

For some reason I was really leaning towards super wide crops of everything. I had to make myself hold back, or for a couple photos I saved two or three aspect ratios.



DSCF0064 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0098 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0217 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0227 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0382 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0345 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0459 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And here's some direct flash with the Yongnuo 460. Those really cheap ones have next to no controls, and I haven't been able to figure out how to work the zoom. It worked out really well, though - I was using the 18mm (28mm equiv), and the flash gave an awesome natural vignette.



DSCF0607 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Nice shots, the light fixture with the draped fabric is among my favorites - I hope you get close to what you're owed.

Weapons of Statistical Destruction (aka prepping for my coming semester).




Nikon D3 with Helios 44-2 58mm f/2: ISO 200 1/8s f/2


----------



## Philligan

Thanks man. 

I was gonna ask what you're taking, but I'm guessing stats?


----------



## Tang

And another from my 'Planet Earth' series 



lizard #2 by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Last weekend I played a show in Jersey (Channel Island between England and France) with Intensive Square. Jersey is part of England, but was under Nazi occupancy during the Second World War and has tons of bunkers and gun placements scattered all over it.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Man I love the mood you get with your Daemoness images, Joe.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

capoeiraesp said:


> Man I love the mood you get with your Daemoness images, Joe.



Thanks Cap! To be honest, I've done waaaay less of them recently due to being busy with the bands and work. I'm looking forward to getting back to it for Daemoness more in the future.


----------



## capoeiraesp

You and Nolly keep the look very consistent. Coming from the perspective where I have shot a lot for Ormsby and honed my skills on the job (not a paid thing just fun) I somewhat regret not having a consistent look.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> Thanks man.
> 
> I was gonna ask what you're taking, but I'm guessing stats?



I'm taking one course, a professional practicum, and beginning to work on my capstone. 

Here's a description of the course from the catalog:

*636.* Methods in Multivariate Analysis. (3-0). Credit 3. Multivariate extensions of the chi-square and t-tests, discrimination and classification procedures. Applications to diagnostic problems in biological, medical, anthropological, and social research; multivariate analysis of variance, principal component and factor analysis, canonical correlations.


----------



## Whammy

Joe, I still don't know how your photos are so sharp.
I'm convinced that it's more than the standard sharpening, clarity thing.
It's more the balance you create in your shadows that reveal more information (apart from the faded bits) with a healthy contrast which helps with creating a sharper look.
That's my opinion anyways 


Tang, is your personal challenge just of animals in the back yard or anything?
Did you use a macro lens for the beetle?


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Whammy said:


> Joe, I still don't know how your photos are so sharp.
> I'm convinced that it's more than the standard sharpening, clarity thing.
> It's more the balance you create in your shadows that reveal more information (apart from the faded bits) with a healthy contrast which helps with creating a sharper look.
> That's my opinion anyways



Hey Whammy, thanks man. I've been on a bit of a sharpness pursuit ever since I saw this photo and others by Finn Beales.

I don't bump up the clarity too much. You're right, I boost the shadows a bit if I need to pull some detail out of them and a bit of contrast. I'll sometimes pull the highlights down too, but I don't like to go too heavy handed with this as it looks a bit faux-HDR. I think a lot of sharpness comes from using f8 and above for landscapes, at least with my cheap-ass lens collection. I'm on a crop sensor, so a lot of my processing is chasing the look of a bigger sensor. 

I see tons of nice sharpness and detail in your photos, man.

EDIT:

This rules too. By Finn Beales:


----------



## Tang

Whammy said:


> Tang, is your personal challenge just of animals in the back yard or anything?
> Did you use a macro lens for the beetle?



Yeah man, pretty much. I watched Planet Earth for the first time recently and it was a huge inspiration. 

For the beetle it was my 35mm lens reversed. It was a pain in the ass because I don't have a reverse macro adapter. I was holding the lens flush with the mount AND holding the aperture open manually. If I try this again I'm going to rig up a way to keep the aperture open.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Or just get a cheap M42 lens with a manual aperture...and one of these: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kipon-Penta...ing-Adapter-/371384932749?hash=item567844598d


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> Or just get a cheap M42 lens with a manual aperture...



I'm seriously considering this option.

Here's another buggy shot.. I think it's the same beetle species that was in the macro shot.



hanging on by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

So I've been doing a few retro portraits of my father-in-law and my son, mainly for fun. But retro is very big here in Sweden, so it was also a way of displaying myself in a different light compared to all the other photographers in the area.

I've been asked by a retro coffee shop (big coffee shop where every room is retro and also sell old styling wallpaper etc for homes) in one of the towns near me to hold an exhibition of the portraits of my son and his grandad in one of the rooms on "Culture Night".

I have 3 photo taken and they want me to show around 8 in total.
Need to take 5 of these portraits in the next 10 days 
It's doable but I think for 2 of them I will just do a close portrait of both of them separately.

They also want me to set up an area where someone can sit down and get their photo taken in a retro setting.

It's all a little odd really, but also interesting and a great way of spreading my name around a little.

Anyways here is another portrait I took today...


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I went to a makeup consult for a shoot I'm planning and snapped a test shot for editing to make sure the tones were going to photo correctly with the model's skin tone. This girl usually doesn't wear darker tones and is usually more into a clean/fresh look, but wanted to push for her self to do something darker.

I'm fairly pleased with how it's going to look when we get on location, have the styling complete and her hair done properly.





Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D: ISO 200 1/100s f/5.6


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Coming off a long absence here. I just spent some time out West, and I have a bunch of iPhone photos. I left the Canon at home and used the Fuji sparingly. I did shoot a small amount of film, but not even enough to finish two rolls so they're still sitting in my compacts.

I'm going to upload some of what I took with my phone soon to share with you guys. And honestly, I'm kind of annoyed with how my phone is always the first thing I reach for. There were a couple of photos I took with it and moved on, only to later think to myself, "fvck, why didn't I think to shoot that on film or the Fuji?". This is convincing me further that I need to move the Fuji and get a Ricoh GR - Something I can keep in my pocket that's higher quality than my phone because I hate having a strap around my neck.


----------



## Tang

I feel you on that, Jeff. Thankfully my phone does take some damn good shots, but it doesn't really compare to my Pentax.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm glad I never really got into phone photography.


----------



## flint757

It's handy to be good at it if there's a moment that can't be passed up and nothing else is available. Also useful for quickly scouting locations, especially with geotagging enabled.


----------



## Tang

I mainly use my phone because the only lens I currently own is a 35mm. The 28mm FOV on my phone is a lifesaver sometimes.


----------



## Rook

Was contacted by a friend of a friend looking to offload a huge amount of Hasselblad gear yesterday.

On Tuesday I'm potentially getting a 2000FCW, 3 new film backs, a metered prism finder, a set of extension tubes and - drool - the 110mm f2.

All for about the amount I was expecting to spend on the lens alone.

I made him aware of this, and said I'm going to offload a bunch of the extra stuff (film backs and prism in particular) and he doesn't care, he just wants enough to buy something else.

I'll know whether I'm getting it on Tuesday. Kinda insanely excited.


----------



## Whammy

Got my close up portraits done today along with two more environmental portraits.
Another three more environmental portraits and I should have enough for the exhibition.


----------



## Tang

I feel awkward posting this after Whammy's awesome portrait, but here we go!


----------



## JeffFromMtl

iPhone .... from the west coast.

British Columbia


























Washington





















I'll post some more from Oregon, California, Utah and maybe some others later on.


----------



## Furtive Glance

ThePhilosopher said:


> This is a great shot, I'd love to see it in the RAW Challenge thread .



Done! Added a link over there. I've also got one in landscape orientation with a bunch of wavy gray clouds that covered the sky seconds later.


----------



## Tang

I was thinking about the phone thing and I came to a realization. Where else can you get a 28mm equiv FOV that has a minimum focus distance of an inch? This leads to some pretty cool perspectives that would be incredibly hard to achieve otherwise.


----------



## Philligan

JeffFromMtl said:


> Coming off a long absence here. I just spent some time out West, and I have a bunch of iPhone photos. I left the Canon at home and used the Fuji sparingly. I did shoot a small amount of film, but not even enough to finish two rolls so they're still sitting in my compacts.
> 
> I'm going to upload some of what I took with my phone soon to share with you guys. And honestly, I'm kind of annoyed with how my phone is always the first thing I reach for. There were a couple of photos I took with it and moved on, only to later think to myself, "fvck, why didn't I think to shoot that on film or the Fuji?". This is convincing me further that I need to move the Fuji and get a Ricoh GR - Something I can keep in my pocket that's higher quality than my phone because I hate having a strap around my neck.



I'm assuming your iPhone is a 28mm equivalent, so it'll probably help even more with the GR because it's the same field of view. That's when I really started getting along with my 18mm on the X-T1, when I realized it was the same as my iPhone. So anytime I wanted to shoot something with my phone, I got my camera out instead.

But is the GR that much smaller than the X-T1? Personally, the viewfinder and f/2 aperture would worth more to me. Obviously YMMV.



Tang said:


> I was thinking about the phone thing and I came to a realization. Where else can you get a 28mm equiv FOV that has a minimum focus distance of an inch? This leads to some pretty cool perspectives that would be incredibly hard to achieve otherwise.



Ricoh GR, or an X100 with the wide adapter. It's definitely not all that compact with the wide adapter on, but the 35mm FOV isn't too much tighter, and the X100 focuses scary close.

The Nikon Coolpix something or other is pretty much the exact same as the GR AFAIK, and I think you can get them pretty cheap now.

Oh, I almost forgot. The Leica Q is 28mm. 

And just to blow the Fuji horn some more, apparently the 18mm is one of the highest magnification lenses with the new Fuji extension tubes. I think it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of 0.8x magnification. So you get 28mm and very close focusing.


----------



## Philligan

I forgot to say, a girl I've known since kindergarten got married yesterday. I knew pretty much everyone at the wedding, and 6 or so of us have been friends for 20+ years. The bride hired a photographer she went to university with. They were on a budget so they booked the photog for a shorter package, and she was leaving right after the first dance. I figured I'd be polite and ask if it was alright if I shot some of the reception since I was close with everyone, and all she said was "don't pretend it's your wedding.:  

Between that and having to DJ it (long story haha) I didn't really get to shoot much other than a bit of dancing.  I haven't imported the photos yet, but I'll post if there are any good ones.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Philligan said:


> I'm assuming your iPhone is a 28mm equivalent, so it'll probably help even more with the GR because it's the same field of view. That's when I really started getting along with my 18mm on the X-T1, when I realized it was the same as my iPhone. So anytime I wanted to shoot something with my phone, I got my camera out instead.
> 
> But is the GR that much smaller than the X-T1? Personally, the viewfinder and f/2 aperture would worth more to me. Obviously YMMV.
> 
> 
> 
> Ricoh GR, or an X100 with the wide adapter. It's definitely not all that compact with the wide adapter on, but the 35mm FOV isn't too much tighter, and the X100 focuses scary close.
> 
> The Nikon Coolpix something or other is pretty much the exact same as the GR AFAIK, and I think you can get them pretty cheap now.
> 
> Oh, I almost forgot. The Leica Q is 28mm.
> 
> And just to blow the Fuji horn some more, apparently the 18mm is one of the highest magnification lenses with the new Fuji extension tubes. I think it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of 0.8x magnification. So you get 28mm and very close focusing.



I've got the X100s and I briefly looked at the Ricoh when I picked it up at the store. The Ricoh is substantially smaller than the Fuji. I can't really pocket the X100s, and it's completely out of the question with the 28mm adaptor on it (which I use more often than not). The GR is a truly pocketable camera. It's that small and still opens up to f/2.8 if you need. It also comes with a free OVF if you order from B&H. I also feel like I'd be less worried about knocking the GR around. The Fuji is such a good-looking camera, meanwhile the Ricoh is not and is made of the same stuff as a Canon 7D, which by all accounts (mine included) is bomb-proof.

For a size comparison: You can see that the Ricoh is smaller in every aspect - height, width and depth - plus the lens retracts into the camera which makes it even more manageable.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Jeff, you could be in my boat where a D3 is your smallest camera.

A quick wrist shot of my birthday gift, a new Seiko FFF Mod - beauty shots to come later after I get if off of the bracelet and on to a strap.





Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 400 1/125s f/5.6


----------



## UnderTheSign

After ruining my first roll of porta 400 (pressed the 'open film back' button instead of the release back one when I wanted to switch from my p400 to tx400 loaded back) I loaded another roll of p400 and went out in my parents garden to shoot a bit. The s-18 extension ring for the bronica lenses is odd. They go from 40cm-infinity (40mm lens) and 150cm-infinity to like 1cm-20cm and 50cm-150cm focusing distance. I mean I expected them to not go to infinity anymore but it's surprising how short the maximum focusing distance becomes. 

That said though doing close up stuff with the 40mm is neat and tricky at the same time. I could literally get up to a couple centimetres away from insects and flowers and still get a super wide shot. Being that close makes maintaining sharp focus tricky though as you're very sensitive to movement in your arms but it was cool to do. I just sealed the roll and will get it developed in a couple of weeks or so when I've shot more rolls and have bought a scanner.


----------



## Rook

Yeah, you'll get spherical aberration too, which gives an images a sort of soft, glowy haze.

You'll get it less with longer lenses, so longer extension tubes and longer lenses are a winning combo for macro on a budget ha.

And yeah expect your first 2 or 3 rolls of film to be a waste haha.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I'm glad I got 5-packs of both tmax and portra yeah  Excited to see how it all turned out though. It's definitely different, not having live preview etc. The Bronica does have an aperture preview button on all the lenses which is nice but no idea of what the colours and exposure will be like.


----------



## Rook

It's a common misconception that film's hard to shoot, really it's got a lot more latitude that digital ever has. Way more.

If you're ever unsure, just overexpose a couple thirds of a stop on colour negative, highlights are easy to save, and trying to raise exposure in post always makes the outcome look grainier, so if you always have too much light, you'll lose a tiny bit more in blown out areas but have a denser and cleaner negative all round.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Solid advice. I'll keep it in mind for the roll I have loaded now.


----------



## Rook

And I just accidentally bought an X100T.

Accidentally on purpose.

Fixed that 5D2, made a modest profit on it and having flirted with the idea of buying a Sony A7 variant for a few weeks I realised I just didn't enjoy them the way I did my Fuji's, and I still wouldn't have a take-everywhere camera. My Hasselblad switchover should also end up costing me nothing so figured screw it.

Possibly going to sell my 23 1.4, but the jury's still out.

Busy busy busy!


----------



## Philligan

Even with the 23 1.4, I'd love an X100T. I couldn't get rid of the lens, though, because I shoot it at 1.4 a lot.

A while ago I mentioned that I might be getting some jobs shooting for a marketing company. I got in touch with the guy over the weekend and he said he has a few things he's getting ready for me. Some of them may be writing, but he specifically mentioned a couple shoots, so hopefully I hear back on those soon. 

This job at the jewellers isn't working out like I thought it would, so I've got some pretty big decisions coming up. I've been trying to get into the local college for writing and/or photography, but that can take a while. I've been seriously thinking about trying to pursue photography as a job, but the only way to really do it in my city is via Facebook, and I'm not sure if I want to go that route.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'd recommend a business degree over a photo degree if you're looking to become a full-time photographer; you can learn all the photography you want for much cheaper than at a college.


----------



## Tang

The business side of things just seems like a huge bummer.

So it goes.


----------



## Philligan

Yeah, I don't know how that would go. When I said pursue it as a job, I meant more like actively promoting myself on Facebook and trying to book more weddings and portrait sessions. But that would just be an interim thing - if I were to do photography long term, I'd want to do more commercial and/or editorial work (or journalism, but that seems like a dying breed). Both of those are difficult to do in Sarnia. But yeah, weddings and such would just be a stop gap for me.


----------



## Rook

If you want to get into editorial you could do worse than try and get a job for a company that does a lot of content marketing.

I do a load of editorial for Focusrite and Novation; it's not very diverse and I'm down to one shoot a month at this stage but seeing my pictures in and on the covers of huge magazines (uncredited of course) is pretty trippy.


----------



## Rook

Edit:double post.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> If you want to get into editorial you could do worse than try and get a job for a company that does a lot of content marketing.



That's hopefully what I've got in the works right now. If I get in the marketing department at the college in town, I'd get some photography jobs. They don't have a staff photographer right now and have been contracting out shooting jobs (there's no full time staff photographer position, but most marketing jobs I've seen say that photography skills are a plus). 

The other guy I've been talking to is the creative director at a small local marketing firm. He's trying to help me start a professional portfolio for writing, but they're in the same boat as the college - no staff photographer. So I was told I'd have a couple shoots coming up in the near future. One is for a restaurant chain in a bigger city a few hours away, so that should be pretty cool.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Two of my handheld shots of Seiko FFF.




Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 200 1/200s f/13





Nikon D3 with Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 @200mm: ISO 400 1/60s f/5.6


----------



## Whammy

Not too long ago I started a little project for myself which entailed documenting my father-in-laws retro house while also capturing him, along with my son in various activities.

I only had one photo taken along with another test shot when I was given the opportunity to display my project in a gallery (my first exhibition). Unfortunately I was given a little over a weeks notice so all the photos were taken under very rushed circumstances.

None the less here are the photos I used in the gallery.
Every photo was taken in my father-in-laws house.
Keeping in with the retro theme I processed all the photos to take on some qualities of older color negative film.

The set is called Rune o Morfar. The title is Swedish. Rune is my son (18 months old) and over here it's pronounced Ruu-neh.
In English it reads Rune & Grandad
The set shows Rune visiting and spending time with his grandad before heading home.

1
Canon 5d MK II - Canon EF 85mm f1.2 @ f4 - 1/60 shutter speed - ISO 100
One softbox & one reflector





2
Canon 5d MK II - Canon EF 85mm f1.2 @ f4 - 1/60 shutter speed - ISO 100
One softbox & one reflector





3
Canon 5d MK II - Olympus Zuiko OM 24mm f2 @ f8 - 1/60 shutter speed - ISO 100
Two softboxes & circular polariser





4
Canon 5d MK II - Olympus Zuiko OM 24mm f2 @ f8 - 1/60 shutter speed - ISO 160
Two softboxes & circular polariser





5
Canon 5d MK II - Olympus Zuiko OM 24mm f2 @ f8 - 1/60 shutter speed - ISO 100
Two softboxes & circular polariser





6
Canon 5d MK II - Olympus Zuiko OM 24mm f2 @ f8 - 1/60 shutter speed - ISO 100
Two softboxes & circular polariser





7
Canon 5d MK II - Canon EF 85mm f1.2 @ f8 - 1/60 shutter speed - ISO 100
Two softboxes & circular polariser





8
Canon 5d MK II - Olympus Zuiko OM 24mm f2 @ f8 - 1/60 shutter speed - ISO 125
Two softboxes & circular polariser





9
Canon 5d MK II - Olympus Zuiko OM 24mm f2 @ f4 - 1/60 shutter speed - ISO 200
Two softboxes & circular polariser


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's a good story, Whammy. The images don't really remind me of C-41 scans, but it looks like your work.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Whammy, great photo set as usual.

I played at a cool festival in Cardiff, Wales last weekend. Here's a couple of shots I grabbed of Welsh instrumental doom band Thorun - check out their bandcamp page. Really happy with these two shots:


----------



## Tang

*reprocessed and reuploaded*


----------



## JeffFromMtl

A few iPhone shots from Utah which was the coolest place I've ever been.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Unreal.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

An extensive Utah trip is currently #1 on my list of vacations.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

ThePhilosopher said:


> An extensive Utah trip is currently #1 on my list of vacations.



I was only really there for a day, but I got a lot in. Zion National Park and Bryce Canyon are out of this world. Central Utah is also so beautifully barren. I didn't get to see the salt flats or the salt lake even though I spent a night in SLC due to time constraints. I'd go back in a heartbeat and spend much more time there given the opportunity. I'd go as far as to say I'd live there if I could.

I also just developed some film I shot back in April, so here's this.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Interview with Pratik: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSH_Uj_hXcs


----------



## Tang

misplaced by nrrfed, on Flickr



carry by nrrfed, on Flickr



dirty water by nrrfed, on Flickr



into the light by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Oh man. Just booked my first "serious" job. The owner of that local marketing company just hired me to shoot a festival this weekend. It's technically only the colour run in the morning they want shot, but I'm gonna hang around after and shoot some more, because I know the people who run the festival, and the experience/exposure will be good for me.

He asked my rate for two hours and I panicked and said $200. No idea if I over- or under-charged, but he took it.


----------



## Tang

Phil, I don't want to turn you off on this job but please be very careful if you're going to be shooting a color run. That color .... is no joke. 

LensRentals.com - How to Ruin Your (or Our) Gear in 5 Minutes (Without Water)

And here's one I just took at work. Galaxy S6 + Snapseed.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> Oh man. Just booked my first "serious" job. The owner of that local marketing company just hired me to shoot a festival this weekend. It's technically only the colour run in the morning they want shot, but I'm gonna hang around after and shoot some more, because I know the people who run the festival, and the experience/exposure will be good for me.
> 
> He asked my rate for two hours and I panicked and said $200. No idea if I over- or under-charged, but he took it.



Get and sign a contract, if the Color Run is run by the folks that put on the Color Run series in the States I would stay far, far away.


----------



## Philligan

It's not, it's a privately run event by people I know personally. The guy paying me is someone I've known for 10+ years, and I trust him. 

I've ready horror stories. I was thinking I'd do filter + lens hood (the Fuji hood is squared off like a Leica, so the opening is that much smaller) and gaff tape and plastic wrap for the rest. I'm also planning on using the 35mm (longest lens I own at the moment) and shooting wide, so I'll hopefully be out of the worst of it. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Tang

Philligan said:


> It's not, it's a privately run event by people I know personally. The guy paying me is someone I've known for 10+ years, and I trust him.
> 
> I've ready horror stories. I was thinking I'd do filter + lens hood (the Fuji hood is squared off like a Leica, so the opening is that much smaller) and gaff tape and plastic wrap for the rest. I'm also planning on using the 35mm (longest lens I own at the moment) and shooting wide, so I'll hopefully be out of the worst of it.
> 
> Thoughts?



I've read people that bag their cameras have pretty decent luck. If I were you, I'd hang around the finish line and grab some portraits of people that have already been color-blasted.

EDIT: reprocessed and cropped this shot.. it's much better IMO.



decay by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Good call man. That's what I was thinking. If the colour station looks particularly awesome, I might try and get a few, but I'll be staying pretty far away and downwind.


----------



## Rook

I'd go for a sealed retrofocus lens: 56, 23, 16, 90, 10-24, 50-140.

The 35, 18, 60 and a lot of the zooms extend, which causes them to suck in air. One of the reasons why hasselblad lenses of old can be such a nightmare, particularly the 250mm.

None of the extending lenses have the filter thread on a fixed part of the body so a filter probably won't make a lot of difference.


I received my X100T today. Holy crap! Why don't they make the X-T1 as well as this?! My X-T is 18 months and 30,000 frames old and the rubber on the grip is loose, the stupid door for the USB slot and stuff is bent... It's not the most solid feeling camera I've ever held. It's all metal, it's hard and sharp, it feels like a brick compared to all but Canon's 7 and 1 stuff, but the finish is just a bit patchy.

The X100T is a thing of beauty. Whether you give a sh1t about 'retro' or not (I personally don't, I just like visual controls), the thing is heavy, the finish is great, every little detail is spot on.

It's the same with my Fuji 16mm and 90mm; I don't know what it is but Fuji have upped their game somewhere along the road. They're the same but better than things like my X-T or 56 or 23.

Glad I bought it, it fits in my pocket, and you can go as manual or as auto - as fun or as simple - and everything looks great. My first mini project: ISO3200 f8 haha. Going to Venice next week, so I'll post some stuff then. Don't think I've posted anything with the 90mm either yet so that too if anyone cares.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> I'd go for a sealed retrofocus lens: 56, 23, 16, 90, 10-24, 50-140.
> 
> The 35, 18, 60 and a lot of the zooms extend, which causes them to suck in air. One of the reasons why hasselblad lenses of old can be such a nightmare, particularly the 250mm.
> 
> None of the extending lenses have the filter thread on a fixed part of the body so a filter probably won't make a lot of difference.



That's where I'm torn. I'll be putting a filter on the very end of the lens and gaff taping plastic wrap to that, so the entire camera will be sealed (I'm bagging the whole camera and shooting in aperture priority). 

The 23mm is one less moving part to worry about, but since the 35mm is tighter, it'll let me stand a bit farther back. I haven't decided what to do there, but since the whole thing will be encased, I'm leaning towards the 35 so I can stay out of the way.



Rook said:


> Don't think I've posted anything with the 90mm either yet so that too if anyone cares.



I really like the 90mm, but the 56 is up next for me. I'd use a longer lens quite a bit, but since I do a lot of low light and don't have the steadiest hands, the 56mm would buy me a lot of shutter speed. And a couple weddings ago I shot the majority of the day with the Nikon 85 1.4 G and loved it - I really miss having that focal length.

I'd definitely like to see some photos from it, though. I really love the focal length and the look it gives. I don't so much care about facial or bokeh compression, but I love the wider photos I've seen that were shot wide open - _that_ compression and the falloff gives such a nice medium format look. Sorta like Whammy's environmental photos with the 85 wide open. 



Rook said:


> I received my X100T today. Holy crap! Why don't they make the X-T1 as well as this?! My X-T is 18 months and 30,000 frames old and the rubber on the grip is loose, the stupid door for the USB slot and stuff is bent... It's not the most solid feeling camera I've ever held. It's all metal, it's hard and sharp, it feels like a brick compared to all but Canon's 7 and 1 stuff, but the finish is just a bit patchy.
> 
> The X100T is a thing of beauty. Whether you give a sh1t about 'retro' or not (I personally don't, I just like visual controls), the thing is heavy, the finish is great, every little detail is spot on.
> 
> It's the same with my Fuji 16mm and 90mm; I don't know what it is but Fuji have upped their game somewhere along the road. They're the same but better than things like my X-T or 56 or 23.
> 
> Glad I bought it, it fits in my pocket, and you can go as manual or as auto - as fun or as simple - and everything looks great. My first mini project: ISO3200 f8 haha.



An X100T is also way near the top of my non-essential wish list. My friend's got the X100S and it's such a different camera that puts me in a different state of mind. I'll probably never get one unless I start making loads of money, but I can dream haha. I'd just like to see them update it to a 1.4 lens if they can keep it small enough, because I shoot a lot in low light - I know it will be bigger, but since they can recess so much of it, I don't see why they couldn't give up some corner sharpness and make it around the size of the 18mm.

My friend does something like that. He shoots concerts and editorial stuff for bands for a living, and usually uses his D3 for live stuff (sometimes the Fuji), but he always uses his Fuji for day-to-day photos. I don't know if he still does this, but for a while during days when they were outside, he'd shoot in shutter priority around 1600 and f/8, and manual focus to infinity, so he could just pull it up and shoot.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Scanning some old photo prints for a slideshow on my parents old Vista computer with 10yo Epson scanner... I figured hey, these will be shown on a big screen so I'll scan them at a higher dpi. Screw that 300 stuff! Welp, big mistake. This computer does not like 200mb images... To the point where when I rotated them using image viewer, it took a minute to load them and then sized them down to 15mb files. Well, still a 12000x8500 jpeg so that'll look good on the big screen


----------



## Rook

Thought I'd share a frame from the 90mm. It's my favourite lens; it's sharp, but also just looks great. It's what I always hoped the 56 would be but it never quite was.

This is all I have for now, everything else interesting I've done with it is embargoed for now haha.



Spider in Flowers by Nick Howlett, on Flickr


----------



## Sean1242

Hey, folks 

Forgot this thread exists. I recently have been using this 12 year old Canon EOS 300D and it's been extremely fun. I'm typically using a GoPro Hero4 for photos and video but obviously want to get into the dslr world.

I'm thinking of upgrading to a Canon T5i in a few months but was wondering if I should be aware of any other bodies around that price point. I have a Canon 75-300mm zoom lens and some Vivitar lens that I'd like to continue using with the new body. I heard Nikon has some weird thing where other lenses won't work with it.

Thanks in advance! I used the zoom lens for this hummingbird photo by the way.


----------



## Philligan

I don't know about used prices off the top of my head, but look at a 60D, 7D, 70D, or the new T6s. The T6s should have the best image quality of the bunch - it has the newest sensor, and even though it's a Rebel, it has a layout more like the pro Canons, with a top LCD and rear control wheel.

The 60D and 70D are basically the same, only the 70D is the newer model - it has marginally better image quality, better Live View autofocus, and wifi. The 7D is a model up, considered a pro grade camera, only it's from the same generation as the 60D - it has the exact same image quality, but it's built like a brick ....house. It's fast, super rugged, and has a lot of pro features, especially for autofocus.

Basically, the T6s will get you the best image quality for under $1500, and as you go older (T6s --> 70D --> 60D/7D) you get slightly less image quality due to the older camera, but you get a much more professional grade body.

IMHO, if the T6s or 70D are more than you'd want to spend, you'd be better off looking at a 60D or 7D (whichever fits in your budget) than a T5i. The image quality will be the exact same, but you're getting significantly better features elsewhere. Most importantly, you're getting a lot more external controls (basically the same as all pro Canons), so that camera will grow with you a lot more as a photographer. I've shot weddings with a strangely wide variety of cameras, and I would take a previous-generation semi-pro body over a current-gen entry level body, because the level of control is more valuable to me than the potential for slightly better image quality.

Having said all that, you can find older semi-pro Canons like the 50D and 40D on craigslist for dirt cheap, but those are old enough that the image quality is noticeably worse. With the 60D or 7D, since they're only a generation old, there hasn't been a massive improvement in IQ, so you shouldn't feel too limited in that respect.


----------



## Tang

Go Pentax 

If you're sticking with Canon I agree with Phil. 70d is where it's at and the 60d still has pretty good IQ.



tiny flock of seagulls by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## flint757

The reason Canon lenses won't work on a Nikon is due to the size of the lenses. When you put a Nikon lens on a Canon you have room to place an adapter and still maintain your full range of focus whereas adding an adapter to a Nikon to use a Canon lens would make it too long.


----------



## Sean1242

Thanks for the heads up and all the information. I appreciate it


----------



## UnderTheSign

To the Fuji guys, any experience with macro shots and/or the Fuji 60mm macro? I've been shooting stuff using a Pentax 100mm 1:4 macro and it's nice and all but I'd like a lens made for the Fuji so I don't have to fiddle with adapters and all that. There's also a 120mm macro in the works so I might wait for that.


----------



## Philligan

No idea. I've read it's sharp, the IQ is great, and the AF is pretty slow. Since it's cheap I'd love to pick one up, but if I was gonna spend $500 on a lens, I'd wait and spend $900 on the 56mm right now.

Well, here goes.  The gaff tape didn't seem that sticky so I topped it off with hockey tape.



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

There's a guy doing video with two C100s on gimbals. Nothing covering them. 

edit: So, I was the only one with my camera covered today. AFAIK I was the only hired photographer, and the other two guys I saw with big cameras were there on their own time. The videographer was a hired gun, though.

Like I said, the video guy was running two C100s on gimbals, one with the 24-105L and one with an older (black and yellow model) Sigma 17-70. His stuff was all covered in a layer of this powder by the end of the run.

The one photographer I met and talked to, who was a really nice guy and might help get me some more work with a couple newspapers, was running a 5D3 with the 24-70 2.8, and his camera was completely coated by the end. He was getting more into the crowds than I was, and had nothing on his gear. The last dude with a big camera was using a gripped D800 or something like that with the 85G. Same thing, nothing on his camera.

The guys running the event had a photo station set up for people who'd finished the run, and were using a D3300 with the kit lens. It kept getting blasted with powder, and I'm pretty sure the poor thing is a write-off. 

So I wrapped the camera to death, set it to f/4, and left it in aperture priority. I could move the dials very slowly if I had to. It was kinda cloudy early on so I set it to 400 ISO to keep the shutter speed up, but once it brightened up I just set the ISO back to auto, and bumped the exposure comp around a little when I had to. Some pictures to follow. Not sure how this works, if I can post them to social media or not. Gonna find out.


----------



## tank

abiogenesis few months ago, canon 6D and sigma 35 f1.4 art (thanks frakkio)


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Some unedited files from yesterday (shot with the 6D, uploaded to phone, then to flickr). Just some location scouting/shot planning for another one of those art/fashion editorials with a bunch of girls. Evidently, this one will have a loose tennis theme. The girl in the photos is the art director; we did some shots with her as a stand-in so that we already have a few ideas already pretty much worked out for when the models show up.


----------



## Tang

1


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The AF-S motor in my 80-200mm is going out . I'm going to send it in for an estimate; meanwhile, I'll be getting prices of suitable replacements (currently looking at the 105mm or 135mm f/2 DC as I don't use the long end of the lens very often). 

I'm open to hear any suggestions for a replacement, I'd prefer a prime; however, I'm not opposed to a zoom. I already have a 20, 24, 50, and 85mm prime setup.


----------



## Rook

What are you gunna be using it for?

With a Canikon system, I couldn't not look at the Zeiss 2/135 Sonnar T*, but it is manual focus.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Mostly portraits, but I will need AF as I will occasionally be shooting children and environmental type stuff.


----------



## Tang

135 f/2, for sure.


----------



## Rook

Some more randoms from the 90, showing the sharpness, bokeh and sense of depth the lens creates.



Yellow Flower by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Twig by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Lou by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Bramble by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Cow by Nick Howlett, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Love it.

Also, here's some weird pseudo-macro stuff. I held my old Minolta 50mm f/1.7 in front of the 35mm lens on my Pentax. The aperture just happens to be stuck open so I wanted to see what it would look like.



advertise by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Defs gonna jump onto the XF90. Thanks Rook. Had a short Saturday trip in my state's south west down to the Twelve Apostles. Love how close the XF16 focuses


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Love those Cap. Especially the trees and bridge, cool perspective.

I visited West Wales on the weekend. Here's a shot of the 'Deer Park' looking out over Jack Sound.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Just got your flickr follow notification. Thanks Joe. Bloody awesome getting so high up into these amazing old forests.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I spent the day with my parents and got some sunset shots and captured a variety of tones by using my Gold and Blue Polarizer.





Nikon D3 with Nikon 24mm f/2.8+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/60s f/11





Nikon D3 with Nikon 24mm f/2.8+2 Stop ND Filter+Singh-Ray Gold & Blue Polarizer+10 Stop ND Filter: ISO 200 20s f/8





Nikon D3 with Nikon 24mm f/2.8+2 Stop ND Filter+Singh-Ray Gold & Blue Polarizer+10 Stop ND Filter: ISO 200 180s f/11





Nikon D3 with Nikon 24mm f/2.8+2 Stop ND Filter+Singh-Ray Gold & Blue Polarizer: ISO 200 1/3s f/11


----------



## tank

capoeiraesp said:


> Defs gonna jump onto the XF90. Thanks Rook. Had a short Saturday trip in my state's south west down to the Twelve Apostles. Love how close the XF16 focuses




it's very interesting, how do you do this kind of post?  nice shots too, I love this kind of nature exploration


----------



## capoeiraesp

Thanks. It's a mix of using an 85mm equivalent lens at F4, the salty sea air that was coming in at that time and just some of my usual tweaks - not too much clarity, fine masking of sharpness, adding grain and general colour adjustments.


----------



## Rook

Masking is such a powerful tool with Fuji files. So many people I've seen bitching about 'waxy' details when (over)sharpening that show they're settings and have the masking on zero...

That the 56?


----------



## Philligan

Here are some of my favourites from that colour run on Saturday. Got just under 90 in total, hope they're happy with them. Haven't heard back from them yet.

Edit: I forget if I said, but I shot the whole thing in aperture priority at f/4.



DSCF0377 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0357 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0352 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0313 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0299 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0233 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0183 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0167 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0153 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0150 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0114 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0136 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Rook said:


> Masking is such a powerful tool with Fuji files. So many people I've seen bitching about 'waxy' details when (over)sharpening that show they're settings and have the masking on zero...
> 
> That the 56?



Yeah the 56. The max I go with sharpening on Fuji stuff is about 40 on Fuji stuff and then mask it very finely ~80 or so.


----------



## A-Branger

Philligan said:


> Here are some of my favourites from that colour run on Saturday. Got just under 90 in total, hope they're happy with them. Haven't heard back from them yet.
> 
> Edit: I forget if I said, but I shot the whole thing in aperture priority at f/4.



cool pics man.

Hows the camera? did your home dust proof case did the job?

on that note, so funy seeing those ppl runing with their phones on their hands taking selfies and what not. Much fun, wait till your phone dies during next days for fine color dust lol


----------



## Philligan

capoeiraesp said:


> Yeah the 56. The max I go with sharpening on Fuji stuff is about 40 on Fuji stuff and then mask it very finely ~80 or so.



I should try that. I normally don't touch the sharpening, or maybe push it to 30, and I bump the detail up pretty high. But I've never tried using the masking.



A-Branger said:


> cool pics man.
> 
> Hows the camera? did your home dust proof case did the job?
> 
> on that note, so funy seeing those ppl runing with their phones on their hands taking selfies and what not. Much fun, wait till your phone dies during next days for fine color dust lol



Thanks man. The camera seems totally fine. I think I went a little overboard, but I didn't want to risk it. I know, or the guys using their cameras with no protection at all. I haven't heard of anything yet but I'm interested to find out if anything happened to any of them.


----------



## Tang

Phil, hold down Alt or whatever the Mac equivalent is when you adjust the masking. It'll show you exactly what you're sharpening and it's really helpful.

f/8 meets f/1.7.


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> I should try that. I normally don't touch the sharpening, or maybe push it to 30, and I bump the detail up pretty high. But I've never tried using the masking.



You can't properly sharpen Fuji files without masking, and so many people don't use it then complain about colour variations and artefacts being sharpened.

It'll change your life haha.

And yeah; the alt thing makes a huge difference, only found out about that very recently.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

What is this ALT-business? I instantly see the change when I paint on masks.

Also, the 80-200mm is on it's way for an estimate - I'll have news a number on Friday or Saturday.


----------



## flint757

In Lightroom when I click alt while using a mask all it does is turn my brush into an eraser. In Photoshop I make extensive use of alt, shift and backslash to change what I see on the screen. The backslash in Photoshop turns the un-selected areas red, shift disables the mask and alt shows you the mask instead of the image in your window when holding down alt or shift and clicking on the mask directly. I personally like using backslash as it just turns the black areas of the mask red on your photo so you see the mask and the image at the same time. Really handy for tricky areas.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I think they're not talking about painting on masks etc but the masking option in the sharpening 'menu' in Lightroom

I rarely use extra sharpening in my Fuji files. Never really noticed the difference. Either it's not there (yet) or my eyes aren't good enough


----------



## Rook

The 'masking' control in the sharpening menu determines how defined an edge should be in order for the system to apply sharpening.

Masking off with Fuji files, because of Fuji's random colour array, means you get general, relatively to ally flat areas having the slight variations in colour sharpened, making it look grainy (in a bad way) and weird. Starting from 100 and working your way back means the sharpening only affects more defined contrast lines, between different tones and shades. Holding 'alt' while you use the slider renders the image black and shows the edges it's sharpening in white, so you can see when you're masking enough to not get funny grain effects.

You basically can't sharpen Fuji files cleanly without it. Even if you leave the sharpening on 25 I recommend moving the masking slider up to 40-50, as it'll make non-edges a lot cleaner.

It's also not the same as noise reduction, so it won't make colours waxy or anything, it just won't sharpen them.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

A couple more from West Wales:


----------



## A-Branger

flint757 said:


> In Lightroom when I click alt while using a mask all it does is turn my brush into an eraser. In Photoshop I make extensive use of alt, shift and backslash to change what I see on the screen. The backslash in Photoshop turns the un-selected areas red, shift disables the mask and alt shows you the mask instead of the image in your window when holding down alt or shift and clicking on the mask directly. I personally like using backslash as it just turns the black areas of the mask red on your photo so you see the mask and the image at the same time. Really handy for tricky areas.



in lightroom when you are using the brush, if you click "o" (the letter, not the number) you would see what you are painting as red, similar to the backslash in photoshop for the mask


----------



## ThePhilosopher

UnderTheSign said:


> I think they're not talking about painting on masks etc but the masking option in the sharpening 'menu' in Lightroom



I was going to ask if it's a LR thing.


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> I was going to ask if it's a LR thing.



I caught it right away, but on the other hand, I still know nothing about PS. 

If I upgrade from LR5, I'll probably do the CC subscription. I don't like the subscription at all, but it would at least be nice to have a legitimate copy of PS, and to know I'll get all the LR updates. Apparently they're working on better demosaicing for the Fuji files, but it sounds like it'll only come to the CC version of LR and not the standalone. 

It's either that or switch over to Capture 1. I'm still undecided. I'm leaning towards CC, because I like the LR workflow, and since I'm gonna start trying to get photography jobs, it might be handy to have PS on me.


----------



## flint757

Out of all of the adobe subscription plans the Photography package is definitely the best deal. $9.99 a month certainly isn't going to break the bank and I think there are ways to get it even a little bit cheaper, at least for a short while. I've been putting it off as I'm just not a fan of SaaS programs, especially since Photoshop is already pretty robust all the way back to CS4 making any updates they make much less significant.


----------



## Philligan

Good to know man, thanks. 

A buddy of mine just completed his Year Beard and wanted a photo, so we spent this morning doing that. This is my 24x36 soft box on sort of a Rembrandt angle (not quite though, we were in his basement which has an insanely low ceiling), and I had another bare flash doing that kind of rim light on the right.

This should be ISO 200, f/2.5, 1/180.



DSCF0084 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

There already is a demosaic update for Fuji files for LR CC, came out maybe 6 weeks ago. It's definitely better, and with the power of the masking control (not 'masking', the sharpening control by the same name), Fuji sharpening problems in LR just don't exist now.

Go LR CC dude.

As for C1. I had it for a while, I found the sharpening excessive, and the noise it creates less natural looking than that from LR. I also _hated_ what it did to the Fuji colour palette, but that's just me. Then there's the hopeless cataloguing...


----------



## Tang

I just took the weirdest shot of myself ever.



time and space by nrrfed, on Flickr

I love this light:



parallel dimensions by nrrfed, on Flickr


----------



## A-Branger

that shower shot is pretty awesome, keep playing with that topic and long exposure, you would have some pretty interesting theme.



in other news, I just bite the bullet and bought myself a new tamrom 70-200mm f2.8 got a wedding next weekend and its what I was missing in order to be able to shot a wedding with 100% my own gear, so now I can charge full price to my studio as I wont be using their equipment.... apart from a 50mm, I didnt have enough and I tough in order to get the 1.8 I might wait a bit and get the 1.4 one. Not much improvement in the new 1.8 in image quality (if any).

Also I bought a pack of 3 adaptor rings in order to shoot macro with any lens. For a 38$ set from china, It saves me lots of money and space on my bag. Instead of getting a 100mm macro lens for 2 ring shots... now I can use my 70-200mm or 24-105mm. A mate of mine got one and it works perfect


----------



## A-Branger

also talking about experiments. I remembered about this selfie shot






I took it like 3 years ago. I was just reading and learning about speedlites and I was playing with the Multi function on the speedlite. The shot was made on camera, long exposure with two pops of the flash, hence the two faces, the idea was to kinda illustrate the two faces of someone, the outside "normal' and the inner self. No editing done, prob just an easy thing on lightroom like some contrast and exposure, didnt knew much about retouching back them

I did it on a cafe aftter my lunch, holding the camera with my hands at 24mm on a Canon 7D, with the speedlite mounted on the camera, jsut killing some time lol


----------



## Tang

Looks like we killed the thread 

Don't worry I won't post anymore risqué pics of myself.


----------



## Philligan

Here's one from our drive to Wedding #7 today. Shot through the window of a moving car. 



DSCF0007 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Hot damn... Fuji has made a hell of a piece of glass with the XF90 - 135mm F2 equivalent. Picked one up yesterday and it is so impressive. Really responsive AF, sharp as a tack, great focusing ring, and min focusing distance of 60cm! I wish all Fuji's lenses were this good.

















Gorgeous bokeh.


----------



## Philligan

capoeiraesp said:


> Hot damn... Fuji has made a hell of a piece of glass with the XF90 - 135mm F2 equivalent. Picked one up yesterday and it is so impressive. Really responsive AF, sharp as a tack, great focusing ring, and min focusing distance of 60cm! I wish all Fuji's lenses were this good.



This photo is incredible. That's exactly the look I'm after. You can still make sense of the background, but the smoking guy is separated perfectly. And the light catching the smoke is amazing.

I have to get the 56mm first for practicality's sake, but I hope I get enough jobs that I can pick this up before too long.

edit: Man, I can't get over how good that photo is.


----------



## Tang

That was my favorite of the bunch. A bit too contrasty for my tastes but still an excellent shot.

I recently decided that I needed to get away from using a 35mm for everything so I dug my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 out of retirement. It's not as sharp as the 35mm, but it definitely renders images WAY differently. I love how it renders edges and straight lines.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Philligan said:


> This photo is incredible. That's exactly the look I'm after. You can still make sense of the background, but the smoking guy is separated perfectly. And the light catching the smoke is amazing.
> 
> I have to get the 56mm first for practicality's sake, but I hope I get enough jobs that I can pick this up before too long.
> 
> edit: Man, I can't get over how good that photo is.



Cheers man. It's a boss lens. Keep in mind that there's a seat in front of him giving him thy beautiful front fill since its reflecting the sun.


----------



## flint757

Even still that lens looks ridiculously sharp!

Anyone have any experience with Voigtlander? Thinking about renting their MFT 42.5mm f/0.95, but I don't want to spend the $50 or so on testing it if it isn't that great. It's between that and the Panasonic/Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 OIS for the 85mm equivalent. I'm contemplating renting the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 X OIS as well, as I'd like to get familiar with it. Seems like the perfect lens for a paid gig, on paper at least.


----------



## A-Branger

capoeiraesp said:


> Cheers man. It's a boss lens. Keep in mind that there's a seat in front of him giving him thy beautiful front fill since its reflecting the sun.



that plus the fact that the background behind him is on shadow.  pretty lucky situation, and the ideal spot to shot.

cool pic


----------



## Rook

Voigtlaender traditionally make great lenses, and their current Japanese made stuff is made by Cosina, who make Zeiss's stuff too which is awesome quality.

That said, I've heard the 42.5mm is unwieldy and very soft... *I've not had the chance to try it*, but the reviews I've read and samples I've seen suggest the IQ is a bit old school. Flare, chromatic aberration and so on.

That said, the character is in the imperfections.

I certainly wouldn't be worrying about build quality though if this is a Cosina lens.


----------



## UnderTheSign

flint757 said:


> Even still that lens looks ridiculously sharp!
> 
> Anyone have any experience with Voigtlander? Thinking about renting their MFT 42.5mm f/0.95, but I don't want to spend the $50 or so on testing it if it isn't that great. It's between that and the Panasonic/Leica 42.5mm f/1.2 OIS for the 85mm equivalent. I'm contemplating renting the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 X OIS as well, as I'd like to get familiar with it. Seems like the perfect lens for a paid gig, on paper at least.


Sort of depends on what you'd like to do with it as well. The Voigt is fully manual (I heavily considered a Voigtlander wide lens when I had my MFT camera) which I didn't mind but ended up getting the Oly 17mm after all because of the OIS and autofocus. Figured that would prove to be more useful in the end. The same might go for you and Voigt vs Panaleica


----------



## Azyiu

Haven't been posting here for a long long time. Enjoy.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Some beauty/glam from an "End of Summer" shoot:




Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/250 f/4.5





Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/200 f/4


----------



## Tang

Those are awesome, Philosopher.

I've been keeping up on the weird self-portrait trend. I've started setting scenes up and hopefully in the future I can pick up some off-camera lights. the first shot was lit by my TV paused randomly in an episode of It's Always Sunny in Philly. Second shot was just the lights in my kitchen.



FIFA15 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



assistant by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Thanks, I have a pair more to show today (and a good amount more to sort through and think about retouching).





Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/200 f/2.8 
Calumet 750w/s light + 22" Speedotron Beauty Dish at full power across the pool camera left providing fill





Bronica ETRSi with Bronica 100mm f/4 Macro: 1/250 f/4 Portra160NC cross-processed in E-6 chemicals
Natural light because I forgot my pc-sync cable


----------



## UnderTheSign

Love the Bronica shot. Especially cnsidering it's just natural light!


----------



## Philligan

We went to the Western Fair in London Monday. Here are some from that.



DSCF0052 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0145 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0167 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0374 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0410 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'll run out of shots from this shoot eventually . I really enjoyed shooting into the sun for a lot of the day, it was a bit amusing to watch the natural light shooters struggle with the lighting conditions. I offered a couple of times to let them use my trigger and light while I took a break from shooting, but no one ever took me up on it.





Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/200 f/5.6
Calumet 750w/s light + 22" Speedotron Beauty Dish at 1/4 power providing fill at camera left





Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/200 f/4
Calumet 750w/s light + 22" Speedotron Beauty Dish at 1/4 power providing slight overpowering of the sun at camera right


----------



## Philligan

That second one is great. 

Has anyone used the Epson V550 or heard much about it? I'm really ready for a scanner, and my grandpa's will be $250+ to fix because he lost so many parts. 

I'm poor, so I'm not looking at anything more than $199, the price of the Epson. I like how it does 135 and 120 right out of the box (because I'd rather get medium format when the time comes for a new film camera), and it's a flatbed so I have the option of scanning prints down the road. 

Reviews seem fine. The auto colour balance doesn't seem quite as good as more expensive scanners, but I'm only planning on shooting B&W for the foreseeable future. I'd like to avoid further post in Lightroom, so if this scanner does a bit of a process while it imports, I'm fine with that.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I have a V500 and its handling of slides and color negatives leaves a bit to be desired, but it's not a bad scanner. You'd probably want to do some spotting in post anyway.


----------



## UnderTheSign

The guy I got my Bronica from had a V500 (V550 is apparently very similar, slight upgrade) then moved on to a V700. He did a lot of paid work with his analog medium format cameras and said for that he preferred the V700, but for a hobbyist or enthousiast 9 outta 10 times the V500 should be good enough.

Philosopher do you use the Epson software or some 3rd party like Vuescan or Silverfast?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm using EpsonScan to scan as flat and/or preserve as much dynamic range as possible followed by edits in Photoshop.


----------



## A-Branger

Philligan said:


> That second one is great.



I would say no. 

Its a great photo, and all of them look great on the lighting and post and look and feel of them. But her facial expresions are trowing me off, maybe if she was looking into her right shoulder, or looking at you with a more intimidation look? not sure. But what it trows me off is the fact she looks like shes naked  I could see shes from her back that shes wearing a bikini, but shes posed on a way that is getting hidden on the water, plus she has her arms so close to her boday you cant tell the line of the bikini either.

Nothing worng, and they are little picky details that somethimes are hard to tell on the day, even at editing, and def you need to make them in order to learn about them. Im just saying this is because I know thats the frist thing she would look at, and she wont like her pic because of that..... "OMG I look naked.." 

having say that, they are really great photos, great job on the lighting


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A-Branger said:


> Im just saying this is because I know thats the frist thing she would look at, and she wont like her pic because of that..... "OMG I look naked.."



When she saw them on the back of the camera, she thought it was funny and would send it to her boyfriend as a goof and say she spent the whole day topless.

I agree her expression leaves something to be desired, I think she was trying to go for innocent or coy (but didn't quite get it).


----------



## A-Branger

LOL would love to see his face


----------



## flint757

Yeah, the lighting angles and all of the technical aspects are great, but both of their expressions leave something to be desired. 

In the first shot she looks like she's trying to be sexy and failing at it, at least form my perspective. Might have looked better with her mouth closed or maybe if she were looking in the same direction her head was turned or her head was turned a bit more towards the camera. 

In the second shot she just looks kind of confused or puzzled. Like an "oh, that's interesting" kind of expression, but it's subtle enough to not stick out. I like her expression better than the first girl for sure. 

I can see where A-Branger is coming from about the top too, although it didn't really bother me until he mentioned it.  It's not the lack of her top showing or her looking nude either; it's that she looks topless, but the water makes her boobs literally disappear. It feels dimensionless almost which is off putting.

That's more on their end than yours though as they're still really well executed, especially with the small equipment issues you had to deal with.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Seems like we've got some lighting guys in here so I'll ask, I want to get a small setup so I can practise portrait work and do the occasional macro shot. So, I'm looking for a flash that'll fit both my Fuji Xpro1 and Bronica Sq. Both have a sync port and hotshoe. I've heard people praise the Yongnuo speedlites online and my local shop carries the YN 560 IV and has a bundle with a hotshoe mounted wireless trigger which sounds pretty good. Will that work with my cameras?

And, are there any must have accessories when it comes to flashes? When I look online I drown in a sea of different stuff like beauty dishes, softboxes, having a dozen umbrellas on stands but that's a tad much right now. I'd just like a flash and possibly some accessories I can stuff into my bag and when I'm at a family party and pull out my camera, can start shooting when people ask for it. Would make a nice change from all my aunts and cousins uploading their 'night mode' phone pics to Facebook every damn time


----------



## Philligan

yongnuos are amazing for the money. Using them wirelessly, you won't get TTL, but that's all good. It's good to learn in manual to start anyway. 

All you need to start off is a cheap stand, and get a white shoot-thru umbrella with a removable black reflector cover - it's silver on the inside and turns your from a shoot-thru into a bounce. You can use that to imitate a soft box, so that simple setup will more than cover you starting off.


----------



## A-Branger

I got the yonguno but the 600ex-rt model, a copy/paste of the canon flagship. IT comes with the radio triger incorporated as the canon system does. Not sure if that would work with other brand of cameras, but since its yonguno, it might will if you have one as the "master".

Another thing is, not sure what is your camera, but if you have a pop-up flash, you might be able to use it as the "master", the only thing you would need to do is to turn off the pop flash exposure so it only send the pre-flash and wont affect the exposure.

Thats how I started when I had my 7D, I use my pop-up as the optical master for my speedlite.

as Philligan says, an umbrella work perfect for starts and they are cheap as... if not there are different brands with colapsible softboxes quick and eassy to settup for speedlites. Lastolite and Wescott are brands to search for those. Or any copycat cheap brand.

for Macro you can use the diffuser part of your umbrella or softbox, even a piece of white paper to bounce the light.

for quick "event" kinda shots, like party places you can get away by having the flash on top of the camera, as long as you dont shoot with the flash pointing at your subject!!! lol. Learn how to bounce the flash, either to the ceiling or to the wall at your left or right. A basic setup is to have your flash head at 45degree angle tilt, facing 90 degrees either left or right, (i usually go right in order to be able to shot in portrait mode if I need to).

And also to be able to balance the ambient light with the flash is what really makes or breaks a good event photo, so let a lot of ambient light come into the camera, and shot the ppl facing a colorfull backdrop, there is a massive difference on shoothing ppl against a plain white wall than against the whole room with lights/bar/etc.. and it only took you to say "can you guys stand there instead"... . For example for a nightclub I used to shoot I was most of the time at ISO1600, f4, 1/10th shutter speed. Plus I have my flash set to shoot in second curtain or at the end of exposure to "freeze" my subject. Most of the time I face ppl into the bar as its the most light and colorfull part of the venue, or to either light colored wall/colum/backdrop


----------



## Whammy

Philosopher, love the colors from the Bronica shot.

Tang, liking the style and processing from your Tamron shots.


So it turns out that the project I was working on of my son and his grandfather is now going to be featured in my counties main museum.

They want me to expand from the 9 photos I have for a total of 12 to 15 shots. They are booked up until March so the exhibition isn't until then.
Pretty unexpected but a great opportunity.

In the meantime work has taken off quite a bit. But that's mainly thanks to my wife for advertising my photos and looking for clients.
Got a good few weddings where it's only a portrait session with the couple, which will act as good experience before the full on wedding.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

On the gear front, I got my 80-200 back from repair - it apparently was full of sand, dirt and grit (I bought if off a working PJ in 2009). I got it all cleaned, lubed, and calibrated. I'm glad it didn't need any electronics replaced as I wouldn't have it back in time for some of my upcoming work.



flint757 said:


> That's more on their end than yours though as they're still really well executed, especially with the small equipment issues you had to deal with.



I have other shots of the second model (from the last set) and her expressions generally seemed to be more cautious/subtle the entire shoot; I'll find the strongest of her images to retouch and post that up next. 

The only equipment issue I can think that I ran into was not being able to strobe with my Bronica due to forgetting the darned cable; I have three of them: one is still in it's packaging in my gear cabinet, and the other two were both in my LF case. When you buy extra cables to keep one in each case and somehow they all end up together.



Whammy said:


> Philosopher, love the colors from the Bronica shot.



Thanks, I wrestled with how much "correction" to do to the color to get it more natural - I settled on this look as it still has a slightly crossed look, but doesn't look like a crappy Insta-filter. Congrats on all the new work, that's exciting.


----------



## Philligan

My dad's speaking at a conference in November and needed a headshot, so I just did one for him. This is the 35, which is still the tightest lens I own. The 56 is #1 on my list of camera priorities, and probably too high on my list of life priorities.  Next big photo job I get, I'm using the money to buy that lens.

It's ISO 400, f/2.8, 1/180. I used a bounce umbrella up and to camera left, and a bare flash back and to camera right. Shot in front of a taupe wall.  All I want is a place with reasonably high ceilings and straight grey walls. 



TBHeadshot by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



Screen Shot 2015-09-19 at 2.32.29 PM by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Nice adjustments, they really make the image pop. Could you do two separate white balance adjustments if you needed to get the wall neutral while maintaining the color balance on your father?


----------



## Philligan

I think so, but I don't know how.  Thanks a lot man. 

I thought about painting the wall off and desaturating it, but that can sometimes get funny around the subject and I thought this looked alright, so I just left it.


----------



## Tang

gonna reprocess that one.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

"So what did you shoot today, Jeff?"
"More weird photos of girls with loosely sports-related themes, of course."


----------



## Tang

Those are ....ing weird, man. 

And I like it.


----------



## Philligan

Dawn needed a headshot for her student card at teacher's college (don't ask me why they didn't take it themselves, I've never seen it done this way before). It's supposed to be pretty plain, so I just did one light.



DawnHeadshot by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And here's a candid one.



DawnHeadshotBW by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

Thanks for the flash advice guys. I've ordered a YN560IV and trigger plus a flash stand and swivel/hotshoe whatever they call it in the states head. Also got a 3-in-1 Lumopro umbrella (advice courtesy of strobist.com) and for handheld/camera mounted flash stuff a Rogue Flashbender. Considering I often take longer walks and bike trips where I really can't have a stand etc with the the Flashbender seemed useful. Time will tell!

All in all I spent slightly less than &#8364;250... That's the price of a big brand speedlite so I'm happy so far


----------



## Winspear

Very dark iso 3200 shot of my wife to be and dog 





My first time trying to take a nice pic in an awful light and processing BW. Any pointers?


----------



## Philligan

Looks great.  It still looks like it's got lots of detail. I'd say maybe try bumping the contrast a little, and dodging your fiancee a bit to brighten her. Right now my eye falls on the dog, but I think your fiancee's the interesting part of the photo.

Personally, especially on a photo this dark, I'd use the tone curve to crush the blacks some, too, but that's a touchy subject.


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> Thanks for the flash advice guys. I've ordered a YN560IV and trigger plus a flash stand and swivel/hotshoe whatever they call it in the states head. Also got a 3-in-1 Lumopro umbrella (advice courtesy of strobist.com) and for handheld/camera mounted flash stuff a Rogue Flashbender. Considering I often take longer walks and bike trips where I really can't have a stand etc with the the Flashbender seemed useful. Time will tell!
> 
> All in all I spent slightly less than 250... That's the price of a big brand speedlite so I'm happy so far



Excellent. Watch some youtube videos on lighting, then go look at lit photos and try to figure out how the photographer lit it.

I bought Zack Arias' One Light 2.0 instructional and am really happy with it. It's a bit expensive, but if you end up getting into lit portraiture, I think it's worth it. I picked up a lot from it.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I actually borrowed the original Onelight DVD from a friend this weekend. If I like that, I might buy the 2.0 too. 

It's funny that the video that got me interested in Zack and his stuff was this one... DRTV is silly and I don't like their reviews much but Zack showed his talents very well here IMO, with the single flash and mediocre little camera.


I've also been watching some of this stuff. Summer is almost over and I've always wanted to photograph them cute jumping spiders (will have to wait until next year now I guess!) but I'll start toying around and making some DIY diffusers when the YN560 comes in. This guy makes it sound so easy. Hand-held focus stacking, sure thing! 


I've just finished school and while I save up for my own cabinetry workshop I'm working a part time job so miraculously enough, I have both more money and more free time on my hands the next few months. Hopefully that'll give me the opportunity to become a better photographer.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Aaaand when I visited my local shop this afternoon for a chat and some small gizmos, I noticed a cheap as bums Pentax K10d and a 100mm extension tube in their second hand cabinet. Apparently it had been in there for a while already, "yeah, most people go Canon and Nikon so even 2nd hand the Pentax market is bogus here" the guy sighed  

I guess I now have an actual Pentax body for all my dad's lenses so I'll use it for dedicated macro work with the tubes and a reversed 28mm or 55mm lens. A big sturdy dslr body is a lot easier to hold still when doing macro IMO. Keeping that rig together all the time means I can use my Fuji for all the other stuff. I had been eyeballing the Venus/Laowa 60mm macro but this is actually easier!

... Man I've become such a gearwhore the past year...


----------



## Philligan

I don't think I mentioned this. I shoot a Fuji X-T1, but all my lighting gear is Canon. It's actually almost all Yongnuo, but for Canon.  Now that I'm on the computer I can go into a little more detail here.

AFAIK, any camera can trigger any flash. But if you want them to really talk to each other, you need proprietary sync pins. But honestly, I don't think I've ever used TTL flash. Any off-camera stuff is always manual, and the times I might like on-camera TTL is maybe half of the time at the most, so I just stick with manual anyway to keep things consistent.

Where off-brand flash gear _does_ suck is for commanding. If you use a Canon camera with Canon flashes, you can change settings for the flashes from your camera menu. I believe with Nikons you can use the pop-up flash to do this, so you don't need to add anything to your camera. There's no way to do this with say a Fuji camera and Canon flash equipment.

One way to get around it is to buy special triggers. Yongnuo makes a higher end line of triggers and receivers that let you adjust individual off-camera flash settings right from the commander on your camera. I see a huge use for this, I just haven't felt like spending the money on it yet.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Some of my last Fuji macro shots. Fuji X > Pentax K ring > Pentax 100mm 1:4 macro. Shots 2/3 I also used a Panagor macro adapter that allows me to go from 1:10 to 1:1.

Last two were shot at auto ISO capped at 3200 which makes the full size images pretty grainy, unfortunately. Raised the max ISO to prevent too low shutters speeds from ruining shots. 



Pentax 100mm f4 by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr



Pentax 100mm f4 + Panagor macro converter by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr



Pentax 100mm f4 + Panagor macro converter by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

I went to Venice last week!

I wanted to find an X-Pan to take with me and sell it when I got back but couldn't find one for the money I had, so instead I did a load of impromptu, handheld panoramas.

I had to find the wrongly-referred to 'nodal point' that panorama makers use to rule out parallax error in practice and then rest that point the lens on my finger and pivot around it to get the stitches right. Seems to have worked reasonably well!

Anyway, here are my faked larger-format (some 80mpx+) X-Pan tribute images from Venice.



Venice Market by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Venice Market 2 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Campanile Bell 1 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Trenitalia 2 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Basilica 1 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr

And these aren't X-Panesque, they're squares (duh), but still stitched panoramas, the first is only 2 images but the second consists of about 12-16, hence are HUGE:



Basilica 4 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Trenitalia 1 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Ferrovia Trolley by Nick Howlett, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Rook said:


> I wanted to find an X-Pan to take with me and sell it when I got back but couldn't find one for the money I had, so instead I did a load of impromptu, handheld panoramas.
> 
> I had to find the wrongly-referred to 'nodal point' that panorama makers use to rule out parallax error in practice and then rest that point the lens on my finger and pivot around it to get the stitches right. Seems to have worked reasonably well!



It's an amazing look. Could you explain your process again, if you don't mind? What kind of settings did you use?


----------



## Philligan

I'm on my phone, so YouTube the Brenizer Method. Basically, an NYC wedding photographer got popular on Facebook for doing it, so some people decided to name it after him. 

It's basically stitching, only not necessarily just side-to-side. You can use it to get a wider shot but maintain shallow depth of field.


----------



## Rook

The 'Brenizer' thing is generally about using fast glass and depth of field effects, this is using a feature of Photoshop that's been around a lot longer than Brenizer's blog post has!

You need at least Photoshop, but I use Photoshop out of Lightroom because I prefer to process in Lightroom.

There are a couple of steps.

First there's finding the 'nodal point' in the lens. This isn't actually a nodal anything, it's the intersection point in the lens where the image goes from being the right way up to upside down - as it is projected onto the sensor. With a DSLR, this is quite easy, as the viewfinder produces a bright spot in the lens as you look through the front, you simply need to use your depth perception to estimate roughly where in the lens this point is and bingo. With a mirrorless camera, it's more a case of estimating, but it's often the narrowest element in the lens.

This is the point around which one needs to pivot the camera, and this prevents parallax error - objects closer to the camera moving relative to objects further from the camera.

Once you've worked out where this point is, just rest the lens on your finger and pivot and shoot.

Then there's actually shooting. First shot should the part of your subject you're focusing on. Get your focus right then flip to manual so it doesn't change. Use manual exposure and use a non-auto white balance setting so it doesn't change. It doesn't matter too much of you're shooting RAW, just makes processing a bit quicker.

Shoot the focal point of your subject, then (quite liberally!) shoot content around it, just making sure there's some intersection between frames. Just be aware of things moving. In some of my stitches I ended up with shadows of people who'd walked into the frame after I took the shot of the area where they were stood. It's a cool effect but suddenly makes the stitching very obvious.

I'd be smart about shooting these. Having huge overlaps makes the .tiff file you'll create very very large (3-4GB) which will again slow you down. Doesn't make too much difference once you've flattened the image other than to give you more chance of creating stitch errors.

Once you've shot, import to Lightroom, then select all the frames for one panorama, go to 'edit', then find the drop down with the 'Merge in Photoshop to Panorama'. I haven't used Lightroom CC's Panorama merge, but I believe it's different. 

This will open Photoshop up, and as how you want to stitch.

I always use the 'perspective' option, which aims to keep straight lines straight, but try auto too, sometimes it does cool stuff. You want to allow profile corrections and removal of vignettes too, but Photoshop's 'smart fill' for gaps is... Well it sucks.

Let that run, my MacBook takes about 5-8 minutes to adjust and stitch.

Then crop out of the resulting stupid-shaped mess the useful bits, go layer -> flatten image, then just hit ctrl+s or cmd+s on Mac, close the photoshop window, and there's your newly stitched TIFF in Lightroom.

Be aware, TIFF's aren't as good for exposure adjustments, and big pushes and pulls look a lot less natural, and you'll lose a little more highlight information than a RAW file. Colour transformations and contrast adjustments etc will still be fine, TIFF files are still waaaay better than JPEG's.

A few notes:
- Increasing the size of your 'format' obviously decreases your equivalent 'focal length' and increases your equivalent aperture, but larger formats don't mean narrower depth of field. In fact a larger format image at the same viewing size and distance will have greater depth of field, but what the red cart image above demonstrates nicely is how the increase in 'circle of confusion' allows the background to go more out of focus, so you get a very gradual fall-off of focus. Lovely.
- I ruined a couple of potentially great stitches because I missed big chunks in the middle of the usable resultant stitch. Be liberal and quick with adding frames, but do make sure there's at least some overlap hahaha, you can always take extra frames to be sure, extra processing time is worth it to recover a shot.
- Use longer lenses. Most of my usable ones were with my 56 and 90, and basically always at f1.2 and f2 respectively. The Venice Market 2 shot above is 5 portrait shots stitched side by side, at 90mm f2. You can see how quickly that depth of field and field of view open up as you try to increase your megapixel count (that shot's about 80mpx) or widen your aspect ratio.
- on that note - more frames = more pixels, more of that gradual, large format looking focus fall-off, more depth of field and more processing time but fewer frames = easier to get right, much lower processing time, and easier to create narrow depths of field.

Hope that helps.


----------



## A-Branger

Philligan said:


> I don't think I mentioned this. I shoot a Fuji X-T1, but all my lighting gear is Canon. It's actually almost all Yongnuo, but for Canon.  Now that I'm on the computer I can go into a little more detail here.
> 
> AFAIK, any camera can trigger any flash. But if you want them to really talk to each other, you need proprietary sync pins. But honestly, I don't think I've ever used TTL flash. Any off-camera stuff is always manual, and the times I might like on-camera TTL is maybe half of the time at the most, so I just stick with manual anyway to keep things consistent.
> 
> Where off-brand flash gear _does_ suck is for commanding. If you use a Canon camera with Canon flashes, you can change settings for the flashes from your camera menu. I believe with Nikons you can use the pop-up flash to do this, so you don't need to add anything to your camera. There's no way to do this with say a Fuji camera and Canon flash equipment.
> 
> One way to get around it is to buy special triggers. Yongnuo makes a higher end line of triggers and receivers that let you adjust individual off-camera flash settings right from the commander on your camera. I see a huge use for this, I just haven't felt like spending the money on it yet.




One of the things why I like Canon over other brands (Nikon), is their TTL or better said ETTL (for canon). I have shot with Nikon a few times and the TTL is way all over the place, I always have to change the speedlite to manual. Canon is always spot on 90% of the time. Even shooting with off-camera flash the ETTL works wonderful. I tend to go manual for keep things consisten as I usually change lenses in order to do a wide and thigh shots, but for a "quick/Im runing out of time shot" ETTL has worked perfect for me, if not a quick +/- 1 or 2 in the flash exposure comp would do perfect.


Canon and Nikon you can use the pop-up flash as the master for an external speedlite. ANd if you keep it as the same brand, yes, you can control the settings from the camera. If you use a speedlite as the "master" in your camera, I found changing settings on the speedlite is faster than go trough the Menus on the camera. 

Another reason why I stuck with Canon was for the 600ex-RT speedlite. It comes with built-in radio trigger. So no need to do a line of sight, optical comunication, and no need for buying triggers and pocket wizards. I can have my slave behind a door or a window if I want and I could not only trigger then but also change any setting from my master. If I have multiple, I can turn them on and off, change power levels, shoot them in either manual or ETTL, all controled from the master.

this is the one Im using from yonguno







for the price of one canon, you can buy 3 of yongunos. And like I said, noo need to waste money on triggers, which only "triger" the flash, you still need to change value on each, so lots of walking back and forth, plus extra batteries, plus something extra than cant go wrong. The ability to do everything at your camera at the touch of a button is priceless. I would recomend you slowly change into this system.

they do both the flash and also jsut the "master", which is the one pictured at the left, that goes in your hotshoe and controls all the slaves in radio trigger mode. Still cheapper than the canon version, and this one actually comes with the infra-red grid for focus (canon doesnt). Flashes also comunicate with their canon versions.

The onyl thing I cant do with these is that if you have canon flashes (and camera), you can remotely trigger your camera with a slave flash in your hand. Think about setting up a WIDE shot on a tripod, get close to the couple with a softbox in your hand, fire the camera, step away to get background without you on the shot, ect. No need to run with a 2-10 sec countdown lol


----------



## A-Branger

and since we were talking about speedlites education.

HAve a look a Syl Arena. Great guy, lots of on-line workshops (search for B&H workshops in youtube). He is a great great guy for when you are starting to adventure into the off-camera speedlites. HE is also the one who wrote the Un-official "official" book for canon speelites. the "Speeliters Handbook" see if you can get a digital copy from them. It talks and shows every single aspect of shooting with speedlites, light shapping tools, light colors and gels, off-camera, on-camera, etc. And if you are canon, it goes deep into all the different functions and hidden secrets of each model of speedlite. Stuff that not even the canon manuals said, or poorly written. I used to have the canon 500ex, and reading that book was the only way I learned how to actually use it (it was a pain in the A.. to access basic functions). The new version of the book also includes the new 600ex-RT system. He also has a blog were he used to do lots of talking, he was one of the first ppl to had been given a bunch of 600ex's by canon to do an official review

Zack Arias is awesome.

but the biggest name of them IMO, go for Joe McNally..... seriously it would blow your mind what that guy can and have done with speedlites, and his general photography. Lots of tutorials and books from him


----------



## Winspear

Philligan said:


> Looks great.  It still looks like it's got lots of detail. I'd say maybe try bumping the contrast a little, and dodging your fiancee a bit to brighten her. Right now my eye falls on the dog, but I think your fiancee's the interesting part of the photo.
> 
> Personally, especially on a photo this dark, I'd use the tone curve to crush the blacks some, too, but that's a touchy subject.



Thanks! I had another play and tried the dodging. That's the first time I've processed beyond the basic RAW editor. 
An improvement, or overdone? I like it but I am not sure haha
Previous:
Simple File Sharing and Storage.
New:
Simple File Sharing and Storage.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Rook said:


> First there's finding the 'nodal point' in the lens. This isn't actually a nodal anything, it's the intersection point in the lens where the image goes from being the right way up to upside down - as it is projected onto the sensor. With a DSLR, this is quite easy, as the viewfinder produces a bright spot in the lens as you look through the front, you simply need to use your depth perception to estimate roughly where in the lens this point is and bingo. With a mirrorless camera, it's more a case of estimating, but it's often the narrowest element in the lens.
> 
> This is the point around which one needs to pivot the camera, and this prevents parallax error - objects closer to the camera moving relative to objects further from the camera.
> 
> Once you've worked out where this point is, just rest the lens on your finger and pivot and shoot.



Thanks, Rook. That's amazing. I'll be trying this out tonight with my 50 1.8 and 135 2.8 both on crop sensor. Slightly confused about the pivot point and freehanded nature of it in theory. I'm sure it'll work out with a bit of practice.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Lots of great advice being given out here lately. Thanks guys, it's a lot but I'll get on it!

Rook, 3-4gb files... That's insane haha. Looks great though. Reminds me of those Fotodiox medium format setups I used to GAS for (until I just got an analog MF camera...)!

I was sitting at my desk reading up on lighting and macro work and saw some spider webs in front of my window (a very popular place for smaller spiders it seems) with a large mosquito stuck in there. Small (8mm or so) spider was busy pulling in the mosquito but the wind hit the webs and the mosquito fell down to the bottom of the window. Damnit, I had just grabbed my camera... 5 minutes later I see another even smaller (5mm) spider take his opportunity, he climbs up a bit and there he was, having lunch. Grabbed the K10D, attached the 100mm tube and 100mm 1:4 macro and took my chances.

First time actually shooting the K10D and it's definitely different from what I'm used to. Shake reduction helps (I think) but the metering with a manual lens doesn't feel as accurate as the Fuji. Most of the times when I let the camera decide shutter speed I ended with with a slightly over or under exposed shot so I went full manual. Took me a second to realise I didn't have focus peaking either 

First, the crime scene:


Spider with finger, just to give an idea of its size. by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr

Shooting wide open at this distance and magnification makes the DOF very shallow (duh). Makes for interesting 'artsy' shots though.


IMGP0384.jpg by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr

It's overcast outside which gave the mosquito a nice glow!


Spider &amp; prey by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr

And finally, the spider that missed out on his meal. It's not 100% sharp, it's a little grainy at ISO 800 but I really like the look of the spider here. Seeing his eyes is super neat.


Spider enlightment by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr

All in all I'd consider my first 15 minutes with the K10D somewhat succesful!


----------



## Rook

UnderTheSign said:


> Rook, 3-4gb files... That's insane haha. Looks great though. Reminds me of those Fotodiox medium format setups I used to GAS for (until I just got an analog MF camera...)!



3-4GB is only the size of the working file, once layers are flattened, the final file is 2-400MB.


----------



## A-Branger

cool macro shots. Pretty cool spot for lighting. 

since you are interested in macro work, have a look at this link

https://fstoppers.com/diy/macro-pho...x-800-twin-flash-gets-brilliant-results-76908

(i dnt know how to put youtube vids here).

I know its a review of a flash, but in the clip the guy also gives some tips on how he shoots his photos by the way he soften the light


----------



## UnderTheSign

I've seen some of his videos already, seems like a cool guy and the stuff he shoots handheld is ridiculous. Gives some proper advice too!

Also, you can embed youtube links by taking the code (in this videos case 8JbJzENXjz8) from the url, and putting it in between


----------



## Philligan

Joe Harvatt said:


> Thanks, Rook. That's amazing. I'll be trying this out tonight with my 50 1.8 and 135 2.8 both on crop sensor. Slightly confused about the pivot point and freehanded nature of it in theory. I'm sure it'll work out with a bit of practice.



Not to keep harping about Ryan Brenizer (I realize this has been around a lot longer than he has), but this is a pretty good video where he walks you through shooting and post.


----------



## flint757

Rook said:


> ...
> 
> Be aware, TIFF's aren't as good for exposure adjustments, and big pushes and pulls look a lot less natural, and you'll lose a little more highlight information than a RAW file. Colour transformations and contrast adjustments etc will still be fine, TIFF files are still waaaay better than JPEG's.
> 
> ...



Why not just adjust the exposure in Photoshop then? It's literally a simple click on an adjustment layer. Never worked with Tiff files in Lightroom, but if they aren't that great at it, it would make more sense to adjust it before saving it as a Tiff and then do the rest in Lightroom. 

Also, prior to saving it as a Tiff, the flattened file in Photoshop is still huge. I tried the other day to save a flattened panorama as a PSD and it wouldn't let me as it exceeded 2GB; so I had to save it as a PSB instead.


----------



## Rook

RAW files are 14 bit, saving using any file format deeper than that's a little redundant, hence TIFF's. TIFF's aren't incapable at handling exposure movement at all, it will just be different to doing the same with a RAW file. I've not really had a problem with it because I haven't had to do any big shifts in exposure, but the reason I pull back into Lightroom is because I use particular colour profiles etc and it's usually not until I've decided exactly what I'm doing with a file I'll decide on exposure changes. You can also slightly overcome some of the oddness by pushing whites up as you turn exposure down. Turning exposure up isn't a problem.

As for the 2GB+ issue, I have run into this, tried to save as tiff, it says that, I try again and the file comes out at 400MB anyway. If the file is a given bit depth and it consists of the same number of megapixels as three frames of raw file, the resultant tiff shouldn't really be much larger than the size of the sum of those three raw files. As I said, two of the squares above are close to or over 100mpx and none are bigger than 500MB, the JPEG's less than a 10th of that.

I've not had a problem with excessively large flattened files saved as tiffs


----------



## flint757

Yeah, I couldn't tell you what did it as it was only like 8 images and it was heavily cropped with the cropped pixels deleted. PSD files don't take a whole lot of effort to get big though so who knows. I had tried several times to save it and got the same message every time. 

I personally don't use Tiff unless I'm bringing it back to Lightroom, which I rarely do. Honestly, once I started using/learning Photoshop Lightroom lost all its appeal for me beyond being an absolutely wonderful way to catalogue my pictures. Nowadays I import them into Lightroom and edit them entirely in Photoshop and then bring the finished photos back into the Lightroom catalogue.


----------



## Tang

Raws (at least DNG) are actually a subset of the .tiff file format if I remember correctly.


----------



## A-Branger

here are some of the shots from my wedding last saturday. All of them shot with the Canon 6D







Sigma 50mm f1.4 lens. Lastolite softbox at the right






canon 24-105mm f4 softbox at the right






sigma 50mm, natural light






24-105mm natual light






now this was a mix of two images. We barely had any time for shooting so all had to be runing and quick as possible. I started by shooting them with the 50mm, I got the shot of just them (I know his expresion is not the best), and latter I changed into the 70-200mm, which it gave me a way better background full of bokeh lights, but the guy who was giving me a hadn with the softbox he steped a bit too much to the right so the shadow on them was more defined and contrasted look. So I liked the couple better with the 50, but I like the background better with the 70-200, so I merge the best out of the two. 

Not the best seamless merge, but the couple would never tell. I have done it a few times and with better results than with this couple, but well


----------



## Whammy

Continuing on with the set of photos between my son and his grandad. Can't wait to print this out A3 size.


----------



## Tang

Well, I feel weird posting after some of these great shots but here goes..



beer &#x27;o clock by Scott Jones, on Flickr



aardwolf by Scott Jones, on Flickr



can&#x27;t see the weeds for the forest by Scott Jones, on Flickr



aardwolf #2 by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Tang said:


> Raws (at least DNG) are actually a subset of the .tiff file format if I remember correctly.



They are indeed, and the only difference between them is semantic. Lightroom literally carries out the exposure adjustment differently on a file of extension 'tif' to a file of whose extension it recognises as being directly out of a camera. Something to do with the curve of values in the transform, as 'exposure' when applied to RAW's is not a linear increase of luminosity of all pixels, there's a curve.

PSD's are a semantically odd format to use for purely photographic transformations, and are presumably why your file sizes are getting excessive. I sometime found when the program got confused simply starting the same process was enough.


----------



## flint757

I keep them as PSD's until the final export to PNG or JPEG. I went ahead and did the same file in PSD and TIFF and the TIFF file is 240MB larger, with layers and transparency both checked, than my PSD file with equivalent settings; so it appears PSD files are smaller when uncompressed anyhow. I'm not all that concerned with storage and I like being able to go back and tweak layers. PSD files open up in Lightroom as well so there's no real need for me to use TIFF's even still.

The choice doesn't really make much of a difference as once open they are essentially the same.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Quickly grabbed some photos before getting in the van to work this morning to try out the Brenizer technique.

This is the world's least interesting photo, but it worked. It's made of about 10 photos.


----------



## Whammy

Brenizer technique, I've used that one quite a bit.

Most times though I've gone over 30 photos.















And this one only used 2 photos


----------



## ThePhilosopher

...and now for something different; some natural light handheld shots of our Furkids.




Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D: ISO 1600 1/160s f/2





Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D: ISO 800 1/13s f/2





Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D: ISO 800 1/3s f/2





Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D: ISO 800 1/15s f/2


----------



## Rook

Whammy said:


> Brenizer technique, I've used that one quite a bit.
> 
> Most times though I've gone over 30 photos.



I see you let Photoshop's 'smart content fill' do its thing in the first one haha.

Interestingly I don't think I'd have noticed if I didn't know what it did, I guess that means it works? I assume that's what's causing the repeatition of details anyway.


----------



## Philligan

I just got hired by the marketing firm.  My first job is tentatively planned for next Tuesday. We'll be going to Toronto and I'll be reshooting the online menu for Burger's Priest, shooting for ads/social media, and maybe doing staff portraits, too.

I'm not staff, sadly, just freelance. They gave me a writing job too, though, which has the potential to turn into a part time job. If it does, I should be making about the same or more than I'm making at the jeweller's in the mall, in which case I'll GTFO. I'm pretty excited about this.


----------



## flint757

I've only had good luck with content-aware fill on grass, concrete and sky. Anything with any sort of detail in the area needed to be filled and it doesn't know what to do. Since it's basically cloning a part of the image it doesn't work all that great on shallow DOF photos IMO.

I have seen a couple tricks to make it more successful. Like duplicating your image and then deleting all the detail you definitely don't want to pop up. Then selecting the area to be filled and letting it do its thing. Then unhide the layer to bring back the deleted scene details. Works like a charm a fair amount of the time and not a lot of added effort.


----------



## flint757

For those who have been doing panoramas using photo merge in Photoshop, how long are your stitches taking with 30-40 pictures? Are y'all changing the formats to something smaller like png or jpeg (rather than RAW)?

For me, with an I7 processor and 32GB of RAM, with plenty of cache space as well as 75% of my RAM being accessible to Photoshop, it takes at least an hour it seems (seems longer, but I walk away from my computer so I'm not certain). When I cut it back to less than 10 photos it only takes a few minutes and when it's just a couple photos less than a minute.

If this isn't normal maybe all my other problems are tied to a hardware problem or a corrupted Photoshop install. 

I'm probably going to run a MemTest to check my memory anyhow.

[EDIT]

Either that or maybe somethings not optimized in my preferences.


----------



## A-Branger

if its too long, or too much space, you can always like you said do them in JPEGs.

Edit the "main" photo in lightroom (or your preffered one), and once happy, just copy/paste the settings to the others, export JPGEs and import to photoshop, clean the panorama edges and done.... or add a color grade or other minor touches. I believe al the RAW editing should be done before the panorama merge, and although JPGES might wont have enough data for last minute fixes, it should be enough for a final grade/look retouch 

Just be careful of vigenting introduced by the lens or lens hood, so try to eliminate those before going into panorama.


I have never done a panorama that big, so cant say much about it. but for 30-40 photos an hour seems reasonable


----------



## flint757

If I can't speed up the process much more than that it might be the most reasonable option out of the bunch.


----------



## Whammy

Rook said:


> I see you let Photoshop's 'smart content fill' do its thing in the first one haha.
> 
> Interestingly I don't think I'd have noticed if I didn't know what it did, I guess that means it works? I assume that's what's causing the repeatition of details anyway.



It was one of the first photos of this style that worked for me. At the time I missed the repetition details because I was just happy that it worked. 
Once I noticed it I did think about doing it again, but the client didn't notice in their version so I left it as is. 
Lesson learned though 



Philligan said:


> I just got hired by the marketing firm.  My first job is tentatively planned for next Tuesday. We'll be going to Toronto and I'll be reshooting the online menu for Burger's Priest, shooting for ads/social media, and maybe doing staff portraits, too.
> 
> I'm not staff, sadly, just freelance. They gave me a writing job too, though, which has the potential to turn into a part time job. If it does, I should be making about the same or more than I'm making at the jeweller's in the mall, in which case I'll GTFO. I'm pretty excited about this.



Nice job Phil


----------



## flint757

Okay, so I downloaded Autopano and used 16-bit TIFF files. It's lightening fast compared to Photomerge. So either Photomerge just isn't particular quick or somethings wrong with my copy of Photoshop (leaning towards the latter). I was able to do the panorama in Autopano in minutes while the Photomerge is still happening in Photoshop so it's definitely not a resource problem.


----------



## Whammy

I had to go out and shoot a new photo using the Brenizer technique after posting all those old shots.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Darn Whammy, I don't know where in Sweden you live but your enviroment looks sweet.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

flint757 said:


> Okay, so I downloaded Autopano and used 16-bit TIFF files. It's lightening fast compared to Photomerge. So either Photomerge just isn't particular quick or somethings wrong with my copy of Photoshop (leaning towards the latter). I was able to do the panorama in Autopano in minutes while the Photomerge is still happening in Photoshop so it's definitely not a resource problem.



I just tried out that Autopano. It's fast! But, for some reason I can only output files around 2000px across.

Here's my first go with it - at work. 27 photos, 50mm 1.8 on crop.


----------



## metal_sam14

Went to a local waterfall today: 



Liffey Falls by Sam Locke, on Flickr



Liffey Falls by Sam Locke, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I wish had a locale like that within a two hour driving distance.


----------



## metal_sam14

Wasn't 100% happy with the exposure so I edited this one again: 



Liffey Falls Edit 2 by Sam Locke, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Did an engagement photoshoot yesterday with the couple that have me booked in to shoot their wedding.
Just a few photos.

Canon 5d MK II - Canon EF 85mm f1.2 @ f1.2 - 1/100 shutter speed - ISO 800







Canon 5d MK II - Canon EF 85mm f1.2 @ f1.6 - 1/160 shutter speed - ISO 400






Canon 5d MK II - Olympus Zuiko 55mm f1.2 (old manual lens) @ f1.2 - 1/200 shutter speed - ISO 800






Canon 5d MK II - Olympus Zuiko 55mm f1.2 (old manual lens) @ f1.2 - 1/200 shutter speed - ISO 800


----------



## flint757

What are they looking at in that first one?


----------



## Rook

I've gotta say, I'm really enjoying having a good, pocketable (in my coat) camera.
i know guys here have had X100(x) cameras come and go, but still very much a novelty for me haha.



Autumn 7 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Autumn 5 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Autumn 3 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Autumn 1 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

Camera and tripod all set up for the blood moon tonight. Alarm set at 4am to snap the peak... Man i hope I don't oversleep


----------



## A-Branger

flint757 said:


> What are they looking at in that first one?








pretty cool photos tho, but yeah carefull with those little details, couples dont like that kind of stuff. You would be all like "but look at the light/colors/bokeh/angles/bokeh/background/pose/mood/bokeh"... and the couple would be like "my face looks weird"..."were hes looking at"

only give to them the best

pretty cool grading too. Im not much of a fan of "green", specially for couples, but good indeed


----------



## UnderTheSign

Lunar eclipses are a freaking pain to shoot. Figured it'd only be a little harder to get right than regular moon shots but nope  

No idea why but whatever I tried, I couldn't get my lens to focus as sharp as usual. As you can see, the full moon below is well focused... Same lens, same infinity focus, the eclips just wouldn't get sharp.


DSCF1612.jpg by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr



Lunar Eclipse 2015 by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

That first one looks great.  We had a pretty good view of the moon just from our place, but my longest lens is a 35mm on APS-C right now, and I'm sick, so I didn't feel like traipsing out into the sticks to shoot wide angles of the moon. 

Still waiting for an official verdict on that shoot in Toronto tomorrow. From what I understand, this is part of a retainer, so it's not about getting money from the company, just finding a time where it's convenient for the restaurant, and when the major staff will be available.

It would be nice to get this done this week so I can buy some new gear.  The 56mm is first on my list for multiple reasons along with one of the Fuji extension tubes, and eventually I'll need a second body, and something wider than 18mm for interiors (unless I use the 23mm and stitch). 

Depending on how much food and product photography I'll be doing, I'd like to find some kind of boom arm solution for my camera. Does anyone know of an affordable way to do that? Under $100 would be ideal. I've got a decent tripod (Vanguard Alta Pro something or other with the ball head), so if there's some kind of head attachment that mounts a boom arm, I'm all for that.


----------



## Philligan

I don't think I posted these, so here's the shot that got me the job. I used foam board and speed lights to set up a quick and dirty light box (forgot to shoot the setup ) and we shot a Harvey's burger.  They'd worked with another photographer and weren't too excited about his food photos, and the restaurant sent them photos from a different marketing firm that they weren't happy with. The photo wasn't great to begin with, but their big complaint was that when you zoomed in, there was a lot of grain and not much detail. I checked the exif on the photo and it was shot with an NEX-7 at ISO 800, which is probably a lot of the issue right there. I remember hearing in a video that that camera had great image quality but sucked at high ISO, even by the standards of its time. They're looking for something that's big and clean that gives them lots of options for zooming and cropping.

Anyway, they were surprised at what I could take with a short prep time and a little foam board box, and liked how much detail the photo had. I thought the sharpening halos showed up a little too quickly for my taste, but I was probably pixel peeping worse than they were. 

This was probably 10-15 minutes of prep, 5 minutes of shooting, and 5 minutes of post, set up on a table in their lounge. There are some things I'm not happy about - mainly the uneven background exposure, and I'm thinking the white balance is a bit cold. It's hard to get even background exposure when there's no room for a light behind, so I'm thinking for next time I'll mask off the burger and push the whites to clip with the slider, and maybe pull the whites back down a touch with the turn curve to really flatten them out. They're not so much going for dynamic lighting as they are something even that they can change the colour of and throw text on as needed.



burger1 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

This is from earlier this year, but this is basically the setup I used last week for the burger. They'd just ordered a bunch of beer steins for Oktoberfest, so I used the boxes of glasses to prop the foam board up in the middle of the table. I only have two speed lights, but they had an old Canon 430ex kicking around, so I snagged that, too. I did two bare lights going in holes on the sides (forgot to get tissue paper to diffuse them), and a third light in my 24x36 softbox pretty much directly in front of the burger.



Setup by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

I'm not a huge product/stock person, but I found from my limited experience, its worth pushing the whites as much as you can to make sure as much of the white setting is blown out as possible, because when you come to print you could find you get funny smudging.

Just a titbit from the one time I've done this hahaha.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Philligan said:


> That first one looks great.  We had a pretty good view of the moon just from our place, but my longest lens is a 35mm on APS-C right now, and I'm sick, so I didn't feel like traipsing out into the sticks to shoot wide angles of the moon.


Thanks! Tbh with a longer focal length lens (I have a 400mm tele and a 600mm mirror tele, both old Pentax mounts) a full moon is pretty easy to get right. At f8 and 1/125 it's almosts doable handheld.

Digging your creativity in the burger setup. White is a bit harsh but that should be easy to change.


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> Thanks! Tbh with a longer focal length lens (I have a 400mm tele and a 600mm mirror tele, both old Pentax mounts) a full moon is pretty easy to get right. At f8 and 1/125 it's almosts doable handheld.
> 
> Digging your creativity in the burger setup. White is a bit harsh but that should be easy to change.



Thanks man. Yeah, that's why I was thinking I'd push them to make sure they're evenly blown, then dragging the whites down in the curve just to flatten them a bit. I'll do that in photos with a visible light source like a light bulb to keep it from looking too hot.

Speaking of, blown is blown, right? Say there's a corner of the photo that's already clipped - if I push the rest of the whites to clip, will the already blown out corner look hotter? With the setup I have right now, there's no way for me to realistically get that all right in-camera. I won't have enough lights or enough room to do it on-location.


----------



## Rook

Nope, blown is blown.

It's basically impossible to get right in camera and not at all necessary. Just push your whites up or brush.

Personally, by the way, I like the harshness. It's clean, almost surgical, and will backlight and print well IMO.


----------



## A-Branger

another trick is to do in photoshop, is to go to the menu "selec" and go to "color range". Select the area of "white" of your background, ad more range and fine tune it so you have the whole area and not the burger. Once done, mask it out and drop a layer of pure white background behind it


----------



## A-Branger

a photo from my recent wedding last Sat







I dnt mind much the pose, but I only did it to "please" my boss who kepy pushing me to do a photo like this as he "saw some pretty pics" on someone's else page, so he wants me to duplicate that..... but then he ask me to not take "posed photos"...???? nothing more fake and posed than this lol

now, picture actually turn out great, but it did required a lot of work. Sun is pretty much behind her head so I miss quite a few before getting this one as she kept moving her head, making me impossible to focus.

Also another reason on this pic is that my boss loves "flares"... him coming from a video background, yes they are great, but I tend to differ when used in photography. Pictures like this, makes a hell of a job being able to work on them with soo much sun "flare" on them. White balance goes all over the place orange, you cant really get good skin tones, you loose all contrast and details on skins and subjects, and again the battle for white balance as the rich orange from the sun contrast the blue from everything else as being on shadow, plus the flare spills so much everywhere that you cant really change anything without affecting the whole image....... end rant lol

Either way, the whole mood of a layback wedding theme adds to this "look". So the photo actually works great, but it did required a lot of work


shot with my Canon 6D with the Tamrom 70-200mm f2.8



this next photo its more my alley






a more actually "natural" pose, as I only told them where to stand, the rest where up to them (it helps having not only a great looking couple, but one that have lots of connection between them)

this was shot under a little hut on the property, sun right behind them giving a nice hair light, (but no flare  ) and the magic touch of a white disk reflector on camera left to bounce a nice soft light into her face.

When I pull out my reflector my boss looked at me like "uhg.... *roll eyes*.." I wouldnt be able to get such a nice light on them, specially her without my reflector as they were on full on shadow. Not only looks 1028701247 better, but it makes my workflow on post a light breeze.

For the first photo it took me around 20-30 mins to get it like that. This photo only took me 5 min, which most sped on photoshop deciding on what grade to use, lightroom was a 1 min tweak and perfect.

I tried a more "de-sat look" on this one, I might went too far?, maybe needs bit mroe warm or not so strong blacks... either way Im more happy and proud of this one

again 70-200mm




And finally this group shot






bit hard to work on as the sun is really strong and really low in the sky, illuminating only half of them. My brushes to recover the exposure/whit balance on some (and the opossite on the other) might not be 100% clean, but it was late, I still thing it still works fine.

Love this kinds of group shots!!... because no matter where you look there is something funny to look at. They made a perfect shot for a double page photo on an album. Anothre thing I usually do for this shots is to find the best "pose" for each person and merge them into one photo. Didnt want to spend too muhc on this photo so I didnt do it, but I might latter for the album. Change a couple of the girls to get a better stance than what they have here.

cant wait for Canon to release a camera with more dynamic range so I could recover stuff in photos like this eassier (yes, I know nikon.. but I dont like nikons  ). Also to be more picky I would get rid of the blue hue on the white clothes and dresses. This was due to me trying to recover the sky and the blue white balance on their clothes on shadows. It would have take me bit too long yesterday at night, so Id leave that for the album.

Its a pretty eassy job in photoshop using a brush set to white painting set to "color" (basically making everything kinda black n white), once painted the areas you are happy with, bring down the opacity of the layer to blend to a more natural look. I do this a lot for the brides white dresses as they pick every color around them, greens for grass and plants, blues for shadow white balances, even the flowers tint. So I make sure the dress is a more "white" even color. 

dont remember if I used the 70-200mm here, if not I used the 24-105mm then


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Is English your first language? I don't mean to be rude.


----------



## Philligan

Set up in the back of the restaurant right now. Just shot the food menu. I'm about to eat a burger, then it's onto drinks and desserts.


----------



## A-Branger

Joe Harvatt said:


> Is English your first language? I don't mean to be rude.



nop. Its spanish 


is it that bad? lol


----------



## High Plains Drifter

A-Branger said:


> nop. Its spanish
> 
> 
> is it that bad? lol



You write better than many American people that I've known lol. If English isn't your first language, you're doing pretty damned good. 

You're doing some great stuff there. I don't know if everyone can appreciate how difficult some of those photos were to capture... soft yet crisp, really capturing all the subtlety and emotion. Even the wedding party picture that was staged came across very candidly. 

Doesn't hurt that the happy couple are also a good looking couple together, but you really took what could have been a "descent" shoot and turned it into a "spectacular" shoot. Nice work.


----------



## A-Branger

High Plains Drifter said:


> You write better than many American people that I've known lol. If English isn't your first language, you're doing pretty damned good.
> 
> You're doing some great stuff there. I don't know if everyone can appreciate how difficult some of those photos were to capture... soft yet crisp, really capturing all the subtlety and emotion. Even the wedding party picture that was staged came across very candidly.
> 
> Doesn't hurt that the happy couple are also a good looking couple together, but you really took what could have been a "descent" shoot and turned it into a "spectacular" shoot. Nice work.



thanks mate, I really appreciate it 

I have been shooting weddings full time both video and photos and Ive learn a thing or two. Always happy to "teach" others how I get my photos


and on my english, I have 8 years living in Aust, plus the basic english I knew before I moved there. I know it would never be perfect, but I try  plus chicks dig the accent  ........... not much really, but some do


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Some retouching time-lapse videos for those interested in high-end retoucing:
The Six Best Beauty Retouching Timelapse Videos You Should Watch | Resource Magazine


----------



## Philligan

I just imported everything and started on the photos. Since my widest lens right now is 18mm on APS-C, I had to follow the trend and shoot panoramas for the interiors.  I'll post those when I finish everything and figure out what I like best.

For the time being, here's the first burger.



DSCF0066 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

A-Branger said:


> nop. Its spanish
> 
> 
> is it that bad? lol



No, I was just curious.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Looks tasty, Phil!

Just scored some Panagor bellows for the K mount lenses on Dutch ebay for $20. Great score. Took some quick photos of a ruler to calculate maximum magnification with the 50/2.0 I've been using lately. Fully extended with lens at infinite focus, I can squeeze 10.5mm in the frame. Lens at minimum focus makes it 10 and that same lens reversed gets 7.5mm in the frame. If I'm correct, with a 23.5mm APS-C sensor, that makes for 2.2 : 1 magnification on infinite, ~ 2.35 : 1 at minimum focus and 3.1 : 1 with the lens reversed. 

It's windy outside and all the spider webs are frantically swaying around so no spider shots for today  Hope to go out and give the bellows a good test drive tomorrow.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

It's a monster.





Nikon D3 with Nikon 80-200mm + PK-13 Extension Tube: ISO 400 1/100s f/8

Lume.




Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 200 6s f/8


----------



## Tang

It seems like everyone is going into pretty specialized areas here. I like it!

I re-processed this shot from a few years ago and it's.. so much better.



the pirate and his lady by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

Tang, what are your favourite lenses for Pentax? I'd especially like to get my hands on some legacy lenses I don't have yet - already have the apparently pretty popular 100mm 1:4 macro and a 50mm 1.8 but I'd like some more.


----------



## Azyiu

Snapped these during a hiking trip with friends last weekend.


----------



## Philligan

I've been working long days and have been sick this week, so I haven't been getting through the photos from the burger place as quickly as I expected. Apparently my purpose in life is now masking food. Seriously, I've spent way too much time masking the edges of burgers at 100% to blow out the backgrounds.  I'm pretty much done the food and realized how much of a nightmare the milkshakes and floats will be - white paper cups on a white background. 

Anyway, I took a break from the food to edit some photos of the staff. There were some pretty awesome dudes working there.



DSCF0362 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0380 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0447 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

Here's a safer drink image:



DSCF0228 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And here's a riskier one. I can't figure out how to get the actual shake at the top masked off without it looking awkward. Not sure how I feel about this photo but I like the idea.



DSCF0209 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

UnderTheSign said:


> Tang, what are your favourite lenses for Pentax? I'd especially like to get my hands on some legacy lenses I don't have yet - already have the apparently pretty popular 100mm 1:4 macro and a 50mm 1.8 but I'd like some more.



The only lenses I currently own are Pentax's 35mm f/2.4, Tamron's 17-50 f/2.8, and an old all manual Tokina 135 f/2.8

For a while I shot exclusively with the 35mm but recently i've brought the Tamron out of retirement. I've


----------



## soliloquy

i scare myself when i get bored. i've been busy last few weeks, thus haven't been posting stuff here. these are just some of the random things ive been exploring with in the last little bit


----------



## soliloquy

this image is really irritating me. the carpet wasn't straight, my shot wasn't dead on either. 









in other news, i'm getting really agitated by amazon while i wait for a flash. i ordered a yongnuo 560II flash for my pentax k5 back in june 10th. they said that i'll recieve it by first week of august....sure. i waited a month and a half and no flash. replied to the seller and they said that canada customs sent the flash back 2 weeks into the order...WTH?! so i ordered another, and they said that it will be here by mid september. yey, another 1.5 months later and still no flash. same thing, canada customs sent it back...ordered another flash from japan this time (the first two were from china) and they said it will be here by october 20th. hopefully canada customs sends it through, or if they do have an issue with that flash, then let me know what issue they have...

locally they dont have that flash, not even on craigslist or kijiji. and other versions of the yongnuo is twice the price. i suppose its worth it if i dont like waiting this long...


----------



## flint757

full_moon_stars by Steven Puckitt, on Flickr

In my boredom I took a shot of some stars (no idea which ones ), the Space Station that flew relatively close to Earth last night and the super moon I took last Tuesday night. Edited in Photoshop and all 3 photos were taken with my Nikon 300mm f/4.5 AIS without my speed booster so it was a 600mm equivalent focal length.

All 3 shots on their own were really boring looking so I took the opportunity to embellish.


----------



## Philligan

soliloquy said:


> in other news, i'm getting really agitated by amazon while i wait for a flash. i ordered a yongnuo 560II flash for my pentax k5 back in june 10th. they said that i'll recieve it by first week of august....sure. i waited a month and a half and no flash. replied to the seller and they said that canada customs sent the flash back 2 weeks into the order...WTH?! so i ordered another, and they said that it will be here by mid september. yey, another 1.5 months later and still no flash. same thing, canada customs sent it back...ordered another flash from japan this time (the first two were from china) and they said it will be here by october 20th. hopefully canada customs sends it through, or if they do have an issue with that flash, then let me know what issue they have...
> 
> locally they dont have that flash, not even on craigslist or kijiji. and other versions of the yongnuo is twice the price. i suppose its worth it if i dont like waiting this long...



If they mess up your order again, can you cancel it and get a refund? Then order your flash directly from Yongnuo. They have their own eBay store where you can buy direct from them. I believe the handle is YongnuoHK - I always have trouble finding it, but make sure you look for that one. They do free international shipping, it's reasonably quick (~2 weeks), probably the best pricing, and they throw in freebies like the Stofen diffuser, a little stand, and an actually decent bag IIRC. If you're gonna do that, throw a set of YN-603 triggers onto the order for an extra $30 or so so you can do off-camera flash.


----------



## Philligan

And here's a stitch finally haha. I took a brutal stitched portrait of Dawn earlier in the year, but can't remember if I posted it or not, so let's assume this is my first. 

It's not the greatest, but I don't mind. If I end up doing a lot of this I'll pick up a proper pano head for my tripod. This was just handheld.



DSCF0034 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

Found this one on an old CD Rom from our holiday to Belgium in 2007. I think that was really the last year dad shot analog. We'd get our film developed at the local shop and had them burn the photos on a CDr. Back then this resolution was more than enough for us  Now it doesn't even fill my screen.

I like the shot though. Nothing flashy. Makes me want to 'borrow' one of dads Pentax ME Super or K1000's, hook up the 50 or 28mm and just have fun with it. I _really_ don't need a fourth camera (next to the K10d, Fuji XP1 and Bronica SQ) in my bag though, despite my GAS...


Orval Abbey by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr


----------



## soliloquy

Philligan said:


> If they mess up your order again, can you cancel it and get a refund? Then order your flash directly from Yongnuo. They have their own eBay store where you can buy direct from them. I believe the handle is YongnuoHK - I always have trouble finding it, but make sure you look for that one. They do free international shipping, it's reasonably quick (~2 weeks), probably the best pricing, and they throw in freebies like the Stofen diffuser, a little stand, and an actually decent bag IIRC. If you're gonna do that, throw a set of YN-603 triggers onto the order for an extra $30 or so so you can do off-camera flash.



i suppose i can look into ebay again. i preferred amazon as i found shipping was much faster on amazon. and then this flash indecent happened... 

then again, the difference between ebay and amazon in terms of price is rather huge too. i was getting the flash from amazon for about $50, where as ebay, the cheapest i could find was about $85 or so....

gotta wait some more


----------



## tank

taken with my poor live set up: d7000 and sigma 17-50 f2.8
edited in lightroom with just VSCO films and a bit of exposure editing here and there


----------



## Philligan

All about the stitch train.

I shot for fun at a local Oktoberfest (run by the guys I've been working with) on Saturday night (in between selling drink tickets ). It's late and I don't have time to post all my favourites, but here's a stitch I think turned out really well, other than the fact that it's noisy and pretty soft haha.

This was my 23mm I believe, at 1.4, ISO 3200/6400, 1/125, and a sloppy, quick pano shot of moving things .



DSCF0211pano by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

I shot ~7 vertical photos, stitched them in PS with no editing, bounced them back to LR, and I believe just bumped contrast. I should have edited the files beforehand, but for some weird reason, I didn't. I think it looks fine as-is, though. With all that movement, thankfully all I had to clone out was a floating bass headstock.  Before I'd been saving the stitched panos right in PS, but I wasn't getting a larger file. This time I sent it back to LR and got a file that's a little over twice as large as the rest. 

They only had one or two colours going at a time, but the pano caught them all, which is pretty cool.


----------



## Philligan

Also, woohoo, published! 



Screen Shot 2015-10-05 at 11.06.25 PM by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

mirrors by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## A-Branger

dont go into the light!! 


lol


----------



## A-Branger

Philligan said:


> And here's a stitch finally haha. I took a brutal stitched portrait of Dawn earlier in the year, but can't remember if I posted it or not, so let's assume this is my first.
> 
> It's not the greatest, but I don't mind. If I end up doing a lot of this I'll pick up a proper pano head for my tripod. This was just handheld.
> 
> 
> 
> DSCF0034 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr




pretty col pic. 
once you have your stitch like this I recomend go into photoshop and click Filter>adaptive wide angle
and fix the "fish eye" lines you have in there. A quick lines here and there, plus some straightening and picture would look much better, give it a try


----------



## UnderTheSign

I swear this isn't the only stuff I photograph these days 


IMGP0706.jpg by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

So I did another job today, shooting for a financial group. They wanted portraits of all the staff, a group shot, and a few candid-looking shots of office life. The location sucked. They're based out of the tiny upper floor of a building, and had a small reception area, two offices, a messy room full of paper, and a break room. 

I decided to shoot the portraits outside, because there wasn't any room or nice-looking spots inside. I didn't bother lighting them because it was beautifully overcast today. Then I moved inside and shot a few sort of lifestyle shots. They look like stock photos I think  but that's what they're going for. I tried to keep these pretty clean and not overly processed looking.



DSCF0042 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0107 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0141 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr




DSCF0148 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0172 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0175 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0195 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

I did insane amounts of cloning to the backgrounds in the group and pairs shots. 



Screen Shot 2015-10-06 at 6.19.52 PM by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



Screen Shot 2015-10-06 at 6.20.28 PM by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



Screen Shot 2015-10-06 at 6.53.16 PM by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Nice, Phil. How do you land work like that?

Here's a couple of shots from Cardiff Bay. Winter's coming.


----------



## Rook

Phil, have you thought about pulling the shadows (and maybe the black point, but don't clip [crush, as they say] them) on those in-the-office shots?

I reckon it'd make 'em more... Pro-looking. I don't mean that in a rude way, I just don't know how else to describe it haha.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Found an old, already full roll of film in one of the Pentax bodies in the drawers today... Gonna get it developed and actually score some new 35mm film because now I feel like shooting film again (and something more pocketable than the Bronica). What's your favourite colour film guys? I'm eyeballing Agfa Vista Plus 200 or something along the lines of that. A little vintage looking but no Lomography levels of weirdness.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

UnderTheSign said:


> Found an old, already full roll of film in one of the Pentax bodies in the drawers today... Gonna get it developed and actually score some new 35mm film because now I feel like shooting film again (and something more pocketable than the Bronica). What's your favourite colour film guys? I'm eyeballing Agfa Vista Plus 200 or something along the lines of that. A little vintage looking but no Lomography levels of weirdness.



Nice. I've got a Pentax ME Super that I'm dying to use, but its advance lever is completely stuck. I've recently started using my Nikon F-301 again, it's Nikon's first auto advancing camera, so it's really loud.

Films I've enjoyed using are Kodak Portra 160 nice skin tones, Ilford 3200 ultra fast and grainy b&w. And I've recently used a lot of Agfa Vista Plus 200, which sucks really, but I found it in stock in a £1 shop.


----------



## UnderTheSign

What did you not like about the Agfa? 

We have a ME Super and a K1000, tbh I prefer the K1000. It's bigger and heavier but I don't like the auto mode on the ME.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

UnderTheSign said:


> What did you not like about the Agfa?
> 
> We have a ME Super and a K1000, tbh I prefer the K1000. It's bigger and heavier but I don't like the auto mode on the ME.



It looks a bit 'disposable camera' to me, not very contrasty, but fine for carrying around in a cheap old camera.

The size of the ME Super is what appeals most about to me. Wish I could get it going.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Joe Harvatt said:


> It looks a bit 'disposable camera' to me, not very contrasty, but fine for carrying around in a cheap old camera.
> 
> The size of the ME Super is what appeals most about to me. Wish I could get it going.


Good to know, I'll look into the other films then. I mostly just check out Flickr for film samples but the difference in quality between some photos is pretty big...



If the advance lever doesn't spring back against the body, it's possible the lever spring is broken and possibly jamming the lever. I don't know if it's possible but you could try taking off just the top part of the camera and checking it out. If not, you could try this video to see if you can fix it that way - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJUeXlA2qjM


----------



## A-Branger

Rook said:


> Phil, have you thought about pulling the shadows (and maybe the black point, but don't clip [crush, as they say] them) on those in-the-office shots?
> 
> I reckon it'd make 'em more... Pro-looking. I don't mean that in a rude way, I just don't know how else to describe it haha.



i recon they are fine. I like that clean contrast look without being saturated. The moving the black point on the curve, pulling up the blacks, dont think would work in here. That "washout" soft bit arty look doesnt appeal for business stock photos IMO

but good work bro


----------



## Philligan

Joe Harvatt said:


> Nice, Phil. How do you land work like that?



Thanks man.  I kind of got lucky and fell into it. I'm pretty sure you can basically grind it out and approach random businesses and offer services. There are some photographers in my town that you'd never hear of and who aren't all that good, that come close to making a living doing corporate shoots for local businesses. And honestly, I have no idea how they got to that point.

It started out when I was seconding weddings last summer. People would see me shooting and ask what I do - I picked up a couple small jobs like that. This one came from Storyboard Solutions, the marketing/graphic design/event company I'm working with. I was talking to one of the guys about getting a start in writing, and mentioned the photography, and that kind of snowballed. I officially met with them two weeks ago to talk about writing mainly, and they asked about photography, too, and started hiring me for freelance work. That colour run a few weeks ago, the burger thing, and this were all for them.



Rook said:


> Phil, have you thought about pulling the shadows (and maybe the black point, but don't clip [crush, as they say] them) on those in-the-office shots?
> 
> I reckon it'd make 'em more... Pro-looking. I don't mean that in a rude way, I just don't know how else to describe it haha.



I thought about it, but I left them looking cleaner on purpose. I tend to push the blacks a little (not nearly as much as my Canon, and I wonder if the files handle differently) pretty much all the time, but I wanted these to look super neutral and not processed at all. It's a pretty small mom and pop financial group, and I wanted to play it safe. I'm not thrilled to death with how those two desk photos came out, but I think that's more lighting - I wish the light on their faces was a little more dynamic. It was a really cramped office and the whole thing was rushed, so I got those and they had to do haha.



A-Branger said:


> i recon they are fine. I like that clean contrast look without being saturated. The moving the black point on the curve, pulling up the blacks, dont think would work in here. That "washout" soft bit arty look doesnt appeal for business stock photos IMO
> 
> but good work bro



Thanks man. That's what I was thinking.


----------



## Philligan

Here are some from the local Oktoberfest last Saturday. Next weekend we're going to the one in Kitchener. 

This one started out German and turned into a country show. 



DSCF0046 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0054 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0078 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0085 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0146 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0150 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0138 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0120 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0175 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0230 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0231 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0251 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Guys, can stuck aperture blades on old manual lenses be repaired, and is it a costly process generally speaking?


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Joe Harvatt said:


> Guys, can stuck aperture blades on old manual lenses be repaired, and is it a costly process generally speaking?



Got my question answered; apparently it's pretty reasonable at a shop near me. All of which means there's a Nikon 50mm f1.2 AI-s lens on its way to me. Can't wait to start using it.


----------



## Philligan

Joe Harvatt said:


> Got my question answered; apparently it's pretty reasonable at a shop near me. All of which means there's a Nikon 50mm f1.2 AI-s lens on its way to me. Can't wait to start using it.



Man, that's awesome.  I'm super jealous. I don't think Canon has a 50 that fast for a halfway reasonable price.

That's the main reason I miss having an SLR - I'd like to have the option for full frame so I can get a 50. I've still got my Canon AE-1 and have been considering grabbing one for that (I probably should), but it would be nice to be able to mount it on a digital camera.

Rumour has it that Fuji is coming out with a 32-35mm (50mm equivalent) f/1. If they do I'm definitely picking it up, but it's still not the same as full frame f/1-1.2. If I had the money I'd get a FF Canon and the 50mm 1.0L. That thing is just ridiculous. Well, I'd get that or a Leica M and the Noctilux 0.95. 

Here's a gallery of the 50 1L. The images have so much character, it's ridiculous.

F/1 | Bryan Soderlind : Journal


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Philligan said:


> That's the main reason I miss having an SLR - I'd like to have the option for full frame so I can get a 50. I've still got my Canon AE-1 and have been considering grabbing one for that (I probably should), but it would be nice to be able to mount it on a digital camera.



I've only got a crop sensor DSLR, the D7100 so it'll be somewhat limiting but should make an excellent portrait lens and it'll be there when I make the jump to full-frame.

Might make me get my film SLRs out more often too.

Those f1 shots are crazy. One of the main things I'm excited about the 50 1.2 for is the way it renders the out of focus stuff compared to a 50 1.8. It's not that it's miles more 'out', it's got a different feel from what I've seen. I guess it looks a bit more medium format if that makes sense.


----------



## Philligan

Joe Harvatt said:


> I've only got a crop sensor DSLR, the D7100 so it'll be somewhat limiting but should make an excellent portrait lens and it'll be there when I make the jump to full-frame.
> 
> Might make me get my film SLRs out more often too.
> 
> Those f1 shots are crazy. One of the main things I'm excited about the 50 1.2 for is the way it renders the out of focus stuff compared to a 50 1.8. It's not that it's miles more 'out', it's got a different feel from what I've seen. I guess it looks a bit more medium format if that makes sense.



Definitely. I love the look of really fast lenses at further working distances, too. So there's just enough falloff that they're sharp against a soft background.

This is where I wish I got along with Nikons. I'd love to spend ~$200 on an F100 and get an old 1.2. Even one of the 50 1.4 D's so I could have autofocus. You don't really have that option with Canon, because you can't mount the MF lenses on their AF bodies, and they don't have an "older" 50 1.4, because they've only made one.


----------



## Tang

Still on a self-portrait bender. 



sideways blues by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> I thought about it, but I left them looking cleaner on purpose. I tend to push the blacks a little (not nearly as much as my Canon, and I wonder if the files handle differently) pretty much all the time, but I wanted these to look super neutral and not processed at all. It's a pretty small mom and pop financial group, and I wanted to play it safe. I'm not thrilled to death with how those two desk photos came out, but I think that's more lighting - I wish the light on their faces was a little more dynamic. It was a really cramped office and the whole thing was rushed, so I got those and they had to do haha.



As a point of clarification, that's not what I meant.

Your shadows are a little hard, and hard, clipped blacks I personally find quite unflattering.

As I said, I'm not suggesting you make it 'look processed' at all, and I in fact think the lesser contrasted look I'm suggesting is _more_ neutral, and looks less like there was a flash head in the room. I'm also not suggesting there's a thing wrong with what you have.

Your point about 'more dynamic' is what I'm referring to 

Not telling you what you should or shouldn't do, and even if I did nobody cares what I think haha, just a suggestion.


----------



## UnderTheSign

My attempts at focus stacking keep failing horribly (either that or the Helicon software hates me) so here's a non-stacked one. Pentax K10D w/ 100mm tube + reversed 50mm 2.0, ISO 100, 1/180th. This little fellow must've been no more than 4mm (0.15") long. 

It was taken in my living room at 11pm so the available lighting was minimal. Used the pop up flash to trigger my Yongnuo 560IV with a Flashbender at 1/64. This was one of those rare cases where the optical viewfinder on the Pentax actually helped me while usually for macro. I use the EVF or screen (allows me to keep distance from the camera/tripod, useful for tricky angles) of my X-Pro1... But the X-Pro1 just gave me a fully black preview image whereas I was able to compose and check focus with the OVF on the Pentax perfectly. Despite being ISO 100 it's a tad grainy at full size I'd say it's not bad for a 9 year old camera.

I've been waiting to shoot a jumping spider all summer so while the result isn't 100%, god damn I'm glad I finally found one 



2015-10-11 23-57-02 (C).jpg by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr

Also, this one from last week. Spider genitals 
Same setup. YN650IV mounted on camera, direct flash @ 1/32. 100mm tube and non-reversed 50mm 2.0


Crossed Orbweaver abdomen by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

So, after successfully avoiding weddings for the last six years of shooting professionally, I shot a wedding of a friend of a friend (now just friend!). I'd been thinking about adding weddings to the portfolio since moving to the country where I might need/want to add some outside income away from automotive stuff and shooting these two would be a little less stressful as I knew them and knew they were easy going and nice.

Anyway, I stressed hard for about two weeks leading up to the day, researched other photog's work, made a shot list, triple checked my gear, practised using rear-curtain flash etc... as prepared as I could be.

I was happy with the results and the day went well. The couple were awesome and gave a great review and have done plenty of spruiking on my behalf. Hope you like how they came out:


----------



## High Plains Drifter

^^^ Second and fifth pictures are absolutely stunning. 

I love that 3rd pic too... just because although they BOTH look very happy, HE looks like he's on cloud-9 haha. 

Very nice work.


----------



## Tang

Awesome shots man!

Great logo too


----------



## A-Branger

great photos man!!

weddings are not that hard as everyone think they are. They might be intimidating the first two, but after that they are pretty easy. Have a "cheat" list of couples photos in your phone for reminder of different posses/options, and for start your shoot list (after a while you wont need it), other than that, know your gear up and down, know your flashes and how to use them quick, know your light, direction and quality of it and how to take advantage of it. And more important: 1- be prepare to improvise on the spot (having scout for spots for shooting does nothing as the light/weather changes pretty quick), 2- Remember this is their day and not yours, and you are only there to document whats happening - if theres time good, if theres no time, also good


weddings can get anoying if you do full time, they can get repetitive, the work load is massive with 1000-5000 photos per wedding, plus too much "pink" and "love" can get you tired, hence why we have "metal" lol... but they are a great and "steady" source of income.


but well done for you pics bro, specially if you dont shoot them regulary

also couple of more things:
1- I checked your website..... WOW!! dude you ahve some mad skillz for cars photos!!
2- If you are interested on going more into the wedding game you need to change that logo. Its too "industrial/machine" for a wedding genre. Or either make a more "love" appealing font/logo, or maybe consider to make a whole new name for it. It works perfect for your automotive photos, but fro weddings it can be bit off for some couples


----------



## Kobalt

Phone Photography.


----------



## Wretched

Thanks guys. A-Branger, thanks for the detailed feedback. In terms of the logo, you mean the one on these photos looks too industrial, or the one/s on the website? If you are referring to the website, yeah, I agree, hence the new watermark on these shots here. I am yet to create a separate page for the wedding stuff with wedding specific info etc on the site. Just have to find the time.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Good weekend in Cornwall.


----------



## Wretched

Love the light through the trees in number one!


----------



## Philligan

We went to Dawn's mom's for Thanksgiving dinner last night. She lives in a small cottage town about an hour away, and even though there's definitely light from some houses, I could see the Milky Way from the backyard. 

I really want to get a wider lens. I have the 18mm, but I've got my eye on that Rokinon 12mm. I'm pretty happy with the results from this, but for every photo, I wish I had a wider field of view.

This is the 23mm at 1.4, 15 seconds or so, and I believe 3200.



DSCF6024 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And here are a few more I shot in a more woodsy area of the town. In the car photo, I couldn't actually see the car or any lights on inside it when I was outside.



DSCF6042 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF6040 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF6045 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

I'm currently out on the coast/beach and despite some street lights, you can easily see the Milky Way from the yard with the house lights on! Walk down to the beach out of line with the street/house lights and it's a mass of shooting stars and satellites! Love it! My old neighbourhood was so flooded with light you couldn't see anything besides an orange glow. Nice shots!


----------



## Philligan

Thanks man! I love this stuff. I want to get out some night and spend more time shooting, especially when I get a wider lens so I can get more landscape for context. 

I'm not sure if that orange glow is the houses in town (it's a tiny town with dense trees) or if it's the remnants of the sun setting a couple hours before. 

The straight on Milky Way one was literally in the back yard with the camera pointed pretty much straight up.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I made a gallery yesterday using Exposure.co for my band Intensive Square's video. Some behind the scenes shots from filming last year.

https://joeharvatt.exposure.co/vegetarians-shoot

Exposure's a great format for building nice looking galleries really simply. Here's a couple of the shots:


----------



## feraledge

Pretty damn stoked on these shots my wife got for the Halloween cards we're sending out to friends and family with my twin 3 year olds who were amazingly into this! Turned out awesome.
The little bit of blur on the first one definitely got it the proper vibe.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Really like the first one. It would look cool with some grain.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I did some location scouting this morning.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I also went in a slightly more fine art direction with this shot.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

ThePhilosopher said:


> I did some location scouting this morning.



Nice, really like the last two. I'm a sucker for morning mist/rising condensation. I pass a valley on my way to work that was perfect yesterday, filled with mist, but there's nowhere to stop on that stretch of the motorway.


----------



## Tang

I was at a friend's wedding yesterday and as I always have my camera on me.. this window was awesome.


----------



## Sean Muffin

Joe Harvatt said:


> Good weekend in Cornwall.



What lens were the first and second pic?


----------



## capoeiraesp

Looks like everyone's kickin' photography goals in here! Awesome seeing you guys all venturing into different subject matter than I'm used to seeing from you.

Took a hyperfocal approach on Sunday around my local. F11, 1/500, ISO priority. A few of these have some pretty obvious aspect correction. However, i do like the look.


































And some recent antics on the west coast of Australia and some from the east.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Sean Muffin said:


> What lens were the first and second pic?



First one is Nikon 18-55 VR DX and second one is Nikon 50mm f1.8 AI-s. Actually sold the first one last week as I've upgraded to full frame. They're great lenses for DX though, super sharp and really inexpensive.



capoeiraesp said:


> Took a hyperfocal approach on Sunday around my local. F11, 1/500, ISO priority. A few of these have some pretty obvious aspect correction. However, i do like the look.
> 
> And some recent antics on the west coast of Australia and some from the east.



Rad, Cap! Sharp as hell.


----------



## Tang

I love my little Tamron 



wonder by Scott Jones, on Flickr



unveiled by Scott Jones, on Flickr



C.R.E.A.M by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Dawn and I checked out a forest/wildlife reserve type thing today. It's a bit late in the season and the foliage was more brown (even a few days earlier and we'd have had some crazy colours) but it still looked nice.

These were all with the 35mm because that's all I brought. 



DSCF0178 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0096 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0208 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0004 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0075 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And I took a landscape at 1.4 just because. 



DSCF0227 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Let's all take a moment to appreciate the new 5D-sized Leica mirrorless and its 90-280mm lens.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Beautiful but massive. Doesn't look all that mirrorless in appearance, looks like it's hiding a pentaprism.


----------



## flint757

I'd personally love it if they started making more DSLR sized mirror-less cameras if it meant a larger sensor and better performance. Sadly it's not likely since mirror-less and small have managed to become synonymous despite size not being the only benefit to mirror-less cameras. C'est la vie.


----------



## Philligan

I agree, but don't know how I feel about DSLR vs mirrorless. I like the size of my Fuji for general use, but for a lot of jobs, I'd prefer a bigger camera. I just can't afford two systems.  I haven't decided if the benefits of the EVF and on-chip everything outweigh the battery life and AF power. 

Personally though, I hate the design of this. It looks like you have to rely on the touch screen for most things, and that would be the first thing I'd turn off if I could. It's too minimalist for me - I'm turning into a crotchety old man who likes physical buttons and dials. 

Seems like the opposite of the M to me. It's great if people like it, but I'm not a fan.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Hate the way it looks  so chunky.

Anyone have any experience shooting gigs with film? I'm going to a series of concerts in Brussels in a month and thought it'd be cool to shoot some stuff with the Bronica on 6x6. Thinking of just going with a higher iso b/w film to allow for faster shutter speeds.


----------



## A-Branger

Philligan said:


> ....It looks like you have to rely on the *touch screen* for most things.....


----------



## Joe Harvatt

UnderTheSign said:


> Anyone have any experience shooting gigs with film? I'm going to a series of concerts in Brussels in a month and thought it'd be cool to shoot some stuff with the Bronica on 6x6. Thinking of just going with a higher iso b/w film to allow for faster shutter speeds.



I've shot some gigs on ISO200 film before at f/1.8 and had good results. Really depends on the lighting, but if you manage to catch your subject while they're lit by the stage lighting it can be surprisingly bright - depends on the venue.

Here's a couple of examples, I think it's just cheap Fuji C200. Camera is Nikon FG with 50 1.8


----------



## UnderTheSign

Here's an example of the lighting. Same venue, same festival and bands, 2,5 years ago. 





Overall the venue is pretty dark and there's a lot of smoke so I might have to experiment with it a little. Maybe take a few shots with a digital camera before switching to film. Apparently Ilford HP5+ and Tri-X 400 look pretty good when pushed to 800 or 1600. My Bronica 150mm is f3.5 so going with a higher ISO would allow me to use faster shutter speed.


_edit:
_any of the Fuji guys use the 50-230mm? It was already dirt cheap at roughly 299, right now the black version is discounted to 189 in stores here. Think they're all leftovers from kits or something - same thing happened to the 18 and 27mm at some point. 189 seems like a great price for a pretty decent lens though so I'm definitely considering it.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Free food photo guide. Haven't checked it out myself yet but the dpr comments section is, as always, full of love. PhotoShelter releases free professional food photography guide: Digital Photography Review

The comments section always makes me wonder how good many of these guys are


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Really digging grain at the moment.


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> Free food photo guide. Haven't checked it out myself yet but the dpr comments section is, as always, full of love. PhotoShelter releases free professional food photography guide: Digital Photography Review
> 
> The comments section always makes me wonder how good many of these guys are



Get it. That's a great price. It's probably leftover V1s now that the X-A2 comes with V2s. The only difference AFAIK is in the image stabilization. Definitely grab it, it's a little slow but the image quality is really good.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Philligan said:


> Get it. That's a great price. It's probably leftover V1s now that the X-A2 comes with V2s. The only difference AFAIK is in the image stabilization. Definitely grab it, it's a little slow but the image quality is really good.


Sweet, will get it then. Was actually looking at something in the 50-60mm range as my only lens right now is the 18 and a bunch of adapted legacy stuff, but a 55-230 is more versatile and a zoom might be useful on my upcoming holidays. The 35mm is high on my wishlist too these days.

Joe, what kind of settings or post processing do you do? I always dig the colours in your photos.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

UnderTheSign said:


> Joe, what kind of settings or post processing do you do? I always dig the colours in your photos.



Thanks man! Tones and sharpness are two areas I try to key in on especially. For tones I'm usually going for a feel I see in Fuji films. I've used VSCO in the past as a starting point which lead me on to creating my own Lightroom presets. So I'll usually apply my own preset to an import batch, and then go back through the photos and fine tune for shadows, highlights and exposure. I tend to like a soft green or slight brown/magenta feel to shadows - changes with mood. I also try to avoid over saturating things.


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> Sweet, will get it then. Was actually looking at something in the 50-60mm range as my only lens right now is the 18 and a bunch of adapted legacy stuff, but a 55-230 is more versatile and a zoom might be useful on my upcoming holidays. The 35mm is high on my wishlist too these days.



Check out the new 35 f/2, apparently it's awesome. When the 33 f/1 comes out I want to sell my 1.4 and get the 1 and 2.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Do any of you guys use a website for your photos (with an RSS feed)? I use a Tumblr blog for my favourite of my own photos - www.joeharvatt.co.uk


----------



## UnderTheSign

Well, the new 35mm _does_ look really sleek... 






Jonas Rask went as far as calling it as good as the old 35 and _more_, unless you need/want f1.4 of course. 

This one is definitely worth considering. Either that or hope the 1.4 second hand price drops. Right now the only 'cheap' ones I can find are on eBay from stores like E-Infinity and other European "warehouses" of Chinese sellers.



Joe Harvatt said:


> Thanks man! Tones and sharpness are two areas I try to key in on especially. For tones I'm usually going for a feel I see in Fuji films. I've used VSCO in the past as a starting point which lead me on to creating my own Lightroom presets. So I'll usually apply my own preset to an import batch, and then go back through the photos and fine tune for shadows, highlights and exposure. I tend to like a soft green or slight brown/magenta feel to shadows - changes with mood. I also try to avoid over saturating things.


I use VSCO as well but never really found any interesting presets in there. The film simulations don't really work for me all that well in LR. Which is weird because I love the presets in the mobile app. Wish I could export those to LR. Thanks for the insight though, I'll just have to work on putting together my own stuff.


----------



## Rook

And it's only 299... Bargain. Ordering one as soon as they're in shops.

As for bigger camera for jobs... I don't really get that, the size of my camera is purely a matter of 'how long am I gunna have to hold onto this'. That said, a lot of my stuff I get paid for is a little on the candid side with some more personal editorial stuff, so the non-intimating look and feel I guess helps.

As for the 'new' Leica, my sources tell me it's an A7ii in drag. Save your money and buy the Sony hahaha.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Ordered the 50-230, too much of a steal to pass up on. If u get the 35 at some point I'll have most of my lens needs covered that way, save for a super wide (18 is usually plenty though) and a dedicated macro.


----------



## Rook

I've seen some great deals on used 14's since the 10-24 and 16 came out, definitely keep an eye out for that!


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> As for bigger camera for jobs... I don't really get that, the size of my camera is purely a matter of 'how long am I gunna have to hold onto this'. That said, a lot of my stuff I get paid for is a little on the candid side with some more personal editorial stuff, so the non-intimating look and feel I guess helps.



The majority of the time the non-intrusive look of the Fuji is better for me, but when it doesn't matter, I'd rather a big camera for jobs. The X-T1 is nice because I can take my work camera out and about with one lens in a tiny bag and not get noticed - since I can't afford a separate work and personal camera, it's the Fuji for me. I'd like it to be a bit heavier, but what can you do. 

I don't mind heavy cameras, and I find Canons infinitely more comfortable than the Fuji (Nikons are a different story). The X-T1 is comfortable for such a small camera, but as far as comfort goes, I find the 6D more comfortable to hold in every way. The grip fills my hand out perfectly so I can hold it with basically no pressure, even though the whole setup is heavier than the Fuji. Looks and performance aside, I'd rather handhold a full frame Canon than a Fuji (or any mirrorless I've tried).


----------



## Rook

Interesting, I've never really thought about it to be honest. I noticed more quickly with my 6D and 18/50/85 set how much my shoulders and arm ached much more than I've ever really noticed the grip on the X-T1.

Have you thought about the MGH-XT1 or whatever? They do a whacking great hand grip. Can't obviously use that and the battery grip at once, but unless you're gunna be unable to change batteries and you need to continuously shoot or whatever, the battery grip isn't really necessary.


----------



## UnderTheSign

The size thing is a bit of a double edged blade for me. I sold my Olympus E-M10 because it was too small to hold comfortably and went with the x-pro 1 over the x-t10 and X-e2 because it was slightly heavier and felt much better in my hand. My Pentax dslr feels even better but having it around my neck also tires me way faster than the Fuji and especially the Olympus. 

Just read some rumours on the x-pro 2 coming out early next year. Should be interesting what new stuff Fuji brings to the table. I've been considering saving up a little and exchanging the xp1 for either the new model or x-t1 before my holiday next year because I've been using the OVF noticeably less and the evf isn't as good as it could be. But then there's that voice in the back of my head that tells me about all the other stuff I could do/get for that money, considering I may not shoot enough to spend another grand on a camera 

Also, the upcoming FF Pentax is rekindling my interest in them. Walked into a small camera shop in Amsterdam run by some guy that looked way past retirement - cool shop! - And he told me the FF should be roughly &#8364;1700, not bad.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Philligan said:


> I don't mind heavy cameras, and I find Canons infinitely more comfortable than the Fuji (Nikons are a different story).



What's the Nikon story?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

You guys should try lugging around a monorail 4x5 camera + film and tripod.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Shoddy wifi ate my post so here's a short version:

Xc50-230 arrived. Yay next day delivery. Even got a voucher for a free cake (camera shops 20th anniversary)  

Great lens for the price. Bit plastic-y but pretty solid. Minor wobble when fully extended. Slow as hell to focus on the x-pro 1, should be better on newer cameras though. Fujis handling of high iso allows me to set it to 1600 and thus still use high shutter speeds.

All in all, if the price comes down in the USA as well (still 399 at b&h), I'd recommend this lens to everyone that doesn't need a long-ish zoom very often but would like one, or if you're on a budget.


----------



## Philligan

Joe Harvatt said:


> What's the Nikon story?



I just can't get along with them. It sucks, because I love Nikon's selection of inexpensive primes (especially the new 1.8G line and the AF-D stuff) and the fact that you can get a 50 1.2 for ~$600 new. I've been looking at an AF film camera, and with Canon that means I have to basically choose from all the current lenses, whereas with Nikon I can get a couple used D lenses on the cheap, and they'll work on a bunch of film bodies as well as the current digital bodies.

I tried a D7100 before I bought my 70D, and seriously thought about a D610 before I switched to Fuji, and I just can't do it. I've shot three or four entire jobs with Nikons (a D7000, 610, and the last Nikon wedding I used a D750, too) and even after dozens of hours with them, I find them uncomfortable and unintuitive.

It's a bummer, because the control layout is really similar to the X-T1, and I could get an F100 for really cheap for film and eventually pick up a used D600 for work stuff, so the whole thing would work out perfectly. But every time I use one it frustrates me.  I think it's just because I learned on Canon and everything is backwards. It's not so much the dials and buttons anymore, but weird little things like settings acting strange in live view, or having live view not show exposure preview, or buttons that don't seem to do anything in certain modes.

The reason I've used so many is because the one photographer I worked with shoots Nikon, so maybe he just has a bunch of weird settings I didn't know about.  For the price, the F100 would fit my needs perfectly as a film camera, so maybe I should just bite the bullet and try it out. 



UnderTheSign said:


> Shoddy wifi ate my post so here's a short version:
> 
> Xc50-230 arrived. Yay next day delivery. Even got a voucher for a free cake (camera shops 20th anniversary)
> 
> Great lens for the price. Bit plastic-y but pretty solid. Minor wobble when fully extended. Slow as hell to focus on the x-pro 1, should be better on newer cameras though. Fujis handling of high iso allows me to set it to 1600 and thus still use high shutter speeds.
> 
> All in all, if the price comes down in the USA as well (still 399 at b&h), I'd recommend this lens to everyone that doesn't need a long-ish zoom very often but would like one, or if you're on a budget.



Awesome.  When I worked at Future Shop we had one in stock that I played with a couple times, and the build really isn't bad for what you're getting. I'd say it's easily on par with the Canon STM stuff. It spent a couple weeks at $299CAD and I'm kicking myself for not getting it then.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Hopefully you stateside/Canada guys will get it cheaper sometime soon too!

Girlfriend got me a 3-lens set for my phone because I sometimes complain about having forgotten my camera when I come across cool stuff. I have an Xperia Z3 which IMO has a bit of a mediocre camera (colour/balance wise, compared to my iPhone 4 and especially my zeiss-lens equipped Samsung before that) but the lenses are neat. https://www.dropbox.com/s/fy96naz0wiywt59/DSC_0347.JPG

One is a supposedly 180 fish eye, the other a 2 in 1 wide angle/macro. The 0.67x wide angle unfortunately vignettes on my phone but not my girlfriends Samsung. When you screw off the top part it turns into a macro which honestly impressed me a lot. I can get really close up to stuff and am looking forward to playing around with that a bunch more. Wonder if I can mcguyver the macro and fish eye together somehow.


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> Hopefully you stateside/Canada guys will get it cheaper sometime soon too!
> 
> Girlfriend got me a 3-lens set for my phone because I sometimes complain about having forgotten my camera when I come across cool stuff. I have an Xperia Z3 which IMO has a bit of a mediocre camera (colour/balance wise, compared to my iPhone 4 and especially my zeiss-lens equipped Samsung before that) but the lenses are neat. https://www.dropbox.com/s/fy96naz0wiywt59/DSC_0347.JPG
> 
> One is a supposedly 180 fish eye, the other a 2 in 1 wide angle/macro. The 0.67x wide angle unfortunately vignettes on my phone but not my girlfriends Samsung. When you screw off the top part it turns into a macro which honestly impressed me a lot. I can get really close up to stuff and am looking forward to playing around with that a bunch more. Wonder if I can mcguyver the macro and fish eye together somehow.



I've been wanting to get one of those for a while, but I've been trying to get in the habit of bringing my camera everywhere with me, so I don't want to give myself another reason to leave it at home.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I can imagine. I was actually looking into getting a samyang /rokinon 8mm fish eye but don't think I could justify spending that money on something I use so rarely. Now I don't have to!

There's two different sets available from the stores here, both have the same lenses. The difference is one uses a stick-on screw mount, the one I've got is magnet mounted. You get half a dozen or so small metal rings with double sided tape attached that you can stick to your phone (and your friends phones, because it's a lot of rings!) and the lenses have magnets in them so they clip to your phone that way. Very simple and smart IMO. The rear caps are flat metal too and stick to the lenses pretty well. Aaaand they have a small lanyard attached so you can loop them to your phone, bag, keychain, etc.

It's simple stuff like this that gets me excited


----------



## Philligan

Here's one of Dawn from this evening. She's not very sharp, but I was rushing to beat traffic, so I'm guessing it's because I was shooting at 1/60 in a hurry. I really need to work on steadying my hands. 

I tried split toning for this one. Cool shadows and warm highlights. I think I like it.



DSCF0054 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Philligan said:


> I just can't get along with them. It sucks, because I love Nikon's selection of inexpensive primes (especially the new 1.8G line and the AF-D stuff) and the fact that you can get a 50 1.2 for ~$600 new. I've been looking at an AF film camera, and with Canon that means I have to basically choose from all the current lenses, whereas with Nikon I can get a couple used D lenses on the cheap, and they'll work on a bunch of film bodies as well as the current digital bodies.
> 
> I tried a D7100 before I bought my 70D, and seriously thought about a D610 before I switched to Fuji, and I just can't do it. I've shot three or four entire jobs with Nikons (a D7000, 610, and the last Nikon wedding I used a D750, too) and even after dozens of hours with them, I find them uncomfortable and unintuitive.



Interesting, I find similar feelings when I use a Canon camera. Sometime's I'll use Dylan's Canon 650D at Daemoness and I have to really think about what I'm doing when operating it. That might in part be due to there only being one control dial too. It's undoubtedly a great camera at its price point though.

That does suck about Canon lenses. With Nikon, you've pretty much got free reign on everything back to the 70's, with full metering. I'm considering putting a split prism focus screen in my camera because of the amount of manual focus lenses I use.

Speaking of which. I'm over the moon with my new (old) 50mm 1.2.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I've managed to get a photo pass for the Deathcrusher tour as it comes to Bristol tomorrow. Carcass, Napalm Death, Obituary, Voivod & Herod.

I've got some experience of live music photography, but does anyone have any tips? I'd like to nail this opportunity. I'll be taking my D600 (recent upgrade to full frame), 50mm 1.2, 28-80mm and 2 x 32GB cards. I'll leave the flash at home. I'm hoping I'll be able to cover everything I'd like to see with the 50, hopefully my focusing will keep up with a moving subject. I think I'll put a basic UV filter on in case there's any beer coming towards the front of my lens. I think it's a 550 cap room.


----------



## Philligan

Joe Harvatt said:


> I've managed to get a photo pass for the Deathcrusher tour as it comes to Bristol tomorrow. Carcass, Napalm Death, Obituary, Voivod & Herod.
> 
> I've got some experience of live music photography, but does anyone have any tips. I'd like to nail this opportunity. I'll be taking my D600 (recent upgrade to full frame), 50mm 1.2, 28-80mm and 2 x 32GB cards. I'll leave the flash at home. I'm hoping I'll be able to cover everything I'd like to see with the 50, hopefully my focusing will keep up with a moving subject. I think I'll put a basic UV filter on in case there's any beer coming towards the front of my lens. I think it's a 550 cap room.



That should be awesome.  I'm sure you know this already but now that you've gone full frame, start hoarding all the D primes. I've used the 28 2.8 and 85 1.8 a bit and they both seem great. And it's a cheap way to cover your focal lengths. My friend shoots with the 80-200 2.8 D, which is apparently a great affordable 70-200 alternative.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The 80-200 f/2.8 ED-IF is an amazing piece of glass. I had mine repaired because the AF-S motor wasn't operating correctly and I'm glad I didn't have to try to find a replacement lens because it'd be quite hard to replace.


----------



## Bloodshredder

Joe Harvatt said:


> Interesting, I find similar feelings when I use a Canon camera. Sometime's I'll use Dylan's Canon 650D at Daemoness and I have to really think about what I'm doing when operating it. That might in part be due to there only being one control dial too. It's undoubtedly a great camera at its price point though.
> 
> That does suck about Canon lenses. With Nikon, you've pretty much got free reign on everything back to the 70's, with full metering. I'm considering putting a split prism focus screen in my camera because of the amount of manual focus lenses I use.
> 
> Speaking of which. I'm over the moon with my new (old) 50mm 1.2.



The softness in certain areas is simply beautiful. reminds me a bit of those petzval lenses.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Hey guys, what's your favourite film for colours in winter? I'm planning trips to Brussels and Prague in December and February and was wondering what would help make the bleak winter seem a bit more lively. I'm thinking I should look at films with more saturated colours?


----------



## capoeiraesp

Guys, where do you scout for picking up old lenses? I've been thinking of picking up an old FD 50mm 1.2 or 1.4 to go on my XT-1.


----------



## Philligan

capoeiraesp said:


> Guys, where do you scout for picking up old lenses? I've been thinking of picking up an old FD 50mm 1.2 or 1.4 to go on my XT-1.



I'd look on eBay. Most sellers are from Japan where that stuff is a lot more common. Just check the description, seller rating, and return policy, and you should be covered.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Philligan said:


> That should be awesome.  I'm sure you know this already but now that you've gone full frame, start hoarding all the D primes. I've used the 28 2.8 and 85 1.8 a bit and they both seem great. And it's a cheap way to cover your focal lengths. My friend shoots with the 80-200 2.8 D, which is apparently a great affordable 70-200 alternative.



That's probably the long term plan. I've got an old Sigma 28mm 2.8, it's manual but I really like it. I've heard better things about the Nikon 24 2.8 D, I'll keep an eye for one of those maybe. For the show tonight I think I'm gonna also pack the 135mm 2.8 to see if I can get a bit closer for drummers.



Bloodshredder said:


> The softness in certain areas is simply beautiful. reminds me a bit of those petzval lenses.



Thanks!



capoeiraesp said:


> Guys, where do you scout for picking up old lenses? I've been thinking of picking up an old FD 50mm 1.2 or 1.4 to go on my XT-1.



I go on eBay and in the UK we have a site called Gumtree which is like a free private ad thing - not sure if it's global.


----------



## UnderTheSign

capoeiraesp said:


> Guys, where do you scout for picking up old lenses? I've been thinking of picking up an old FD 50mm 1.2 or 1.4 to go on my XT-1.



EBay, occasional Keh, marktplaats (local version of Craigslist/Gumtree etc) and a lot of camera shops these days carry second hand stuff as well.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Cheers! Found a few 50mm 1.4 SSC in good cond. Nothing good locally at the moment though. A can get one for $130 AUD in very good cond. but that seems a bit above the average price.


----------



## Bloodshredder

UnderTheSign said:


> Hey guys, what's your favourite film for colours in winter? I'm planning trips to Brussels and Prague in December and February and was wondering what would help make the bleak winter seem a bit more lively. I'm thinking I should look at films with more saturated colours?



I'd go for the Kodak Ektar 100 Professional 135-36, if it is 35mm.
Very fine grain and lively colors. I even desaturated mine in post, as I'm not a fan of vivid colors.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Bloodshredder said:


> I'd go for the Kodak Ektar 100 Professional 135-36, if it is 35mm.
> Very fine grain and lively colors. I even desaturated mine in post, as I'm not a fan of vivid colors.


Yup, 35mm. I'll look into that! Anything similar available for 6x6/645?


----------



## Bloodshredder

UnderTheSign said:


> Yup, 35mm. I'll look into that! Anything similar available for 6x6/645?



Yep, there is a 120' version of that particular ektar. Also from Kodak.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Figured as much  been shooting portra 400 for colour so far (on 120) but I'd like to try something different.

Also, had a little nifty-fifty day today. Zorki 4k with Jupiter 8 50/2 (recent pawn shop score, experimenting to see how I like rangefinders), Exa IIb w/ Meyer-Gorlitz Oreston 50/1.8 (found it among my dads old Pentax cameras and decided to put a roll of film in it) and K10D w/ Pentax 50/2. Not pictured: Fuji X-Pro1 with the same Pentax 50/2. 

Went out into my parents back garden and just shot some random stuff. Flowers, mostly. It was pretty sunny out so I couldn't shoot wide open all the time (Exa only goes up to 1/250 shutters) and I occasionally forgot how thin f2 is at less than a meter away 

Here's some quick OOC jpegs, more when I get the analog stuff developed.
Pentax K10D:





This is one of those cases where I underestimated the DOF. Figured I'd get the whole damn pumpkin sharp but nope.





Fuji X-Pro1









Fujis were shot in velvia mode so the colours are a little unrealistic. The Pentax is less bright overall but probably reflects the real scene the best.

edit: also, photographing flowers is a pain when you live on the windy coast. Flower smack in the middle of the frame? Never!


----------



## Bloodshredder

The X-Pro1 is one of my all time favorite cams for shooting medium. Unfortunately, I had to sell mine. Loved the handling. It was similar to my 645 Mammy, but felt fresh and different.
I could still kill myself for selling those precious lenses, though. Now that I'm getting back into photography mode, I could have put them to good use _._

Nice pictrures, btw! Nevermind the dutch breeze!


----------



## Philligan

Joe Harvatt said:


> That's probably the long term plan. I've got an old Sigma 28mm 2.8, it's manual but I really like it. I've heard better things about the Nikon 24 2.8 D, I'll keep an eye for one of those maybe. For the show tonight I think I'm gonna also pack the 135mm 2.8 to see if I can get a bit closer for drummers.



Definitely post some of those 135 photos. I've been reading 135L reviews just to see the photos and they're making me drool.  Seeing those and 85 1.2 photos is the only thing making me regret switching to Fuji.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Get the XF90. I owned the canon 135 for years because it is an incredible lens, but the XF90 made the separation easy.


----------



## Philligan

It's that or the 56mm next. Most likely the 56 for the smaller working space and extra speed. Next though, the 90 will be mine. Hopefully the jobs really pick up so I can justify it.


----------



## capoeiraesp

The 90 trumps the 56 IMO. Yes, F1.2 is super useful at ~85mm equvalent, but after getting use to the consistent and highly responsive AF even in low light, the beautiful smooth bokeh, and the close focusing distance, the 90 is just a next level lens from Fuji.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Philligan said:


> Definitely post some of those 135 photos. I've been reading 135L reviews just to see the photos and they're making me drool.  Seeing those and 85 1.2 photos is the only thing making me regret switching to Fuji.



Mine's just an old Vivitar 135 2.8. It's really cool though. Unfortunately it didn't see much use at the show last night. It was fairly tight in there and I couldn't get as good an angle on the drums. Ended up sticking with the 50 for most of the show. There was a really low ceiling which was white-ish, which looked pretty lame. So I was trying to blur that out with a wide aperture setting most of the time. It was definitely a test of my manual focusing. I put the 28 on for a bit, but had the classic mistake of bringing it out of a cold bag into the hot humid show and blowing out with condensation on the glass for ages. Learning curve.

I'll post some of my favourite shots tonight.


----------



## Tang

Oh hi there.


----------



## Philligan

So my camera has a hot/dead pixel. I'm not sure if it's one or multiple pixels, but it's definitely there and repeatable at different settings. I looked back and it's been in photos from at least the last week or so. I was able to get it tonight shooting underexposed frames in my house, but just did a manual sensor cleaning and it seems like it might be gone?

What can I do about it? I really don't want to have to send my camera into them because it will be gone for at least a couple weeks and I don't have another camera in case I get a job offer (short of using Dawn's Rebel). If need be I'll send it in, but I'm worried because if they decide the pixel (or the bowed side door) or anything else isn't covered under warranty, I have to pay a handling fee just to get my camera back, whether I pay for the repair or not.

Is this normal? It's in a really annoying spot (outside of centre frame but not an extreme edge or corner) and sometimes it's even noticeable not at 100%. I really don't want to have to clone it out of every photo I take. 

I don't know if this is just bad luck or not, but I've had a couple pretty big issues with this camera, and it's getting really frustrating. I'll send it away if I have to but I'm worried about getting the few scratches on the camera body voiding the warranty and having to pay, and every time I've talked to customer service I can't get straight answers from them. My big concern is going without a camera for 2+ weeks and finding out I have to pay just to get it back not fixed.


----------



## Rook

Dude buy the Fuji 90mm. It'll help with that ff 85/135 lust. Haha.

Edit: Just saw Matt's comment - absolutely agree, it's a whole other level.

As for a hot pixel, a hardware reset (Fuji have to do it) can fix it, and it can be a buildup of static. Should be an easy fix. If it's a dead pixel, it's a new sensor. Should be covered by warranty either way, definitely suggest giving them a call though.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Dude buy the Fuji 90mm. It'll help with that ff 85/135 lust. Haha.
> 
> Edit: Just saw Matt's comment - absolutely agree, it's a whole other level.
> 
> As for a hot pixel, a hardware reset (Fuji have to do it) can fix it, and it can be a buildup of static. Should be an easy fix. If it's a dead pixel, it's a new sensor. Should be covered by warranty either way, definitely suggest giving them a call though.



I emailed them, so hopefully I get a real reply. You can't call them in Canada - I got around just getting to the email page, they keep pushing for the .pdf manual and an FAQ section. There's a "call us" link that just leads to the email portal. 

I don't know what it's like elsewhere but the customer service seems like a joke in Canada.

This could just be because I'm frustrated right now, but has anyone tried faster UHS-II cards? I'm using Sandisk Extreme Plus cards right now (the second fastest UHS-I cards) and I get brutal shot-to-shot speeds. Like if I take more than one shot the EVF freezes up and I get like a quarter second lag after the shutter press. For some stuff it's not bad, but for couples portraits and whatnot it's actually really annoying. It could be a bunch of things going on right now but this camera has been really frustrating lately. The write times are really slow, too - I can't take more than a couple shots before the camera slows way down for a few seconds. It kills my chances of getting natural reactions a lot of the time.


----------



## flint757

You've said you've had other issues with your camera. Maybe it's straight up defective. I'm using a GH-4 with Transcend 90 MB/s cards (which I believe is UHS-I) and don't experience any noticeable lag at all. Nothing that's drawn it to my attention at least.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I have a class I card too I think and my X Pro doesn't do that. It writes a little slow especially when taking multiple shots but I can fire away and just let it write.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

So here are some of my photos from the Deathcrusher tour. Full gallery at www.joeharvatt.co.uk/deathcrusher


----------



## UnderTheSign

Cool stuff, Joe.

Did you ever get your Pentax ME working again? If not, this store might have a cheap replacement body. NICE SET Pentax ME Super SLR Camera 70-210mm Lens 19.99


----------



## Joe Harvatt

UnderTheSign said:


> Cool stuff, Joe.
> 
> Did you ever get your Pentax ME working again? If not, this store might have a cheap replacement body. NICE SET Pentax ME Super SLR Camera 70-210mm Lens 19.99



Thanks man. I was happy with the manual focusing. I had less success at 1.2, but at 1.4-2.8 it wasn't too bad.

Ah, thanks for remembering. No, I never got it working unfortunately. That's a good price on a replacement. I'm gonna hang on to this broken one anyway as it was my Grandfather's.


----------



## Tang

hmm


----------



## Philligan

Damn. This is sad.  I just realized that Fuji had a separate customer service support centre for people shooting the "pro" X cameras. I couldn't find it on their website - I was going through my warranty booklets looking for my receipt and found a card that mentions the website.

It's 9pm here so I'm not expecting anything tonight, but they claim they do two hour response time during business hours, so I should hear back from them fairly early tomorrow morning. That should get me free shipping (for other stuff you have to pay shipping both ways and there's a handling fee if you can't afford the repair cost) and hopefully I'll talk to a normal, living person, and not keep getting automated responses and answers that skirt around my questions.

I'm planning on shipping the camera out before work tomorrow, just to finally try and get this over with. I'm pretty sure I got a really early model - Future Shop/Best Buy doesn't sell much of that stuff, and the 18mm I ordered shipped in the old style packaging with the original firmware, so I'm suspicious the camera spent a lot of time sitting around the warehouse. I'm really hoping they'll just replace the whole thing. Fingers crossed.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Good luck with it man. I'm terrified of something going wrong with my gear.


----------



## Philligan

Joe Harvatt said:


> Good luck with it man. I'm terrified of something going wrong with my gear.



I have horrible luck with electronics in general; pretty much everything I buy has an issue. My first Canon Rebel was fine, but my 70D and now the X-T1 both had issues and needed to get sent out. I think that's partly why I'm nervous about this - I sent my Canon out twice, and went without it for about a month, and both times Canon just said my camera was fine and billed me for shipping and handling. 

Anyway, there's hope.   I got a reply from Rob from Fuji first thing this morning, and he sent me a prepaid shipping label and got me set up for a pickup at work this afternoon. All I need to do is pick up a box on my way to work and pack everything up.

I almost left a third party battery in, but luckily I noticed.


----------



## Rook

I broke the shutter speed dial on my X-T1, told Fuji UK, they sent me a freepost box, had it back to me inside a week with a whole new top panel. Didn't even charge me for return shipping. And it was my fault.

Hope it's the same in CA man.


----------



## Philligan

So far so good.  The guy emailed me at 9:03 this morning, was replying to my emails in under an hour, sent me a prepaid shipping label and got me set up for a pickup all before I went in for work at 1:00. I'm sure it'll sit around for the weekend but I believe they overnight ship, so at least it'll hopefully get to Fuji by tomorrow and they can start it Monday.


----------



## capoeiraesp

I met a Fuji warranty guy at a big digital expo here 2 weeks ago. Dude was super up front about me getting the rubber fixed quick and easy on my XT1.


----------



## Rook

Oh really?

The rubber on mine is f*cked. I've been meaning to get it sorted.


----------



## Philligan

Glad I'm not the only one.  My rubber's not doing too bad - it's worn in a couple corners and on the thumb rest, and it's starting to loosen up at the top of the front grip, but nothing that made me want to get it replaced.

I listed it anyway in my repair form. I'm hoping I didn't overdo it. I listed the grip, the warped door, the hot pixels, and the LED EVF indicator light. Mine stays on when you power the camera off for a while. I'm not sure if it's normal or not, but from googling, it looks like most people don't even have an EVF light, so I figured I'd list it in case I got a bad camera in general. 

I like the camera and really like the lenses, but I'm hoping they get this stuff sorted out for the next generation of bodies. I don't beat on them but with some of the jobs I've done I've been a little harder on them than normal, and it would suck if sending bodies in for repair became a yearly thing. I was just as hard on my 70D and it looked basically brand new when I sold it.


----------



## tank

I have no excuses,the photopit set up changed and I had no long lenses with me BUT
this was the result btw:

















Coldrain,while she sleeps and BFMV 
shot with D7000+17-50f2.8 
God how much I hate this LED illumination?


----------



## capoeiraesp

Rook said:


> Oh really?
> 
> The rubber on mine is f*cked. I've been meaning to get it sorted.



Yep! Dude said he'll replace the whole exterior for me no worries. They were also doing free lens and sensor cleaning too.


----------



## Rook

Was misty today and I managed to figure out a 'look' I've been trying to get for ages.

It's a super simple image but I'm really pleased with it!



DSCF9113 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr

Also I took this at a football match recently and liked it so enjoy.



Off The Crossbar by Nick Howlett, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

90mm?


----------



## Rook

First is X100T, second is the 90, yep.


----------



## Philligan

Nice. I love the look of long, fast lenses at further distances. The goalie photo reminds me of Whammy's work. 

Here are some I forgot to post from a shoot I did last week for our friends and their new dog. I've learned that I don't want to raise a puppy anytime soon.  They're a bit cheesy IMHO but the girl in the photos doesn't model well for someone who's a photographer herself. 

These were mostly the 35, with some 23 at the end, all at 1.4 IIRC except for the last one where I didn't realize I bumped it to 1.6. 



DSCF0024 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0038 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0087 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0238 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

This last one had to be B&W. It was insanely dark, and they were lit by an orange security light outside a water treatment shed in the park. 



DSCF0305 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

Here's a screenshot of what it looked like before.



Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 9.28.53 PM by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And here's the one I left in colour, and just did the best I could to correct it. I'm not really happy with it, but it's passable IMHO.



DSCF0318 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

I just hit 70,000 shutter actuations on my K5ii and it's still going quite strong.



Just sayin'


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Rook said:


> Was misty today and I managed to figure out a 'look' I've been trying to get for ages.
> 
> It's a super simple image but I'm really pleased with it!



Great look. I love shots with mist. I never seem to be in the right place at the right time. I should look into what conditions would predict a morning mist, then I could plan to get up for it.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I agree. Love fog shots. It's been foggy here for nearly a week now and I'm really considering just going out tomorrow and taking some shots as well. Just after sunrise and before sundown it gets really dense and you get this really cool vibe with seeing nothing but silhouets in the grasslands here. And when the sun comes through in the afternoon, it lights up the fog a little and it's like there's golden light everywhere.


----------



## Philligan

I'm starting to get antsy without my camera.  I was looking for used X-Pro 1s but I can't find any cheap enough that I can afford them right now haha. I was reading about how they don't use such heavy-handed noise reduction in JPG mode and it got me gassing for one. 

I'm gonna want a camera tomorrow, so I've gotta decide between Dawn's Rebel or my AE-1. I've still got some Portra 800 in there. 

On that note, I'm trying to decide what film camera/system to move to. I'm tempted to stick with Canon because I've already got some FE glass, but I don't really like any of the bodies all that much. For 35mm I'd either get an AF SLR like the F100 or EOS 3, or go rangefinder and get a QL-17.


----------



## illimmigrant

My wife and I are not great photographers, but we certainly appreciate the talent and skill in taking a great photo. I'm always lurking in this subform and constantly going "wow".

We did snap this cute little shot of our daughter in her Chun Li costume, an outfit I will not allow her to wear past the age of 3 
So she made it into some halloween photo contest and I'd appreciate if you could give her picture a "like" and see how we do.
Here's the link to the pic as well as attached below  Thanks!

https://www.facebook.com/SugarLandParks/photos/a.1102653973099446.1073741891.661264067238441/1102654409766069/?type=3&pnref=story


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Philligan said:


> I'm gonna want a camera tomorrow, so I've gotta decide between Dawn's Rebel or my AE-1. I've still got some Portra 800 in there.



Take the AE-1. It's good to be forced back to film sometimes, especially if you're lazy like me.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I got my Orange Monster back from getting a domed sapphire crystal installed.














I also picked up this guy locally for $50, and ordered a pair of oiled leather straps to use instead of the bracelet.


----------



## Philligan

That last Seiko is perfect. Leather strap, kinetic, has the days. Seriously, if you ever want to sell that let me know. 

How much did it cost to get a sapphire crystal put on? My first Citizen has a sapphire crystal, and I don't think I can wear a watch with mineral now.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The crystal was $60 because I wanted a bubble-domed crystal with AR and it cost me $65 to have it installed. As much as I love automatics, it really bites not having a watch winder to keep them going (it's not a hassle to get them going again though).

Keep your eye on evilBay for an SRN055 and you can snag one for less than half of what they sell for new (if you don't mind a few scuffs and such). I think I'm done selling watches for a while, I sold a lot of my previous collection to help pay for school.


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> I'm starting to get antsy without my camera.  I was looking for used X-Pro 1s but I can't find any cheap enough that I can afford them right now haha. I was reading about how they don't use such heavy-handed noise reduction in JPG mode and it got me gassing for one.
> 
> I'm gonna want a camera tomorrow, so I've gotta decide between Dawn's Rebel or my AE-1. I've still got some Portra 800 in there.
> 
> On that note, I'm trying to decide what film camera/system to move to. I'm tempted to stick with Canon because I've already got some FE glass, but I don't really like any of the bodies all that much. For 35mm I'd either get an AF SLR like the F100 or EOS 3, or go rangefinder and get a QL-17.



QL17 is great.

You could also go Nikon F3, Contax G or Nikon S3 if you're feeling flush. 100% would bang any of the above.

I still use my X-Pro1, it's a sweet little camera.


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> The crystal was $60 because I wanted a bubble-domed crystal with AR and it cost me $65 to have it installed. As much as I love automatics, it really bites not having a watch winder to keep them going (it's not a hassle to get them going again though).
> 
> Keep your eye on evilBay for an SRN055 and you can snag one for less than half of what they sell for new (if you don't mind a few scuffs and such). I think I'm done selling watches for a while, I sold a lot of my previous collection to help pay for school.



Awesome.  That's not as bad as I thought. I'm working at a jewellers right now (it's retail) and it would cost way more to get the manufacturer to do that.

My every day watch right now is an Eco-Drive, and it's hard to look at anything else because of how low maintenance those Citizens are. I'd love an auto Seiko, but it would have to be something I'd start wearing every day, so I'm not setting it every time I want to wear it.



Rook said:


> QL17 is great.
> 
> You could also go Nikon F3, Contax G or Nikon S3 if you're feeling flush. 100% would bang any of the above.
> 
> I still use my X-Pro1, it's a sweet little camera.



I'd get an X-Pro1 if I could find one cheap enough. For the price they're going for, though, an X-T10 would be more practical. If there won't be an X-T2 out by early summer (from the lack of rumours, I don't think it will be out) I'm gonna need a second body, and it'll probably end up being the X-T10.

Other than a rangefinder, for film I'd get an AF body. That's why I'm leaning towards Nikon, because there's a lot more affordable glass like the AF-D primes, and I've always got the option for MF lenses when I want something more exotic. If I got an EF film body, I'd be basically stuck with all the current lenses.


----------



## UnderTheSign

How much are they second hand over there Phil? There's been a Fuji bundle promotion over here with the x-pro 1, 18mm and 27mm for 899 for months now so all three of those fetch way less than they should second hand. I sold my 27mm for 200 and I've seen x-pro bodies go for 300-350 a couple of times...


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Rook said:


> QL17 is great.
> 
> You could also go Nikon F3, Contax G or Nikon S3 if you're feeling flush. 100% would bang any of the above.



On that note I'll take either a Nikon 28Ti, Contax T2 or Leica Minilux please.


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> How much are they second hand over there Phil? There's been a Fuji bundle promotion over here with the x-pro 1, 18mm and 27mm for 899 for months now so all three of those fetch way less than they should second hand. I sold my 27mm for 200 and I've seen x-pro bodies go for 300-350 a couple of times...



There actually aren't many around here. I could only find one in Ontario, and the guy was asking $600 for it. 

I just spent way too long looking at film bodies through.  I emailed someone about a Mamiya 645, so we'll see how that goes.


----------



## Rook

$600?! Dude I've seen them sell for as little as £150 here!

Here's one on MPB which is _retail_ used for £229. 
https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equi...uji-x-series-cameras/fuji-x-pro-1/sku-602061/


----------



## Philligan

Man, for £150 I'd tell you to buy and and ship it to me.  

Seriously though, I'd like to pick one up eventually. I wouldn't use it when I'm out with friends because wifi has become a necessity for me, but for days when I'm going out alone just to shoot, I'd love one for the form factor. I'd also like to see how I like it compared to the X-T1. I'm gonna need a second body by the summer, and if there's no word of the X-T2 coming out soon I'll need to decide between the X-Pro2 and X-T10. I wouldn't want a second T1, because I wouldn't want to spend that much on a body with the older tech. If I buy an X-T10, it'll be a casual camera and a work stop gap until the X-T2 comes out.


----------



## flint757

I'd love to try out some Fuji gear if it didn't mean abandoning what I already have and having to purchase all new gear. There's pretty much no cross compatibility,as I understand it, between X mount and m4/3, and I really like m4/3.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Philligan said:


> Man, for £150 I'd tell you to buy and and ship it to me.
> 
> Seriously though, I'd like to pick one up eventually. I wouldn't use it when I'm out with friends because wifi has become a necessity for me, but for days when I'm going out alone just to shoot, I'd love one for the form factor. I'd also like to see how I like it compared to the X-T1. I'm gonna need a second body by the summer, and if there's no word of the X-T2 coming out soon I'll need to decide between the X-Pro2 and X-T10. I wouldn't want a second T1, because I wouldn't want to spend that much on a body with the older tech. If I buy an X-T10, it'll be a casual camera and a work stop gap until the X-T2 comes out.


It's a neat little camera! I've been considering getting an X-T1 or X-T10 for a while now though, both because I'm a gearwhore and because I'd like a faster EVF and autofocus. The T1 is a little expensive for my tastes however (just saw one pop up 2nd hand for 899... super tempted....) and I'm afraid the T10 might be too small or uncomfortable to hold, which (on top of handling in general) is part of the reason why I went from Olympus to Fuji. 

If I were you though, I'd get an X-T10. One, it's compact so if it's going to function as casual camera as well, you'll have one that matches great with the smaller primes (18/27/35) and fits in your pockets a bunch easier. Second, the technology is pretty much the same as the X-T1 so it'll feel more similar when used as a back up.

On the other hand, feel free to make me an offer so I can upgrade to an X-T1 or X-T10


----------



## Rook

One of the most appealing not things to me about Fujinis how the tech is so similar across all cameras really. Apart from usually-minor speed differences, handling is so similar. I did a wedding last year with a T1, Pro1 and E2 and it wasn't even slightly jarring an experience. Dead easy.


----------



## capoeiraesp

If you're getting into Fuji's X stuff, get the XF90. It is just a sublime lens.


----------



## Rook

^also that, its one of (if not there) best lenses I've owned, IQ wise. I don't mean sharpness, though its crazy sharp, the images just look awesome.


----------



## Rook

So one of my biggest complaints when it comes to photography - one of my most frequently used justifications for not doing it - is that I don't have anything to take pictures of, so I've been trying to get better at taking, what I think are, interesting photos of ordinary stuff around me.

Was playing around with the fact that the sun's so low this time of year today, been enjoying the process of trying to make an interesting picture.



Bracken 1 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Autumn Breeze by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Tree Bark by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Tree Horizon by Nick Howlett, on Flickr

...and this one I just really like how it came out:


Guy Fawkes by Nick Howlett, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

That last one's incredible.  

I doubt I'll get any massive jobs before Christmas, but I should be getting more than enough Christmas commission to buy a new lens. Let's hope - I want something longer than 35mm for portraits.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Went out to find some birds in the late afternoon yesterday but the sky was grey and there were almost no birds to be seen...

The few that I did see were actually just a little too far away for the 50-230. Makes me curious about the upcoming Fuji 100-400! Though I wonder what it'll cost, considering the price of their competitors offerings (Nikon/Canon, etc).


----------



## Philligan

It sounds like it'll be in the $1500 range or more. It looks like you'll lose some aperture coming from the 50-140 but gain a lot of range, and the build and AF are supposed to be at least as good, if not better.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I work in a horrible town.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Philligan said:


> It sounds like it'll be in the $1500 range or more. It looks like you'll lose some aperture coming from the 50-140 but gain a lot of range, and the build and AF are supposed to be at least as good, if not better.


I can live with 4.5 or 5.6, with ISO set to 1600 I should be able to get away with shutter speeds 125 and up.

Fuji auto/iso settings have been annoying me lately. I've set it to max auto iso 1600 (min 200), minimum shutter speed 1/30 because thats what I can handle handheld... Last night we were out and about and it was getting a little darker, so the camera figured 1/30 was too slow and simply overrode the minimum shutter speed, opting for 1/8 and even 1/4 instead. I'd rather it had just underexposed the image because why else would I set a minimum shutter speed?


----------



## Philligan

That's really weird.  I don't use aperture priority too much so I don't remember if I've come across that. Well, I use aperture priority sometimes, but if it's dark enough for shutter speed to be an issue, I just do manual with auto ISO and keep the shutter speed at something I know I can handle. Usually 1/125 because I feel like my 1/60 photos aren't as sharp, even with the 23mm.

Out of curiosity, do you find the noise that bad above 1600? I have mine capped at 6400 for auto ISO, and I'm perfectly happy using 3200 on jobs, and depending on the situation, even 6400. As long as I'm shooting raw, the noise looks good IMHO and the sharpness and colour hold up. The JPG noise reduction is absolutely brutal and is probably my biggest complaint about the camera, which makes me extra sad - with how good 6400 is, I'd shoot 12800 no problem for personal stuff, but it's fairly useless to me because it's not available in raw.


----------



## A-Branger

My first try at rear flash during rain pic 







I actually rarely get rain on my weddings (knock on wood), so I havent get the chance to do it before, and the only couple of times I had, it was before I got my new speedlites so it was pretty hard to do with a optical slave flashes. Yay for radio trigger speedlites!


----------



## Philligan

That looks great.

Forgot to say, I got my camera back. 

They fixed the sensor (remapped it I'm guessing, or did some kind of static flush), which I'm assuming was part of the "Pro Service Level 2".  They replaced the warped USB door, may have replaced the SD door (it feels snappier I think), and actually regripped the entire camera, too.  If it weren't for a couple scuffs on the metal, I would have guessed they'd given me a new body.

Feels great to have a camera again. I'll hopefully post some photos soon of a small purchase I made recently (I was just waiting til I got this camera to shoot it).


----------



## UnderTheSign

Philligan said:


> That's really weird.  I don't use aperture priority too much so I don't remember if I've come across that. Well, I use aperture priority sometimes, but if it's dark enough for shutter speed to be an issue, I just do manual with auto ISO and keep the shutter speed at something I know I can handle. Usually 1/125 because I feel like my 1/60 photos aren't as sharp, even with the 23mm.
> 
> Out of curiosity, do you find the noise that bad above 1600? I have mine capped at 6400 for auto ISO, and I'm perfectly happy using 3200 on jobs, and depending on the situation, even 6400. As long as I'm shooting raw, the noise looks good IMHO and the sharpness and colour hold up. The JPG noise reduction is absolutely brutal and is probably my biggest complaint about the camera, which makes me extra sad - with how good 6400 is, I'd shoot 12800 no problem for personal stuff, but it's fairly useless to me because it's not available in raw.


For outdoors stuff in colour I don't like the 3200-6400 iso no, it gets a little too grainy for my tastes. Black & white isn't an issue but when shooting colour against a grey cloudy sky the noise doesn't fit the mood imo. 

I'll stick to manual shutter speeds in low light from now on, gets me thinking about what I'm doing and prevents stuff like this from happening.


----------



## Philligan

Now that I can finally shoot it  I picked this up on Sunday from Goodwill for $2. It's zone focus only, shoots in Program at either 100 or 400, and has a 38mm f/4. For $2, I figured I might as well start hoarding Fuji cameras.  There were a bunch of ....ty Fujifilm AF zooms, but AFAIK the Fujica stuff is all made in Japan.



DSCF0067 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And here are the controls. 



DSCF0070 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## tank




----------



## Joe Harvatt

Yesterday for work I had to head down to a beach to test networking with two antennae. Took my camera with me.


----------



## Nats

Second one is so good.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Thanks mate!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Nats said:


> Second one is so good.



Oddly enough, I prefer the first; though it would be even better with some front tilt.


----------



## Philligan

I need some help. I'm shooting at a friend's stag and doe and my Yongnuo YN-460 seems to be freezing up my X-T1. I've used it before and never noticed a problem. It turns the camera off and resets any settings I'd changed since turning it on. Taking the flash off seems to make everything work normally. 

Anyone have any ideas?


----------



## Philligan

My 565exII seems to be fine so far. Could be that the 460 is just a pile of crap. I really need to grab a Nissin i40 one of these days.


----------



## Philligan

So it may actually be the DigiPower battery. I took it out of the grip and the camera fired up no problem. I put it back in the grip and the camera wouldn't power on again. That or it's the grip dying?


----------



## Philligan

And this just happened.  The guy's wasted and thought it was awesome and went to get his wife to show her, and I ran out of there so fast. Currently hiding in the kitchen at the venue.


----------



## Philligan

So here's what happened last night. My camera seemed to be working fine with the grip attached. I put the Yongnuo YN-460 on, and the camera wouldn't fire and would shut down after a few seconds. I would pull the battery, put it back in, and when the camera would start up, the settings I'd changed the first time would be back to what they were before (I kept trying to turn the exposure preview off, and when I booted back up it would be on again). I tried a new flash, the 565, and it started doing it with that after a couple minutes, too. I'm pretty sure it was the battery.

I usually keep the Fuji battery in the body, and put the DigiPower batteries in the grip. The first thing I did was swap the batteries so the DP was in the body, and the OEM one was in the grip. The camera worked perfectly fine after that. I ended up taking the second battery out altogether and just running the OEM battery in the camera, and it worked fine all night. 

The weird thing is that I've had these batteries for almost a year and they haven't done this before. I've definitely run the camera with a speedlight and grip at least once before (the last wedding I shot) and it worked then. I'm guessing either the DigiPower battery went bad, or Fuji did a firmware update to cripple knock off batteries. I was still at v4.00 when I sent it out, and it came back with v4.10.

I'm just hoping I didn't do any permanent damage. I have two DigiPower batteries but I don't remember if I tried both or not. I'm just not gonna bother. I'll keep them for now to be safe, but in the next week or two I'm ordering another Fuji battery and tossing the DigiPower ones. Since I got let go from Future Shop I can't get the staff discount on third party batteries anymore, so the price difference isn't as big, and I don't want to take any chances. I'm just lucky this happened at a friend's stag and doe, and not a wedding or marketing gig.


----------



## Rook

It'd be weird if it were the batteries... Unless it were a voltage thing - that's why your camera reboots when you take the battery grip off while it's switched on.

Could be the battery's not putting out enough voltage, as that would also explain why adding something else that's giving and taking voltage pulses might tip the current draw from the battery below an acceptable level and causing the reset. 

Don't know though.




In other news, I've been playing with small squares.



Hut by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Bark 1 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

ThePhilosopher said:


> Oddly enough, I prefer the first; though it would be even better with some front tilt.



Tilt as in free-lensing? I've never tried any of that.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Inspired by Joe's recent adventures in grain I figured it'd work well on this shot too. And I think it did.


DSCF2034.jpg by Bart van den Bosch, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Joe Harvatt said:


> Tilt as in free-lensing? I've never tried any of that.



A T/S lens or a much larger format would allow for the movements with consistency; free-lensing is a pain, I've tried it a couple of times - it worked best for me when the camera was mounted on a tripod.


----------



## Philligan

Here's one from Sunday night. We drove past a really lone tree during sunset but didn't get the chance to stop. The next cool tree we found was a bit too late. 



DSCF0348 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And then I took one of Dawn at the side of the road. Even with the 23mm you can make out the moon pretty clearly.



DSCF0357 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I was fortunate enough to shoot at the Periphery/Veil of Maya/Good Tiger show last Friday in Bristol thanks to my good friends Morgan Sinclair and Nolly. Full set at www.joeharvatt.co.uk


----------



## stringmaiden

^ sick shots dude!


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Thank you.

In a totally unrelated style, here's a few I took on a day trip across England to Whitby in the North East on Tuesday.


----------



## Tang

I found one of my original backup drives and to my infinite sadness something went wonky with the file system and Windows couldn't read it. After much googling I found a tool that could read the RAW file system and IT WORKS! So many shots I wanted to revisit! Currently rebacking up everything to a drive that works.. might take a while 

So without further ado.. here's the original version processed way back in January 2014. I used a different shot in the new version, and I think you'll agree it's much better. Some of you may remember this one. 




IMGP5901-2 by Scott Jones, on Flickr

and the new, 2015 version. It's funny what almost 2 years will do for ones processing savvy!




red hat by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

Shot a gig with my Bronica on T-Max 400 pushed to 3200 last night. Super curious to see the results. I'll be bringing the film to the lab on monday so hope to have scans that night or the day after. I expect some sweet grain and high contrast.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

UnderTheSign said:


> Shot a gig with my Bronica on T-Max 400 pushed to 3200 last night. Super curious to see the results. I'll be bringing the film to the lab on monday so hope to have scans that night or the day after. I expect some sweet grain and high contrast.



Look forward to seeing the results.

Been messing about with my 135 2.8 at work:


----------



## UnderTheSign

The Fuji 50-230 does NOT enjoy harsh, neon-ish stage lights 





Some of them turned out well though. I converted most to black & white because I felt like that way I had much better control over the image. 


DSCF2066.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr


DSCF2095.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Just poppin' by with my usual Fuji love post. Still can't get enough of the XF90. Tried my 56 1.2 again for the first time since. Lovely lens in its own right but almost completely overshadowed by the 90.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I haven't had much time to shoot, but I did a quick test (more for proof of the materials I'm using).


----------



## ThePhilosopher

This was going to be darker themed shoot, but I think the shots just lend themselves better to this style.




Nikon D3 with Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D @80mm+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/125s f/2.8


----------



## tank

UnderTheSign said:


> The Fuji 50-230 does NOT enjoy harsh, neon-ish stage lights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of them turned out well though. I converted most to black & white because I felt like that way I had much better control over the image.
> 
> 
> DSCF2066.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr
> 
> 
> DSCF2095.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr



UV/LED lights are PURE NIGHTMARE for live photography


----------



## Philligan

tank said:


> UV/LED lights are PURE NIGHTMARE for live photography



It's true. 



DSCF0251 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

You can really see the moon tonight. I don't have anything longer than a 35mm, so I grabbed Dawn's SL1 with the incredibly ....ty 75-300. It doesn't have IS so I braced it against the porch railing and shot around 1/1250, ISO 800, and f/5.6 IIRC.

Even at 1/1250 and braced, it's still really soft. I think it's the lens. I'm gonna see if Dawn will get me the Fuji 50-230 for Christmas.  I'd prefer the 55-200, but it's too expensive, and for the odd time I need a long tele zoom, this one will be good enough. Anything is better than the Canon 75-300 anyway.



IMG_0185 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

Yeah, if it's still soft at 1/1250 it's probably the lens. I've done handheld moon shots with a 400mm manual lens at 1/250 and they turned out sharp. I always go for a slightly lower shutter speed by the way, 250-500ish so you can lower the iso (the moon is super bright so 200 works) and f8-11


----------



## UnderTheSign

Well then, some lessons learnt in medium format concert photography:

It's a b*tch to focus on fast moving objects  (everything seemed sharp through the VF)


Bölzer by Red Menace, on Flickr

It's a b*tch to expose properly when the stage lights are all over the place 


Bölzer by Red Menace, on Flickr

T-Max 400 is pretty cool when pushed to 3200 but I want more grain!


Bölzer 1 by Red Menace, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

More photo-dumping from Sunday.




Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/200s f/2.8





Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/100s f/2.8





Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/125s f/2.8

Compression is killing this one.




Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D: ISO 100 1/160s f/5.6





Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D: ISO 100 1/160s f/4


----------



## Winspear

Adore the colours in that shoot!

Got married a couple of weeks ago, here's a few of my favourites from honeymoon. Wasn't particularly happy with the quality of most photos I'd taken away, but managed to get a few cool edits out of these.
All on the 600D with my Sigma 17-70 (my only lens). I really love having this single zoom lens for walkabout. Feeling like I could do with a little longer on both ends though, with a small pancake for wide angle shots.

Holkham beach - a bizarre setting of fields, lakes, and pine woods next to a huge sandy beach (no good shots of that sadly haha)



Bear Silhouette by Tom Winspear, on Flickr


Beach by Tom Winspear, on Flickr

Tree by the Lake by Tom Winspear, on Flickr

A Girl and Her Dog by Tom Winspear, on Flickr

Pinecone by Tom Winspear, on Flickr


Grass by Tom Winspear, on Flickr


----------



## vansinn

Philligan said:


> IMG_0185 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



Pics like this once again reminds me that I really should've bought that Russian mirror lens back in the days: 1100 mm f8! - believe it or not, 42 mm thread mount. And dirt cheap too.
And should not have sold my heavy sturdy Gitzo tripod - which I even got for free (one leg was clogged, easy fix).

Will try to dig out some pics from my days as a free-lance photographer; I have a large box down the basement. Hmnn.. apart from the paper copies, it's all neg/dias chemical films and I wonder how well my HP printer scanner will do here..
Probably shouldn't have stopped shooting at all..


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Thanks Tom, I'm always searching for ways to keep my post refreshing but still look like my work. 

I did my normal color corrections and DnB, but then I used a selective color adjustment layer that I normally use to darken greens but set it to soft light instead of normal for the blend mode and it just made everything pop (as would be expected using SL). I finished by adding some haze and graded with some X-Pro+Ektachrome E100G settings I've mapped out.



EtherealEntity said:


> Got married a couple of weeks ago, here's a few of my favourites from honeymoon. Wasn't particularly happy with the quality of most photos I'd taken away, but managed to get a few cool edits out of these.
> All on the 600D with my Sigma 17-70 (my only lens). I really love having this single zoom lens for walkabout. Feeling like I could do with a little longer on both ends though, with a small pancake for wide angle shots.



Congrats on the nuptials, who isn't always wanting something a bit wider or longer? The grass shot is quite nice.


----------



## Philligan

vansinn said:


> Pics like this once again reminds me that I really should've bought that Russian mirror lens back in the days: 1100 mm f8! - believe it or not, 42 mm thread mount. And dirt cheap too.
> And should not have sold my heavy sturdy Gitzo tripod - which I even got for free (one leg was clogged, easy fix).
> 
> Will try to dig out some pics from my days as a free-lance photographer; I have a large box down the basement. Hmnn.. apart from the paper copies, it's all neg/dias chemical films and I wonder how well my HP printer scanner will do here..
> Probably shouldn't have stopped shooting at all..



I'd love to have tried that with an 800mm, mirror lens or not. With a tripod and the shutter speed you'd be using, the photo would probably turn out great. Those lenses can't be softer than that Canon lens I used, and for posting to Facebook, who cares? The photo I took was cropped pretty heavily and doesn't look great in full screen, but it's perfectly fine for web size.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Here's a couple of shots I got from the Clutch show in Bristol yesterday. Full gallery at www.joeharvatt.co.uk/clutch


----------



## Philligan

Here are some from the last few days. I haven't been shooting a ton lately - I've been busy with work (gotta love retail around the holidays) and the weather's starting to get bad. When we both have time off together, we usually just end up staying in and watching a movie. 



DSCF0505 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0512 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0555 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0571 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0580 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

Going to Brussels tomorrow and I've got a big travel bag on wheels filled with stuff.. Half of that is photo gear... ~15lbs of it  X-Pro1 with 18mm, 55-230mm, Jupiter-8 50/2 with L39 adapter, Pentax KX with 50/1.7, Bronica SQ-A with 150/3.5, 40/4, chimney finder and a spare 645 back plus my YN560IV flash, trigger (super small and super great for the money!) and mini tripod. 

Man, I've never been this glad I bought a bag with wheels... Never would've carried this, I would've ended up making decisions on what not to take...

The Fuji is for most shots (I think, maybe just the gigs at night I'm attending), the KX for daywalking, Bronica for hopefully some portraits and architecture stuff on 6x6 T-Max 400 with the 40mm. I'm travelling with 4 friends and staying in a budget hotel so I hope I find the time to do some cool low key portraits.


----------



## soliloquy

okie folks, so i just came back from a trip to UAE for vacationing and visiting friends. i gotta say, this was a very interesting trip for me. normally speaking, ive always been a landscape kind of guy. its something i'm more comfortable with and really enjoy. it also includes architecture. one thing i've avoided for well over 10 years is portraits as generally speaking, people tend to annoy me.

yet, if i want to make any kind of side income, its something i have to get over, so i'm dabbing my hands at event photography with lots of fun and success. 

yet this UAE trip added another challenge to the mix. it forced me to talk to locals there and get their stories. i've also been enjoying the projects such as humansofnewyork, humansofkarachi, humansoftoronto etc... so taking pics of locals and having their stories was a lot of fun. i'll be posting random stuff in a bit.

i do have a question for you all though. i'm looking for a more travel friendly bag to carry my gear. these are the bags i currently have:

this is a bag by 'goatstuff'. this is my walk about, go to bag. can store my body, at least 3 lenses and a flash, along with other smaller things. looks bad ass, but because its a messenger bag, it can get a lil heavy if i'm going for a long trip. i also love that it doesn't look like a camera bag, so less attention drawn to it.





then i have the tenba messenger mini bag. its light weight, and can store more stuff, but aside from camera equipment, it cant store much as it doesn't have enough room in it. i generally use it for longer trips, but due to it being a messenger bag, it can also get a lil heavy, especially if i'm traveling with my tripod. plus, it looks like a camera bag, thus draws a lil more attention for people with sticky fingers






then i have a bagpack that i use for traveling. has survived a few years and about 3 or 4 countries. can store a body, 3 lenses, and a flash, plus a jacket, and filters and lunch and more stuff. plus, it hardly looks like a camera bag.





now my travel bag is coming close to its life and i need to replace it. 
heres what i need it to store:
a full frame body (i have a crop sensor, but upgrading to full frame in spring)
at least 3 lenses
at least one flash
accessories such as cleaning equipment, filters etc
a pocket or mechanism to hold a tripod
enough room to hold a light jacket, and other small things needed for a hike around town
light weight
doesn't look like a camera bag

i came across one bag that i didn't get the name of that looked like a mountain-climbing-hiking bag, with a removable camera equipment bag inside it to shed the weight if need be. 

any other suggestions would be more than welcome.


EDIT: found the bag. its adventure k5 bag. it comes in olive, burgundy, and black and i think white. a lil pricey though


----------



## MoshJosh

Alright guys, got some questions.

I haven't done any real shooting in a while, maybe ever haha, but my father in law wanted me to try out some lenses he had lying around, specifically an Sigma 2.8f 18mm aspherical. . . something or other. Anyway I have no idea what to shoot, or what this type of lens is typically used for, so let me know what to do haha


----------



## UnderTheSign

Well it's a wide angle, so maybe some Street photography, landscape or architecture stuff?


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I haven't been active on the forums at all lately, but it's great to see that you guys are still plugging away at it. Love to see guys like Rook and Joe going for that grainy look these days and as always, great photos regardless.

As for me, I haven't been working with the camera too much, but I recently was contracted to shoot some behind-the-scenes stuff for a TV production with some well-known and respected producers and directors. I heard through the grape vine that they liked my photos more than what their usual guy normally brings them, so I get the feeling I could look forward to working with them more, although I'll be relocating (to the other side of the planet) within the next 2-3 months. I'll share some of my shots when I have my hard drive on me.


----------



## Philligan

18mm f/2.8, or 28mm f/1.8?

I'd typed out a response, but chose to delete it. Honestly, I think it would be cool to go into a focal length with zero expectations or preconceptions. Seriously, you can't make mistakes in photography when you're just shooting for fun, so put that lens on and shoot whatever's around you.  

Personally, I find the most interesting shots to have people in them, because I like shooting people the best. So no matter what the lens is like, take it out with friends or do a shoot with a friend and see what happens.


----------



## Tang

Totally addicted to Capture One Pro. The color tools alone make it worth the price of admission. All three of these were taken with my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8






These next two were processed in capture one:


----------



## UnderTheSign

Was checking out Flickr pages for lenses I own and one of the shots I found seemed familiar... You're everywhere, joe!

https://www.flickr.com/photos/joeharvatt/21022737738/in/[email protected]/


----------



## Joe Harvatt

UnderTheSign said:


> Was checking out Flickr pages for lenses I own and one of the shots I found seemed familiar... You're everywhere, joe!
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/joeharvatt/21022737738/in/[email protected]/



Ha! Cool! What do you think of the Mini Wide? It's become one of my main lenses.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I haven't used it for a while (50 1.7 has replaced it as my main analog/Pentax lens) but it's a great little lens. I should use it more often.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Shot the boys from Hollow World with only 10 minutes left on their set. I used my Sigma 35mm 1.4 on my Fuji XT-10 for these but stupidly, I had my shutter way to high at 1/250 and shot in standard jpeg. Still happy with the results though and the monochrome conversions were made extra gritty deliberately. Always pleased with high ISO fuji stuff.


----------



## UnderTheSign

It shows those have been through Facebook processing. The sharpening on those last two is just harsh 

I like that about the Fuji though. You think you're screwed with the low light stuff and then it comes out perfectly usable.

Second set of gig pics ever. Good lighting and some smoke makes things so much better.


DSCF2407.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr

Also, this guy just always looks good in pictures. Great stage presence.


DSCF2378.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr


----------



## A-Branger

a little vid I jsut came across you guys might be interested in for shooting at low shutter speeds handheld



I already did a couple of the points he says, I never bend over and I always keep my elbows and hands close to my body as posible. And same as shoothing a rifle or a gun, the best aim to to inhale, relax, and exhale softly and shot after. That has help me to get "sharp" photos during dark receptions during speeches with my 70-200 at shutter speeds of 1/60th even at 200mm (mind you the lens IS/VC thing helps a lot hehe)

but I never though of putting the weight of the camera on my shoulder, using the body as tripod. Might give it a try on my next wedding.


It also points out one of my pet peeves (people shooting with the hand over the lens) and the why its wrong to use that approach


and if some of you dont know who Joe Mcnally is, I cant recommend this guy enough. Specially for off-camera flash and speedlite photography. Hes the master of light, Ive learn so much out of this guy. His books are pretty entertain to read too


----------



## A-Branger

and heres another pic from a recent wedding






sadly I couldnt step futher away to get more of the building as I had couple of signs things that would come in on the frame.

This pic is a blend of two photos:
-One pic is the one with them, my assistant on the day holding a softbox on the left of the couple as main light, and another flash behind the couple for rim, this flash was on the floor as a quick setup, I should have use a light stand. I used a half CTO gel on my main light in order to blen the white balance with the ambient light, but not too much to still keep a color separation and be able to keep the venue "warm"

-second photo was me standing at same place, no ppl with two speedlites on the floor one in between each columns pointing upwards with a full CTO gel to blen with the tungsten light. This photo was used to be able to erase my assistant in photoshop and to add some cool lights on the columns

once I edited the photo I notice I may could have gone a full CTO on my main light as the venue lights were even warmer, but still the effect works and I got a more controlled white balance on my couple than shooting with no gel.

for those of you who shoot weddings, events, night portraits, even general photography with off-camera flash, and even with on-camera flash. I highly highly recommend you to get color correction gels, nothing too fancy to learn about, they are pretty cheap, but they would change your photography for the best and would make your work at editing way way more simple. I could explain a bit more on those if you guys want, but do a search and get some


----------



## Nats

Pic of wifey from a sculpture park as the dark approached quickly



Untitled by JAPAMM, on Flickr


----------



## Wretched

Haven't posted in a while. Here's a handful of recent shots from around the place. 

Can really see development and improvement in a lot of you guys looking through recent posts in this thread! Good on you guys.


----------



## Tang

Ben, as always.. TERRIFIC!


----------



## A-Branger

duuuuuuuude so awesome


----------



## A-Branger

hers another shot of that same wedding







I was really really happy with the general look and feel of the shot, but I couldnt post-process it to a point I was 100% happy. Im probably too stuck on my ways to do things at this point. But I do still "see" the photo I want there, jsut cant reach it with my current post work


----------



## Whammy

Haven't been around here in a long long time. Good to see everybody still posting and still pushing their work.

I've primarily been doing baby/children portraits so no personal photography from me. Mostly all studio work too.

Going to focus more on newborn photography in the new year and less studio work, more outdoors.


----------



## A-Branger

great pics bro, nice timing with the cat. I dont know how you have the patience to work with toddlers and babies lol. I would go crazy, lucky the studio I work for we havent had any inquiry for it, weird as lots of couples would have one just after their wedding


----------



## UnderTheSign

Always loving the colours in your shots man.


----------



## Philligan

I've been really busy with work and having been shooting much lately (other than goofy everyday stuff that I'm just posting on Facebook straight from my phone). I've got an engagement shoot coming up sometime, but we've had to reschedule a couple times.

Here's one I initially just posting with wifi and Classic Chrome. I imported my card full of the last week's worth of photos and liked this one, so I gave it the full edit in Lightroom.



DSCF0619 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

I need some help with video.

A friend wants to shoot a video of himself singing and playing guitar, and I said I'd shoot it for him. He's got a Rebel T5, Dawn has the SL1, and my dad has my old T3, so I figured I'd steal all three and shoot a few angles with that. Each one should have the 18-55 and 50 1.8. I'm expecting to use the 18-55 on one to get a full body shot, and 50mm's on the other two for detail shots (probably one of the guitar and one of a loose headshot). I don't have much in the way of hot lights so the plan is to shoot it in front of his window and use my reflectors. 

I can't spend any money on this and don't want to take forever doing it - but I'd also like it to suck as little as possible. I'm ready to try grading and everything, but it'll be in iMovie, and I don't want to go and install Magic Lantern on three bodies that aren't mine. I'm guessing I should be choosing the flattest profile I can on the bodies, then doing a bit of grading in iMovie.

I'm mainly worried about audio. I don't have a good audio solution, but I'm pretty sure my friend can record on his computer. So my guess would be to record the audio to his computer, and I'll set all three cameras to record internally with the built-in mics, so then I can just sync the audio with the wave forms. Am I on the right track?


----------



## flint757

Your shutter speed will likely be 1/48 at the slowest and you may or may not have issues shooting with a larger f-stop, but all that combined with the lack of continuous lighting could potentially have you underexposed. You could always just bump up the ISO though. Getting the cameras to look similar in-camera is more important IMO than getting them neutral, although neutral is a good way to achieve this obviously. Just make sure each camera is setup using similar formats and settings and you'll likely be fine. You're on the right track with the audio as well. That's how I usually do it when recording.


----------



## A-Branger

yup your are fine with the audio that way. Just be sure you also find a way for you to be able to sync the cameas and his recorded audio. Clap i front of the 3 cameras so you have a good audio and visual reference. And do it in front of his mic so you can have that audio peak too. 

Like others say, try to have the 3 cameras with the same picture profile, and same white balance. You might had to go into manual white balance shift as each camera could be different. MY 6D white balance is greener and bit red-ish than the 5DIII, even that its suposed to be the "same"/newer sensor


----------



## Philligan

Thanks guys, I'll keep that in mind.  If I get the chance before I'll play around with them to see how the white balance differs. IIRC the SL1 and T5 should use the same sensor and processor, so that hopefully won't be a problem.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Not that I do video often, but I tend to stick to 1/50 shutter speed (so as to be as close to double the frame rate as possible), usually shooting wide open and adjust ISO accordingly.

Here's a little shaky test clip I made.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Had a rad time shooting Ne Obliviscaris, Plini and Hollow World on Thursday. It was my first big proper opportunity to test out the Fuji XT-1 and XT-10 in a live setting. The results were mixed. The XF56 and XF90 really had a hard time focusing, meaning a lot of opportunities were missed. The XT-10 with the XF16 worked a treat though. Overall though, the Fuji stuff is a beast with high ISO stuff, and with only the first 3 songs of each band being shot (venue policy) I was really happy with what I snapped.


----------



## Rook

I made the long-ass drive to Snowdonia National Park yesterday, and back home again today - about 6 hours each way.

I took about a bazillion photos but here are some of the ones I hope will be more interesting.

I've been getting a lot more involved with brushing things in and out lately, where historically I thought it was cheating, now I love sitting and working on a single image for up to an hour, making something really original from it.

Anyway, here are some of the BW's.



Snowdonia 7 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Snowdonia 6 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr

For this one, I intentionally went really hard on a graduated filter. I like the effect, and I think I made it look deliberate enough that it doesn't look like I've just gone BLAH. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it.


Snowdonia 5 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



Snowdonia 2 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

That first one is great.  I'm normally not into B&W landscapes but that one really works.


----------



## stringmaiden

Been looking at pictures in this thread for a while...I thought i would post a couple of compositions i made lately. I'm really into photo manipulation and making digital composites with my pictures. What do you guys thinks of these two double exposures?









I also like just taking pictures so i'll be posting some of those soon


----------



## UnderTheSign

Some good stuff there Matt & Rook. I like the first and last landscape. 

Full Frame by PENTAX | RICOH IMAGING

Every time I see news on Pentax' FF I get a little excited and want a FF. A couple weeks ago my local shop was running a promo where you could turn in your old gear for some pretty massive discounts on the original sony a7 but I'd never get rid of my x-pro1... It's still my favorite form factor. Considering I've been shooting a lot of stuff on my analog Pentax KX though my Pentax love has been awoken again. Keeping it to one brand for FF stuff seems most convenient lens mount wise etc. Release should also be around the time I get my own company running so once all tools and machinery have been purchased getting a 'company camera' sounds very tempting  gotta get those product shots!


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Rook said:


> I made the long-ass drive to Snowdonia National Park yesterday, and back home again today - about 6 hours each way...



Rad, Rook!


----------



## UnderTheSign

Any suggestions for a cheap P&s that delivers decent quality? I'm not opposed to buying second hand. Looking for a birthday gift for my brother as he has been taking a lot of pictures on our travels, but only has a HTC phone which has a fixed focus 5mp potato installed...

There's a used Nikon P5100 for &#8364;75 at my local shop so I'm considering that.


----------



## soliloquy




----------



## UnderTheSign

Not too sure about the composition (though it's hard with buildings that size) and there's some burnt out spots in 1 and 3, but good stuff!


----------



## soliloquy

UnderTheSign said:


> Not too sure about the composition (though it's hard with buildings that size) and there's some burnt out spots in 1 and 3, but good stuff!




when you say 'burnt out spots' do you mean the random gray dots? thats dust in my camera that i cant seem to pull out :S


----------



## High Plains Drifter

soliloquy said:


> when you say 'burnt out spots' do you mean the random gray dots? thats dust in my camera that i cant seem to pull out :S



Loss of detail in the highlighted portions... maybe due to overexposure. At least I think that's what he was referring to. I tend to like #2, #3, and #4 quite a bit but I'm no pro by any stretch. Such tranquil looking shots. Beautiful imo.


----------



## UnderTheSign

soliloquy said:


> when you say 'burnt out spots' do you mean the random gray dots? thats dust in my camera that i cant seem to pull out :S


What High Plains Drifter said, the far left of #1 and to a certain extent #3 where it's so overexposed you lose all detail. It can be a pain working around that when there's such harsh/bright light (just the sun I assume here) on your subject though.


----------



## soliloquy

UnderTheSign said:


> What High Plains Drifter said, the far left of #1 and to a certain extent #3 where it's so overexposed you lose all detail. It can be a pain working around that when there's such harsh/bright light (just the sun I assume here) on your subject though.





ahh, sweet. i get it now. i'll try to keep an eye out for it

in other news, i dropped my lens by mistake and broke my CP filter. odd thing is that i got it for about 110 bucks (82 mm) last year. now, the exact same thing is for 40 bucks. 

i still dont get the difference between certain CP filters. Hoya only advertises 2 different CP filters online. one is just a plain CP filter, the other is 'HD/UV/CP' filter.

but when i'm browsing online on amazon, B&H, ebay etc, they have more than a dozen variety, all under the Hoya brand. :s


----------



## Tang

Currently in NYC.


----------



## flint757

So the GH4 can apparently withstand a fall from 6ft on to hardwood floor pretty easily. Dropped mine earlier when it wasn't completely secure on my tripod. SD card door popped open, eye piece popped off, screen flipped open and flashed popped up, but no dents, scratches or anything broken at all for that matter. Everything closed back up and went back on as if nothing happened at all. I'm both impressed and highly grateful because I can't deal with a broken camera right now. 

I also dropped my Canon flash off my flash stand (not my day) and it also seems to be just fine.

I was tripping all over the place during my shoot today. I would have been better off just not showing at all.


----------



## Philligan

I've got an engagement shoot in about half an hour. I'm a little nervous because posing couples is probably what I'm worst at. Thankfully these guys aren't overly mushy and seem laid back, so it should be decent. And hopefully I'm just overhyping things. 

Anyway, the weather's pretty bad this month so I went down with Dawn to sort of scout out the location we had in mind. These aren't all the spots, but just a few I shot to have on my card as a reminder for this afternoon. The downtown is right along the river bordering the US, so we're meeting at a coffee shop downtown. I'm thinking we'll get coffee and I'll shoot a few candid-looking ones of them in the shop, then shoot some of them walking as we head toward the river, shoot a few spots at the river, and go back up and walk through the downtown on the way back to the coffee shop.

Here are a few test shots I took of Dawn.



DSCF0899 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0902 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0915 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

So I think that went pretty well. It got really windy so shooting outside sucked, but I got enough standard engagement photos at least. I'm not sure if I got any like showcase shots or not, gotta see.

Now I just have to wait while LR builds smart previews for these ridiculously huge Fuji RAWs.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Just got this and a roll of Agfa Ortho 25 speed b/w film. Curious to see how things turn out. I hope the battery in this is the correct one because if it isn't a PX625 alternative, all photos might get overexposed by 2 stops or so


----------



## Philligan

I'm still working on Wednesday's photos, but here's a pano I took that actually turned out. I took two or three altogether, I'm hoping they all work out.



DSCF0134-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Here's Wednesday night's sunset. The bird on the railing is out of focus because I rush shot this during the engagement shoot, and it was at f/2. 



DSCF0270 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm curious to see how your other panos turn out - I've always wanted to try to utilize them more creatively (as opposed to simply extending the size of the frame).

I'm also pretty pumped for tomorrow's shoot, I'll just say I'm working with a top-notch H/MUA and over two pounds of poly glitter.


----------



## tank

capoeiraesp said:


> Had a rad time shooting Ne Obliviscaris, Plini and Hollow World on Thursday. It was my first big proper opportunity to test out the Fuji XT-1 and XT-10 in a live setting. The results were mixed. The XF56 and XF90 really had a hard time focusing, meaning a lot of opportunities were missed. The XT-10 with the XF16 worked a treat though. Overall though, the Fuji stuff is a beast with high ISO stuff, and with only the first 3 songs of each band being shot (venue policy) I was really happy with what I snapped.




very cool stuff man, cheers


----------



## High Plains Drifter

Nothing very good but just thought I'd maybe post some of my stuff here.


----------



## Azyiu

From my trip to Tokyo a few weeks ago, enjoy.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Here's a smoothie.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A few from yesterday's shoot, trying to keep the backdrop smooth was definitely the hardest part.




Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/250s f/4





Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/250s f/4





Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/200s f/4


----------



## Philligan

We went to the US with my family today and hit Bronner's, the year-round Christmas store. I just brought my camera with the 23mm and shot it at 1.4 the whole time. 

These are all Classic Chrome, SOOC.



DSCF0106 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0115 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0123 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0124 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0132 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0116 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

And here are a few from that engagement session. I totally forgot to get some that focus on her ring, so we're gonna get together again and shoot a few more simple, portrait-y ones.



DSCF0244 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0224 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0164 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0119-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0276 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Morning sky from my house yesterday.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Was toying around with some vsco filters in Lightroom to make my sort of flat looking nature shots a little more alive and I'm pretty sure I'm just ripping off Joe's film-y look now  it's based on Portra 160 with a minor curve adjustment and highlight save. I'll post some samples soon. 

By the way, does anyone else almost always take down their highlight values in LR most of the times? Rarely do I shoot something that doesn't benefit from lower highlights.

Nice Christmas lights bokeh Phil!


----------



## Joe Harvatt

UnderTheSign said:


> Was toying around with some vsco filters in Lightroom to make my sort of flat looking nature shots a little more alive and I'm pretty sure I'm just ripping off Joe's film-y look now  it's based on Portra 160 with a minor curve adjustment and highlight save. I'll post some samples soon.
> 
> By the way, does anyone else almost always take down their highlight values in LR most of the times? Rarely do I shoot something that doesn't benefit from lower highlights.
> 
> Nice Christmas lights bokeh Phil!



Go for it. I've just enjoyed that look from looking at other photographers and not always being able to use film. It's by no means original to me. With film photography you're able to choose a type of film and developing process that has a certain aesthetic that you'd like to exploit. The way I see it is that with digital, you're capturing a raw image for you to apply your aesthetic choices to afterwards non destructively.

I'll quite often meter -0.3EV so that I can have useful highlights. From what I've heard it's quite common for Nikon to slightly over expose for a scene.


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> Was toying around with some vsco filters in Lightroom to make my sort of flat looking nature shots a little more alive and I'm pretty sure I'm just ripping off Joe's film-y look now  it's based on Portra 160 with a minor curve adjustment and highlight save. I'll post some samples soon.
> 
> By the way, does anyone else almost always take down their highlight values in LR most of the times? Rarely do I shoot something that doesn't benefit from lower highlights.
> 
> Nice Christmas lights bokeh Phil!



Thanks man!

I find pulled highlights can get creepy looking really quickly for people photos, but for everything else I'm pretty sure I pull them back a little bit. I pretty consistently add a bit of contrast, pull highlights a bit, add a tiny bit of clarity, and do bit of an S curve. With the Fuji now I rarely add sharpening (if I do it's like +5) but I pretty much always drag the detail slider all the way to the right. I don't touch masking much because I don't see much change with it personally.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I rarely touch the sharpening slider either, unless it's detailed stuff. Yesterday I took some ISO 5000-6400 photos of highland cows (50-230 has f6.7 minimum at the long end, Fuji high ISO <3) and some sharpening gave me some extra detail in their long hair.

Yesterdays walk was good though. Walked for 2,5 hours or so and covered 7km or so. Didn't see any animals save for a few birds until half an hour before we got back to the visitors center, where I saw something moving and saw this lonely fellow in the bushes


DSCF2599.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr

Walked a little further and got some good shots of him out in the open


DSCF2604.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr

Then literally 10 meters before the wildlife fence, my girlfriend goes "hey, look over there!" and there's a small herd of deer hiding behind the trees. 


DSCF2616.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr

Shot this little landscape-y thing at 50mm. Shots like these look completely dead with the 50-230 SOOC. It's brilliant what a little editing in LR can do. I'm starting to learn how to use the curve slider too 


DSCF2588.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr

And since it hasn't frozen yet, lots of big fat mushrooms on all the trees too.


DSCF2595.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr



Aaaalso I got my hands on a cheap 5-pack of Ektachrome E100G. I prefer E100VS for the colours but any Ektachrome is good to have.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

You'd love what you can do in Photoshop then .


----------



## UnderTheSign

I have CS6 but have never really used it for photo editing. I've tried installing ACR 8.something but it refuses to import my raw files from LR into PS so it's a bit of a hassle right now


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> I rarely touch the sharpening slider either, unless it's detailed stuff. Yesterday I took some ISO 5000-6400 photos of highland cows (50-230 has f6.7 minimum at the long end, Fuji high ISO <3) and some sharpening gave me some extra detail in their long hair.



What do you do for sharpening? I find it starts to look mushy and weird really quickly, so I usually leave it at the standard 25 and rarely push it past 30. Like I said, I almost always pull the detail to 100 and that's about it.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Philligan said:


> What do you do for sharpening? I find it starts to look mushy and weird really quickly, so I usually leave it at the standard 25 and rarely push it past 30. Like I said, I almost always pull the detail to 100 and that's about it.


Yeah true, you get that weird pastel-y look very fast. It depends. I use the masking slider to tune in to the areas and then go from 25-50 and just see how it looks. Mind you I'm not too experienced in LR anyway, it's very much touch stuff and see what happens still.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

If I only had LR to work with, I would probably cry.
A few more from Sunday's shoot, the second one reminds me of a pop music video for some reason.




Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/250s f/4





Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/200s f/4





Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/200s f/5.6


----------



## Tang

so. much. glitter.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

It's under two pounds worth. 
The H/MUA posted some BTS stuff on her social media and we booked two more glitter shoots before my next semester starts.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Any suggestions for good PS photo editing tutorials? How do you manage photos though, through Bridge or whatever it's called, or through LR still?

My friend is a big fan of editing in PS (he's a planespotter) and seeing the sharpening done by NikFX is pretty impressive. It seems better than LR sharpening.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I use Bridge and a well setup folder system (I don't own LR). What do you want to do in Photoshop? Personally, I own: Natalia's DVD, Pratik's CL, and I've had one-on-one training with Pratik.

Michael has a good set of videos here: https://www.youtube.com/user/vibrantshot/videos and his DVD: Ultimate Guide to Fashion and Beauty Photography and Retouching

Natalia has this webcast: https://vimeo.com/68360962 and her DVD: Beauty & Hair Retouching High End Techniques Series Two DVD

Pratik's Retouch CL: https://www.creativelive.com/courses/art-business-high-end-retouching-pratik-naik

Other people have tutorials out as well: Krunoslav Stifter and Renee Robyn come to mind.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

ThePhilosopher said:


> A few more from Sunday's shoot, the second one reminds me of a pop music video for some reason.



Amazing skin tones, what did you use to light the first one?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The lighting setup for all the shots is essentially the same: Calumet Travelite 750 with gelled 8" reflector for the background and a Calumet Travelite 750 with 22" Beauty Dish with various ratios between the two strobes for different tonalities. The two shots with the blue gel on the background have a Bowens Gemini 500 with my 64" PLM providing fill.

Here's a before and after of that shot.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Thanks for the videos. I'd mostly just like to improve on processing my photos. 

Girlfriend got me one of those Lomography Konstruktor cameras for Christmas. 50mm f10 lens stuck at either bulb or 1/80. Spent some fun time buildin it and I'm curious to see how the photos turn out. Apparently the lens is pretty decent (compared to holga anyway)


----------



## Philligan

Gonna keep this quick because I'm on my phone haha. Got this. Excited to shoot some animals.


----------



## Philligan

Shot this last night.

Edit: I should probably mention, this is basically a 100% crop too.  I'll check the file size when I get home, but I cropped an insane amount off. 

Edit 2: Just checked. Most of my LR exports are 5-8MB. This photo is 160Kb. 



DSCF0115 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Was hoping to get out much more over the weekend, but was mostly rained off.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Day at the zoo



DSCF2715.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr


DSCF2707.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr


DSCF2692.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr


DSCF2664.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr


DSCF2636.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr


DSCF2632.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr


DSCF2660.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A took this quick macro after seeing we won the Peach Bowl yesterday.




Nikon D3 with reversed Nikon 50mm f/1.8D: ISO 800 1/30s f/5.6


----------



## UnderTheSign

Does anyone here ever use Lightroom Mobile? A friend of mine was preaching it (but he just moves the sliders until he randomly gets something cool enough for facebook ) and I might give it a try when I get my phone back from the repair center. I tried googling wether I could import my PC LR presets but it appears that isn't possible unless you go through some workaround. Bummer.


----------



## Rook

I don't, because no colour profiles or RAW support :/

Otherwise total would.


----------



## Philligan

I've been using it on my phone in place of Snapseed or Photogene lately. It's great for a mobile app, especially for processing wifi'd JPGs, because it's a similar workflow to the desktop Lightroom. I don't see RAW support as terribly useful right now because of the lack of storage on iPads and phones.

It's weird though, I own LR5 and signed in with my Adobe account, but it's still telling me I have a 30 day trial. I'm not sure if you have to be a CC subscriber to keep it? I'm still on the fence between CC or looking for another alternative, but I'm leaning towards CC for Photoshop when I need it.


----------



## Rook

RAW support for me would open up photo editing to what mobile and tablet devices offer which is actually useful, which are high res, wide gamut screens and good, accurate, fast touch screens for brushing, sliding and manipulating more delicately than you can with a mouse.

You could buy a Wacom, but they're bloody expensive and lack multi touch functionality - and are frustrating for everything other than just brushing.

I use a MacBook Air instead now, to work on images while I'm out. My Air only has 128GB of memory, but the photos only need to be loaded onto the machine while I'm working on them, when I'm done I take them off. The slight advantage of the Laptop over an iPad or something is that I have the Lightroom catalogue itself saved onto the external drive, so I only need the drive and I can access all my RAW files _and_ all my edits. I'd love to have a bigger, better screen and touch capabilities though, which iPad Pro offers, but there's nothing 'Pro' about lacking RAW support and a proper file and storage management protocol.

On phones and stuff, VSCO Cam is enough for me. For editing JPEG's, I don't personally see the point in anything more complicated; it'd be like using £100 brushes to paint by numbers for me haha.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm still rocking my Wacom Intuos 2; I find it essential for the type of retouch work I do on my images. I couldn't do the work I do with a mouse (trackball, I despise using a mouse) alone.


----------



## soliloquy

i'm getting antsy waiting for the pentax full frame k1 camera to be released. or at least announce the price for it. if its beyond my budget, i maybe switching over to the sony mirrorless full frame system...though i dont want to start over with a new system and change lenses accordingly. sure, i can use an adapter to use my pentax lenses on the sony body...but lets see. 

in other news, the lowepro rover 45l bag i was waiting to get just was discontinued and the prices on amazon and stuff just skyrocketed. great....now i gotta hunt for another bag...


----------



## UnderTheSign

soliloquy said:


> i'm getting antsy waiting for the pentax full frame k1 camera to be released. or at least announce the price for it. if its beyond my budget, i maybe switching over to the sony mirrorless full frame system...though i dont want to start over with a new system and change lenses accordingly. sure, i can use an adapter to use my pentax lenses on the sony body...but lets see.
> 
> in other news, the lowepro rover 45l bag i was waiting to get just was discontinued and the prices on amazon and stuff just skyrocketed. great....now i gotta hunt for another bag...


Same. I've had that full frame itch for a while now and I'm really hoping the Pentax is gonna be good. I have a whole bunch of old manual lenses I'd love to use.

You can adapt Pentax lenses to pretty much anything but I wouldn't use any of the made for digital lenses on Sony or other bodies. No autofocus, usually no aperture control, meh.

edit: also, fujirumors has been leaking info on the X-Pro2. By the sounds of it, it's the X-T10/X-E2 put into the X-Pro1 body.


----------



## Rook

I accidentally found an Ad for the X-Pro2 the other day but it seems to have disappeared.

I believe it's a little more complex than being and E2 or T1 in a Pro1 body, particularly the addition of a vastly more complex focus system. David Hobby also posted then removed a 24 megapixel image taken with a Fuji 35 1.4 and unidentified body, so I wouldn't be surprised if we saw something more than 16mpx.

There also looks to be much better video and video control and new RAW and JPEG settings. Very exciting.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The D5 announcement has me excited, but at that price I'm going to be looking at used Hasselblad and Mamiya systems.


----------



## Rook

I belly laughed when I read the price.

Particularly as you can pick up a used D3S or 1Ds MkIII or 1D MkIV for a quarter of that now and old just doesn't mean .... in digital cameras any more, there's no reason a working pro couldn't go for one of those and produce excellent quality images.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's why I'm sticking with my trusty ol' D3 until it croaks.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> I accidentally found an Ad for the X-Pro2 the other day but it seems to have disappeared.
> 
> I believe it's a little more complex than being and E2 or T1 in a Pro1 body, particularly the addition of a vastly more complex focus system. David Hobby also posted then removed a 24 megapixel image taken with a Fuji 35 1.4 and unidentified body, so I wouldn't be surprised if we saw something more than 16mpx.
> 
> There also looks to be much better video and video control and new RAW and JPEG settings. Very exciting.



I'm mostly interested in the lack of noise reduction and (hopefully) faster sensor readout.

I'm watching this pretty closely. I'm gonna need to buy a second body by the summer, and will likely end up doing it in the spring after my first big wedding. It's basically going to go one of two ways.

If I feel like I can afford it, I'll consider the X-Pro2, or wait for the X-T2 if it'll be out soon enough. If the price is too high, or if the X-T2 won't be out for a while, I'll go the cheap route and pick up an X-T10 or X-E2s. If I do that it'll probably be the X-E2s assuming it gets the current standardized control layout, just because it'll be a change from my X-T1 and I think the form factor would be great for an EDC camera.

In other news, I'm hopefully a few weeks away from getting the 56mm.  I'm really hoping the sale stays on for the rest of the fiscal year. It'll be hard to swallow an extra $200 for it after getting used to the sale price.


----------



## UnderTheSign

ThePhilosopher said:


> The D5 announcement has me excited, but at that price I'm going to be looking at used Hasselblad and Mamiya systems.


Yeah if I had that kind if money, I'd get a used Hassy back or a Pensax 645Z.

According to Fuji rumors it's still the 16mp x-trans II. We'll find out in a week though!


----------



## Rook

Now this I'm interested in: Fujifilm X70 &#8211; IMAGES + SPECS LEAKED! :: UPDATE: Fuji X70 Vs. Ricoh GR Vs. X100T Size Comparison! | Fuji Rumors


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> According to Fuji rumors it's still the 16mp x-trans II. We'll find out in a week though!



The X-Pro2? It's almost definitely gonna be a 24MP sensor. People are complaining about it maybe using the A6000 sensor, but the amount of complaining that happens on FujiRumors blows my mind. The X-Trans II kicks the crap out of the D7000 and NEX-3, so even if the X-Pro2 does have the A6000 sensor, it'll probably have image quality around par with other current cameras.

Some extra image resolution would be nice, but I don't really care because of the trade-offs, like more diffraction and more noticeable camera shake. There are people on FR whining for 36MP, which would totally write the camera off for me.



Rook said:


> Now this I'm interested in: Fujifilm X70  IMAGES + SPECS LEAKED! :: UPDATE: Fuji X70 Vs. Ricoh GR Vs. X100T Size Comparison! | Fuji Rumors



I think that would make an awesome affordable alternative to an X100 - and it's so tiny. I'm hoping they offer an external OVF that's capable of overlaying some basic information like AF point and settings. It'll be interesting to see how much it ends up costing.


----------



## Rook

Indeed, it's the direction the 'attachable viewfinder' goes that'll make or break that camera for me.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Philligan said:


> The X-Pro2? It's almost definitely gonna be a 24MP sensor. People are complaining about it maybe using the A6000 sensor, but the amount of complaining that happens on FujiRumors blows my mind. The X-Trans II kicks the crap out of the D7000 and NEX-3, so even if the X-Pro2 does have the A6000 sensor, it'll probably have image quality around par with other current cameras.
> 
> Some extra image resolution would be nice, but I don't really care because of the trade-offs, like more diffraction and more noticeable camera shake. There are people on FR whining for 36MP, which would totally write the camera off for me.


Must've been looking at the X-E2s specs then, my bad!

I'd like a slight upgrade in MP count. 36 is too much for me (and I don't _want_ to be processin such large files) but 24 would give a little more extra size to play around with and maybe crop when I shoot birds/wildlife. 

According to FR the 100-400 will go for &#8364;1899 which is more than I expected it to be  I have some money saved up for new gear as the X-Pro1 is definitely starting to show signs of age (or perhaps I'm only now just starting to notice its downsides, becoming more experienced as a photographer) so I'm considering upgrading and treating myself to one good lens (as I've only got the 18mm and 55-230 now). Especially outdoors I've been missing a little too many shots for my taste. On the other hand, if the Pentax FF comes out and the price seems right, I might go for that instead and keep the Fuji as a daytrip camera. One thing the X-Pro has going for me is the form factor. It feels great in hand. When my GF holds it, it looks like a brick but for me it feels perfect while still fitting in most of my coat pockets with the 18mm on it. I also like how it perfectly hides under a blazer!

edit: I tend to avoid the comment sections like the plague. It tends to be filled with whiners. Pentaxforums have this issue going on right now as well, with some ridiculous hardcore Pentax fans displaying classic narrow minded behaviour.


----------



## capoeiraesp

X-Pro2 specs from Fuji Rumors. I'm quite keen on this, as I would love to have the option of an OVF again. Not that I dislike the EVF at all on my XT1 and XT10,
&#8211; 24.3MP X-Trans CMOS III sensor
&#8211; Image processing engine X Processor Pro
&#8211; Faster than has been AF, low noise, excellent color reproduction
&#8211; Magnification automatic switching function equipped with advanced hybrid multi viewfinder
&#8211; The fastest shutter mechanical shutter 1/8000 seconds, electronic shutter 1/32000 seconds
&#8211; Synchro 1/250 sec
&#8211; Intelligent hybrid phase difference AF. AF point is 273 points
&#8211; Body of lightweight magnesium alloy. Dust and water specification
&#8211; LCD monitor three inches 1.62 million dot
&#8211; Dual SD Card slot (UHS-II compatible)
&#8211; ISO range of 200-12800
&#8211; Film Simulation mode 16 with the new ACROS
&#8211; Menu is new design. Customizable. My Menu function
&#8211; Lossless compression 14bit RAW
&#8211; Wi-Fi remote shooting
&#8211; Exposure compensation +/- 5 stage
&#8211; Interval Shooting
&#8211; Video Full HD 60fps
&#8211; 13 kinds of creative filter
&#8211; The battery is NP-126W. The number of remaining shots is 350 sheets

I rounded out my kit before hitting Vietnam for a wedding recently with the XF35 F2. That lens is just perfect. It's so quick, so quiet, and so responsive. I put it in some rubbish lighting conditions, especially at night with all kinds of different light sources and it performed like a champion. I did a lot of discrete street snaps around Saigon with it and the keeper rate was astonishing (not meaning every shot was great).








Some recent snaps from the past few weeks. Got a great feature in a big West Australian newspaper.













XF35 F2.





Same lens but on the back of a motorbike at pretty good speed.


----------



## Rook

I'm so close to buying the 35 f2 but when I went to impulse purchase over Christmas everyone was sold out!

I'm very interested in the X-Pro2, I'll have to decide once it's in dealers though, instead of always thinking in terms of retail prices. I wonder if the viewfinder's any bigger...

The X-Pro2 really could be the camera that nails Fuji for me, and removes all doubt. I was really considering going Sony but the lenses just aren't right for me, and even though I borrowed one, I just can't get what I want out of the RAW files. The colours just aren't... Well. Fuji.


----------



## capoeiraesp

I've shot a lot of ISO 6400 stuff lately on my XT1, and after getting so used to how clean the files are, and how much you can push them, my 6D's solid ISO 6400 stuff is just no where near as good.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Which lens were the first two taken with, 56 or 90?

I'm with you guys on this one. I've considered switching to something newer or flashy (Sony A7 series especially) a lot in all my GAS-induced moods but the more I shoot, the more I like the output the Fuji gives me.


----------



## capoeiraesp

90 for those two.


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> I don't _want_ to be processin such large files



Unrelated, but I read that in a Jamaican accent. 



I think the X-Pro design is awesome, but I don't think I'd like it as much for work - I shoot too much in portrait orientation with the battery grip, and I don't know how much I'd trust the OVF when I'm shooting wide open for paid jobs. And if I bought a next-gem Fuji body, it would almost definitely become my main work body. That's why I'm really hoping the X-T2 comes out fairly early on, like spring.

If I had the cash I'd totally trade in my X-T1 for an X-T2 and X-Pro2 combo, though.


----------



## Rook

Fuji product cycles are loooooooong, XE-2 2 and a half years for an 's' version, X Pro1 3 and a half years for a whole new version... X-T1 is coming up on 2 years old, I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see a 2 for another year.

I've not had camera GAS this bad since I got my X-Pro1 2 years ago. I'm really excited for the Pro2, X70 and 35 f2. I can already hear my wallet weeping.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Apparently the Pro2 ships in February already... Oh boy.

There's something about Fuji especially that gives me GAS too  maybe it's just because they really know how to build gear. I've heard a lot of complaints from other photographers that they find the shutter speed dials etc annoying but coming straight from a Pentax K1000 into mirrorless gear, it feels perfect to me. 

I tried a friends Nikon D3s last week and man, it's a beast of a camera... But the operation just makes no sense to me


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> Fuji product cycles are loooooooong, XE-2 2 and a half years for an 's' version, X Pro1 3 and a half years for a whole new version... X-T1 is coming up on 2 years old, I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't see a 2 for another year.
> 
> I've not had camera GAS this bad since I got my X-Pro1 2 years ago. I'm really excited for the Pro2, X70 and 35 f2. I can already hear my wallet weeping.



I'm getting really excited for this one, too. I'd much rather an X-T for portraits (vertical grip and all) but there's something so awesome about the X-Pro design that just makes me want to shoot it.

I'm hoping this "retro styling" thing sticks around and it's just a throwback fad. I know it seems like a throwback now, but not to a certain era - that design was the standard from the '50s through to the '90s. I'm hoping we had our brief flirt with rounded utilitarian bodies and are back to classy lines and corners for good.

I'm really hoping the Leica T iPhone bodies don't take off. It's fine that some people like them but I enjoy pushing buttons and dials a lot more than tapping a screen when I use a camera. A phone is one thing, but I want more tactile feedback when I shoot.



UnderTheSign said:


> Apparently the Pro2 ships in February already... Oh boy.
> 
> There's something about Fuji especially that gives me GAS too  maybe it's just because they really know how to build gear. I've heard a lot of complaints from other photographers that they find the shutter speed dials etc annoying but coming straight from a Pentax K1000 into mirrorless gear, it feels perfect to me.
> 
> I tried a friends Nikon D3s last week and man, it's a beast of a camera... But the operation just makes no sense to me



Yeah, there's something I really like about the Fuji handling and look that I wouldn't get in any other brand. Some people don't like how fiddly the dials are, but I really enjoy setting my exposure that way, and it's never slowed me down to the point where I can't use it for work (and that's shooting weddings and events). AF is another story, but I have a feeling the next generation will do a lot to fix that.


----------



## Chuck

https://flic.kr/p/CZembF

Apparently can't get the picture to load here from my iPad.. Oh well


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm just going to post this snippet from Saturday:


----------



## Rook

Consider me eating my words

Fuji X-T2 coming in June (SRP) &#8211; POLL &#8211; Get the Fuji X-Pro2, wait for Fuji X-T2 or keep your current X- series camera? | Fuji Rumors


----------



## UnderTheSign

Interesting move. I'm guessing the popularity of the X-T1 has made them develop a successor faster. With it being released so quickly after the Pro2 I doubt there will be major differences but it still makes for a tough decision. Hybrid VF vs larger EVF and (to some) better form factor.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Cool sky while been driven home from work today.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Some Sigma mini wide 28mm love Joe?

That lens alone makes me want to get the Pentax FF haha. Did you ever use it on an aps-c camera?


----------



## capoeiraesp

Rook said:


> Consider me eating my words
> 
> Fuji X-T2 coming in June (SRP)  POLL  Get the Fuji X-Pro2, wait for Fuji X-T2 or keep your current X- series camera? | Fuji Rumors



and then there's this...

"Fujifilm X-Pro2: EVF with amazing 85 fps refresh rate + 3 Power Managment modes!"

Fujifilm X-Pro2: EVF with amazing 85 fps refresh rate + 3 Power Managment modes! | Fuji Rumors

Wonder what the refresh rate is like in low light? 
On the XT-2, I reckon they're saving a few nice features for it like IBIS. Can't imagine we'll see 4K video, not that I want it.

On the XT-1 and XT-10, here are a few more from my Vietnam travels with the XF35 F2.


----------



## Rook

I can't remember his name but I think FujiRumours guy summed it up quite well for me, and reasons around the OVF are why I'd go X Pro2. There's nothing wrong with my X-T1 but there is a reason why I have both an XT and X Pro (and now X100) and that's about the viewfinders.

I think I'll go X-Pro2 instead of replacing the X-T. For most cases where I'd want the extra resolution and potentially better ISO, the OVF will be a nice, useful feature.

I'm not too worried about the focus capabilities of my X-T, I don't use it in odd enough situations that focus has ever really been a problem, as most of my 'work' is planned editorial stuff. The X Pro is more likely going to be something I either use because I need outright image quality or because I need the subtlety and to be able to act quickly, which both the form factor and renewed focusing compliment.

I just want to know dealer price. I'm 90% sure I'll buy one, and I'm putting my X-Pro1 up for sale right now.


----------



## Philligan

It's Patrick. Out of all the rumour guys he's by far the coolest haha.

I'm pretty much the total opposite of you. I definitely notice the AF (dark venue + moving people) and I want to see IQ improvements that will benefit my paid jobs, which the X-T suits much better. If it's a June release date, I'll hold out for that. 

Other than AF, I'd like to see a more contrasty B&W sim (I'm hoping this is what Acros is), higher ISOs available in RAW, and a faster flash sync speed (1/500 would be amazing). Cleaner high ISO and better DR are probably a given.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

UnderTheSign said:


> Some Sigma mini wide 28mm love Joe?
> 
> That lens alone makes me want to get the Pentax FF haha. Did you ever use it on an aps-c camera?



Yep, that lens stays on my camera probably 75% of the time. I used it a fair bit when I had a D7100. Here's a shot with that combo. It's a cool lens - best £10 I ever spent. I'm interested in the 24mm version too, which I hear is better.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Sick as a dog so and stuck in our house/garden right now. Forgot where I left the 28 Mini wide so took the 50 1.8 on my 2nd hand Pentax K10D.



IMGP0803.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr


IMGP0800.jpg by Red Menace, on Flickr

It seems to consistently meter/overexpose 2/3 to a full stop with legacy glass so I'm learning to work around that.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I was fortunate to have my first shoot for print last week. For Bristol's Crack Magazine, a review of Henry Rollins' live spoken word set. Was only allowed to shoot the first 3 mins of him coming on the stage and from the back of the room, so could've done with something longer than my 135mm 2.8 ideally, but I'm happy with what came out. I've been a fan of a lot of the photography in Crack, and their layouts so I'm really looking forward to picking up a copy next month.

Web article here.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Awesome opportunity Joe!

Fuji Australia accidentally published the X-Pro2 page already (and subsequently closed it, Fujirumours of course got onto it because Patrick is fast as hell) and by the Gods, the comments section  "I'm disappointed in the Pro2's specs, it sounds like something from 2014" - "No screw you, Nikon sucks, I see nothing wrong with Fuji, they're not behind! Who needs video?!". This should entertain me pretty well until the official release comes tomorrow.

I think the one thing that would've helped Fuji is some for of in-body stabilisation. When I used an Olympus E-M10, that made using legacy macro lenses a lot easier.


----------



## Philligan

I know, it's unreal. I love the people who harp about specs, though; I can't think of a hobby/category (other than maybe cell phone) where consumerism is so prominent. People are angry that the X-Pro2 _might_ be basing their sensor off a two year old Sony design. Or complaining that it doesn't match the new Sony APS-C, when there haven't been any rumours at all about that camera. It's pretty sad.

Anyway, I shot a dude who works at Tip Top Tailors in the mall today. I wanted to shoot him to begin with, and then he mentioned it because he wants to start doing wardrobe consulting on the side and needs to start a portfolio. I'm building previews right now, but here's an SOOC JPG I wifi'd to my phone while we were shooting.

I had a crazy busy day and we didn't have time to go anywhere cool, so I just shot him in the changing room hallway in the store. 



IMG_2283 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

And here are the edits.



DSCF0009 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0017 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0064 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0114 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0125 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0151 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0184 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0206 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0228 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

Ordered my X-Pro2 this morning, it's exactly what I wanted tbh.


----------



## Rook

...and it's just occurred to me this is the first time I've ordered a camera without even seeing it, let alone trying it, not sure if that says more about Fuji or me...

Accidentally slipped the 35 f2 in at the same time, blaming Matt for that.


----------



## Dalcan

Phil- DSCF0151 is ....ing killer.

I'm trying to hold out for the XT2, still rocking the XE-1. I haven't posted photo's here in FOREVER but I have 10 guitars to take pictures of and a new puppy so I'm sure I'll have stuff to throw up here


----------



## UnderTheSign

It's nice to see you guys here share my Fuji GAS  

Euro price though.. &#8364;1799 VS $1699 :/

Apart from the 250 shot battery life when using the EVF it's pretty much a perfect upgrade over the Pro1. I'll wait for some more reviews and in a month or so I might try it out at the store and buy it along with the 35 f2 and either the 56 or 90. I've been GASing for some high quality Fuji glass for ages...


----------



## feilong29

I'm gonna get an X-E2 again, but for those wondering about the X-Pro 2 and the IQ, here ya go:

First Impressions: Mountain Walking with the Fujifilm X-Pro2


----------



## Philligan

I'm reading some reviews at work (no wifi and my cell reception sucks, so I haven't read too much yet). 

This camera looks awesome, but reading the DPReview impression sold me on the X-T2. The X-Pro looks awesome, and seems like a lot of fun, but since most of the important work I do is portraiture, the OVF would be a hassle, and the X-T will probably have a significantly larger EVF.


----------



## UnderTheSign

feilong29 said:


> I'm gonna get an X-E2 again, but for those wondering about the X-Pro 2 and the IQ, here ya go:
> 
> First Impressions: Mountain Walking with the Fujifilm X-Pro2



Can't post images from my phone but did anyone else notice the interval shooting option in the menu? That's awesome. I've been looking into intervallometers (for astro mostly) but in camera is even better.


----------



## Rook

To anyone worrying about battery life, all mirrorless cameras are awful on batteries, Fuji possibly more awful than others, but Amazon sell some non-branded batteries in the EU called Chili Power - I got two batteries and a charger WITH CAR ADAPTOR for £17. They last as long as the Fuji battery as far as I can tell, and there've been so many reviews with not a single problem.

I have about 6 of the buggers because I keep losing them. I have them for my X100T too. They've been great. I'm just saying don't let that put you off, there's never a situation you can't bundle a couple of batteries in your pocket.

As for which Fuji lens you get with it, I love the 56, it's a fantastic lens, and even then the 90 is a league above. It can be a tiny a bit trickier using the 90 compared to the 56, but make the effort, it's sooo worth it. Focuses faster, is weather resistant, the bokeh is better, and it's so friggin sharp you should keep it away from kids.

I'm glad I have both, but if I had to sell some gear now, the 90 would be the last thing to go.

Finally, to Phil's point, the VF has got to be the decider her I think. I probably won't even use the OVF _that much_ but it's a lot of fun when you do.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I can imagine going X-T over Pro if the form factor and EVF matter most yeah. Plus it rumours are correct and pricing structure is maintained, itll be a couple hundred cheaper.

What intimidates me about the 90 a little is the focusing distance and the distance you have to maintain from your subjects. Might see if I can rent both lenses somewhere to try them.


----------



## Philligan

I'd definitely get the X-Pro as my second/back up camera and use that for everyday stuff. For casual use I prefer the design for sure. But not for jobs, especially if I end up with the 90mm. 

But damn, this camera looks so cool.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Rook said:


> ...and it's just occurred to me this is the first time I've ordered a camera without even seeing it, let alone trying it, not sure if that says more about Fuji or me...
> 
> Accidentally slipped the 35 f2 in at the same time, blaming Matt for that.



I am quite envious of your purchase! The 35 F2 will not leave your camera. It is just sensational. I realised something the other week with regards to its AF. I can shoot at much slower shutter speeds because I can fire off the shutter and guarantee focus incredibly quickly, thus not leading to more time/opportunity for my hands to shake.


----------



## Rook

I'm very much looking forward to it! I was mulling over the whole f2 vs f1.4 thing then went back and looked through my exif and found most of my shots with 'normal' lenses were at f2 and f2.8. Add to that, as Lightroom's support for Fuji and the quality of the lenses has been getting better I've been using 5.6-8 a lot more, and in any case, I've never taken the X100T out and thought 'damn, if only it were a stop brighter'. If anything it stops bokeh whoring hahaha.

Very excited for it, particularly after your Vietnam shots!



UnderTheSign said:


> I can imagine going X-T over Pro if the form factor and EVF matter most yeah. Plus it rumours are correct and pricing structure is maintained, itll be a couple hundred cheaper.
> 
> What intimidates me about the 90 a little is the focusing distance and the distance you have to maintain from your subjects. Might see if I can rent both lenses somewhere to try them.



The minimum focus distance is actually extremely good for a lens of its field of view - and actually quite similar to the 56 if memory serves, resulting in a much higher magnification. It's far from 'macro' but you can get great flower, head and product shots as a result.

The field of view is what you need to be able to live with. If you have to shoot indoors in particularly tight spaces a lot it gets difficult, but for anything else you'll find a way!

I dunno, maybe you need to get used to lenses like the 56 to really appreciate the 90, but it really is something else. Best lens I've ever owned THERE I SAID IT.


----------



## capoeiraesp

The 90's minimum focusing distance is 60cm, from memory. I have done a fair bit of flower snaps with mine because of it. The compression at that focal length at the distance is pretty nice.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Rook & Matt, you know how to sell a lens  who knows. Sometime soon...

Apparently the Pro2 is currently the #1 selling mirrorless on amazon!

Also. Interesting. Fuji Manager T. Ueno: &#8220;We are in a Very Good Position to make a Medium Format Camera&#8230; but no Plans for now!&#8221; | Fuji Rumors


----------



## Rook

So I'm a bit confused about when I'm getting my camera now... Estimates seem to have gone from February 4th to 18th to 28th...

Anybody spotted anything?

I hope they don't wait til then to ship the lens!

The medium format thing is interesting, but I can't see me buying into digital medium format until a) they make a 55x55 sensor or larger - what they're touting as 'medium format' at the moment is only 1.5x bigger - and b) it can be had for a few grand instead of 6+. We're a long way off that, I think, but a GF670 with a sensor... Ugh. Would bang. Maybe in 15 years huh.


----------



## UnderTheSign

True. I think the most interesting (sort of) MF digital option right now is the Pentax 645 range. Saw the 645D for ~$2K on eBay a couple of times.

I think there's a couple of interesting alternatives in the Cambo Actus series and the slightly less sexy looking but way cheaper Rhinocam by (I think?) Fotodiox.


----------



## Rook

645D for 2k? Crikey.

I've seen a few Leaf Aptus digital backs going for more sensible money lately but even the ones you *have* to shoot teathered and are capped at something daft like 400 ISO are still well over a grand...


----------



## UnderTheSign

Ming Thein did a shootout between the D800, 645D/Z and a Hasselblad back a while ago, it's worth looking up. The 645D does pretty well until 800-1600 ISO I think. 645Z if I remember correctly has a cmos sensor so did a lot better.


----------



## Rook

Yeah I've played with a 645D, the thing's tediously slow and the menus near unusable, the Z is a vast improvement!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The 1/125 sync speed is also quite limiting, unless you're going to buy the priolights.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Took a trip down to Bournemouth on Saturday. Think I'm going to have to avoid small apertures, f22 started revealing all sorts of oil spots on my sensor.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Obligatory medal shot:


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Jonesing for a Sigma 35 1.4 Art. Anyone tried it out?


----------



## Philligan

Yeah, I know a handful of people that own it. It's awesome - super sharp, nice bokeh, and the AF seems fine. For shooting events I'd be a little worried because it seems to randomly miss sometimes, but I'd still consider it if I shot a DSLR.

One thing I found though is that it's huge. It looks like a zoom, or maybe a 135. For me 35mm is a walk-around focal length, and unless I could afford two 35s, I'd go with a smaller first-party lens. I don't know about Nikon, but the Canon is nearly as sharp, almost half the price, and easily half the size and weight. It's only f/2, but still, it would be worth it for the size tradeoff to me. The Art is great if you're working or don't have to worry about being noticed, but it's not very stealthy, and it's a lot to drag around with you all day.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Thanks man. I'm interested in the old Nikon 35 f2 AF-D, which similar to the Canon is half the price and tiny. But I can imagine it being that situation where I'd regret not waiting for the Sigma if I picked one up. 1.4 would be more fun. Hmm


----------



## capoeiraesp

I've had a Sigma Art 35 since it came out. Great lens. Focuses quickly and accurately. Lots of vignetting from F1.4 to around F2, which is good for dramatic wedding stuff. It's nowhere near as big as the 135 L though and even as a Fuji guy I still find it discrete enough on my 6D. 
Love shooting it at F8, like any lens really. Great bang for buck.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Gonna have to trail through your Flickr for shots with it. I love my 50 1.2, but my 28 tends to stay on the camera most of the time. So I'm thinking 35 might be a good balance for me.

Edit:

How did you capture this?


----------



## UnderTheSign

Might have a huge 4-week 50+ hrs/week job starting by the end of next week _and_ I had less gearwhore budget than I thought this month, so no Pro2 or 90/56 for me yet  Those plans will have to move a little. On the upside, if I get the job... It pays generously so after that I hope to have some pocket money for new stuff.


----------



## Rook

I'm just gunna play devil's advocate - I'm not the biggest fan of the Sigma 35mm, I find the rendering a little plain and uninteresting. Part of the fun of properly fast lenses for me are the crazy characteristics that start to come out. The Sigma is all about sharpness, and sharp it is, and I actually think it's about as sharp a fast 35mm you can get, but when compared to the Zeiss 35 f1.4 and 35 f2, the two Zeiss lenses (the old ones, not the new Milvus, haven't tried that) have an almost 3D effect wide open, and both of them render colour a little cool, and with a bit of extra contrast. 

With all of that said, the Zeiss 1.4 is verrrry expensive, or was, they depreciated quite a bit so can be had used quite reasonably, and the f2 loses you a stop over the Sigma, both are manual focus, the Canon L (not 2) is a piece of poo for the money and doesn't even have particularly attractive imperfections IMO.

The Sigma is the way to go on paper, absolutely, and just because I'm so w_a_nky as to care about what I call 'personality' doesn't mean I think one should ignore that, but it wouldn't be my choice. Good lens though.

My 35 f2 came today for the Fuji. Can't really play with it because it's dark outside, but I've had a play with it - Fuji have seriously stepped it up a notch since the original 3, or even things as recent as the 56. My 16, 35 and 90 are all absolutely fantastic quality, and the 35 feels like I could almost have Leica or Zeiss slapped across it. The focus is super quiet too, and perfectly quick.

I also noticed it has something like 9 aperture blades, and even stopped down to f8 and focusing in very closely, the bokeh is exceptional. 

Really looking forward to taking it outside in daylight, all the images I've seen from it have really popped.


----------



## Rook

I'm just gunna play devil's advocate - I'm not the biggest fan of the Sigma 35mm, I find the rendering a little plain and uninteresting. Part of the fun of properly fast lenses for me are the crazy characteristics that start to come out. The Sigma is all about sharpness, and sharp it is, and I actually think it's about as sharp a fast 35mm you can get, but when compared to the Zeiss 35 f1.4 and 35 f2, the two Zeiss lenses (the old ones, not the new Milvus, haven't tried that) have an almost 3D effect wide open, and both of them render colour a little cool, and with a bit of extra contrast. 

With all of that said, the Zeiss 1.4 is verrrry expensive, or was, they depreciated quite a bit so can be had used quite reasonably, and the f2 loses you a stop over the Sigma, both are manual focus, the Canon L (not 2) is a piece of poo for the money and doesn't even have particularly attractive imperfections IMO.

The Sigma is the way to go on paper, absolutely, and just because I'm so w_a_nky as to care about what I call 'personality' doesn't mean I think one should ignore that, but it wouldn't be my choice. Good lens though.

My 35 f2 came today for the Fuji. Can't really play with it because it's dark outside, but I've had a play with it - Fuji have seriously stepped it up a notch since the original 3, or even things as recent as the 56. My 16, 35 and 90 are all absolutely fantastic quality, and the 35 feels like I could almost have Leica or Zeiss slapped across it. The focus is super quiet too, and perfectly quick.

I also noticed it has something like 9 aperture blades, and even stopped down to f8 and focusing in very closely, the bokeh is exceptional. 

Really looking forward to taking it outside in daylight, all the images I've seen from it have really popped.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

The price is a big part of it for me, not having much budget to spend on camera gear. But I'm thinking of maybe shopping in my 50 1.2 to go towards the Sigma. I'm also looking forward to having some auto focus lenses again. My main trio at the moment are manual. Maybe there's somewhere in Bristol I could try one.

The Tamron 35 1.8 is looking to be a consideration too, but then it's double the cost of the Nikon 35 f2 AF-D...


----------



## UnderTheSign

Rook, which X series bodies do you have? I'm curious to see how the new 35 works with the X-Pro1 body. It's a somewhat slow focussing camera overall but it might be fun to keep in the bag with the 35 attached.

I've been having some serious GAS lately and last weekend I also started lusting for an X100T. Still no idea why, but hmmm


----------



## Rook

Joe, definitely try everything you can, and really weigh up how much you need those extra stops IMO. I always borderline obsessed over them, always getting the fastest I could, but if you're full frame, f2 at 35mm is plenty to get *some* separation and really it just makes you work harder than just blowing everything out of focus all the time.

UTS: I have an X-Pro1, X-T1 and X100T and my other half has an X-T10. I was actually playing with the 35mm on the Pro1 tonight and it's invisible through the OVF and feels great, nicely balanced. I'll have to give you more info once I've played with it in daylight though ha.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Cool, looking forward to hearing more about your experiences. You two have a dream kit by the sounds of it!


----------



## Rook

It didn't really occur to me how much kit I'd amassed until I wrote it here, haha!


----------



## capoeiraesp

Joe Harvatt said:


> Gonna have to trail through your Flickr for shots with it. I love my 50 1.2, but my 28 tends to stay on the camera most of the time. So I'm thinking 35 might be a good balance for me.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> How did you capture this?



hahaha my flickr is just a mess of stuff so I have a screen saver for my Apple TV

This was the Fuji XF90 ~135mm equivalent. Shot at F2 with electronic shutter at 1/16000 or so, from memory. This was afternoon sun filtered under a heavily shadowed tree.


----------



## soliloquy

i saw some really cool low-key portraits the other day that seem lots of fun and easy to do. gonna try my hands at that tomorrow so see what i can cook up with


----------



## Philligan

Joe Harvatt said:


> Thanks man. I'm interested in the old Nikon 35 f2 AF-D, which similar to the Canon is half the price and tiny. But I can imagine it being that situation where I'd regret not waiting for the Sigma if I picked one up. 1.4 would be more fun. Hmm



It all depends on what you want to shoot with it. I use my 23mm for jobs, but if I'm shooting people, I usually go to the 35mm when I have the space, and really want the 56mm as soon as I can afford it. I still use 35mm equivalent for jobs, but due to the compression I like to go longer most of the time, especially shooting women.

For more casual stuff, like wandering around or going out with friends, I prefer the 23mm for sure. I like how the background falls off faster - it makes photos look a bit more dramatic, and buys a little extra space in tight areas while still looking natural in most situations. For work, the 35mm is my go-to lens because it works well for portraits, but for an everyday carry lens, the 23mm is my favourite.

I don't use the 18mm enough. I like having 1.4 with the 23 and 35, and for me, the 28mm equivalent is in that awkward middle ground - not wide enough to fit a lot of a space in, but so wide that you need to get pretty close to your subject to keep the photo interesting. Looking through my Flickr, though, before I got the 23, I took a couple photos with the 18mm that I really love, so I should try making myself use it for a while to see what I can get out of it.

With a big, somewhat pricey lens like the Sigma Arts, I'd personally get the 50mm over the 35. It's supposed to be a bit sharper, but apparently has better bokeh and more character, too. But more importantly, with a big lens with (potentially dubious) AF, that's something I'd want to use more for jobs than as an everyday lens, which is why I'd go with the 50mm and pick a smaller 35mm as my everyday lens. With a full frame camera, the Arts balance pretty well and are comfortable to use, but if you're the kind of person who'd take that out to the pub with friends, it definitely turns heads.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The first 5 from my last shoot, the last two I sent out to get retouched to see how different the files would come back.





Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 200 1/200s f/5.6





Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 200 1/200s f/8





Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 200 1/200s f/8





Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 200 1/200s f/8





Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 200 1/200s f/5.6


----------



## Philligan

They're cool, but definitely a lot different than yours. They seem to have a harsher tonality and run a bit warmer.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Philligan said:


> It all depends on what you want to shoot with it. I use my 23mm for jobs, but if I'm shooting people, I usually go to the 35mm when I have the space, and really want the 56mm as soon as I can afford it. I still use 35mm equivalent for jobs, but due to the compression I like to go longer most of the time, especially shooting women.
> 
> For more casual stuff, like wandering around or going out with friends, I prefer the 23mm for sure. I like how the background falls off faster - it makes photos look a bit more dramatic, and buys a little extra space in tight areas while still looking natural in most situations. For work, the 35mm is my go-to lens because it works well for portraits, but for an everyday carry lens, the 23mm is my favourite.
> 
> I don't use the 18mm enough. I like having 1.4 with the 23 and 35, and for me, the 28mm equivalent is in that awkward middle ground - not wide enough to fit a lot of a space in, but so wide that you need to get pretty close to your subject to keep the photo interesting. Looking through my Flickr, though, before I got the 23, I took a couple photos with the 18mm that I really love, so I should try making myself use it for a while to see what I can get out of it.
> 
> With a big, somewhat pricey lens like the Sigma Arts, I'd personally get the 50mm over the 35. It's supposed to be a bit sharper, but apparently has better bokeh and more character, too. But more importantly, with a big lens with (potentially dubious) AF, that's something I'd want to use more for jobs than as an everyday lens, which is why I'd go with the 50mm and pick a smaller 35mm as my everyday lens. With a full frame camera, the Arts balance pretty well and are comfortable to use, but if you're the kind of person who'd take that out to the pub with friends, it definitely turns heads.



Perhaps you guys are right. I'm used to carrying smaller lenses, I think I'll take a punt on the Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D if the right one comes up, I'm just slightly worried about how sharp it can get. But, if I do that then I've still got 50mm covered with my 1.2 Ai-s. Could be tempted up to pick up a 50 1.8 AF-D too for auto.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Philligan said:


> They're cool, but definitely a lot different than yours. They seem to have a harsher tonality and run a bit warmer.


I agree, looking at #4 her face seems to oddly match the gold colour-wise. Your #1 looks a lot more realistic I think.


----------



## Tang

Long story short my Pentax was lost.. and then found! Oh happy day! So I took it out and shot what I enjoy the most.



dexter #87 by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Joe Harvatt said:


> Perhaps you guys are right. I'm used to carrying smaller lenses, I think I'll take a punt on the Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D if the right one comes up, I'm just slightly worried about how sharp it can get. But, if I do that then I've still got 50mm covered with my 1.2 Ai-s. Could be tempted up to pick up a 50 1.8 AF-D too for auto.



If/when I go to the UK, I'm trying your 50mm.  I want to shoot a super fast 50 so badly. It looks like there's a good chance Fuji will be making a 33mm 1.0, and I will buy it, but I don't know if it'll have the character of 1.2 on full frame.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

You'd be welcome to! It's a really characterful lens wide open, heavy vignetting, soft corners, with a bit of that sort of circular swirling bokeh, but stopped down it's sharp as hell.


----------



## Rook

So it seems I forgot how silly the X-Pro1 is to use by more recent standards. Pressing buttons seem to be more like suggesting it do something than getting a more deliberate feedback from the camera.

'Could you focus please?'

'Errrr ok maybe I guess, sure, gimme a sec'

That said, I stuck the 35mm on it today, and it works well outdoors. Works well for an X-Pro1 anyway. It's quicker than average, feels snappier than the 23mm, and it's quiet too. I think a lot of my judgement on this is based on the fact that I haven't used my X-Pro1 in a while now.

Given the stuff I have now, would I revive my use of the X-Pro1 to use with the 35mm? Well it suits the Pro well, the lens is totally invisible through the OVF and if you want to use the Pro1 the 35 is a great choice of lens to do it with. It make the camera quite compact too.

I wouldn't however go and buy a Pro1 to use with it. The Pro1's showing its age now. I won't sell mine because I have a real soft spot for it, it's a bit of a modern classic for me and it's not worth a life changing amount, but I think it's use - particularly after I get the 2 - will be purely nostalgic haha.

Otherwise, the 35mm f2 is an outstanding lens. The images... I just can't get over it. I don't even know why I like them so much, the lens just makes things look great. Not missing the faster aperture either.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Thanks for the small report on the Pro1!

I only have the 18/2 so I might start an f2 collection  got any got samples from the 35?

It's funny how when I got it 7 or so months ago, it felt a little older but still fine. The whole "it makes my shots more deliberate, like an analog camera" thing. Now it's just sort of starting to feel slow, especially focusing. Think I'll get the 35 first, then save up for a new body (sort of looking at the t1 or even t10 because it's so cheap, too) and then the 90 because if I get that, I'd like a body that does it justice. Also, seeing the recent DPR video with the T10 and Brad Puet and them printing on huge canvas made me think I might not need the 24 megapixels (or price) of the Pro2 right now, haha.


----------



## soliloquy

i'm a lil confused in terms of the lens that pentax released recently for the full frame camera coming up soon. the 24-70mm f/2.8 is priced at approximately $1700 USD. a lot of folks online are saying that its a tamron lens rebranded as pentax. when i'm doing a price comparison of the tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 with the k-mount lens, those guys are being sold for approximately $500 USD. 
the only major difference i see is that the pentax is weather resistant lens, and there is no indication that its a light lens (in terms of weight) while the tamron is supposed to be a very light lens.

they both cover a full frame circle. 

so, just based on the WR and the price tag, i'm assuming the only thing these two lenses have in common is the F-stop, and the zoom range? 

the 3 pentax full frame zoom lenses that were recently released are not budget friendly, and may actually be more costly than the body. so i'm looking for alternatives around. :S


EDIT:
so, it turns out that tamron released 2 different lenses with the same focal range and some same specs
Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD is the new pentax lens. the tamron is priced a few hundred less, but tamron hasn't released that with the k-mount

and then the other is a Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 AF XR Di LD Macro SP which can be bought new for about 500ish or so...i wonder how these two compete in terms of its image quality, colors, sharpness, etc


----------



## Philligan

I shot some documentary style stuff for my friend's hair salon yesterday - they were doing hair for a charity fundraiser for the Alzheimer's Association. It went pretty well; I'm fine with how the candids turned out, but when I shot portraits of the event contestants, I didn't have enough time with them and some of them turned out kind of awkwardly. It was local celebrities and professional dancers, so I thought they'd shoot well, but a lot of them didn't. I have to finish a writing job, but I'll post some photos from that as soon as I can.

For the time being, here's a photo of my friend (who's also my barber) that I shot while setting up the lighting.



DSCF0006 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

In other news, I had to pick up another Fuji battery from Henry's today, so I played with the 56mm while I was there. Oh my. Getting to play with it was a lot different than reading reviews, and I can't wait to get it now that I know from experience what it can do.


----------



## Dalcan

I love my 1.2 35mm Fuji, I'm hesitant to jump to either the new 35, or the 56..


----------



## Joe Harvatt

This has got to be the ultimate wishlist pocket camera.


----------



## Rook

It was between the original RX-1 and the X100T when I bought mine, I just didn't like the form factor much and the RAW files are still Sony's weakness for me. The colours are so meh.

To me.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I should say that I have no experience with one.


----------



## Philligan

It looks really awesome. Especially now that it has an EVF, and drastically improved AF over the original.

I promise I'm not just being a fanboi  but for me I think the X100T is a little bit better, purely for the awesome JPGs and potentially better battery life.


----------



## Philligan

Here's the photo I took with the 56mm that sold me on it. It doesn't seem super sharp around infinity wide open, but it's definitely useable and still gets that 3D pop. Sharpness at 1.2 seems about on par with the 35 at 1.4, I think.



DSCF0354 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


I'm also not entirely sure how sharp a lens _should_ be, to be honest. Most lit headshots I shoot seem insanely sharp, but when I take natural light shots at further focus distances, I'm not sure if my photos aren't as sharp as they should be, or if I just have unrealistic expectations. 

That photo is a good example. Here's a screenshot of a 100% crop. That's 1.2, 1/250, and 400. I'm pretty content with the detail seeing as it's 1.2, but just so I have a frame of reference, is this considered sharp?



Screen Shot 2016-01-25 at 7.31.53 PM by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

And here are some from the event Saturday night.



DSCF0051 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0094 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0122 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0138 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0146 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0164 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0176 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0187 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

I've decided the time has come to invest in an off-camera lighting solution.


----------



## soliloquy

Tang said:


> I've decided the time has come to invest in an off-camera lighting solution.




i just got me a Yongnuo YN560-TX Wireless that i'm working with a YONGNUO YN560 IV (YN-560 IV) Flash 

shop around and you'll get em pretty cheap. they seem to be working really well from the 2 months i've had the flash, and 1 day i've had the wireless transmitter. and they work great with pentax too. i hope they will be compatible with the pentax k-1 and pentax doesn't change anything drastic regarding 3rd party compatible flashes


----------



## UnderTheSign

I doubt anything will change. The 560TX is just a hotshoe controller right? I have one of the really basic ones - just small sliders for channel selection, a led indicator and a big test button, and it works on basically everything with a hotshoe. From my Bronica speed grip to Pentax analogs and Fuji/Pentax digitals. They'd have to change their interface (to one like Sony used to have or w/e) to make it not work.


----------



## Dalcan

soliloquy said:


> i just got me a Yongnuo YN560-TX Wireless that i'm working with a YONGNUO YN560 IV (YN-560 IV) Flash
> 
> shop around and you'll get em pretty cheap. they seem to be working really well from the 2 months i've had the flash, and 1 day i've had the wireless transmitter. and they work great with pentax too. i hope they will be compatible with the pentax k-1 and pentax doesn't change anything drastic regarding 3rd party compatible flashes



I have this set up... Flash was in my backpack, in a padded case, in my car, traveling from home to shoot- randomly stopped working. Flash won't fire anymore. I've since stopped using their products and I use the Nissin i40.


----------



## soliloquy

Dalcan said:


> I have this set up... Flash was in my backpack, in a padded case, in my car, traveling from home to shoot- randomly stopped working. Flash won't fire anymore. I've since stopped using their products and I use the Nissin i40.




the flash alone is 3 times the price as well.
i have heard that on rare occasions the yongnuo flashes stop working if you look at them the wrong way. however, i've read more reviews where they work just fine for years. 

but if this stops working, considering how much i paid for them, i can afford to get another 2 or 3 before i'm competing with the METZ and other higher end flashes.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

As a guy who has burned out 2 or 3 Vivitar 283s and 2 Vivitar 285s, I quickly realized that hot shoe flashes just aren't for me. I'd make sure they are going to be adequate for your needs.


----------



## UnderTheSign

New Olympus Pen-F digital announced. Boy. It's sexy.


----------



## capoeiraesp

Lovin' the Yongnuo speelite and trigger combo on my XT-1. I finally got to test an idea out at a wedding the other day during groom prep. This was just 1 flash with the XT-1 and XF90 @F5.6 through my Westcott rapid octa. Super quick little edit and not the final product but I just have to share it.


----------



## Philligan

I haven't done anything exciting this week, but here's one I just took of Dawn with the 18mm. I rarely use it because it doesn't seem that much wider than the 23mm and it doesn't do 1.4, but it's a cool focal length and f/2 is still useful for separation. I've been meaning to take just the 18 out sometime, but I always cave and put the 23 on. 



DSCF0002-2 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

Fuji stuff is on sale right now and I have a wedding this weekend (just a cheap one because it's for a friend). I'm really hoping the sale stays on through February, because it will be mine.


----------



## Dalcan

capoeiraesp said:


> Lovin' the Yongnuo speelite and trigger combo on my XT-1. I finally got to test an idea out at a wedding the other day during groom prep. This was just 1 flash with the XT-1 and XF90 @F5.6 through my Westcott rapid octa. Super quick little edit and not the final product but I just have to share it.



The photos are great, and I love this "photo booth" style.


----------



## feilong29

I'm for sure snatching a Fujifilm X70  Perfect for my street photography and landscaping needs and the occasional portraits with it's digital focal length options (35 and 50 mm). Not sure how I feel about not having a view finding, but I'm sure I can adapt.


----------



## Rook

You can get a (dumb, analogue) viewfinder for the hotshoe from fujifilm. I imagine then, if you're using it on the street, you can set it to f8 or f11, set the focus to manual and zone it then just point and click.

Looking forward to seeing some output from the X70, looks cool!

In other news WHEN DO I GET MY X-Pro2! Debating selling the T1 when I get it, I don't need 3+ cameras...


----------



## feilong29

Rook said:


> You can get a (dumb, analogue) viewfinder for the hotshoe from fujifilm. I imagine then, if you're using it on the street, you can set it to f8 or f11, set the focus to manual and zone it then just point and click.
> 
> Looking forward to seeing some output from the X70, looks cool!
> 
> In other news WHEN DO I GET MY X-Pro2! Debating selling the T1 when I get it, I don't need 3+ cameras...



The T1 eh? I like how the X-Pro2 has the ISO function incorporated into the shutter speed dial. But I love how slim the X70 is. I saw that ghetto looking viewfinder haha. I might have it just to have on hand because I do like to frame my shots, but it looks as if it puts it in the middle of the camera. We will see. I'm very excited. If I like that camera, I'll consider the X100t


----------



## UnderTheSign

Rook said:


> You can get a (dumb, analogue) viewfinder for the hotshoe from fujifilm. I imagine then, if you're using it on the street, you can set it to f8 or f11, set the focus to manual and zone it then just point and click.
> 
> Looking forward to seeing some output from the X70, looks cool!
> 
> In other news WHEN DO I GET MY X-Pro2! Debating selling the T1 when I get it, I don't need 3+ cameras...


Do let me know if you do, I'm still GASing a ton with all the new gear coming out lately and in a month or so will probably be in the market for a body upgrade


----------



## Rook

Will do 

Mine has a warped door (common issue) which Fuji wanted £140 to fix, which is obscene, so I'm trying to get that sorted for now.

Once I'll have both I'll see if I miss the viewfinder or slightly smaller footprint at all and make a decision then.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I thought I read on Fujirumours that the door is now covered under warranty, or at least in some Asian countries? That was a couple of months ago so mightve been a recent change in their policy.


----------



## Rook

My camera's not under warranty any more sadly, today they've finally agreed to just sort it though thankfully.


----------



## Philligan

This X-Pro2 news is killing me.  It looks so good. I'm glad I read up on it, because I like a lot of the small changes they made - having the full ISO range in RAW, lossless compression, etc. But I'm definitely waiting for the X-T2, because it should be cheaper and will suit my needs better. The wait is gonna be tough, though. 

I'm perfectly happy shooting My X-T1 up to 6400 in RAW, but the JPGs are pretty useless past 1600 IMHO due to the noise reduction - especially for skin tones. It looks like 12800 on the X-Pro2 is cleaner than the X-T1's 6400, so that's killer. That'll buy me at least an extra stop for weddings, and an easy 2+ stops more for when I'm just shooting for fun. Maybe I just like to hang out in dark places a lot  but I find pretty much every pub has me maxing out my camera at 6400, and I'd love it if I could get useable JPGs from that.

For the time being, I'm picking up an X-E1 off eBay after I get the 56mm. Not counting a friend's wedding I'm shooting tomorrow, it looks like I've got three others booked for this summer, and I don't think the X-T2 will be out in time for any of them. I know about all the quirks with the X-E1, but I basically need a token backup/second body, and there's no point in spending $1k on a camera when I'm going to get a newer model in a few months. I checked and the X-E1 is selling as low as $250 semi-locally.


----------



## feilong29

Philligan said:


> This X-Pro2 news is killing me.  It looks so good. I'm glad I read up on it, because I like a lot of the small changes they made - having the full ISO range in RAW, lossless compression, etc. But I'm definitely waiting for the X-T2, because it should be cheaper and will suit my needs better. The wait is gonna be tough, though.
> 
> I'm perfectly happy shooting My X-T1 up to 6400 in RAW, but the JPGs are pretty useless past 1600 IMHO due to the noise reduction - especially for skin tones. It looks like 12800 on the X-Pro2 is cleaner than the X-T1's 6400, so that's killer. That'll buy me at least an extra stop for weddings, and an easy 2+ stops more for when I'm just shooting for fun. Maybe I just like to hang out in dark places a lot  but I find pretty much every pub has me maxing out my camera at 6400, and I'd love it if I could get useable JPGs from that.
> 
> For the time being, I'm picking up an X-E1 off eBay after I get the 56mm. Not counting a friend's wedding I'm shooting tomorrow, it looks like I've got three others booked for this summer, and I don't think the X-T2 will be out in time for any of them. I know about all the quirks with the X-E1, but I basically need a token backup/second body, and there's no point in spending $1k on a camera when I'm going to get a newer model in a few months. I checked and the X-E1 is selling as low as $250 semi-locally.



What are these quirks you speak of?


----------



## Rook

i'm sure you've thought about it but I'd definitely got XE-2 if possible, particularly for a wedding. It'll be worth the extra IMO!


----------



## feilong29

I've so far seen the X-E2 for as low as $480. I had one and I loved it. I would get that but I can't justify buying the lenses to go along with it if I am doing mostly landscaping stuff, therefore the X70 is PERFECT!


----------



## Philligan

feilong29 said:


> What are these quirks you speak of?



Mainly the autofocus and slower/less predictable response in general.



Rook said:


> i'm sure you've thought about it but I'd definitely got XE-2 if possible, particularly for a wedding. It'll be worth the extra IMO!



I've definitely thought about it, and I'll keep an eye on used ones. I like to think it'll be a backup camera, but realistically, I'll probably use the 56 with the gripped X-T1 and use the other camera with the 23mm. As much as a backup body is important, the hardest part about event shooting for me is just having one focal length at any given time. I'm expecting the 35mm to pretty much life on my camera until the dance floor tomorrow.

It all comes down to price. I'd love an X-E2, but for the length of time I'll be using it (until the X-T2 comes out) it's probably not worth the extra money for me. As much as I buy camera gear, money is actually really tight for us.  My general rule is the money I make with photography goes back into photography, so the extra $200-$300 that an X-E2 would cost could buy me batteries/macro tubes or go towards a new lens.

Unless Dawn wants to sell her Rebel and Canon stuff and switch to Fuji, in which case I'd get the X-E2 so she has wifi.


----------



## Philligan

It's gonna take a really long time to build previews for all the photos today, but I wanted to edit one quickly before bed. I think I'm really gonna like how these turn out. 



DSCF0931-5 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

And here are a couple bridal party photos.



DSCF0954 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0959 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

All natural light or strobes? The light on the couple in #2 is great.


----------



## flint757

I like the framing of the first one, but that flare is a bit bright and if it's intended as a group photo I don't think they'll appreciate being blurry in the back rows. If the couple on the right moved over just one step and the f-stop was brought down I think it'd be better, IMO.

Love the second one.


----------



## Philligan

Thanks guys.  It's all natural light. I think I wish I'd brought my reflector but we climbed down those rocks on the left and all I had was my camera with the 35mm. 

I don't even think the shadows werelifted much. I did dodge the couple a bit, though, and add some contrast so they didn't look to artificially exposed.


----------



## soliloquy

while messing around in the hotel, i came across an interesting light contraption attached to the wall that made for a perfect ring light. i tried using my 50mm, but damn thing wont zoom in well close up. same goes for my 10-20mm. as such, i just ended up using the phone as a quick self-portrait. i'm really surprised at its sharpness. 





[/IMG]





perhaps a macros lens would help in doing close up portraits


----------



## UnderTheSign

Phil, just wondering, does the X-T1 also do heavy noise reduction if you process RAW files in-camera to WiFi to your phone?


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> Phil, just wondering, does the X-T1 also do heavy noise reduction if you process RAW files in-camera to WiFi to your phone?



AFAIK you can't send RAWs over wifi. I could be wrong, though. 

So I dropped my camera on Saturday. It had the 23mm 1.4 on and it fell probably two feet onto carpet. The lens cap was pushed in and a bit hard to get off, but other than that everything seems okay physically. I'm worried that I might have banged something around inside, though.

This was shot at f/4, and I'd angled the camera to get the party in the bottom of the frame. Is f/4 shallow enough for the top of the wall to start falling out of focus, or does it look like the lens is decentred? The 100% crop in the panel is from near the centre of the frame.



Screen Shot 2016-02-01 at 12.29.07 AM by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

My bad, I meant, if you process RAW in-camera and send the resulting jpeg to your phone (as opposed to shooting in jpeg and wifi-ing that directly). It'd be nice if there was a sneaky workaround for that excessive NR issue.


----------



## Philligan

Oh, yeah. The NR is still brutal then, too.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Figured as it's the same engine processing them 

edit: going on a long weekend trip to Belgium next week so I couldn't resist and splurged on some gear  Got the 35/f2, Instax SP-1 printer (+ a 2-pack of film) and a cheap Eye-Fi card. I've wanted a printer for a while and was doubting between the Polaroid Zip and Instax but figured if I invest in Fuji gear anyway and my next body will have built-in WiFi, I might as well go with that to make printing easier in the future. The Zip is cheaper per print but the Instax was on sale for &#8364;30 off so that offsets it too.


----------



## Philligan

I shot a bunch yesterday, the lens seems fine. Fingers crossed.

I started working on those photos and got surprised by this - I didn't remember taking it haha. Really digging this one.



DSCF0163 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And here are some girls getting ready photos that I liked. The portraits were done in the basement.  



DSCF0190 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0296 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0315 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0319 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0334 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And a bonus pano. Haven't seen one around here in a while.  I can't wait to get the 56 for stuff like this.



DSCF0414 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Dalcan

I haven't shot in so long, maybe a year + at this point. This weekend I had some nice light in the living room. Very minor editing.


----------



## UnderTheSign

My providers e-mail servers are down so I have no idea where my gear is or when I'll get it. I hate this


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> Figured as it's the same engine processing them
> 
> edit: going on a long weekend trip to Belgium next week so I couldn't resist and splurged on some gear  Got the 35/f2, Instax SP-1 printer (+ a 2-pack of film) and a cheap Eye-Fi card. I've wanted a printer for a while and was doubting between the Polaroid Zip and Instax but figured if I invest in Fuji gear anyway and my next body will have built-in WiFi, I might as well go with that to make printing easier in the future. The Zip is cheaper per print but the Instax was on sale for 30 off so that offsets it too.



Yeah, that's by far my biggest complaint about the X-T1. I'd like higher ISOs available in RAW, because the 16MP sensor is perfectly useable at 6400, but more than anything I wish the JPGs looked even remotely close to the RAWs. The NR is just ridiculous.

I know the X-Pro2 goes to -5 NR, but the rumour is that just means completely off. Here's hoping.

I'm really excited for the new generation - it seems to fix every issue I have with the X-T1. A more contrasty B&W sim, full ISO range available in RAW, cleaner high ISO and expanded native ISO, faster sensor readout, faster flash sync, and better low light AF. It's gonna be hard to hold out for the X-T2.


----------



## Fiction

Hey guys, I'm doing a bit of international travelling this year and wondering whether anyone had any opinions on good small travel cameras. I'd obviously want a good quality camera, but something easy and small to carry. Probably looking at spending $300ish. I'm in a bit of a rush atm, so just posting quick little comment, if you have any more questions please ask as I need your guidance 

Preferably something that also had a bluetooth option for sending to my phone to share with family, as I wont have a laptop to transfer the old fashioned way.

Thanks guys!


----------



## Philligan

The Sony RX100 is your best bet. Swing for the Mark III or IV if you can - they're both better in low light (faster lens) and have a viewfinder and wifi.

The Fuji XQ1 or XQ2 would be a great bet if you don't mind skipping the viewfinder. They'll have similar image quality to the RX100, plus the benefit of awesome looking photos straight out of the camera due to Fuji's colour profiles. They both have wifi - the only real difference with the XQ2 is a new colour profile called Classic Chrome. It's awesome, but if it's out of your budget the XQ1 is 95%+ the same camera. My sister has it and it's great.

If you don't mind changing lenses, or if you want to change lenses, check out the Fuji X-A2 and Sony a5000. If you're looking at an interchangeable lens camera, you should worry more about which system you're buying into, though - so that's a different conversation. It'll be hard to get a camera with a viewfinder for that price, short of tracking down an Olympus E-M10.

If you want something a bit more fun and crazy check out the Pentax Q-S1. IQ is basically that of a high end point and shoot, but you have a few tiny interchangeable lenses to choose from, and it just seems like an all around fun camera.


----------



## Wretched

Loving the quality of the shots this group is getting these days. Seems everyone has improved! Keep it up!

I'm starting to mess with video, using PS as the editor. I want to ultimately start doing short vids on some of the cars I shoot for magazines as well as some BTS stuff. So far I've just been using screen capture and stills to create the three I've finished so far, but I figure it's good practise for editing footage later.

Anyway, these are the three I've done so far. Only short, but see what you think. SO far PS has been perfectly fine and because I already know how to work images in PS, it's made it feel much more comfortable and natural to work with.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/BS4iEsVbzDE

https://www.youtube.com/embed/6z4MIq21MVs

https://www.youtube.com/embed/GuVQJCVrg78


----------



## Wretched

Can you embed youtube vids in here?


----------



## flint757

When you first post all you have to do is remove the s from https, but after it's already posted you have to use the youtubevid tag and in the case of the links you just posted the part after embed goes in the tag. From a normal youtube link I believe it's the part after v= in the url.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Wretched said:


>




Yep, it's this:

[ youtubevid ] everythingafterthelastforwardslashintheurl [ /youtubevid ]

eg: BS4iEsVbzDE is the code for the first of your videos, so: [ youtubevid ] BS4iEsVbzDE [ /youtubevid ] without the spaces.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Just picked up the 35 from the post office. From what I see in-camera, it's as awesome as people say it is. I hope to get a good number of photos when we leave for the weekend!

Took me a while but I finally figured out the EyeFi too. The desktop app had a function to make the card connect to your home network but that turned out to not work, might be a network thing on my end. So I had to reset some settings in the card, kept having to swap it from camera to usb card reader etc but I've finally made it work with my phone with 'selective transfer' turned on, instead of it wanting to transfer all photos at once. The secret seems to be to turn on the camera, then connect to the Wi-Fi, then open the app.


----------



## Wretched

Thanks guys!


----------



## Philligan

So I totally forgot to post this. 

I forget if I mentioned, but that wedding I shot last weekend was for a friend I've known since elementary school. There were actually three photographers involved that day: I shot basically the whole day; another friend of ours shot the guys getting ready and the ceremony; and a family friend of the bride was there for the ceremony and group photos right after.

I talked to the family friend beforehand, and the plan was for her to concentrate on the groom/guys and their reactions, so I said I'd hide up near the front and shoot the bride walking down the aisle.

I get to the church and see this photographer. She had this huge rig, and said it was because she's been a pro photographer shooting big pro cameras for so long and she has permanent shoulder damage. She was trying to light the entire church hall with a speed light and a Fong. I was supposed to do some family photos, when I didn't use a flash with a diffuser, she demoted me and took over. 

And when the girls started coming down the aisle, she got excited and dragged this whole rig into the aisle to shoot them walking by her. 



DSCF0586 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

All the times that I've shot weddings professionally, I've never used a tripod (that setup looks flimsy as fvck). I have been lucky enough to enjoy venues that allow strobing the entire interior with 2-4 lights bounced off the ceiling to provide light that mimics brighter ambient light, but I wouldn't rely on a tripod if I weren't allowed to do so though.


----------



## UnderTheSign

What the hell is going on in that rig man


----------



## Tang

Man, I can't even imagine doing a wedding like that. 

In other news I've totally hoped on the Capture One Pro train. It took a few weeks to acclimate compared to Lightroom but I totally love it. The color tools are brilliant and being able to edit the luminance curve is wonderful. 

Here are a few shots from it:


----------



## Philligan

The tripod wasn't so much for image stabilization - she said she'd been using such big pro setups for so long that she wasn't capable of hand-holding a camera for more than a few minutes. 

It was a total nightmare. I would have liked to use lights to light the room, but it was probably 80'x100' and had ~30' ceilings. The lighting was terrible, but there wasn't much I could do about it - they were on a tight stage in front of a big white backdrop, so I couldn't get that close. Thankfully the other friend shooting had a 70-200, so he could probably get enough compression to look good and make the bad lighting a bit less distracting.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

This sort of thing drives me mad. She's using what looks a D300s on a tripod and takes the reigns of the shoot based on looking at _your_ gear.

I've done a couple of decent gig shoots where there's other photographers lugging big 24-70's and 70-200's but I've never felt unwelcome with an old manual 50mm. There's no need for it.


----------



## Philligan

Joe Harvatt said:


> This sort of thing drives me mad. She's using what looks a D300s on a tripod and takes the reigns of the shoot based on looking at _your_ gear.
> 
> I've done a couple of decent gig shoots where there's other photographers lugging big 24-70's and 70-200's but I've never felt unwelcome with an old manual 50mm. There's no need for it.



I know, I don't understand. I know I can't talk, but the kicker is that she's an incredibly mediocre photography. If you're going to be like that, at least have the chops to back it up.

On a brighter note, I finally got that roll of Ektar that I shot in the summer developed. Man, sometimes my focus is so off, I can't believe it.  Here are some favourites.



5330498-R1-33-4_1 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



5330498-R1-31-6_1 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



5330498-R1-21-16_1 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



5330498-R1-14-23_1 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Love Ektar. Great shots.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Ektar is awesome. I just loaded a roll of ektachrome into my Pentax MX for our weekend in Belgium, looking forward to those results too.

Also, got the Instax Share. It's pretty fun and smaller than I thought. One of those "this is always going to be in my bag but is rarely used" items after the novelty wears off though. It should be a blast at events so this summer I'm stocking up on mini film


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I didn't like Ektar all that much compared to the other films I've used (Portra, Ektachrome, Provia, Astia, Velvia).


----------



## Philligan

I've been meaning to get one of those. I don't use the Instax 90 as much as I thought I would, but I wonder if being able to print higher quality photos would change that.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Depends on what you consider higher quality - I haven't tweaked any settings yet (in-camera jpeg or snapseed/vsco on my phone before I print) but the resulting prints are small and a bit washed out. They make for fun gifts and keepsakes though. 

I got this over the Instax 90 because 1 I don't need _another _camera on me lol 2 this way I get to keep a quality digital file while I get a fun print.


----------



## Furtive Glance

Aww yeeeeeeeeee 




EDIT: Just got this last night. Don't really have an opinion other than it's a tank.


----------



## UnderTheSign

So I've been test driving the 35/2 in my house and garden a little and it's awesome. Replaces the 18/2 as my walkaround lens. What annoyed me to hell about the first Fuji lenses was the focusing mechanism and how you'd both hear and see it move. The 35/2 is silent, faster (even on the X-Pro1) and the focal length suits me better in most situations. The best thing is, both my lenses are so small though, I can easily slide one in a pocket and take it in case I need it anyway.


----------



## Philligan

Hey guys.




Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

And here's a really quick and dirty stitch from the living room. Not the sharpest because I was having trouble keeping my balance standing on the couch. 



DSCF0007-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A quick edit from this morning.





Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/200s f/5.6


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> Hey guys.



Cheeky!

You'll enjoy that, it was basically the only lens I used for ages after I got it.


----------



## Philligan

I can't wait to use it on a job. I think I said this a while ago but I haven't shot ~85mm since I switched to Fuji. I used a D750 with the 85 1.4G at a friend's wedding last year and took to the focal length instantly. I've been wanting more working distant and better background compression forever. Not to mention stitching, which is the greatest. 

Plus, 1.2!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's one of the reasons I keep wanting a 135 f/2 - it's definitely one of my favorite lengths.

Another from yesterday morning, I really am enjoying this set. I'll be scanning some of the film stuff I shot over the next week as well.




Nikon D3 with Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 @80mm+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 160 1/200s f/5.6


----------



## Dalcan

Joe Harvatt said:


> Love Ektar. Great shots.



This!


----------



## Dalcan

Messed around on our last snow day with the new pup and the lady cats.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Philosopher, do you just live in glitter these days?


----------



## Philligan

Here's a super dark one from our walk last night. This is 6400 pushed probably half a stop, with Dawn pushed another half stop or so. I'm really looking forward to the new generation's extended ISO range.



DSCF0051 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

On a stranger note, I just had a conversation with a guy I went to high school with. He had some questions about Fuji cameras. Apparently he likes the lighting in the photos my camera takes, and wants a camera that will take stunning photos every time with no effort required. He wants to just point it and let technology take care of the rest.

Good conversation. Seriously, that's pretty much verbatim.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

UnderTheSign said:


> Philosopher, do you just live in glitter these days?



As long as I keep getting paid for it, yes.  Luckily these shots are done in the makeup artist's garage studio and she rather enjoys blowing the glitter around with a leaf blower after we're done.


----------



## soliloquy

okay folks, i need your help with this. i'm looking for a macro lens of some sort for versatility. not only to take, well, macros/close up of stuff. but also to help with portraits, low light night photography, baby pictures and stuff.

the lens i currently have are:
10-20mm f/3.5 sigma
18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 WR pentax
50mm f/1.4 pentax

i'm debating on getting rid of the 18-135 as i hardly use it. and with a full frame right around the corner that im planning on getting, that would kind of be useless to me.

so far, the tamron 90mm f/2.8 and the pentax 100mm f/2.8 seem pretty decent. 
though my concern is the same i have with my 50mm. if i'm using it indoors, at times i find it hard to use due to limited space. if i'm taking pictures of a baby, and i'm working with limited space, will the 90 or the 100mm space work?

or should i go for a smaller lens like the 35mm macros lens?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I have the 90mm and I think you'll find it tight if you're already fighting space issues (especially on a crop body). Also, it's not a constant f/2.8 - as the magnification gets closer to 1:1 the max aperture stops down (to f/4 I believe, but I'd have to double check). If there is something in the 60mm range, I think you'd be happier.


----------



## punisher911

After all my time posting on here, I never realized that we had a photography section... Silly me... Well, guess I'll mess around here sometimes.. Been taking some photog classes at my community college.. 
Canon 5Dmkiii
24-70 L f/2.8 ii
50 f/1.8
85 f/1.8
100 f/2.8 macro
a few Alien Bees and whatnots....

previously owned a Canon 70D


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Glitter on film 




Bronica ETRSi with Bronica 100mm macro f/4: ISO 160 1/500s f/8


----------



## flint757

Almost looks abstract. Like stars and galaxies that are in the shape of a woman.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Thanks, I've got some experimental shots of our sycamore leaves to layer to look like stars that I need to edit.


----------



## Philligan

Here's one from a walk today. I'm impressed with how the lens performed. 1.2 with a moving subject and it's sharp.



DSCF0103 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I picked up this little dude after reading a load of great reviews. 







A lot of reviews put it ahead of the 1.4
I've got the manual 50mm 1.2, but I've got a few trips coming up and I've had a few situations recently where I could have used an auto focus lens.


----------



## Philligan

I've used it and it's awesome. From what I can tell, there's basically no reason to get the 1.4 unless you absolutely need that extra 2/3 of a stop of light. 

That's the one place where I feel like Canon really falls short. Their cheapest 35mm is like $600 (it's great, but should be for that price), and their discontinued cheap one is overpriced and not very good. Same with their 50s - the new 1.8 STM is good, but the old one was just too cheap, and the 1.4 isn't that good for the money.

It's strange that they seem to be the go-to company for most beginners, but their selection of affordable standard-wide primes is pretty bad.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I'm glad I inherited into Nikon for that reason, and for access to pretty much all their F mount lenses.

Here's a quick shot of my Daemoness Flying V with the new lens, wide open.


----------



## Philligan

Yeah, it's one of the reasons I considered Nikon when I was selling my 70D. That and the fact that lens compatibility is more flexible - I want to shoot my AE-1 more, but I don't like the idea of sinking $300+ into one of the better FD lenses if I can't use it on other bodies. Whereas with Nikon, you can have a digital body, a modern film body like the F100, and an old body like an F3, and more or less swap lenses between them. I think it makes for a more practical eclectic lens collection.

Anyway, here's one I took on the way to see Dawn's sister today. I just shot it from the front passenger seat while we were driving.  I actually barely edited it, just added some contrast and clarity in LR Mobile. I dig the look - it's from the snow blowing and the kind of cloudy windshield.



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Pentax can use all the lenses.

Just saying.


----------



## Philligan

Here's another one of the moon from tonight. Same thing, basically a 100% crop. 



DSCF0205 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

I'd love to have the 100-400 for birds and moon shots, too bad it's the same price as an X-T1 and 90mm combined


----------



## Philligan

Oh yeah, if I had the money I'd be all over the 100-400. This was just with the 50-230.


----------



## UnderTheSign

It's much better than what I've been able to produce with it so far!


----------



## Rook

The day I get the 100-400 is the day I have a complete setup for the first time in my life haha.

Not as much as I thought it would be, 400mm 5.6 anything for £1400's decent value tbh the fact that it's a 100mm f4.5 zoom at the short end I think is great. 

Not a must have but a definite would like ha.


----------



## Philligan

I've been thinking about that lens for down the road. I need something wider soon, and am trying to decide between the 16 1.4 and Rokinon 12mm f/2. I'm leaning towards the Rokinon because I've already got the 18. After that, the X-T2 is my next priority, but if I get a fourth wedding this summer, I'm tempted to pick up the 50-140. As bad ass as the 100-400 looks, the 50-140 would be a lot more useful for what I shoot.


----------



## Rook

If you have the 56, for the price of the 50-140 here you can get an X-E2 and 90mm, a nice backup and a better tele IMO.the 50-140 is sharp and quick to focus but that's about it, the 90mm is faster and sharper, and the images just look way better IMO.

Little more subtle too.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Rook said:


> The day I get the 100-400 is the day I have a complete setup for the first time in my life haha.
> 
> Not as much as I thought it would be, 400mm 5.6 anything for £1400's decent value tbh the fact that it's a 100mm f4.5 zoom at the short end I think is great.
> 
> Not a must have but a definite would like ha.


Same here! It is reasonably priced for what it is, though also way too much for what I'd use it for  

I know it's more expensive and only f4 Phil but what about the 10-24?


----------



## Rook

I had the 10-24 for a while. IS is very good, focus very fast, not as sharp as it should be though. Wide angles should be easier to make sharper than tele's, so a softish one is a bit meh. I appreciate it's a zoom, but for me the IQ just needed to be better.


----------



## Philligan

There's a wetlands/wildlife conservation area just by our house that we walked through today. I used the 56 the whole time. I took a crap ton of photos, but had to do this one first. My computer's on its last legs and couldn't handle merging 15 or so Fuji RAWs, so I ended up doing JPG conversions and making the pano out of those. I forget to crank the detail slider before I did the initial export, but they still sharpened up nicely when the pano was back in LR. 

Man, this 56 is so useable wide open, it's ridiculous.



DSCF0280-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Brace yourselves - panos are coming. 









Flickr's being strange and won't let me upload, so I had to make do with Photobucket for now.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Ohhhhh boy. 
Special K? Pentax K-1 First Impressions Review: Digital Photography Review

$1800 36mp FF with built in astro tracer... This distracts me from my Fuji goals.

edit: Darn European VAT. Euro pricing is 20-25% higher. &#8364;1999 here. Same happpened to the Fuji X-Pro2


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm happy to report I have a NG(erman)LD coming soon .


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> Ohhhhh boy.
> Special K? Pentax K-1 First Impressions Review: Digital Photography Review
> 
> $1800 36mp FF with built in astro tracer... This distracts me from my Fuji goals.
> 
> edit: Darn European VAT. Euro pricing is 20-25% higher. 1999 here. Same happpened to the Fuji X-Pro2



Which is really strange. The X-Pro 2 is $1799 in the US, and $1899 in Canada. The Pentax is $1799 in the US, and like $2699 in Canada.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I guess Fuji has better distribution. The Fuji is 1899 here so it's a weird difference.


----------



## Tang

Pentax master checking in. 

Get hyped.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Hyped as hell. 

Though with all the new gear being anounced I've been trying to contain my GAS overall. In the mood for some larger format shooting again as well so as soon as the sun comes out I'm taking my Bronica SQ out shooting again. A good 2nd hand camera store an hour away has some cool stuff including a Pentax 6x7 and I'm considering taking a look at that. I'm a fool.


----------



## Philligan

I tried to do some birding today with the 50-230. It was difficult. 



DSCF0054 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0079 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0090 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Rook

UnderTheSign said:


> I guess Fuji has better distribution. The Fuji is 1899 here so it's a weird difference.



It's less to do with distribution and more to do with where they're taking the money when they take orders in Canada.

Some companies have a 'Canada pot' that they leave the money in and that serves all the purpose it needs to for that territory; pay staff, buildings, service centres etc, and the profit stays there until either the market suits them to move it somewhere else.

Others have one pot in their HQ country, meaning if the end user's country's currency gets strong relative to the HQ, end user's prices go down and vice versa.

What's likely the case is that one is HQ'd in the US where there's a pronounced change in exchange rate with the Canadian dollar and the other is in Japan, where the change is proportionally smaller, as the Yen has also weakened.


----------



## soliloquy

i'll be jumping on the pentax bandwagon with the k1 when it becomes available in canada. but damn our dollar sucks right now.

gotta sell off my 18-135, and selling my 10-20mm too. 

as much as i like the 10-20, i'm gearing all my stuff towards the full frame lenses to take advantage of the sensor....

stupid economy....


----------



## neotronic

soliloquy said:


> i'll be jumping on the pentax bandwagon with the k1 when it becomes available in canada.




Same here in europe. Damn, I've been waiting years for that.


----------



## Tang

This makes me so happy.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I like the little Pentax club we've got going on here!


----------



## capoeiraesp

Got to shoot Plini and Heavy Metal Ninjas over the weekend. So good seeing these two shred off.
Fuji XF16 on this shot. Both that and the XF35 F2 performed like utter champions.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

NG(erman)LD - Rodenstock Sironar-N 210mm f/5.6 MC in a Copal No.1; sadly I won't get a chance to play with it for a few days.


----------



## Rook

Nice!

And great shots Matt.

Should have my X-Pro2 in the next few weeks. Funny really, it occurred to me recently just how much I use my X100 and never once have I reverted back to it and thought DAMN THIS TINY VIEWFINDER. It's never even crossed my mind. I haven't decided whether or not to sell my X-T1 yet, I'll wait til I have the Pro2, but honestly the prospect of a better X100T with interchangeable lenses gets me way more excited.

I'm already planning how I'm gunna start shooting RAW+JPEG on two cards and just have the Acros setting permanently on since most of my black and white stuff is straight converted with little fiddling. The black and white settings now are either two stark black and white or too gray; turning shadows up and highlights down just makes the dynamic range a bit pukey too. The Acros thing looks like a nice fix.

I've taken the X-Pro1 out a few times recently and it really reminded me why I bought it. Lots of fun to shoot and nice to hold, though the grip could be just a tad beefier. It's just too slow. I've heard mixed things about the focus on the Pro2, with some calling it 'DSLR-like', and others saying 'noticeably faster then the T1, but still not lightning' all the way down to 'I notice no change whatsoever'. I have to say it's not something I've worried about in ages, but a general feeling of improved snappiness would be good.

What I really look forward to is X100T functionality with weather sealing, faster everything, higher resolution and ISO capabilities (also something I'm hearing very mixed reviews on) and more of the fun factor. My Pro1 and 100T are also waaaay better built than the T1, so more of that please...

And on the topic of the T1, the UK service centre has been utter rubbish. In brief:
- my door was warped
- I emailed them when it was in warranty but they took a month to reply (seriously) by which time I needed the camera so couldn't send it off, I said it contact them a month or so later but the warranty will have expired, they said don't worry.
- contacted them 4 months later (Christmas and everything out the way) and asked what we can do about the door now it's out of warranty, they point me to their repair centre site that quotes an arbitrary £140 repair cost for X-T1.
- I asked if this was accurate, and expressed that it was a little unfair that they wanted £140 to replace one piece of plastic that Fuji themselves have accepted it a product fault
- they don't answer my question, they just say post it to their repair centre
- arrives at repair centre, they ask me for £140 to fix!
- I complain that £140 for a piece of plastic is utterly ridiculous and ask why I had to waste my time and money sending it to them when I already asked if it'd be £140 and they could have just said 'yes'
- no reply after a week, I ask them where my camera is
- no reply for another week, I insist they tell me what the hell's going on
- week 3 they tell me 'sorry, we'll fix it and send it back', that's it.

So I have my camera back, fixed for free. I guess that's good, I'm not ungrateful, but I would have paid. Oh well.

Absolutely no human response to my repeated questions and polite concerns about their service.

It was ..... I really really hope nothing happens to my other cameras. Canon etc put them to shame - 5D Mk2, 2 YEARS out of warranty, sticky shutter button, send it to Canon Monday, they receive it Tuesday, fix it Tuesday or Wednesday, have it back Thursday absolutely free of charge. Now I didn't exactly expect that of Fuji, but 3 weeks and potentially £140 for a piece of plastic.... I was livid.


----------



## Dalcan

capoeiraesp said:


> Got to shoot Plini and Heavy Metal Ninjas over the weekend. So good seeing these two shred off.
> Fuji XF16 on this shot. Both that and the XF35 F2 performed like utter champions.



Dude, awesome shots.


----------



## Philligan

That's weird - Fuji Canada has been pretty good to me. Their regular customer service department is an absolute joke, but they have an "X-Series Pro services" repair department that's actually really good. They promise email replies in two hours, and usually got back to me in 15 minutes or so. I emailed about the door and within a couple hours the guy had me set up with a prepaid shipping label and a pickup time. I think the camera was gone for a week.

So the new rumour is there will be a 23mm f/2 WR out probably this summer. If so I'll almost definitely be trading my 1.4 for it. I like the 1.4, but mostly because I'd love the focal length. For my every day lens, I'd totally trade a stop of light for a smaller size and WR.


----------



## UnderTheSign

New Sigma mirrorless announced. Interesting. IVe always wanted a Quattro or Merill for landscape.


----------



## capoeiraesp

So... Fuji Australia sent me an X100T and XF16-55 WR to test and review for a few months.


----------



## Rook

Like I said on Facebook, you're gunna love the 100T!

Force yourself to use the OVF, manual focus, ISO 1600 and f8 for a while, it's a lot of fun!


----------



## soliloquy

i'm having a lil panic mode going in regards to the pentax full frame.
on my k5, i really enjoy the sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 lens. now that lens is not made for full frame, so its field of view cant cover the full spectrum of the full frame. now, if i'm looking for the exact same field coverage in the full frame, the exact FOV coverage is to be had with the 15-30mm lens. that lens is also pretty pricey. to make it worse, that lens cant be used with any filters. one of the reasons why i loved the 10-20 is due to being able to use ND filters for landscape pics. that privilege wont be there for the 15-30. i can go for the budget friendly samyang/rokinon/etc lens to get the 14mm FOV.

but even then, on that particular lens, no filters are compatible, unless i go for the really expensive filters that are worth more than the lens itself.

why is it that the same coverage only comes with lenses that protrude outwards on full frame and/or are fish eye? 

sigh...

and i want to preorder the K1, but i'm waiting for them to release it with the 28-70mm, which is sadly, as expensive as the body...oh i'll be broke for a bit...


----------



## UnderTheSign

Don't some of the aps-only lenses still sort of work with the k1? I remember some of the wider zooms reportedly showing vignetting at their widest and shortest range and at medium range delivering pretty decent results. 

You could try the lens in FF mode to see if you can handle the vignetting and if not, run it in crop mode. At 15mp the results are still usable or at least until you get something better.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I was going to suggest looking for data on the size of the image circle. I'm guessing it'll probably start vignetting around 12mm and you'll only lose the extreme wide end of the lens.


----------



## soliloquy

ThePhilosopher said:


> I was going to suggest looking for data on the size of the image circle. I'm guessing it'll probably start vignetting around 12mm and you'll only lose the extreme wide end of the lens.



i was thinking the same thing, but it seems people have already done so on full frame and here are the results of that same lens on a full frame at 10
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dadegroot/1182036246/

and same shot at 20
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dadegroot/1181179117/

there is a lot of wasted space that cant be used. 

even on an APS-c, there is some light vignetting at 10, but nothing to write about. as such, sure, i can use it in crop mode for 15 MP with the same lens. but then if i am to do that, perhaps there is little point of me getting the full frame as i wont be utilizing its full potential 

the benefit of me going this route is that at least i will be able to use a filter or two. but the down side is that i'm sacrificing a good chunk of potential space i could take while fully utilizing the full frame capability. 



what i can also do is that i can sell the 10-20mm lens to a friend, and borrow it back whenever i'm doing wedding photography and use that lens on my k5 crop sensor, while use the 24-70 on the full frame for some bokeh stuff....


that 24-70 is the same thread sized filter as the 10-20, so i can transfer some of my filters over to that. and i can also use the 24-70 for astro-photography due to its low 2.8 fstop. it just wont be as wide as i'd like. the 15-30 seems a lil useless to me due to a) price b) no filters to be used on something so wide c)a landscape lens that cant take filters for water or clouds..


----------



## UnderTheSign

So, I've been playing with the 35 for a whole again and for me, it just revived the X-Pro1. Just feels so much better than the 18mm (partially because I couldn't stand the noise the 18 makes when focusing) and responds relatively fast. The Eye-Fi card, while not perfect in any way, also made transferring stuff to my phone pretty easy and I've been shooting in RAW + small JPG lately. Perfect for snapshots

I also bought a small (6" x 5" ~ 15x13cm) softbox for my Yongnuo. Which, by the way, recently got damaged when someone tripped over my bag. The LCD is broken and I can only see the 'M' mode indication, no idea of any other settings and the zoom setting doesn't even seem to work anymore so lord knows at what power I'm firing it... But the mini softbox works pretty nifty. It's more of a diffuser, but I've been practising some low-key head/torso shots with it on myself and it does the trick. At F8, 1/125th at 200 ISO it's very usable and I bet it'd work pretty well for some artsy black & white shots. Now to convince my gf to model for me so I can really start practising


----------



## Tang

I can't wait to go full-frame so I can keep taking pictures of my dogs.

36mp of awesome chihuahua action. Oh, and that glorious Sony-sensor dynamic range. I already feel like I'm living the high DR life with my K5ii!



relax by Scott Jones, on Flickr

*35mm. 1/800s. f/4. ISO80*


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I figure this is as good a place any to post this. I've been working on a new website design/layout for the past few days. If anyone wants to check it out and let me know what you think or if anything is broken, I would greatly appreciate it. The content might be NSFW depending on how your employer views body suits and such (there is no nudity).

D.Bartkowiak Photography: Houston Portraiture


----------



## Philligan

Awesome. I like the layout. The page loaded quickly and is easy to navigate.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Thanks, page loading time and amount loaded is something I'm most worried about. It's difficult to predict the resolution people are using on their monitors - I tested at 1920x1080 (my native), 1920x2160, 1600x900 and mobile (Moto X 2nd Gen) hoping to get most of it covered.


----------



## soliloquy

ThePhilosopher said:


> I figure this is as good a place any to post this. I've been working on a new website design/layout for the past few days. If anyone wants to check it out and let me know what you think or if anything is broken, I would greatly appreciate it. The content might be NSFW depending on how your employer views body suits and such (there is no nudity).
> 
> D.Bartkowiak Photography: Houston Portraiture



the website is looking awesome! it loaded just fine on my computer and connection. but then again, i'm no computer wiz, so i'm happy with what i see







in other news, just placed an order on the 100mm macro wr pentax lens. now the waiting game begins...


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I think 100mm is a great focal length for macros. I'd love to add the Nikkor 200mm macro to my arsenal, but it's so damn expensive when you already have a 90mm macro and a 200mm lens.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Website loads fine but on my laptop (15.4" screen set to 1080p) I have to scroll to the right a little to get the full page width showing. Some ctrl + scrolling solved that.

I'd put my phone number and email in the contact blurb as right now it's in the bottom left corner and I'd love for a way to enlarge the photos but overall, I like the design. Super clean and simple.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I was going to recode the images so that the horizontal images were 1000px wide and the vertical images were 500px wide, but I couldn't get everything to sit properly when I did that. I'll add that information to the contact page.


----------



## Tang

I think this is probably the best composition I've ever done. The exposure was a little tricky so I had to go back into Lightroom. I've mainly been working with Capture One Pro but I couldn't quite get this shot to work in it. 







*1/800s @ f/4. ISO80 *


----------



## soliloquy

so i just discovered that my flashes wont be compatible with the k1. 
the yongnuo flashes have a lip towards their hot shoe which gets in the way of the k3II's bump on the front. 

gotta find a solution this this...humm...


in other news, anyone ever got any of the backdrops that are offered by cowboy studio on amazon?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's a strange design choice, though maybe it's intentional like Canon when they removed rear curtain flash sync from their camera bodies.

I've never used anything besides seamless paper - I usually get it from B&H since they will give free delivery on it.


----------



## DownTuner

Any of you guys have any experience of the Sony A5000? There's one for sale at a local camera shop and I'm thinking about picking it up. I want something small and light to bring with me when I travel around. I am looking to get something that does good quality video too. I've checked out a few reviews and video clips online and this thing seems to be pretty nice. So, are there any reasons why I shouldn't get the A5000? If yes, what else would you guys recommend?

Oh and I do have a Canon 7D Mark II but I wan't something cheaper to carry around when not at home or shooting anything too serious.


----------



## Philligan

If you can live without a viewfinder, it's perfectly fine AFAIK. I know a guy with one and the files out of it look great, and the AF is on par with the standard right now.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but since you shoot Canon, take a look at the M3, M10, or even the original M. AF will be mediocre, but the 22mm f/2 pancake is an awesome little lens, and there's an OEM adapter so you can use your EF glass on it. It's not amazing, mostly because of the so-so AF, but as a casual camera it wouldn't be too shabby IMHO. You also get the benefit of the same menus and similar files. And yeah, that EF-M mount 22mm pancake is almost worth the price of admission on its own. It makes the package pretty much pocketable. Depending on how much glass you want to buy, Sony's lens selection isn't amazing.


----------



## soliloquy

i really want to get the samyang 14mm lens for the up coming pentax k1 only 2 things that are holding me back. 1) its built quality and IQ is not consistent from copy to copy. 2) no ND filters. 

the ND filter thing i maybe able to get away with by trying this lil hack


and because the gel is so close to the sensor, i doubt it'll do much to the image quality. add a second layer of gel to really stop light. maybe....?


----------



## Tang

something weird and strange, but I like it. I enjoy that it could be either the ground or sky depending on how you look at it. Or squint. 

I spend too much time squinting at my shots to make them look 'basic' so I can check composition. 



trees and such by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I did some corporate shooting for an employment centre today. It went alright. 

It wasn't what I was expecting. They wanted profiles on four people who had gotten jobs or promotions by working with the employment centre. I was working with the marketing firm I write for. It was supposed to be run and gun portrait and editorial work. Only the firm's ideas for the shoots ended up being different from the employment centre's ideas, and we didn't find that out until we were there.  

It was a lot more disorganized than I was expecting, and the people I was working with (the people organizing the campaign) weren't dealing with the employees very well. I actually wish I was able to work the day on my own - I feel like it would have gone better. I'll update if I get any interesting photos. Importing them now.


----------



## Rook

My X-Pro2 may have shipped today.

It arrived at the store and I paid, the lady said I should get an email saying it's despatched but I didn't, but she also said it would be next day if I paid before 4:30 and I paid at 3:30.

So who knows really. Trying not to think about it because I won't sleep if I do.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Best hope is for a shipping delay, at least that's a reasonable.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Yo. I was in Shanghai recently for work. I've made an exposure.co story here. Thinking of maybe signing up for a pro account with exposure.co and migrating my website to that format. Anyone got any experience with it?

Here's a few of my favourite shots from the trip.


----------



## Rook

It did arrive!

First impressions:
- Compared to X-Pro1, it's much better to hold but heavier. Not a lot, but the Pro1's very light so any change would be noticeable.
- High ISO stuff; for equivalent viewing size, I'd say you gain at least a stop of ISO, but even 12,800 is a finer grain than 6,400, though there is more of it. It's still aesthetically pleasing grain, but still obvious detail loss too. At 100% between T1 and Pro2 you won't notice a massive difference, but it's there and it's subtle, I think this is a less useful comparison though - I won't be displaying my images larger because I have more pixels.
- This thing is soooooo fast. The blackout time on the shutter is a fraction of the T1's, and if you half press the shutter, focus, shoot, then stay half pressed (without releasing) you can fire the shutter again very very quickly. There's basically no shutter lag. The thing feels so much more alert than even the T1.
- Autofocus is quicker, much quicker on the 90, noticeably quicker on the 35 but not life changing. This obviously depends on the lens, so for example I'm not expecting much difference with the 56, but look forward to trying the 16. 
- Build quality craps all over the T1: the buttons, the doors, everything feels better.
- The hybrid manual focus finder in the OVF window is better and it's easier to see what's in and out of focus, which makes using the 35 a lot of fun.
- Menu system much better.

Ideal upgrade for me. Didn't know if I'd sell my T1 for it but even just after this afternoon I'm 90% sure I will. It feels like a real slouch by comparison.

Image samples to come.


----------



## Rook

And my computer can't read the RAW files. Poo.


----------



## A-Branger

I must say I find pretty interesting the lack of Canon/Nikon users in this forum/tread Ive never seen so much diversity on brands in a photographers chat, including people who work with the cameras


In other news, I finally decided to learn about the wifi capabilities of my Canon 6D. I had couple of shooting scenarios in my mind and I found out I could do couple of them with it woooo!

so basically I can remotely shot, change settings, and view the images using my phone (or a tablet if I had one). In this way I could let the camera on a tripod on a wide shot for a couple/group, walk towards then with my flash/softbox, fire couple of shots, move away and fire again to have a blank layer to erase myself on photoshop. Ive been doing this technique, but walking back and forth to the camera.

I can shot tethered to my laptop for a studio shot, but I need both the camera and the laptop conected to an external wifi (as opposed on a phone/tablet where you can connect them trough the camera) so not much point here as it would be easier with a usb cable.

Also Im learning how to shoot high end realstate photography, so few of the techniques Ive seen on the instructional videos the guy walks with a tablet so he can see what hes shooting and popping flashes here and there in different areas without having to go back and check the camera. I now can do that too without having to buy a wifi device, so this would become pretty handy too.

Once I convince a friend or a neighbour to let me shoot their houses I would show you guys


----------



## Rook

This is a forum for gear nerds, haha. With that in mind, just like Fender and Gibson's lesser popularity here, it's probably less surprising that we all use less-common choice camera brands too!

My home computer will read RAW files, which is great. I spent an hour today going on about the camera to Matt actually haha. The files look great. Fuji is finally a camera that has the fun factor and serious IQ and usability stuff sorted out. Perfection.


----------



## Tang

I was a Canon user before I used Pentax, fwiw. I've never looked back 

Back to Capture One for this shot. I feel like it's RAW processing engine gives radically different looks than Lightroom and I'm glad to have both in my arsenal. 

I know you guys probably think I'm out of control with all these dog shots but I honestly love it. There's so much you can do just one lens, a backyard, and three very photogenic chihuahuas. 






*35mm. 1/25s. f/3.5. ISO80. *


----------



## Philligan

So I'm seriously considering selling my X-T1 for the X-Pro2 now. I got hired today to shoot a 3-day event in May at the local college. The lighting will be bad, but their standards aren't too high, and one of their priorities is really quick turnaround - ideally, they'd like at least a few dozen files by the end of each day to play in slideshows at social events in the evenings.

I'm waffling between shooting RAW+JPG or just JPG. I'll need to shoot JPGs in some way, because I won't have enough time to process these RAWs during the day (and my computer sucks). Ideally, I'd like to basically use JPGs, but have RAWs handy in case I need to do any colour correcting or any crazy editing to important photos.

If I just shoot JPG, I have to deal with the X-T1's noise reduction. If I shoot RAW+JPG, I have to worry about write times, storage, and workflow. The X-Pro2 would solve that issue in a couple ways - dual card slots would help with storage (after some shooting, if I know the photos are okay I can clear the RAW card), and work flow (same thing, having a card of just JPGs), and on top of that, it should put out significantly better high ISO JPGs. The low light AF improvements would be a bonus, too.

I'm not sure if I'll be able to get enough money together beforehand to make the switch, and I'd have to worry about selling my X-T1 first, but it's something I'm seriously considering.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Just go A7R2 and be done with it .


----------



## Philligan

I can't, I'm not into the Sony's.  I used an A7 when an open box got returned at my old job and didn't get along with it.

Here are some from that shoot I did on Tuesday.



DSCF0072 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0027 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0566 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0562 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0625 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0634 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0718 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## A-Branger

yeh, Ive use the Sonys A7s to film a few weddings as this is the new settup of one of my friends who hires me and I must say I hate them.

yes, you have a much cleaner shot at night time, but for reception stuff a 5DIII was still ok (pushing the limits) as or either we use lights for speeches, or we use a f1.4 lens for general roaming. The ergonomics of the camera is the worst imo. Its nice "retro/sleek" but after a whole day shooting my hands ends up with a massive cramp as the position of the rec button and the general shape of the camera is awful, as oposed a 5D where it sits on the palm of your hand confty. Plus the battery life sucks too with video.

Not sure how these would handle on a full wedding photography. But I cant see myself using them either as the same reasons above. I want something that fits my hand nicely with good possitions of the buttons, instead of a square tinny brick. The weight of the camera could be handt for a long day, but having a 70-200mm lens into it must feel pretty lens heavy, donno

low light,mmmm yeah I might use it. For my style of shooting the only real handy situation would be on speeches that I tend to use my 70-200mm as I dont like to shoot upclose and block everyones view. But for the rest of the night if Im on a such high ISO, Im already using a flash or something first


----------



## A-Branger

Philligan said:


> I'm waffling between shooting RAW+JPG or just JPG.



shot both. backup backup backup

if you have dual slot, then yeah one for RAW one for JPG. If you only have one slot, then shoot both.

yes, you need to give a quick batch of photos for a slideshow at the end of the day, but you still are going to deliver the rest of the photos after the event is finish, so you might better have a RAW for better processing 

As speed of write because of the dual formats?, it wont affect you. You are shooting an event not a sport, so you wont be using highspeed shooting, so the speed the camera writes on the card wont affect you. If not go and get a faster speed CF/SD card (donno what you use) for this event. Would help you on camera, but more importantly it speed up the transfer to the computer

Aslo for the otehr points you mention of shooting JPG, start practicing now. Get used to it, know how the noise reduction of your camera affects the JPGs and how much you can push it. Same with white balance and exposure

Also its a good practice to delete photos you are not going to use. LEts say you take 4 photos of X person doing Y thing, after you take them, go and delete the 3 you are not goin ot use, so when time comes to build the slideshow you already got rid of the bad pics.

Also check the functions of your camera. Something it was handy for me was to have different writing folders. So when I changed venues I created a new folder on the camera, so I already had my pics "organized" by the time to download


----------



## Rook

You may remember I was considering moving to Sony but I decided they were yucky and the lenses are stupidly overpriced too. Coming from Fuji, all you gain is a bigger sensor, but actually all of the main reasons you chose a Fuji in the first place you lose.

I also don't know if I mentioned it but I love the Pro2. Love it. I didn't love the T1 anywhere near this much when I got it.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Guys, I was kidding about the Sony - I think they're overpriced as a system.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Where do you guys go for reviews? I usually read dpreview for news/hands on (and the absurd comments), sites like Fujirumours etc for news as well and lately I've been enjoying Ming Thein his writings. 

I was going through my bookmarks and found links from when I first looked into getting a camera... Steve Huff was in there  I read his site occasionally but his all caps over the top 'REAL' world nonsense gets on my nerves nowadays. Plus I found out he sells paranormal monitoring stuff which sounds uhh... Shady at best.


----------



## Rook

^I like Matt Granger, but it's really just a matter of knowing who to believe about what. I like thecamerastore TV's YouTube videos but they got it very wrong on the X-Pro2 in my opinion.

On that subject, let's play a game!

It's called 'name that ISO' haha. It's not a competition, I'm really just showing how insanely good the ISO is, but here we go.



DSCF0366 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



DSCF0359 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



DSCF0372 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



DSCF0404 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



DSCF0409 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



DSCF0411 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr


----------



## A-Branger

UnderTheSign said:


> Where do you guys go for reviews? I usually read dpreview for news/hands on (and the absurd comments), sites like Fujirumours etc for news as well and lately I've been enjoying Ming Thein his writings.




I dont really watch much reviews as I already have a brand I use and gear that I know taht I want. But for anything new I go to

DxOMark by DxO - DxOMark

as these guys to proper comparisons and vs lenses and camera testings.

The reason I bought my Tamrom 70-200mm f2.8 vc and not the Canon version of it, it was thanks to this site. In there I could see that both lenses where identical in scores and on paper, in sharpness areas and on vigneting. So I didnt saw the point of the extra 1k$ I needed to pay for the Canon

it also gave me a peace of mind when I jumped into my 6D vs getting a 5DIII, and the results I see after using both shows that.


It also made me realize years ago that there is nothing flashy about the 1DX at all in image quality vs a 5DIII. I always though at that point the 1DX should be THE holly grail kinda thing. But the image quality does not justify the enormous price of it at all. The only thing you are gaining are build quality, more custom buttons/functions, better AF system and higher FPS in high speed shooting. Thing you would benefit lets say for sport photog, but no at all for portraits. I got a mate recently who wants to jump into one as he also is thinking of the "more $$$ + "top of the line" camera = better picture quality", Im trying to explain to him that this wont be the case here, to save his money and get an extra lens he wants and wait for the new 5DIV (or 5DX, or whatever) but nop, hes blind he want to get it *facepalm*


----------



## Tang

Nick, not sure about the others but the last one has to be 12,600. Just has to be.


----------



## Rook

^ding ding ding. Correct, did you zoom in?

As for DxO, I don't find it very helpful at all tbh. It has some scientific-looking numbers but isn't anything your eyes couldn't tell you, and the fact is if your eyes _can't_ tell you it doesn't matter!

To this end, I also agree that more £££ doesn't equal more IQ. Hasselblad digitals might take high dynamic range, huge resolution, medium(ish) format pictures, but the quality of your picture also depends on usability, functionality, form factor and fun factor. Hasselblad even now don't go beyond ISO800 (kinda defeating part of the benefit of having such big photo sites), they're slow, they're heavy, the glass is not worth a fraction what it costs... Medium format has its technical uses, but I don't think you get $15,000 worth of them.

Likewise with the 1DX. Big, heavy, amazing continuous AF that I'd never ever use, built to withstand a bomb blast I'll never be in, shoots 13 more frames per second than I'll ever take, and has a (useless, I'll add) ISO range 3 stops brighter than I'll ever use. I understand professionals - fashion and sports particularly - shooters using them, absolutely. 

John Smith who's looking for something to take on holiday, I think not.

The 6D is, for me, the best prosumer camera for someone who wants full frame. The 6D mark 2 is going to be a huge hit in my opinion. 'Why not Sony, Nick?', their cheaper, older stuff is pants compared to other options for the money nowadays, their native lenses are ridiculously expensive for what you get, and the battery is crap. You're typical prosumer wants ease above all else - Sony's slower focus, fiddly menus, less economical lens options and hunger for batteries is none of those.

The Fuji X system I find the most enjoyable, and think that cropped sensors are about as small as you can go for a) current tech to give you a good ISO/resolution balance and b) to allow you to still get attractive focus fall-off at sensible working distances and focal lengths. Really smooth, attractive focus fall-off doesn't start until 50mm+ and you need a fast one at that. M43 means you're at 100mm+ equivalent and therefore so far away that you need some seriously fast glass to get good fall-off, by which time you've negated you price and weight savings with the smaller system in the first place.

What am I even talking about?

What's with the long post?

Must be a boring Sunday night in...


----------



## A-Branger

I know what you mean, but sometimes is hard to find good A vs B comparo test on lets say a lens you want to buy over another. People tend to be too attached to one brand, and unless you find the (ideally RAW) files of the same photo taking with two differetn lenses, then theres no point. Like someone doing a review of one lens by itself, it doesnt tells me anything as he might be on an "ideal" shooting scenario vs me trying to pull of something with my current lens at home.

the 1DX its a sports camera. Period. Fashion? no way. Non of the features over a 5D would benefit a fashion shooter at all. Except the "wank" factor of "look at my big expensive camera, I must be good". In which a lot of times this is a big reality for the client. Kinda the same with recording studios, have you seen those big massive inside the wall speakers??, yup, those are only there to "WOW!" a client and to listen to music full blast when you are drunk after the day is finish. Rest of the time all the mix is being done by those ....ty old yamaha monitors, and whatever other good brand has next to them. 

Medium format cameras only have up to ISO800, because these are ideally made to be use on a studio under controlled lighting. So they are only used in ISO50-200 kinda thing. Medium formats are for editorial work, things that would get printed big or stuff that has to be 100% perfection so you have more pixels to zoom in. What Ive never understood is the 20k$ price on them. In this day and age, why such a high price doesnt make sense. Even some high end photographers rent the cameras instead of owing one of them.

Another cool feature is that they have (not sure if all of them) leaf shutter. So you wont have a flash sync speed anymore

I think Canon did a good deal releasing the 5Ds line with the huge 50mp pixel count. This way you can still have all the info and be abel to print big without having to relly on a medium format


At the end of the day its not the camera who gives the better quality, its the lens. If you need to get something to improve your images, get a better lens. Also in the past I would say Canon was better choice due to its lenses, but now companies like Tamrom and Sigma are releasing far better lenses than Canon at a better price point. So other brand users can use these too


----------



## Philligan

Zack Arias made a pretty good point on MF. He used his Phase to stitch a huge pano, which was an environmental portrait of a business owner. Because of the massive resolution, you could crop it down to just a headshot and still get a useable print. That may be a bit over the top, but I could see extremely flexible images being valuable to everyone involved. 

Different strokes and all. 

Personally, I'm working on getting past pixel peeping. Even when I'm editing, I usually have my zoom defaulted to 1:2 instead of 1:1. After I dropped my camera with the 23mm attached I got really bad for pixel peeping every photo looking for signs of decentring. I ended up digging up some older photos to compare and the lens seems fine. But seeing slight softness wide open or in backlit situations had me so worked up for a while. Then I did that shoot last week, mostly shooting at f/2 or 1.4 and 800-1600, and the marketing company thought the photos looked great. 

I know some people use the term "good enough" to justify performance that others consider subpar, but "good enough" is good enough. Sure, pixel peeping is fun and I'd love to see more detail at 100%, but chances are literally no one else will look at my photos that closely, so I'm just creating more problems for myself. 

/rant  I see huge amounts of pixel peeping on the FujiRumors forum and have been trying to work on my own attitude.


----------



## Philligan

In other news, do any of you guys have much experience editing on iPads? My computer's dying and I'll need to replace it this summer, and I'm torn between a Retina Pro or a Mac Mini + iPad setup. 

I like the idea of editing on the go, but I don't know how powerful/useful LR Mobile is. If it's not that great, then I'd just get a MacBook, because that would be a bit more convenient than a desktop setup. 

I'm mainly thinking for travel and events. I'd want to be able to at least edit higher res jpgs on the iPad, and was wondering if there's some sort of browsing/culling capability, and any way to connect to external storage.


----------



## A-Branger

In my case for wedding photography I cant deal with that many pixels. It could be handy for cropping (although I dont like to "crop", more like little fixes) and would help to print and whole spread albums. But for the amount of photos I take it kills my HDs.

A few times I had to use my friends Nikon D800 with 36mp. It was nice to have a bit extra dynamic range on outdoor ceremonies. But it destroyed my HD space. 



I jsut checked and the Lightroom app its free to download. So give it a go. if you dont have an ipad, get it for your phone and give it a try.


----------



## punisher911

Rook said:


> ^I like Matt Granger, but it's really just a matter of knowing who to believe about what. I like thecamerastore TV's YouTube videos but they got it very wrong on the X-Pro2 in my opinion.
> 
> On that subject, let's play a game!
> 
> It's called 'name that ISO' haha. It's not a competition, I'm really just showing how insanely good the ISO is, but here we go.
> 
> 
> 
> DSCF0366 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> DSCF0359 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> DSCF0372 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> DSCF0404 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> DSCF0409 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> DSCF0411 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



If you're in manual mode, why are you shooting 1/8000? forcing your ISO to 6400 and introducing that noise. I thought for sure you were in AV mode and the camera was doing that. The EXIF said manual. You could have shot 1/2000 and ISO 1600 and not have had any noise....or even 1/1000 and ISO800.. and still had room to fine tune the exposure.


----------



## punisher911

Philligan said:


> In other news, do any of you guys have much experience editing on iPads? My computer's dying and I'll need to replace it this summer, and I'm torn between a Retina Pro or a Mac Mini + iPad setup.
> 
> I like the idea of editing on the go, but I don't know how powerful/useful LR Mobile is. If it's not that great, then I'd just get a MacBook, because that would be a bit more convenient than a desktop setup.
> 
> I'm mainly thinking for travel and events. I'd want to be able to at least edit higher res jpgs on the iPad, and was wondering if there's some sort of browsing/culling capability, and any way to connect to external storage.



Snapseed is a great free ap for editing on the go. If you have the Adobe CC, the LR ap is free. I have it, but really haven't used it so I can't comment on it.


----------



## UnderTheSign

punisher911 said:


> If you're in manual mode, why are you shooting 1/8000? forcing your ISO to 6400 and introducing that noise. I thought for sure you were in AV mode and the camera was doing that. The EXIF said manual. You could have shot 1/2000 and ISO 1600 and not have had any noise....or even 1/1000 and ISO800.. and still had room to fine tune the exposure.


Considering he named his post "name the ISO", I assume he went with high shutter speed and ISO to well... See how things look at a high ISO.


----------



## Philligan

So I downloaded the Capture1 demo and tried it for the first time. I only had ten minutes to play with it before dinner, and the interface is a trip, but the amount of detail it shows is insane. The Structure slider is great, too.

So far I'm defaulted to harsher looking photos than what I'd do in LR, but I literally spent 10 minutes total and edited the same photo twice. I'm gonna sit down and work with it more to see what I can get out of it. I'm not thrilled with Adobe - even though LR is useable, I'm not crazy about how temperamental the detail menu is, and I don't like how heavy Photoshop is as an app. If I get along with C1 I'll probably make the switch.



Screen Shot 2016-03-07 at 5.33.14 PM by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Capture One.. mmm mmm good.

Metering a greyish/black cat is not fun.



smokey #43 by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Capture one is amazing, I'm contemplating buying it just for the color flexibility it has built-in.


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> Capture one is amazing, I'm contemplating buying it just for the color flexibility it has built-in.



It's reassuring hearing you say that. I know nothing about it and really need to learn it, but the colour adjustments behave so differently from LR that I was having trouble wrapping my head around it. I'm more interested it in for the detail, and the fact that it seems to be quite a bit less taxing on my computer.

If colour is one of the main draws, then that's a bonus for me.


----------



## Tang

Phil, the color adjustments and the luminosity curve are worth the price of admission for me.

EDIT: RAW on the left.



Untitled1111 by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

This is a great video for color in C1 8Pro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdIMRgHgRj8


----------



## Rook

I didn't like the way C1 rendered the colours out of my fuji, and it didn't support any third party colour profiles. The sharpening algorithm seems cleaner though.

I use LR for the cataloging as much as anything else, now it's just habit I guess. Wasn't too fussed about the copy of C1 I had for my day to day.



punisher911 said:


> If you're in manual mode, why are you shooting 1/8000? forcing your ISO to 6400 and introducing that noise. I thought for sure you were in AV mode and the camera was doing that. The EXIF said manual. You could have shot 1/2000 and ISO 1600 and not have had any noise....or even 1/1000 and ISO800.. and still had room to fine tune the exposure.



Well it looks like somebody missed the point!

Hahahaha.

Spoiler alert, they're all ISO 6,400 except the last two which are 12,800. I was impressed by the colour rendition, particularly in comparison to other cameras I've owned.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Though it might be mostly because it was the only one to fully support Fuji RAWs for a while, Capture One is still the recommended software of a lot of Fuji-users and pros. I haven't looked into it much since I got LR for free and cba to relearn my workflow but I am curious.

From what I've read, sharpening in C1 is a little better on the Fuji files.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I've never tried Capture 1, and I really enjoy using Lightroom, but I'm always interested, so could someone maybe pose the generally perceived pros and cons of both?

I've been migrating some of my photos on to the exposure.co format. I've set it up for www.joeharvatt.co.uk I'd be grateful to hear what you think. I'm enjoying the sets aspect of the format which I think helps to enforce the narrative element to photography. I think where previously I'd used a Flickr to view photos, the narrative element gets lost in the cataloging style Flickr primarily uses.


----------



## Philligan

I watched a video probably a year ago that demo'd the pros of C1, but I can't find it right now (at work and on my phone). Basically, it can resolve a lot more detail and gives you more control over colour and tonality. I don't think there are any real downsides, other than the fact that it doesn't talk to PS as well as LR does.


----------



## Rook

I don't think it can resolve more detail as such, the sharpening just has a distinct look to it. It might appear to resolve more but I believe it just uses similar masking techniques to LR. The demosaic seems a little better but it can be a bit gritty and harsh. It's tidier on very hard lines and details, though. LR seems to create false detail in small or repeating patterns.

The colour rendition is distinctly different too.

You can download a free trial of C1 pro, if anyone's thinking about it is just get that.


----------



## punisher911

Yep. I missed the point. Sorry about that. lol


----------



## A-Branger

So after watching some videos from one of the F-Stoppers tutorials about real state photography, I went outside and took a pic of my house. Pretty cool techniques 


This is the one exposure base layer I used








And this is the final composite







That image is a composite of aprox 13 different layers. Didnt took long to do, it was pretty quick. Bit rough, but I didnt want to spend too much time on it, jsut wanted to do a quick test since my house it not the most flashy house either lol. The only thing I iddnt anticipate was the branches on the foreground, I try to use them as a framing element, I even took a photo with the branches lit for an extra layer but as the branches moves I couldnt drop it on the composite as I had a lot of ghosting from other layers.

it was a cool experiment. I would see if I can do a neighbour or a friends house so I can then start searching for jobs into realstate


----------



## UnderTheSign

Just looking at your house I knew you lived in Australia 

Looks good though. Branches and other moving things ghosting is always an issue when stacking (and even making panoramas). I'd love to get into real estate/interior photography so I can do the photography for my furniture business myself. It looks pretty tricky to do right with all the exposures though. You did a good job, especially for a first try.


----------



## A-Branger

lol what part of the house gave it away?

this is an old duplex thing. Not the most flashy, but its dirt cheap to rent for myself, plus it allows me to have my dog with me. Not all the houses are like that, there are far far better ones lol


----------



## UnderTheSign

Apart from the classic Australian dead grass lawn?  I don't know, it's just a certain look the houses over there have. Maybe because they're mostly white and only have one floor.

Went to Fotohandel Delfshaven (MK Optics on eBay) to browse and buy a camera for my girlfriend. The guy has a beautiful collection of all sorts of analog cameras. Bunch of Hasselblad, Leica, Rolleiflex and other high priced stuff (like the Canon f0.95 lens.... what a beauty) and antiques but also usually a decent selection of budget/beginner kit. He didn't have any of the budget SLRs I was looking for (Spotmatics etc) as apparently cheaper cameras are popular now that he has a webshop running, but he did have a couple of cheap fixed lens rangefinders. Scored a really nice Olympus 35RC and when I came home, I found out I got it &#8364;10 cheaper than his listed webshop price, too. And he accidentally left the mercury battery he put in there for testing ("but not for sale, I need it back") in there, so that saves me some hassle until I find an adapter or alternative.

This camera is lovely. If she ends up not wanting it, I'll keep it for myself. Viewfinder is a tad small compared to my Pentax SLRs but man, it's TINY overall. Super pocketable. Pictured here with my X-Pro1 on top of my new Ona bag (oops, splurged on that, too...)


----------



## A-Branger

UnderTheSign said:


> Apart from the classic Australian dead grass lawn?  I don't know, it's just a certain look the houses over there have. Maybe because they're mostly white and only have one floor.


 to be fair I just mowed the grass the day before and I cant be bottered to watter it propertly, specially when its been raining. But yeah lots of one floor houses. But to be fair this is an old crap very different to the "standard" houses here. Seriously its like they only have 3 architects in the whole country, you either get house "A" "B" or maybe "C" type. But most of them have a brownish color bricks.

But I do have couple of surfboards that could have give it away too, its just I leave those inside


----------



## soliloquy

ignore the spam, but i cant contain myself. this new 100mm macro lens by pentax is truly unreal. i'm still trying to figure this out as i'm new to the macro world. plus, on a crop sensor, this becomes around 150mm. can get a lil tight for other things, but macro it works beautifully. this is also the first time i was messing with RAW. i've been intimidated by it as whatever programs i do use dont support RAW. however, i accidentally switched to RAW, didn't realize, and then had to force myself to learn to work with RAW. not too difficult....

i did shrink the size, so some of the details is missing..but you get the idea. 




































now i gotta learn photoshop..another thing i've been intimidated by...computers and i generally dont go together


----------



## A-Branger

dont be intimidated. Its not that hard. Softwares like Lightroom dont take long to learn. Just import the photos and start moving sliders till you are happy, see what they can do and what not, get used to it and from there start searching for info in a specific task you need help with. There is heaps of info and tutorials online too

Part of the process of Photography is to deal with the post-processing. Thats is half of the fun (being the other half taking the photo), and that is what it gives a photographer her/his sig "look", plus it opens the door for many possibilities, some of them knowing what you are going to do so you have to shoot for it. Some photos wont ned much, some need heaps, some cant be accomplish without it. Up to you, but if you are going to dig more into photography then you need to lear some basic retouching.

Import a RAW photo on a software (lets say lightroom), do all the tweaks that you wat to it, from white balance to exposure changes. When you are happy, then import a JPEG photo and try to do the same. You would then realise the power of RAW and you would never go back  

and to be honest, Photoshop is not THAT hard-ish. But it does take a bit of time to get around it. I know I was frustrated with it at the start, as nothing is intuitive like paint lol. Having say that you dont need photoshop, you can get away easily with just lightroom. In fact, after I shoot a wedding, 99% of the work I do is in lightroom. The only time I go into photoshop is for those 5 photos I save for my portfolio/social media, unless I have like a special photo that I shooted with 2-3 layers in mind.

Dont be afraid, we are all here to help too. Just Keep shooting


----------



## capoeiraesp

Got out to Wentworth Falls in NSW. This place is only a 2 hour train ride from Sydney and super accessible through some great bush walks.










This dude was about 1m from head to toe and let me get very close to him.


----------



## A-Branger

love the last one of the opera house


----------



## Philligan

Also love the opera house one. Did you use the 90mm for the shot of the lizard?


----------



## Rook

Found this interesting, this is the first time I've ever seen someone else share my opinion and attempt to examine or quantify it.

The Problem with Modern Optics


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I caught this article earlier this week. Interesting on the 3D quality stuff. I notice something with my Nikon Ais lenses that I wasn't able quantify in terms other than 'character'. My 50 1.2 open has loads of 'flaws' but they look great.


----------



## Rook

Yeah, I've said on here a bunch of time my Zeiss 85mm 1.4 was one of my favourite lenses in existence for ages. It's not sharp, it's not got ZOMG NO ABERRASHUNS and whatever else, it doesn't even have autofocus, but the images from it were just awesome.

One day if I have a bunch of spare cash lying around to waste on camera crap I'd totally buy a Canon or Nikon mount 35mm DSLR and stick one on it.


----------



## A-Branger

I honestly didnt understand the article. I know there some talk about the quality of the glass elements, but the examples he uses doesnt mean anything. 

"look at the 3d nose"... what 3D?, the way the subject face it is + DOF + distance to the camera + camera used + focus lenght + lighting + shadows + angle of the subject vs camera angle. There are way too many variables in order to "blame" the lens. Just at couple of examples there, he had an asian girl (more flatter face) with her head tilted up at a more flatter lighting situation (the "flat nose" example) vs a girl with a natural "longer" nose with a more contrast harsh light hitting the face ("3d" nose)

plus every photo being at a different aperture settings, light settings, mm settings (although a more consistent use of the 35mm). The only thing being the same is the framing of the subject on the photo, at exception of the first where he is closer to the camera) 

Like I said before for Lens comparisons. Unless you shoot the exact same photo under same settings with same camera and lighting with the only variable being the lens only, there is no point to compare or "test" a lens since the subject/light/settings/location varies so much that it can change the whole perception of a photo.

Im intrigued about the topic hes talking about and I would like to understand it more. But he needs better more accurate examples to show the article.

and sorry but this


> all lenses today are SHARP. Most modern lenses emphasize sharpness in the edges and corners where NOTHING INTERESTING IS TRULY HAPPENING (most of the time)


thats a big pile of crap. If you think all lenses are equally "sharp" then you havent been shooting long enough at all (or you might havent edit any of your photos then). Same with implying that a lens being sharp at the edges of the frame is a waste. I guess he always put his subject dead centre of the frame all the time.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I won a Novoflex adapter on eBay for $45 and thought I'd try it out with my 80-200mm. It was not comfy to hand hold for very long, but the 2x crop sure was fun.


----------



## UnderTheSign

yhannick, who wrote that article, is a well meaning guy but his articles are usually a bunch of unscientific stuff presented as an actual scientific, factual article. I can't even be bothered reading this one anymore. I've seen multiple articles from him talking about old lenses and whatnot, or comparing lenses like the Otus to a cheaper 85 1.8 to prove you don't 'need' to spend 3 grand on a lens to get results...


----------



## flint757

I do like the colors my AI and AI-S lenses produce, but I'd much prefer a more modern lens if it meant reducing the amount of chromatic aberration in my photos. It can be removed obviously, but it's just another step in my process and it isn't flattering in the least. They are just way too responsive to direct light. I'm probably going to be purchasing the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 zoom and the Olympus 40-100 f/2.8 zoom w/ telephoto adapter down the road. At that point I'll probably only be keeping half of my current lenses.


----------



## Rook

^I think you'd be surprised how many 'old' lenses don't suffer from particularly serious CA.

The author of that particular article's obvious bias aside, Hasseblad lenses for example are incredibly simple designs, and I have Velvia 50 slides with upwards of 150mpx equivalent resolution (and scans) from my 40 year old hasselblad that you can peep at all you like, and there's 'modern' quality low levels of aberration and far more than necessary levels of sharpness, particularly the 60mm, 100mm and 180mm. 

My underlying mentality is really just that complicated and higher resolution don't make a lens produce nicer images, necessarily, there's more to it than that.


----------



## flint757

All of my old lenses are Nikons from the 70's and 80's so my opinion only really applies to that. It's manageable and it isn't horribly noticeable, but when I'm trying to bring a photo up to what I'd consider professional quality I tend to have to go in and remove a lot of fringing around bright spots in my images. I have a couple old lenses where that isn't nearly as often the case, but for the focal lengths I use more frequently it tends to apply.


----------



## A-Branger

UnderTheSign said:


> a bunch of unscientific stuff presented as an actual scientific, factual article.



bingo


----------



## neotronic

A-Branger said:


> I honestly didnt understand the article. I know there some talk about the quality of the glass elements, but the examples he uses doesnt mean anything.
> 
> "look at the 3d nose"... what 3D?, the way the subject face it is + DOF + distance to the camera + camera used + focus lenght + lighting + shadows + angle of the subject vs camera angle. There are way too many variables in order to "blame" the lens. Just at couple of examples there, he had an asian girl (more flatter face) with her head tilted up at a more flatter lighting situation (the "flat nose" example) vs a girl with a natural "longer" nose with a more contrast harsh light hitting the face ("3d" nose)



Exactly, when I looked at the pictures, I saw much more diffuse soft light in the "flat" pictures, and quite a bit of direct light in the so called 3d images except maybe for the last image of the asian girl.



A-Branger said:


> Like I said before for Lens comparisons. Unless you shoot the exact same photo under same settings with same camera and lighting with the only variable being the lens only, there is no point to compare or "test" a lens since the subject/light/settings/location varies so much that it can change the whole perception of a photo.
> 
> Im intrigued about the topic hes talking about and I would like to understand it more. But he needs better more accurate examples to show the article.



Yes, he's posted this too:
Sigma ART vs. Nikkor AF-D Test Part 1 : Sidelight Studio Controlled Test

Again, the only thing I see is effect of slightly different focal length...




A-Branger said:


> and sorry but this
> thats a big pile of crap. If you think all lenses are equally "sharp" then you havent been shooting long enough at all (or you might havent edit any of your photos then). Same with implying that a lens being sharp at the edges of the frame is a waste. I guess he always put his subject dead centre of the frame all the time.



I have similar opinion to him in this case. Imo the corners are overrated. In most of my shots I don't have much going on in the corners. And I don't want to, the corners distract me and lead my eye ot of the frame. The interesting stuff is usually happening somewhere in the midframe (not the center). And if I feel like having something interesting in the corner, most of the times I can stop the lens down, to get reasonable resolution... But still, if I had to choose between good lens that is sharp across the frame and a good lens that is sharp just in the center, I'd probabaly get the former one, because it gives me more options


----------



## Philligan

I was just on that guy's website last week. I partly agree with him, but I think he goes too far - he argues that quantifiable image quality doesn't necessarily make an image look better, but then he tries to quantify that indescribable 3D look. 

I do think older lenses tend to look a little more lifelike, though. I remember reading Leica lens articles and seeing this real-looking pop to images. I feel like modern image quality is overrated, and that look can make photos look sharper than they actually are. 

That may have made no sense because I'm typing quickly on my phone.


----------



## UnderTheSign

It's funny because to me, a lot of the Leica 'pop' and what not, doesn't look realistic - far from it - just more aesthetically pleasing. It's very often a somewhat more dramatic look. If taking photos was all about stuff looking realistic, a lot of shots would look a lot more boring


----------



## Rook

I'm just enjoying having caused some controversy haha.

Phil, that's basically my opinion summed up.

As for 'saying all lenses are equally sharp' - he didn't say that, Branger, you added the 'equally' in, which changes the meaning haha. Any modern lens that costs more than a tin of baked beans is sharp enough for general use. I mostly shoot for magazine print or web though, so frankly I could shoot with a potato and it would be sharp enough. 

The billboard shooters here, I get why you need edge-to-edge performance - of course this is all completely personal.


----------



## Whammy

Haven't been in here for quite a while.
I still come in every now and again and read some posts, view some photos. But this 3D talk has me a little interested.

Can't say I fully agree with that article.

I use old glass because of its character. I am not claiming that all old glass has character. Of course not. That would be ridiculous to assume that. But the ones that do have a lot of character I hold onto, because modern lenses just don't really achieve that look.
So I guess I agree with him on that point.

But regarding what that look is defined as...
Well it is hard to explain. Would I call it life like? No. Simply because no lenses really capture how we see things.

The guy seems to have a romantic notion that old lenses are more life like, to the point that it sounds like he is stating it as a fact. Sure the examples he posted have a unique character to them. But I would not associate unique with life like.

I absolutely love my old lenses. I use them a lot for personal photography. I don't for client stuff due to manual focus, flaring, ghosting etc.
I would love to have a lens with all the modern conveniences, but with the look of my favorite old lenses.



> If people are listening right now and realizing the gravity of the situation



Really? Is the situation really that bad?
I don't recall ever hearing a client say to me "my nose doesn't look 3d enough" or "can you make me look more life like".


Anyway, here are some personal photos taken with an old (early 1970's) lens and with what he would consider a modern "flat" lens. 2 of each. All the same processing, copy and pasted.
Can you tell which is old and new?

1






2





3





4


----------



## Rook

The silly article aside, playing purely for the fun of it - 

1 I think is an older lens, the circles, lines and softness in the bokeh make me think that.

2 I thought was newer but there's an interesting doubling of details on the young man's right (our left) shoulder and around his hood, which is a trait of older (lesser corrected) glass, but the bokeh is smooth and un-lined, it could just be a slightly older design but modern lens like Canon's 85 1.2 etc.

3 Not sure. The busy bokeh in the top left is the only notable detail to go on, but anything with a relatively small aperture or long subject distance but with a blurred background can do this. It's busy enough that, if you were being honest about it being 2 of one and 2 of another (not a trick question or double blind), I'd guess this is more likely the old lens.

4. Bokeh looks very smooth, despite there being some specular highlights in amongst what I assume are trees or plants. There's that doubling of detail again, so I think it's the same lens as 2, and therefore think it's a modern(er) lens.


The 3D stuff in that article's a load of bollocks, and his supporting images demonstrate nothing. In my opinion, what makes the difference between older and newer lenses are softness (super sharp isn't always what you want), bokeh and therefore the focus fall-off and quality thereof. Colour rendition comes into it too, modern lenses are higher contrast, but this isn't any different to something one could mock up in post, as most do, I don't think.


----------



## Philligan

I'm just on my phone so I didn't look too closely, but 1 and 4 look the best to me, Whammy.

I wonder about the 3D thing, though, Nick. If that guy is right and older lenses are able to show more subtle contrast differences, then I could see photos made with older lenses looking punchier. That's sort of what I figured he meant by 3D - some photos definitely have a more three-dimensional look to them, but I always assumed that was due to punchiness (that word looks strange ) instead of absolute sharpness. My guess was that he just found a pretentious and convoluted way to say that. 

I could be entirely wrong. In which case, I'll write my own article.  But that's what I've been finding lately - pulling the blacks slider down and fine-tuning contrast has done more to make my photos look sharper than "sharpness" itself. It's been a weight off my shoulders, because I spend less time checking details at 100% and more time looking at the entire photo making simple global adjustments.


----------



## Tang

I think the author may be mixing up the so-called 3D pop with character. To my eyes it has everything to do with how lenses transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas.

I don't know... I just take pictures with a cheapo 35mm lens almost exclusively. It looks good to me.


----------



## A-Branger

neotronic said:


> Yes, he's posted this too:
> Sigma ART vs. Nikkor AF-D Test Part 1 : Sidelight Studio Controlled Test



thanks for the link, and see, thats a far better way to demonstrate this guys argument. Now I can "see" what hes talking about, or better say, what hes making it up. First, to be honest I kind liked the Sigma photos better . And all his talk about 3D, I think hes referring more to the sharpness of the lens and the natural contrast of it. I wouldnt worry about a contrast, as (at least myself) I tweak every photo individually, I start with a basic setting, I then fix the white balance manually, and go to fix contrast and exposure levels, this contrast is due to the many different elements of the photo light, from the ambient, flash, mix, settings, and location. I would never go "oh this X lens have a .001 extra contrast vs my Y lens, I should compensate that by moving the contrast slider .001mm to the left" lol. yeah, I saw the difference in contrast in his photos, but the difference was so small that theres no point on making a judgment out of it for your next purchase.

I did saw in the first two photos a difference on DOF, but not on the others. But there was a difference on sharpness. And IMO I really think this is the famous 3D he likes to talk that much. Being the Sigma (or the newer more expensive lens) a far more sharp and accurate, things would fall out of focus quicker, meaning the eye would be death sharp, while the nose would be way out of focus. In contrast an old lens would have a "soft" look to it, so the gap between sharp and out of focus would be feathered more, so the "softness" of the nose would be more similar to the "sharpness" of the eye. Making it look more "realistic" and more 3D. Both of them would have the same bokeh and DOF as both are shot at same aperture.

But to be honest that talk its just a perception of this guy. Shooting at 1.2-1.8 even 2.8 its "fake" from the start. We never see stuff in such a small DOF view, we like it, it looks cool, but its not reality. And also, there are far more elements to take into consideration for what "makes" a photo than to analize if someones face is "3D" as a result of the lens used 





neotronic said:


> I have similar opinion to him in this case. Imo the corners are overrated. In most of my shots I don't have much going on in the corners. And I don't want to, the corners distract me and lead my eye ot of the frame. The interesting stuff is usually happening somewhere in the midframe (not the center). And if I feel like having something interesting in the corner, most of the times I can stop the lens down, to get reasonable resolution... But still, if I had to choose between good lens that is sharp across the frame and a good lens that is sharp just in the center, I'd probabaly get the former one, because it gives me more options



I shot a lot of stuff in the corners, from making people small as a wide photo, or a couple on the lower third, or even as a wide photo with them on the center, but I dont want to loose the detail of the stuff in the corners of a photo. Maybe the face would be on the line of thirds, but I dont want their body to fall out of focus on a weird way. Even at extreme wide apertures you can notice the vignette effect of the softness of a lens. It looks bad. 



Rook said:


> As for 'saying all lenses are equally sharp' - he didn't say that, Branger, you added the 'equally' in, which changes the meaning haha. Any modern lens that costs more than a tin of baked beans is sharp enough for general use. I mostly shoot for magazine print or web though, so frankly I could shoot with a potato and it would be sharp enough.



well he said "all lenses are sharp"

I might had make it look different, but he did say all are. And in a way of course the "all are", all lenses "focus", same way that all cameras take a photo ahha, but thats not what he was talking about, so thats why I "refine" his words in a way lol 

But my point wasnt meant for ALL lenses, we know there are huge differences of quality out there and you can make a photo with any lens if you dont have an option. I have worked with crap lenses and I still took some nice shots. But until you grab a GOOD lens, you wont believe the difference a good sharp lens can do.

I have a 24-105mm f4 Canon "L" series lens. ITs a great lens and my no1 to shoot with. I shoot 70% of the wedding day with that lens. But then my old boss bought the Sigma 24-105mm f4 ART series, and WOOOOOW the difference was astronomical. I almost trow away my lens. We took a bunch of test shots with the same camera/subject, and the difference in sharpness and quality was amazing. Also the big difference on the days I used that lens for wedding shots too. The only reason why it stopped me to sell my lens and get one Sigma (I almost did) was because the Sigma doesnt have a rubber seal on the back of the lens as the Canon does. So Im not sure if this lens is gonna keep the water out of the sensor if it starts raining. I know the Canon does as when I used to work on the snow fields I was with it on the open covering a ski race under constant snow and rain for hours.


I also must add that i recently learned that you can customize the focus of a lens with your camera (At least on the Canons) meaning that if you lens tends to be front (or back) focus when you take a photo (Like when you autofocus on a persons face but in the photo the main focus ends up in their hand or shoulder). You can correct this on camera by saying how much the camera should correct this issue either back or front, the camera would recognized different lenses and remember the lens you put in. This as make a good difference on my photos too


----------



## Whammy

Spot on Rook. Your keen eye for subtle bokeh differences didn't let you down.
You even guessed the right lens


----------



## Tang

A-Branger: I definitely agree with you on shooting the corners. I don't care so much about the corners being super sharp, but I love incorporating corners into my compositions.


----------



## Philligan

I did a product shoot for a coworker's side business today. Only posting one photo because bottles are only interesting to a certain point. 



DSCF0024 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

This one went a lot smoother than the burgers. I wish I'd thought to shoot a setup photo. I used four sheets of bristol board (lengthwise towards me) to get the bottles farther away from the background, but still give myself enough width - with the burgers, I basically used two sheets lengthwise, and kept having the edges of my backdrop showing in the photos. 

I didn't bother with a light box or anything, I just used my softbox as close as I could realistically get it to light the bottles, and used a bare flash to light the background. I still had to go along and brush the edges to blow them out, but all in all, it wasn't too bad. So I blew the background out, then used the tone curve to pull the highlights down to 98%, and that was enough to keep the background from searing your eyeballs.

Thankfully the bottles were far enough away that I could use the 56mm. The extra compression gave me a lot more freedom to adjust the camera without worrying about seeing the edges of the background. When I feel like spending the money I'm definitely grabbing the new 16mm extension tube - that with the 56mm will be a beauty for product photography.


----------



## Tang

Feeling very cavernous.


----------



## Philligan

Excellent. 

So unless something terrible happens like my car breaking down, I'll be picking up an X-E2 after work tomorrow. On eBay, X-E1s go for $300 or so, and X-E2s are ~$700+ (probably because they're still available new?), which is why I was thinking X-E1. I started looking locally on Kijiji and X-E2s are $500-$600, pretty much all in Toronto.

I found one for $600, which is slightly on the high side, but instead of 3 hours away in Toronto, it's 1.5 hours away in a city where I used to live. So yeah, I'll hopefully be picking that up tomorrow, and I'll finally have a more reliable rig for bigger jobs. At our friends' wedding party I had the third party batteries lock up my X-T1 when I used flash, and I dropped it with the 23mm on it at the last wedding I shot. I lucked out both times and everything is fine, but I can't risk permanent damage when I'm in the middle of a paid gig.

And as a bonus, I'll have an even smaller EDC camera, and I still get my wifi and Classic Chrome.


----------



## Rook

Good choice, you'll find it very easy to go between the two for anything not high frame rate and continuous.

Same viewfinder (minus magnifier) and everything, not to mention the new XE2 firmware from about a month ago.


----------



## Tang

Here's another from vacation land.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Getting ready for more glitter madness this weekend (stolen from my MotoX):


----------



## Tang

We've got more:


----------



## Philligan

Done and done.



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

So fun fact: the camera's from Tokyo. The owner bought it last year on a business trip. Said he played with it in a store and realized how heavy his D700 was, but bought it and didn't use it because it apparently wasn't capable of professional use. He's definitely not a pro, so figure that one out.

After the firmware update (he said it had the latest firmware... it was 1.10 ) it's just as snappy as the X-T1, and I've got them set up almost identically. There are a few differences still (like ISO, metering, and function buttons) but I actually think I prefer the X-E2. As my everyday camera, I definitely like it more. I like how it's even smaller, and for some reason I'm really drawn to the form factor. 

Dawn really likes it, and wants it now.  I need to use this more to be sure, but I might be leaning towards the X-Pro2 over the X-T2 now. The feel and handling is amazing.


----------



## Whammy

Nice focal range combination Phil. My preferred work choice too 

I'm actually just after picking up the Canon 35mm f1.4 to pair up with my 85mm.
Got it second hand for a great price. I know some people don't like the quality of the lens but I love the general aesthetic qualities that the glass produces.

Only got to test it out on a walk with the kid.





So now my camera bag looks like this...





Canon 85mm f/1.2
My main lens. I use this lens 90% of the time for work and personal.

Canon 35mm f/1.4
This is for those moments when I need to be a fly on the wall and/or capture environmental portraits.

Olympus Zuiko 55mm f/1.2 (old manual lens)
This lens has so much character and can produce beautiful photos under the right conditions. But it's difficult to use (soft, flare, ghosting etc) and extremely hard to focus.
I use this only for posed portraits when I want to capture something special.

Olympus Zuiko 40mm f/2 (old manual lens)
Sharp manual lens. It is extremely small so I use this for more as a personal travel lens. It's also my main choice for macro with the EF12 extension tube because of it's sharpness and close focusing distance.

Olympus Zuiko 24mm f/2 (old manual lens)
I need to upgrade this lens to the Canon 24mm f/1.4 or 16-35mm f/2.8.
But until then it does the job when I need something wider than 35, which isn't that often as I mainly do portrait work.

I wouldn't mind picking up a Canon 200mm f2.8 (don't need a zoom) along with a 2x teleconverter. I could use the 200mm for some portrait work and with the 2x converter I would have a nice lens for wildlife.
We had Wolves at our house the other day. It kills me when I want to take wildlife photos but the all I have is an 85mm lens :lol


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Always enjoy seeing the rigs. I usually have these on me.






I'd like to swap out the F301 for an FE. I used to use an FG, which was great (tiny, quiet-ish, had aperture priority) but it stopped working (frame counter stuck causing all sorts of problems, now only works at 1/90th without metering). The F301 was a quick and cheap replacement, but it was Nikon's first auto-advancing camera, so makes a racket about each shot which isn't great for avoiding attention. It's also fairly large and heavy for on older 35mm SLR. 50mm and 28mm 95% of the time.


----------



## Whammy

Nice 50mm 
The FG would certainly be a nicer camera to use. I'd go for it if you have the chance. Plus there is something more fulfilling about advancing onto the next frame yourself.

I'm actually selling two of my older film cameras (not a plug - I'm actually selling these locally). Thought I'd share as we are appreciating gear 

A half frame SLR. Only used this once. 72 shots on one roll of film is a bit much to get through. Actually it's quite annoying.
I wanted to get a Fujifilm to use the 40mm lens on. But I don't see that happening any time soon so I'm letting go of the camera.







The best Olympus SLR made. Fixed all the issues of the OM-4. Excellent metering options, (spot and exposure for shadows and highlights) and shutter speed up to 1/2000.
With all that being said I still prefer shooting on my OM-1n. No batteries needed, smoother feel and nicer shutter sound.
It would be nice to keep it but it's just a paper weight at the moment. The money could go into more gear that I'll actually use.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Whammy said:


> Nice 50mm
> The FG would certainly be a nicer camera to use. I'd go for it if you have the chance. Plus there is something more fulfilling about advancing onto the next frame yourself.
> 
> I'm actually selling two of my older film cameras (not a plug - I'm actually selling these locally). Thought I'd share as we are appreciating gear



The trouble with the FG is that it doesn't quite have the build quality of other Nikon lines. So I'm gonna keep my eye out for an FE. Unless I come across a Canon QL17 GIII in the mean time. I'm interested to try out a little rangefinder.

Good luck with the sales. That PEN looks lovely.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Whammy - that Pen F is awesome! I was actually looking for one when I got my gf a camera but they're a little expensive here so I went with the 35 RC. Good luck with the sales, and if you're having trouble selling it locally... 

I'm trying to sell my Zorki 4K rangefinder but no luck so far. It's a lovely camera but I just want a metered rangefinder. Maybe a Contax or Voigtlander at some point. Leicas are twice the price of the other brands...


----------



## Philligan

Joe Harvatt said:


> Always enjoy seeing the rigs. I usually have these on me.
> 
> 50mm and 28mm 95% of the time.



Nice.  For work I think I like the 23/56 combo the best, because the 23 is a great all-arounder and photos with the 56 really pop, but for everyday shooting the 18/35 is great. I'm really growing to love the 28mm equivalent more and more. I just wish Fuji made a smallish 18mm 1.4, because I shoot wide open almost all the time for myself, and lots of times f/2 just isn't enough. I like how the 35mm is versatile, and for jobs I used it probably the most before I got the 56mm, but for personal stuff the focal length isn't too exciting to me. It's rare that 35mm works when the 56mm doesn't, and I like the extra compression and pop I get with an 85mm equivalent focal length.

If Fuji ever came out with a faster 18mm (I'd love a 1.4 that sacrifices corner performance to keep the lens around the same size as the 35 1.4), that lens would pretty much live on my camera, and I'd carry the 56 with me for the times I want the telephoto look.

We just went for a really cold walk and I'm not feeling it now, but next time I'm feeling ambitious I'll get all my stuff together and take a rig shot.


----------



## Tang

mhm


----------



## Philligan

I shot some stitched portraits during our walk. This is what I started with, with basic exposure and colour correction, and with the detail slider cranked to 100. My Mac's dying and can't handle stitching RAWs (which is a bummer for editing the stitched file), so I batch exported them to JPGs, re-imported them into LR, merged them in PS, then sent them back to LR for final touches like vignetting, a bit of split toning to help tone the sky down, and minor stuff like cleaning up a bit of colour fringing.

Here's a single frame:



DSCF0091 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And here's the largest file I could get while still having a standard aspect ratio (4x5):



DSCF0092-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And here's a square crop:



DSCF0092-Edit-2 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

This is another location. I really like how this one turned out.



DSCF0135-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## A-Branger

so talk about timing. I told you guys I was learning to do some real state photos because my friend who I work with hes starting to look into doing videos for it. Well a lady call him asking for a photographer as she wasnt happy with the one she was using.

So now I got my first real state job line up for this thursday  plus my mate already found another gig for the both of us doing video and photos for another agency


----------



## Philligan

Awesome.  I've never tried shooting real estate (aka my house or a friend's house ). I want to, and I know the gist of what needs to be done, but the complicated string of steps intimidates me.


----------



## Tang

I'm back 



daydream by Scott Jones, on Flickr



history by Scott Jones, on Flickr



ideas by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Phil, try getting in closer.
If she takes up most of the vertical frame in the single shot you should get a more pronounced effect, without making things look distorted.

Here is a single frame (if an adult was standing in the frame they would take up the entire vertical frame).





Full stitch. Getting the lines to not distort was a little awkward 





On a side note. The less detail in the photo, like in the sky, the harder it is to stitch. That's just what I find anyway. So I normally try and not have much empty sky in a stitch photo.

Normally I process in a similar way to you.
Process in LR and remove vignetting & distortion.
Export as a PSD but crop to 2048px.
Stitch in PS and final touches in LR.

That last photo is lovely.


----------



## A-Branger

Philligan said:


> Awesome.  I've never tried shooting real estate (aka my house or a friend's house ). I want to, and I know the gist of what needs to be done, but the complicated string of steps intimidates me.



never done it before either, but I though I gave it a try since Im in the quiet part of the season for weddings and this year I got less work coming in, plus I heard my mate talking about it so I remember about the f-stoppers tutorial.

I kinda knew the process to do them, but I learned some tricks both in shooting and in photoshop I didnt knew before.

The important thing in here is to balance all the different exposures, the inside with the outside. Use your flashes to bounce some light in the ceiling for some soft even light inside the house and to match exposure with the outside windows. If not, then take a second shot expose for outside and merge in photoshop.

Its all about layers in photoshop really. So you need to shoot with that in mind. Get a basic exposure, get both an over exposed and under exposed photo for "just in case", or to recover details that are too dark or too bright. Get an exposure for the sky, and then start poping your flash in all the "dark" areas you need to like a wall in the back, a room in the corner of the shot, under a table, to lid furniture ect. Open all the layers in photoshop, open your basic exposure one and start adding stuff with the mask of the other layers you shoot.

The process is kinda fun. That photo I posted before of my house took like 13 different layers/photos

the only part Im not 100% sure about yet is dealing with the different whitebalance. since outside is daylight but most houses have a tungsten lighting or neon. So you would need to match the color of your flash with some gells (which I have) or overpower the inside exposure with your daylight flash? (Im bit confused there, I would need to learn that by triel and error I guess), thats the only subject the tutorial doesnt touch much really, he kinda "mentions" it a couple of times, but they dont really "talk" about it in deep


----------



## Stone Tone

]


----------



## Negav

Here are a few non-human pictures I've taken over time,



DSC_0943 by Nelson Garcia, on Flickr



DSC_0493 by Nelson Garcia, on Flickr



DSC_0736 by Nelson Garcia, on Flickr

Here's some of my fellow chemist friend,



DSC_0381 by Nelson Garcia, on Flickr



DSC_0528 by Nelson Garcia, on Flickr

Here's some self portraits,



DSC_0650 by Nelson Garcia, on Flickr



DSC_0212 by Nelson Garcia, on Flickr



I look at these and others I've taken and I think "those look nice" however I'm starting to outgrow my Nikon D5200. I'm planning to upgrade, but don't know where to. Been looking at the Nikon D610, as well as the Fuji XT-10. The Nikon would help me keep my "good" lenses such as the 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm 1.4AIS, 12-24 f/4, 105 f/2.5, the handy 55-200mm kit, and the mediocre 18-55mm kit (since I don't know what to do with it). The fuji range of lenses seem way too expensive for me. 

Based on your personal preferences, could you guys recommend me some cameras to look at?


----------



## Philligan

Is your 35mm the FX or DX version? If you stick with a DX body like a D7100/7200 you'll get to keep the 12-24mm (I'm assuming that's what you meant), 55-200, 18-55, and potentially the 35mm, depending on which version it is. You'll get a slight bump in IQ, a major jump in handling, speed, durability, etc. Basically the D7200 is like an FX body with a DX sensor. Technical IQ will be about the same as the Fuji X-T10 (and E2, T1, etc), just the colours straight out of camera will look a bit different.

If you want to switch to an FX body like the D610, you'll lose most of those lenses, or have to shoot them in APS-C mode, which kind of defeats the purpose of getting a full frame body. Depending on which 35mm you have, you may only have the 50mm and 105mm left after you switch. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, as you could sell the others and buy different lenses, but it's something to consider.

Fuji glass is expensive, but really good, and definitely worth it IMHO. If you're a prime person, the cost will definitely add up a lot faster, but if you like zooms, you can spend your money a bit more efficiently depending on the focal lengths you want. With the Fuji, you'd basically be trading battery life, sports/tracking AF performance, and ecosystem/used market for a smaller camera. I switched from a Canon 70D (was looking at a 6D) to a Fuji X-T1 and don't regret it. There are definitely some times I miss having a big DSLR, but if I had to choose one or the other, I'd do it again and get Fuji. The files look great, and are more than good enough for serious/professional work, and the cameras are fun to shoot. The main reason I like Fuji is that I take my camera with me a lot more now, because it's significantly easier to transport and draws less attention to me (meaning I can take it out in a bar or at dinner with my wife and not get stares from other people). The fact that it's also good enough for paid jobs and has a few perks (like less people noticing me while I'm working, and more accurate autofocus) is definitely worth the trade-off in battery life for me.

About autofocus. Sorry if you're familiar with this already. The Fujis use on-sensor AF, meaning it's the same when you use Live View with your D5200. This is slower, but it's a lot more accurate, because it uses contrast detection to find the sharpest focus; the viewfinder AF on your D5200 uses a separate autofocus module from the sensor/imaging plane, so if those two are out of whack then your focus won't be accurate, even if your AF system thinks it is. Since Fujis (and mirrorless cameras in general) only have on-sensor AF, they put a lot more effort into it, and it focuses significantly faster than a DSLR in Live View will, but it's still not as quick as a DSLR's viewfinder autofocus.

Another thing about Fuji: since the distance from the lens mount to the sensor is a lot shorter on mirrorless cameras, you can adapt almost any lens to them. So you could buy a cheap ~$25 adapter and keep using your 50mm and 105mm on a Fuji (manual lenses are easier, since most adapters don't let the lens talk to the camera). Depending on how you shoot, that could save you some money.

Also, with the X-T10, you get two options for a kit zoom, if you're interested in one. The 16-50mm is an extra $100 on top of the body-only price, and is good - about on par with the current Nikon and Canon kit zooms. The 18-55mm is about $400 more; it's got a faster aperture at f/2.8-4, and is significantly better - pretty much an enthusiast/semi-pro lens. So if you like standard zooms, you can save a lot of money buying a kit and you'll be getting a great lens. I have the cheaper 50-230mm (the mate to the 16-50mm) and it's not amazing, but it's perfectly fine for casual use.


----------



## Tang

You guys sure love this gear talk. 

I love you all.


----------



## Negav

Philligan said:


> Is your 35mm the FX or DX version?



I indeed meant 12-24mm f/4. And The 35mm 1.8 is the DX version. I remember reading somewhere online that the DX covered the FX range with only slight vignetting which would be an easy fix in LR. Don't know how much of this is true. 

Considering what you said, if I go FX or Fuji I think i might have to sell the lenses. The 12-24mm f/4 still has a good resale value, and the 35mm might give me some return since I treat my lenses like babies. It will pain me to see the 55-200mm leave but I might sell it together with the 18-55mm to get something out of it. 

Going for the Fuji, the 18-55 f/2.8-4 sounds like a good deal for starters. However it comes close in price to the Fuji X-T1 in graphite silver (w/o lenses) for which i could use an adapter and the 50mm f/1.4 ais, and the 105 f/2.5 ais. Or even the Nikon D610 for which I could keep the same 2 lenses.

There's also the Olympus OM-D E-M10 (anyone has tried this?) but I don't know how much into M4/3 I am. 

Also is there any other cameras you might recommend? (again anything I should look at)


----------



## Philligan

I'd pretty much stick with that. There's no point in moving to Canon since you're used to Nikon, and the only other real mirrorless option out there is Sony. The full frame is cool, but their lens selection is limited, and the good ones are crazy expensive for the most part.

If you go D610, you could keep your 55-200 and use the camera in DX mode. I'm guessing you use that lens when you need the extra reach, anyway, so DX mode would be beneficial.

I'd only get the X-T1 if you want weather sealing, or the ability to add a vertical grip to the camera. I've used the X-T10 and it's 95% of the camera for 70% of the price. You get the same battery life, same AF and image quality. The X-T1 is a bit larger, weather sealed, has a bigger buffer, and a bigger viewfinder (but they're the same resolution and refresh rate). I prefer the X-T1, but if you have a budget, get the X-T10 and an extra lens instead.

You'd be best off selling the 18-55 with the D5200. The majority of people looking at that camera likely don't own a DSLR already, and wouldn't want to buy it without a lens. There are tons of kit zooms on the used market, so the 18-55 would probably be pretty hard to unload on its own. Better to try and sell the body and lens as a kit and part it out if need be, then sell the body and get stuck with the lens.

The Olympus E-M10 is great. It's in the neighbourhood of being on par with the X-T10. It'll have slightly better autofocus IIRC, with better lens selection, but the image quality won't be as good, especially in low light.


----------



## A-Branger

come to the Canon side..... we have cookies


----------



## Whammy

Negav said:


> I look at these and others I've taken and I think "those look nice" however I'm starting to outgrow my Nikon D5200. I'm planning to upgrade, but don't know where to. Been looking at the Nikon D610, as well as the Fuji XT-10. The Nikon would help me keep my "good" lenses such as the 35mm f/1.8G, 50mm 1.4AIS, 12-24 f/4, 105 f/2.5, the handy 55-200mm kit, and the mediocre 18-55mm kit (since I don't know what to do with it). The fuji range of lenses seem way too expensive for me.
> 
> Based on your personal preferences, could you guys recommend me some cameras to look at?



Migrating over to a different system seems a little excessive, not to mention expensive. Then you need to ask yourself, will it actually improve your photography? Or will it simply make shooting more enjoyable?

You have a nice selection of lenses and from the sounds of it you seem happy with the images that they produce.

The D610 seems like a great option. Ability to keep your DX lenses, more consistent metering, weather-sealing, loads of customization options, better noise performance in RAW and 100% viewfinder coverage.
Not to mention being able to buy amazing full frame lenses second hand for your system.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

D610 with your 50mm 1.4, sell everything else and go on a trip.


----------



## Whammy

^ Good advice


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A gently used D3 . I haven't been following much of the DSLR market as I'm not really looking (aside from what I get here). Switching systems is the most expensive and makes the least sense - you can always augment your system with something else (that's why I have a cheap Olympus µ4/3 camera, for shooting video and putzing around with remote camera setups). It can keep your perspective fresh, but if you _need _a new body then I'd suggest the D610.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Here are some scans of two 8x10 prints I made yesterday.






Sinar Alpina 4x5 with Rodenstock Sironar-n 210mm f/5.6: 1/400 f/16
Tri-X 320 4x5 developed in Rodinal 1:100 for 60 minutes
Foma 133 Velvet Warmtone Paper developed in Arista Warmtone Developer





Sinar Alpina 4x5 with Rodenstock Sironar-n 210mm f/5.6: 1/250 f/16
Tri-X 320 4x5 developed in Rodinal 1:100 for 60 minutes
Foma 133 Velvet Warmtone Paper developed in Arista Warmtone Developer


----------



## UnderTheSign

Looks good man. Did you scan the negs or do you have an enlarger and the whole setup to print from negatives?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

These are scans of traditional silver prints, if you look at the larger-sized image you can see the paper texture.


----------



## Philligan

I'm on my phone and can't post photos, but what the heck is up with this new Sigma camera?

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-sd-quattro-h-hands-on-preview-29077

The first thing that came to mind is with that viewfinder placement, my thumb would be constantly knocking my glasses around.


----------



## Rook

I'm late to the gear talk, but just to be pedantic:
1. The colours off of Fuji's sensor compared to Nikon or Canon, for the most part, will be really quite noticeable, and more than just out of camera. Fujifilm have unparalleled colour separation due to their non-bayer array sensor, lack of optical low pass filter, and just great processing. In real terms this means you'll spend far less time correcting colours and I find you get much more lifelike tones, particularly on skin. The difference is very difficult to recreate in post from other sensors!
2. Fuji, at least, are not just contrast detect AF, and it's not quite the same as live view on a DSLR. Yes, it does have CDAF, but anything with 'X-Trans 2' sensor or later (so everything apart from the Pro1, E1 and X100) has phase detect pixels on the sensor. So not only do you get the added accuracy of the sensor being the AF system and contrast detection working at the same time, you also get phase detect AF which is exactly the same principle as you get in the AF system of a DSLR, meaning you can focus faster and in lower light too.

Anyway, as for camera recommendations, my counter argument to the D610 and 50mm plus holiday is Fuji X100T and holiday. Even better - used X100T and holiday. I take my X100 everywhere.


----------



## Philligan

I'd love one, but my kit isn't fleshed out enough for me to be comfortable with a fixed lens camera (purely because glass holds its value longer).

I booked two more weddings for the summer, bringing the total to five for the year. I'm excited for the money and the experience, but not looking forward to actually shooting them that much. They're not bad, and better than working retail like I am now, but I definitely don't want to make a career of it. I find it's too much about branding and advertising, and (in my town at least) it's more of a popularity contest. The idea of trying to get weddings is more stressful than anything, and takes a lot of the fun out of shooting for me. I like doing these odd jobs to make money, but I'd definitely like to keep photography as a serious hobby - unless I can get some kind of Monday-Friday job doing it.

We were coming in from getting groceries tonight and I saw some kind of star by the moon, so ran in and grabbed my camera to shoot it. According to Google, I think it's Jupiter, because they were supposed to pass by each other in the sky tonight.

Fun fact: To my eye when I shot this, the sky was like an evening medium blue. It's crazy how bright the moon actually is.



DSCF0183 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I spent the weekend in The Elan Valley in Wales which is a series of dams and reservoirs. It's an amazing place, wasn't the best conditions for photos, bright overcast, a bit hazy. The full set here.


----------



## Philligan

So for probably the second time in my life today I used the focus ring on the 56mm. If I do a full turn or so, there's a point where it makes a slight scraping sound. It's not very long, and it doesn't seem completely consistent. Does it sound like a QC issue, or just typical mechanical tolerances? My 35mm doesn't have a super consistent focus ring, and makes a really mild rubbing sound, but the ring isn't nearly as smooth as the 56mm so it doesn't seem so out of place.

How worried should I be? I bought it in Canada so it's under warranty, but the shop I got it from has a 15 day return policy, so if I have to send it out, it's going back to Fuji.

I pretty much never use manual focus so it doesn't really affect me, and the image quality with this lens is amazing and I don't want to risk it getting switched out. But if this is a sign of a bigger issue that could lead to more problems down the road, I'd like to get it taken care of ASAP.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Probably a QC thing. The Fuji lenses don't have actual focus rings I believe, or not in the oldschool way. Turning it is like turning a dial, you control a motor drive. Never heard of the issue so wouldn't know if it can cause any trouble. Depends on wether it's just dirt or stuff underneath the ring or crap in the motor mechanism I guess.


----------



## Tang

I love this shot but surprisingly it didn't do all that well on Flickr. Ah well. 



motion by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

Some surprise films from Japan Camera Hunter.


Seagull 100, Rollei 80s, Fuji Acros 100, Fuji Superia 400 Premium, Superia Venus 400, Fuji Natura 1600





Looking forward to the Seagull, Rollei and Natura. Haven't shot those yet. The Rollei is apparently usable as IR-film but I don't have a filter unfortunately... The Natura is going to be fun. 1600ISO color film with great colours.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Natura 1600 looks lovely. Might have to treat myself to a roll.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Japan Camera Hunter sells his film holders filled with Natura 1600. I considered getting that too


----------



## Philligan

A bit late, but here's a family photo I took the other day.



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

It's the X-E2 with the 23 1.4, gripped X-T1 with the 56 1.2, then the 18 2, 35 1.4, and the XC 50-230 in the back.

The 50-230 stays home unless I'm planning on using it. I used it to shoot those birds a while back, and use it for the moon. It's pretty much the token long zoom that's here for the few times I'll need it.

My working kit is the other four lenses. I'm hoping to add the 16 1.4 this summer (I could use something wider than the 18, but would like more speed, too). My everyday kit varies between the 23 and the 18 + 35. It's usually the 23, because I love the focal length and often find the f/2 max aperture on the 18mm isn't quite enough. As tiny as the 18mm is, it's pretty much only there for when I need something wider than 23mm. I'm glad I've hung onto it, though, because Dawn will probably get the X-E2 + 18 when I get a new body.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'll have to lay out my gear one day to do a family shot, but for now here's a shot of the enlarger side of the darkroom (really it's a converted closet in a bathroom). The sink is 180° from this view with the trays for running the paper through the developing process.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Awesome!

You shoot 8x10 right? I've been offered a 4x5 view camera by a local guy. Wasn't looking for one but it's fairly cheap so I might just get a small box of sheet film and have some fun with it.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I wish, I shoot 4x5 - it's still somewhat economical. The cost of shooting 8x10 is exponentially higher than shooting 4x5. I could make 8x10 contact prints and not use an enlarger if I ever got an 8x10 camera though.


----------



## Philligan

The Nik Collection is now totally free. I'll be downloading this tonight. 

https://plus.google.com/+NikCollection/posts/AFGsG2Di7EK

I downloaded the trial a few months ago but didn't buy it. The plug-ins were cool, but being heavily based on presets (SFX Pro at least) it didn't really fit my editing style enough for me to buy it. For free, though, I'll definitely use them a bit. I'm interested to try Colour Efex and SFX a bit more.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

They're highly tweakable (but you have to take the time to get in to the depth allowed) and I've made a few recipes on my own that I use with some regularity. It's great with Photoshop as you can easily layer the effects and mask/fade the effects to taste. I really enjoy using AFX solely for adding grunge/dirt/scratch type effects when set to soft/hard light blending mode on a 50% grey layer.


----------



## A-Branger

are those for Lightroom pre-sets or photoshot actions? or something else?


----------



## A-Branger

Philligan said:


> I booked two more weddings for the summer, bringing the total to five for the year. I'm excited for the money and the experience, but not looking forward to actually shooting them that much. They're not bad, and better than working retail like I am now, but I definitely don't want to make a career of it. I find it's too much about branding and advertising, and (in my town at least) it's more of a popularity contest. The idea of trying to get weddings is more stressful than anything, and takes a lot of the fun out of shooting for me. I like doing these odd jobs to make money, but I'd definitely like to keep photography as a serious hobby - unless I can get some kind of Monday-Friday job doing it.



yeah thats the thing with weddings. Now that Im not longer full time with the studio and im by my own thats the game I need to get into, Reason why Im trying to partner with my mate so he can take care of the sales part of it.

Sadly in the photo world (and in other jobs too) is not much about how good you are, but how good are your business skills. You can see an amazing award images type shooter struggling to pay rent, then you can see a one more of the pile average shooter, the kind you say "what??", and he is fully book for the next 3 years. Those who survive on this field is because they know how to run their business rather than to shoot 




Philligan said:


> Fun fact: To my eye when I shot this, the sky was like an evening medium blue. It's crazy how bright the moon actually is.



yeah, but if you think about it why the moon is bright?, its an object being lid by the sun. Reason why the exposure you need to use for the moon is pretty much the same exposure for a photo in bright daylight. Reason why everyone takes their photo to take a photo of a "big super moon", and then they see a bright tinny dot on their screens and they are like  hahaha. The trick is exposure for day light, zoom range of 400-600mm (plus some cropping), and if you want the landscape+moon kinda shot, then you need photoshop to layer the two different photos


----------



## UnderTheSign

ThePhilosopher said:


> I wish, I shoot 4x5 - it's still somewhat economical. The cost of shooting 8x10 is exponentially higher than shooting 4x5. I could make 8x10 contact prints and not use an enlarger if I ever got an 8x10 camera though.


Oh whoops, confused 4x5 negs with your 8x10 prints!

What gear do you use for 4x5?

8x10 contact prints... That'd be cool, haha. I'd consider it and shoot Impossible 8x10 too, but that film is expensiiiiive.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A-Branger said:


> are those for Lightroom pre-sets or photoshot actions? or something else?



They're NIK presets, which are essentially actions/scripts.



UnderTheSign said:


> Oh whoops, confused 4x5 negs with your 8x10 prints!
> 
> What gear do you use for 4x5?
> 
> 8x10 contact prints... That'd be cool, haha. I'd consider it and shoot Impossible 8x10 too, but *all 8x10 film* is expensiiiiive.



I have a Sinar Alpina, a Polaroid Single Meniscus (soft-focus) lens, Schneider Xenar 150mm f/5.6, and a Rodenstock Sironar-n 210mm f/5.6. I have a Polaroid back as well, but the 4x5 stuff is even more expensive than shooting regular sheet film.
I also fixed your mistake above.


----------



## Philligan

I just downloaded Nik and took a quick crack at it. That last wedding are the only raw photos I have on my computer at the moment.

Here's a quick, pretty typical LR edit for me:



DSCF0190 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And here's my first go at a photo in SFX. It's a tweaked version of the Acros profile.



DSCF0190-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> The Nik Collection is now totally free. I'll be downloading this tonight.
> 
> https://plus.google.com/+NikCollection/posts/AFGsG2Di7EK
> 
> I downloaded the trial a few months ago but didn't buy it. The plug-ins were cool, but being heavily based on presets (SFX Pro at least) it didn't really fit my editing style enough for me to buy it. For free, though, I'll definitely use them a bit. I'm interested to try Colour Efex and SFX a bit more.



I also downloaded the trial a few months back. At the end of it I felt more and more happy with Lightroom. It's only in the last 6 months or so that I really felt that I've come to grips with Lightroom. Not that LR is a hard program to use. It's quite straight forward actually. But getting the most out of the sharpening/noise reduction section along with the HSL & camera calibration section took a while.
Now I feel like I know what I'm doing before I even do it, rather than moving things and seeing what happens.

If I apply my new presets over photos I process a year ago the difference in clarity is quite alarming.

I'm sticking with LR (and PS for cloning & nip tuck)


----------



## Philligan

And here's another pano. 



DSCF0281-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

When you can't sleep so you go back and edit stuff from old shoots.


----------



## soliloquy

Press release: Meet the Irix 15mm f/2.4 &#8211; mirrorlessrumors

this new lens seems interesting. i wonder how it will fare comparing to the samyang 14mm.

its surprising that lenses like those dont come with rear mount for gel filters.


----------



## Rook

I too have been playing with the Nik stuff today - very happy with it as I know from experience it does an infinitely superior job of pulling out sharpness from Fuji files than Lightroom does!

Some of the colour stuff's cool too but I imagine I'll get over that pretty quick.

Loaded into lightroom, edited, turned sharpness to zero, dumped into Nik for sharpening or the odd colour tweak, saved tiff (automatically) back into LR and exported.

Very very pleased.

Random silly photos:


shard 3 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



shard 1 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr



shard 2 by Nick Howlett, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Here are a couple more stitches. I just discovered warp and content-aware fill. Now all I need is a computer than can reliably handle those tasks. 



DSCF0314-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0301-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

I'm glad others can play with Silver Efex Pro.. love that ....! Almost all of my BW shots were processed in SEP.

Also, Jesus Phil. NAME YOUR SHOTS! Even if it's just Dawn #1, Dawn Standing in Forest Area #3b, etc


----------



## UnderTheSign

soliloquy said:


> Press release: Meet the Irix 15mm f/2.4  mirrorlessrumors
> 
> this new lens seems interesting. i wonder how it will fare comparing to the samyang 14mm.
> 
> its surprising that lenses like those dont come with rear mount for gel filters.


Isn't this just like a premium samyang? The press release kept talking about a 'swiss company'. It's a company run mostly by a Polish guy with a Swiss co-owner/investor but I guess Swiss sounds more prestigious 

By the way Rook, Nik sharpening is superb! A friends dad taught me the basics of lightroom but he's a plane spotter and uses Nik for the sharpening on his shots. I've seen lettering on planes go from fuzzy to perfectly legible. Was pretty impressed by that.


----------



## Philligan

How about more panos? 

They're starting to feel really repetitive - looking forward to trying this in different locations, like seated or for more headshot-style photos.



DSCF0614-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0627-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0672-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

"Dawn on Forest Trail Pano #64"


----------



## UnderTheSign

Gave the gf the Olympus 35RC today. She loved it though she'll need to learn how to use it properly for a bit (the joys of a semi-auto analog camera when all you've used is phones and P&S) and told me "I love it but stop trying to push photography on me for Christ's sake" 

Loaded it with a roll of Superia 400 and we're going out on a little hike next week to get her used to it.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

If she gets bored with it, give me a shout. 

Here's a shot trying out a slightly different style of treatment than I'd usually use for black and white.


----------



## feilong29

Joe Harvatt said:


> If she gets bored with it, give me a shout.
> 
> Here's a shot trying out a slightly different style of treatment than I'd usually use for black and white.



Joe, what are you shooting with again? Nikon?


----------



## Philligan

D600, 50mm's 1.2 + 1.8G, and 28mm 2.8D if I remember correctly.


----------



## Tang

I hate photography.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Man, it's a pity it's April 1st 
Editops wrong link


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Philligan said:


> D600, 50mm's 1.2 + 1.8G, and 28mm 2.8D if I remember correctly.



Pretty much bang on! My 28 is an old Sigma Mini Wide II.


----------



## Philligan

On the topic of 28 and 50mm's, I need some opinions from everyone. 

We're going to Montreal and Ottawa for just under a week next month. It's nothing too intense - seeing friends in Montreal, and I'll be showing Dawn around Ottawa since she's never been (I lived there for a couple years and loved it). I'm thinking I'd like to keep it down to one body and two lenses, so I'm not dragging around all my gear and worrying about photos too much. 

The dilemma: X-E2 with the 18/2 and 35/1.4, or X-T1 with the 23/1.4 and 56/1.2?

I definitely prefer the handling of the X-T1, and the shutter sounds more muted. I prefer the 23/56 focal lengths. But it's a lot bigger and will be more of a hassle to carry around.

The X-E2 is smaller and quite a bit lighter, especially with the smaller lenses on it. I can get away with that body and either lens on a neck strap, whereas the 23 and 56 are too front-heavy and need a shoulder strap like the BlackRapid. So that combo will be a lot easier to just sling over my shoulder and forget about until I want to shoot a picture. 

I can't decide between slightly cooler photos, or a less invasive kit. Thoughts?


----------



## UnderTheSign

If 56 is your usual go-to focal length, I'd take that. I've been travelling almost exclusively with the 35/2 though (and 18/2 stashed in a pocket because it's so small) and it's wonderful. I also have the 55-230 in case I need more length.


----------



## vansinn

Are you guys telling me you shoot on chemical-based film? If so, I totally love you!
I thought this was almost over, but maybe it's like with music, you know, we're still using tubes 
Are you telling me quality films can still be bought? Or do we need to know 'someone'?

I stopped filming about 1½ decade ago, but was recently told people still have my photos from weddings and amateur theater hanging, so..

I gave my daughter my gear, but still have a Canon 24 f2,8 and a Kalimar 60-300 f3.9-5.6 zoom, a box of filters, macro rings, slave flashes and stuff.
And someone who moved out of the building left a camera bag with an Olympus OM1, 28, 50 and 100 mm lenses, two flashes. Need to fix a shutter problem on the OM.

I'm beginning to miss the art. I never could deal with automatics, so I might just as well shop an old Canon T90 for my old school FD mounts, and use the OM1 for black and white.

I used to take a lot of action photos close up with the Canon 24, using Agfa Ultra 50 for totally enhancing the vibrant colors of sports gear.
The Calimar isn't a totally sharp lens, but works very well when slightly soft images are desired. Plus, as it varies only 3.9-5.6, is perfect for following objects while zooming in/out. Attach a B&W 1.4 extender 'nach Käsemann' which only cuts 2/3rd off the light, and..

Did weddings too. and fortunately never had to deal with marketing; my job always was to lurk, get the special scenes and capture the moment that doesn't repeat.
I most often arrived with two Fuji Reala and two 400's, changed film on the fly by marking up the canister so I could rewind to the last used part, using the film-snippet extractor to make it ready for reloading. Talk about speedy film swapping when using a single camera 

Also had an old Zeiss 6x6 with fold-out lens, and a Mamiya 6x9, complete with three film mags and the Über 50 mm wide angle lens, Yup, 50 mm is very wide for a 6x9!

Maybe I should locate my box of pictures, scan a few, and let you decide for me..


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I do, but I haven't shot 35mm film in almost 5 years now: 120 or go home. I'm going to be using my Sinar tomorrow. These are old shots, and I'm sure I've posted them before.


----------



## vansinn

Lovely, a Sinar and a Bronica. I was close to shopping a used Bronica once.
Outfitted with a tilt-lens, and all kind of stuff becomes possible.
But you of course have the Sinar for this; diaphragm and all..


----------



## UnderTheSign

I have a Bronica Sq 6x6 and a couple of 35mm film cameras. Film is still available online and if you're lucky, a local store. Kodak Portra 160/400 is beautiful, Ektar if you're looking for more saturated colours. Kodak also still makes tri-x and t-max and there's Ilford for b&w as well.


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> If 56 is your usual go-to focal length, I'd take that. I've been travelling almost exclusively with the 35/2 though (and 18/2 stashed in a pocket because it's so small) and it's wonderful. I also have the 55-230 in case I need more length.



The 23 is actually my go-to. I love the 56 but it definitely puts me more into work/portrait mode. I feel like there's not enough difference between the 23 and 18 or 35 to make either of those very useful. 

The 35 always feels just a bit tighter than I expect, and I can previsualize a lot better with the 23. I'm leaning towards the 18+35 because it'll be so much better for walking around, and will get me out of my comfort zone more. 

I've been following Emmanuel Lubezki's Instagram lately and he shoots pretty much exclusively with 28mm equivalents, and that's another big thing that's factoring in. You can get just enough environment in, and the background falloff still helps your subject pop, instead of just relying on focus falloff.


----------



## Rook

Though one might be easier to carry than the other, you're comparing something really easy with something really really easy haha.

Take the T, 23 and 56. Better glass, better handling, you prefer it, and I would always rather hang cameras off a BlackRapid anyway haha.


----------



## Philligan

Good call. Since Dawn will be inheriting the X-E2 this summer anyway (providing I can get me an X-Pro2 ) I'm tempted to have her take it on this trip instead of her Rebel. 

Also, I found a perfect backpack that'll fit one of my Lowepro camera inserts, so I won't be dragging my ThinkTank around. That'll make using the BR strap a lot more comfortable. 

Also also, I ordered a vented metal hood for the 23mm, because that petal hood sticks out too much. I'm hoping it shows up before. It screws into the filter threads instead of the bayonet mount, but I'm hoping I can use the regular lens cap with it still.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A BTS shot from today before the madness started.


----------



## Philligan

4x5?

Is that what you normally use for your studio? It's funny, since I've gotten into photography, the biggest thing I'm after in a home is a big space with room for photos.


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> Good call. Since Dawn will be inheriting the X-E2 this summer anyway (providing I can get me an X-Pro2 ) I'm tempted to have her take it on this trip instead of her Rebel.
> 
> Also, I found a perfect backpack that'll fit one of my Lowepro camera inserts, so I won't be dragging my ThinkTank around. That'll make using the BR strap a lot more comfortable.
> 
> Also also, I ordered a vented metal hood for the 23mm, because that petal hood sticks out too much. I'm hoping it shows up before. It screws into the filter threads instead of the bayonet mount, but I'm hoping I can use the regular lens cap with it still.



I have a few of those, they're always a tiny bit rubbish - for example the vents on the one I bought for £6 for my 35 f2 don't line up with the viewfinder, those whole point of the vent - and always have silly white writing on them, but in theory it'll have only a very slightly smaller diameter than your filter thread so caps should indeed still fit.


----------



## Philligan

I don't mind that for now. I'm hoping Fuji releases a proper vented hood for the 23. I just want something to help protect the front element while I'm walking around, and that petal hood is too big and obvious for me. 

I'm a little worried about something happening and stripping the filter threads, but I hardly use filters to begin with, so it's probably worth the risk for now.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> 4x5?
> 
> Is that what you normally use for your studio? It's funny, since I've gotten into photography, the biggest thing I'm after in a home is a big space with room for photos.



Yes, that's my 4x5, but it's not my space. That's my MUA's garage/studio. I used to use my living room before my wife started working from home. Occasionally I'll use my backyard or garage, but that's not happened in a while. I wish I had access to a proper space, maybe when I'm working again I will be able to afford some of the studio buy-ins I've been offered in the past.


----------



## soliloquy

this was shot wide open using the rokinon 85mm 1.4 mounted on the k5. not really the best photo, but i was super surprised at its sharpness at wide open. i just brightened it up, and i was testing to see what this lens is capable of. i was using the view finder, but if i used the live view screen, i may have been able to focus it a bit better.






i am plesently surprised that the samyang/rokinon/bower/etc lens have the 'A' setting on their lens which allows for the aperture to be changed through the camera electronically rather than lens manually. if i'm not mistaken, i think the canikon version of this requires you to manually adjust the aperture?

i wasn't planning on getting this lens, but it came at a super cheap price that i couldnt say no to. for 200 canadian dollars, i'm thoroughly impressed

and its built quality definitely screams 'quality lens' as it sure feels more sturdy and robust than any of my pentax/sigma lenses, and any of my friends canon lenses (he has a few L series too).


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I was excited to get a roll of 800 speed film that I bought from a Lomography shop in Amsterdam some time ago back from developing on the weekend.

It looks bad. I'm disappointed. I ordered prints, but maybe I should've gone with scans. The prints look pretty digitised, I'm not sure what the process is for creating the prints. Do you guys have a preference for having film developed? Negs & Scans, Negs & Prints, all three?


----------



## UnderTheSign

I just gets negs and scan them. Have a cheap 35mm scanner which scans straight to SD cards or my ipad which is usually good enough for snaps and a friend has a bigger flatbed scanner for 120 film and higher quality 35mm stuff.

Most places scan the negs and print from the scans so that explains the digitised look. Lomo has their own service but it's expensive and their customer service rep I emailed couldn't even tell me at what resolution they scanned. "the best we can do" was literally his answer...


----------



## ThePhilosopher

When I sent film out, I opted to get the developed film only. I didn't like the scans or the prints I got from the labs (and it's usually much cheaper that way). I got tired of the longer and longer turnaround times and just started doing it all on my own.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Might have to look into 35mm scanners then.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Quick retouch and conversion of a lighting test.





Nikon D3 with Nikon 85 f/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 200 1/200s f/5.6


----------



## Whammy

soliloquy said:


> this was shot wide open using the rokinon 85mm 1.4 mounted on the k5. not really the best photo, but i was super surprised at its sharpness at wide open. i just brightened it up, and i was testing to see what this lens is capable of. i was using the view finder, but if i used the live view screen, i may have been able to focus it a bit better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i am plesently surprised that the samyang/rokinon/bower/etc lens have the 'A' setting on their lens which allows for the aperture to be changed through the camera electronically rather than lens manually. if i'm not mistaken, i think the canikon version of this requires you to manually adjust the aperture?
> 
> i wasn't planning on getting this lens, but it came at a super cheap price that i couldnt say no to. for 200 canadian dollars, i'm thoroughly impressed
> 
> and its built quality definitely screams 'quality lens' as it sure feels more sturdy and robust than any of my pentax/sigma lenses, and any of my friends canon lenses (he has a few L series too).



Don't want to be that guy, but I fail to see the sharpness you mention.
The focus is completely off (looks like you focused too much behind the guy).


----------



## UnderTheSign

Joe Harvatt said:


> Might have to look into 35mm scanners then.


I got one of those really cheap ones (I think from Lidl) that basically just takes a 10mp photo of the neg and inverts it. If you have a decent smartphone camera, Lomo also sells 'smartphone scanner' for less than 50 quid.


----------



## soliloquy

Whammy said:


> Don't want to be that guy, but I fail to see the sharpness you mention.
> The focus is completely off (looks like you focused too much behind the guy).



thats my point. that was shot wide open and using the view finder. wide open, the subject generally isn't sharp. for example, when i use my 50mm at 1.4, its a much softer image than this. plus, the separation from the background isnt as prominent. 

and shooting via view finder for a lens that is only manual focus in low lighting is challenging on its own.

i know the subject isn't 100% in focus. as a first shot to see what its potential is, i'm impressed. haven't had much time to put it through its paces


----------



## vansinn

@soliloquy: Looks like focus was at the rear part of his ear. I bet the lens can do better than this, also at f1.4.

@ThePhilosopher; Lovely arrangement. I sortof wish the eye in the shadow zone would be a touch differently exposed. The white-only part distracts me.
However, I bet the real print, with greater contrast, will have a decently different impact


----------



## Whammy

soliloquy said:


> thats my point. that was shot wide open and using the view finder. wide open, the subject generally isn't sharp. for example, when i use my 50mm at 1.4, its a much softer image than this. plus, the separation from the background isnt as prominent.
> 
> and shooting via view finder for a lens that is only manual focus in low lighting is challenging on its own.
> 
> i know the subject isn't 100% in focus. as a first shot to see what its potential is, i'm impressed. haven't had much time to put it through its paces




I know all about focusing super fast lenses by hand 

Like *vansinn* said, the lens can do a lot better 

I did a test before with my own 85mm lens. The only variable was the f-stop (and shutter speed to compensate).
I had the camera on a tripod with a delayed release and mirror lock up to get the maximum amount of sharpness.
Granted the lens isn't cheap, but it still preformed better than I thought it would wide open.
*
Test shot at f1.2*





*Test shot at f8*





*100% crop all various different f-stops*


----------



## ThePhilosopher

vansinn said:


> @ThePhilosopher; Lovely arrangement. I sortof wish the eye in the shadow zone would be a touch differently exposed. The white-only part distracts me.
> However, I bet the real print, with greater contrast, will have a decently different impact



Good catch, I went back and started tweaking it more, it's really hard because it was a single blue/teal gelled light with barndoors and it really obliterated that side of her face.


----------



## Tang

Happy New Computer Day!

My fiancees dad gave us a computer as a moving gift (moving to Boston next month...) and she's a beaut!

i5 @ 3.2ghz
8gb RAM
2TB HDD.
nVidia GTX750 something-another. I don't know.. I haven't been keeping up on card specs!

Regardless, Lightroom absolutely flies at 1980x1080 and I love it. Good times.


----------



## vansinn

ThePhilosopher said:


> Good catch, I went back and started tweaking it more, it's really hard because it was a single blue/teal gelled light with barndoors and it really obliterated that side of her face.



But this composition is supposed to do just that, and as such is quite tricky to handle.
I could've sworn you used a honeycombed light plus subtractive filtering on the other side.
Especially the way she looks, I mean focuses eyesight, makes it quite difficult handling the extreme contrast - which is exactly what makes is so mystic.

If you had used some reflector, even just a tad, on the subdued side, the magic would easily be gone.
In the studio session, your eyes and brain will alternatively adjust to these two extremes and literately fck with your mind  Result? Only the finished image will show.
I never got around to have a fully functional studio, but at least did some experiments with additive vs subtractive lights.
Maybe a small diffused point light or ditto reflector on the eye part would've worked; however, this could easily have ruined the mystic too..

Doing photography as art is as difficult as for women learning to use makeup.
The less the more naturally effectfull; the more dramatic the less naturally sensual.
Older saying of mine "_When applying makeup, does this enhance features, or hide imperfections?_"
(just to be fair, I absolutely do love women..)

I'm more and more starting to miss shooting [in the shadows] again..


----------



## Philligan

Joe Harvatt said:


> I was excited to get a roll of 800 speed film that I bought from a Lomography shop in Amsterdam some time ago back from developing on the weekend.
> 
> It looks bad. I'm disappointed. I ordered prints, but maybe I should've gone with scans. The prints look pretty digitised, I'm not sure what the process is for creating the prints. Do you guys have a preference for having film developed? Negs & Scans, Negs & Prints, all three?





Joe Harvatt said:


> Might have to look into 35mm scanners then.



I've had bad luck with getting film developed. A grocery store here in town claims to send their rolls to Fuji for development, but their prints/scans don't seem any better than when I got them done at Walmart. Most of my roll of Ektar 100 is super grainy - like ISO 1600 on digital grainy. It's soft, too. I don't know if I really messed up the exposure or something, or if it was something on their end.

As far as scanners go, check out the Epson V550. I read scanner reviews until my eyes bled a while back, and even though it's cheap, it actually does decent scans. I read a review comparing it to slightly older, higher-end models, and it wasn't a case of better or worse, just different. Their website doesn't say anything right now, but I'm pretty positive that it'll do 120 with a cheap adapter (I thought it was included).

My boss at my last job was a photographer, and he showed me something pretty cool. He'd get film developed and just ask for the negatives, then shoot a photo of the negative and develop it in Lightroom. It's not the fastest, but it's a lot cheaper, and since you have the manual 50mm, you could do it with a cheap macro tube off eBay. To flip the negative, all you do is reverse the tone curve - drag the black point all the way up, and the white point all the way down.



Whammy said:


> I know all about focusing super fast lenses by hand
> 
> Like *vansinn* said, the lens can do a lot better
> 
> I did a test before with my own 85mm lens. The only variable was the f-stop (and shutter speed to compensate).
> I had the camera on a tripod with a delayed release and mirror lock up to get the maximum amount of sharpness.
> Granted the lens isn't cheap, but it still preformed better than I thought it would wide open.
> *100% crop all various different f-stops*



For f/1.2 on an older lens design, that lens looks great wide open.  It's funny how marketing makes us think we all need Sigma Arts if we want to take good photos. This looks perfectly fine, and probably has way more character.



Tang said:


> Happy New Computer Day!
> 
> My fiancees dad gave us a computer as a moving gift (moving to Boston next month...) and she's a beaut!
> 
> i5 @ 3.2ghz
> 8gb RAM
> 2TB HDD.
> nVidia GTX750 something-another. I don't know.. I haven't been keeping up on card specs!
> 
> Regardless, Lightroom absolutely flies at 1980x1080 and I love it. Good times.



That'll be a change eh? Looking forward to seeing what you shoot there.

I'll hopefully be going through the same experience, soon. I'm desperately in need of a new computer - my motherboard's been giving out bit by bit and I'm currently running my OS HDD via USB. Between that and the massive Fuji RAWs, Lightroom crawls at best.


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> For f/1.2 on an older lens design, that lens looks great wide open.  It's funny how marketing makes us think we all need Sigma Arts if we want to take good photos. This looks perfectly fine, and probably has way more character.



The only thing I don't like is at f16 the lens is as soft as F2 due to diffraction. I thought it would hold up a bit better and be as sharp as F4. Ah well, I never go past f8 anyway.

Granted I didn't test the lens in the very centre or close edges for my example. The area that I tested is on the line where I normally place eyes in most photos.
I tested the lens again at a later date (don't have examples) closer to the edge of the frame. It still held up extremely well.

Ages ago I bought a second hand Canon EF 35-105mm f4.5-5.6 lens for 35 Swedish Krona (4 USD), just because it was super cheap and I never used a zoom on my system before.

Such an awful lens. Wide open at 5.6, it preformed just about okay in the very centre (a good bit worse than my 85mm at 1.2). Once you got to the rule of thirds line it deteriorated extremely quickly.
Not my best introduction to zoom lenses


----------



## ThePhilosopher

vansinn said:


> But this composition is supposed to do just that, and as such is quite tricky to handle...



I wish I could say that this shot was more intentional than it was, but it was really just me setting up the gelled light with the barndoor, metering with my light meter, adjusting her pose and clicking off a shot. I really appreciate the depth of your insight though.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Just got 5 packs of Fuji fp100c. No back to shoot it with yet, but that's in the works too 
Some guys on the Dutch analog photography forum bought 20+ packs from local retailers when the discontinuation was announced... No wonder prices skyrocketed right after that


----------



## UnderTheSign

Hopefully taking a look at a 4x5 view camera this Tuesday. Found it on a Dutch Craigslist-y website and the price was too good to pass up on. Seller seems to be an architectural photographer so he knows what he's doing and selling.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Be careful, it's a deep rabbit hole


----------



## UnderTheSign

Would be good to hear your experiences!


----------



## Philligan

I shot some stuff for my friend today, for her website/LinkedIn/etc. She took musical composition at university, actually made an okay living as a freelancer, and is finishing up an audio production postgrad to open up more job opportunities. It's cool seeing someone go into music and find a reliable job. 

She wanted some at the mixing board, which was an insanely challenging situation to be in. It's in the school's studio, so I was dealing with big fluorescent lights, then three halogen lights right above the board. Trying to balance flashes against those was absolutely brutal, especially since I only had two lights. Walls were grey, too.  

If I could do it again, I'd use three lights and turn all the room lights off (I only own two right now). One on either side of her shooting sideways toward her, and one in front of her lighting the board. The straight on mixing shots were alright, nothing special. What I did for this one is use an umbrella behind her as a rear fill, and bounce the other flash off the projector screen in front of her as the key light. The only other drastic things I did were fairly heavy vignetting to help tone down the busy background/edges, and use some circular local adjustments to kill saturation (spots that weren't light by me were orange from the halogens).



DSCF0125 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

Here's one of the details. f/1.2 FTMFW.  This shot was fine, but once in a while (especially outdoors with bare tree branches) I can definitely see the use for the APD version of the 56. I could own both and not feel redundant.



DSCF0158 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And here's a straight up headshot. This is at 1.2. That lens is so friggen sharp.



DSCF0247 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

UnderTheSign said:


> Would be good to hear your experiences!



There's just so much available for 4x5 cameras in terms of backs, lenses, shutters, film holders, techniques. Once you find LFPF you can get lost.


----------



## UnderTheSign

ThePhilosopher said:


> There's just so much available for 4x5 cameras in terms of backs, lenses, shutters, film holders, techniques. Once you find LFPF you can get lost.


Haha oh yeah, I get that! That's why I'm happy I'm buying into a complete system. All I want on top of this is a back for fp100c (like the Polaroid 405 or Fuji pa-145) and a 6x7 120 back. Tried saving a couple bucks by putting something together myself with eBay parts but when I calculated the costs VS effort it wasn't worth it.

Edit: well, just got home. Camera looks to be in great condition, just a little dusty. &#8364;350 with a Rodenstock 150mm, film holder, Polaroid holder (for the long gone 4x5 fp100c unfortunately), everything is there. Guy was telling me he still had a ton of accessories he wanted to get rid of which I hope to get from him for cheap too. From longer shutter releases to developing tanks for large format to enlarger and other print stuff (which I'm a little hesitant getting into, dont think I've got that space ). He literally has a room full of stuff he needs to sort out as he started as a pro photographer 25 years ago, went along with all digital developments and just wants to get rid of everything he doesn't use anymore. Hey, if it gets me some good deals...

Edit 2: guy said it didn't have the rotating back but it does, in fact, have a rotating/revolving back. Sweet. Should make portraits easier


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Be warned that not all 4x5 cameras will accommodate the Polaroid 405 holder due to a lip on the holder preventing it from sliding the emulsion all the way into the image circle. I have the Polaroid 550 and it's a tight fit on my Sinar.


----------



## UnderTheSign

According to Google it should fit the type of Toyo back I have. Let's hope the Internet was right 

I was mistaken on the Polaroid holder I got with it. It's a 545 which took Polaroid 55 and can take the instant and pre -loaded film by New55... Stuff Is expensive and out of my interest zone for now though. So eh, if anyone wants a 545 holder. Ha.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Expired Ektachrome 100G developed using a Jobo in Arista E-6 Chemistry
Gelled 8" Reflector + Barndoors
Sinar Alpina 4x5 + Rodenstock Sironar-N 210mm f/5.6


----------



## UnderTheSign

Here are some shots.





















Nice shot! Is the glow in the top caused by scanning or was it shot that way?


----------



## Berti_smb

A shot after a long time  Spring has come and taken with Canon 550d and Tamron 17-50 2.8



Welcome spring by Metod Berto&#353;a, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

UnderTheSign said:


> Nice shot! Is the glow in the top caused by scanning or was it shot that way?



Nice looking camera you've got there, isn't looking at 4x5 ground glass something magical?

Aside from a little bit of spot cleaning and an increase in contrast it looks identical to the slide. Expired film does some crazy stuff that's wildly unpredictable and I love it.


----------



## UnderTheSign

ThePhilosopher said:


> Nice looking camera you've got there, isn't looking at 4x5 ground glass something magical?
> 
> Aside from a little bit of spot cleaning and an increase in contrast it looks identical to the slide. Expired film does some crazy stuff that's wildly unpredictable and I love it.


Yeah, it's great! First, my dad's old Fodorflex (rebranded Beautyflex) and Lubitel 2 had wonderful ground glasses compared to digital viewfinder and even my Pentax SLRs... Then, my Bronica and a friends Hasselblad were the new standard. Now, this 4x5 glass feels even better. I'm glad 8x10 is so much more expensive than 4x5 or I might be tempted to get into that 

Speaking of old stuff, I found this in a box of my grandfathers stuff a while ago. My dad inherited most of his cameras but he hasn't used any of it in years so I've been 'borrowing' all the Pentax lenses etc. This little box caught my eye.





The lens needs a new retainer ring, the box is super worn but the mechanism, shutter and bellows are all in perfect state. I might just make rebuilding this thing a summer project. It's 9x12 so converting it to 4x5 should be doable.


----------



## vansinn

ThePhilosopher said:


> Once you find LFPF you can get lost.



And you absolutely just had to show me this.. 
I was perfectly happy with six string guitars until I signed up in here.
Then this photography thread, and now also where to grow 4x5 cravings, tsk tsk..


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I do my best


----------



## UnderTheSign

Do you shoot 4x5 colour neg/slides often or just when you get cool stuff like the Ektachrome? Colour sheet film is pretty pricey so I'm thinking it's smarter to just get a 6x9 rollfilm holder and use that for colour.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I tend to buy expired color film as it's much cheaper and I care less if I scratch the emulsion or something when loading the film holders. I like to use the color if I know I'm going to get decent results from the project as well (but won't mind some color shifts and such). Finding a good 6x9 holder has been a challenge for me (mostly because I'd prefer 6x12) and I don't want to spend the money on it since I have a 120 capable camera.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I saw a couple of horseman 6x9 holders on eBay for ~$100. Lots of Japanese sellers have them. I'd like one because 6x7 or x9 is larger than what my Bronica can do, plus I get the perspective control etc of a view camera. Might be less important to you but I photograph a lot of the furniture I make so it should be useful.

There are apparently 6x17 holders as well which are crazy expensive but also crazy cool!


----------



## Philligan

I got a couple things for my birthday: the Fuji 16mm extension tube, and a new watch. Afterwards I realized the two were really appropriate for each other. 

I didn't realize how much the tube limits focus. I thought I could use it for tighter headshots, but it's basically only good for macro stuff. You get like a 5-10cm range right in front of the lens. I can definitely see getting the 11mm down the road for a little more working space.

The setup: a continuous CFL softbox I borrowed from a friend and a small 12" Best Buy reflector. The full-face photos are the 56mm, and the tighter ones are the 35mm.



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And the watch, with a couple photos of my other two decent watches. Apparently I've got a thing for Citizens. 



DSCF0023 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0031 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0035 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0037 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0044 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0048 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Nice collection you've got there. Extension tubes are really meant to get you closer by reducing the minimum focusing distance, I've never tried using one for anything other than macro stuff.

I'm going to cross-post this since it's relevant to this recent macro talk. Lighting for this was done by hand holding my ABR800 just out of frame at 1/4 power.




Nikon D3 + Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 100 1/200s f/45


----------



## Philligan

Yeah, I just didn't realize how much it limited "infinity". I figured I'd still be able to get around 3ft or so of working space in front of the lens, but it's more like 20cm.

Thank. I got lucky and found the silver one and the diver on for half price - there's no way I would have been able to afford the diver at full price.  I've wanted that specific watch for a while, and we got lucky and found it on for 50% off because of a small scuff on the bracelet. Next up is an auto Seiko Recraft, and my collection will be tentatively complete haha.

Here's one from a walk tonight. 56mm @ 1.2.



DSCF0009 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

UK guys in this thread - any of you near London? I'm sort of planning another 4 day-ish trip there in early June to meet friends and hit up the Perturbator gig so might as well turn it into a mini holiday. My friends will be working so I've got time to meet up and take photos as I'm planning on turning this into a photo-trip of some sort.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Not near London sorry. Hope the Perturbator gig is cool, I'm interested.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Joe Harvatt said:


> Not near London sorry. Hope the Perturbator gig is cool, I'm interested.


I've seen them before and it was awesome. Having a good crowd helps, but the guy knows how to create a proper atmosphere in a venue!


----------



## Philligan

Fuji guys: What are your thoughts between the 16mm and the 10-24? Dawn will likely be inheriting the X-E2 and 18/35 in the next month, and I should be acquiring a wide angle in May. 

My issue is I'm torn between the versatility and the speed. If the 10-24 was a 2.8, I'd probably do it for sure, but I'm a bit concerned about the f/4. My thinking is, if I'm shooting environmental portraits, or using it as a casual everyday lens, I can get away with the slower shutter speeds that the OIS would allow. And the extra range would come in handy for dance floor photos, landscapes, etc - and I'd love to have the option for ultrawide perspectives for everyday shooting. 

I'm not so concerned about technical stuff like pure image quality. I'm more interested to hear if you guys think an f/4 lens is still useable for the odd event shoot or indoor photography. I could definitely see owning both, but I don't know how realistic that is right now, so I'd like to go into this planning on it being my only ultra wide. I'll still have the 23 1.4, and will either have the 18 f/2 or have access to it. 

Another thing to consider is I'd like to get out of shooting for money, especially weddings and family stuff. So my emphasis will be on stuff like travel and going out with friends.

Edit: Actually, everyone's opinions work here. Is an f/4 zoom useable indoors?


----------



## Philligan

A couple things showed up today. A Lexar 64GB UHS-II card, and my new lens hood for the 23mm. I saw a post about the card being on sale on Fuji Rumours, and Amazon Canada had the special, too. $129 on sale for $39. I wish I grabbed a few, but that would have gotten expensive quickly. They don't seem that much faster than my SanDisk Extreme Plus cards, but maybe that's just the X-T1's buffer. 

The lens hood is amazing. I wish it mounted via the bayonet and not the filter threads, but for $5, I can't complain.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I took some photos and video of Conan in Bristol last Friday. Full set here.
Lighting was minimal, and there wasn't a stage so I stayed manual focus and 28mm.


----------



## Philligan

Awesome.  Also, those Green stacks are making me jealous.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Thanks! Yeah it's a hell of a rig. Fuzz in front, and tuned to drop F.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Monstrous rig, that's a great set you've shot.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Thanks guys


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm no videographer, but this is what we saw in Houston overnight. It's still going on, but not as intense at the moment.


----------



## Rook

Philligan said:


> Fuji guys: What are your thoughts between the 16mm and the 10-24? Dawn will likely be inheriting the X-E2 and 18/35 in the next month, and I should be acquiring a wide angle in May.
> 
> My issue is I'm torn between the versatility and the speed. If the 10-24 was a 2.8, I'd probably do it for sure, but I'm a bit concerned about the f/4. My thinking is, if I'm shooting environmental portraits, or using it as a casual everyday lens, I can get away with the slower shutter speeds that the OIS would allow. And the extra range would come in handy for dance floor photos, landscapes, etc - and I'd love to have the option for ultrawide perspectives for everyday shooting.
> 
> I'm not so concerned about technical stuff like pure image quality. I'm more interested to hear if you guys think an f/4 lens is still useable for the odd event shoot or indoor photography. I could definitely see owning both, but I don't know how realistic that is right now, so I'd like to go into this planning on it being my only ultra wide. I'll still have the 23 1.4, and will either have the 18 f/2 or have access to it.
> 
> Another thing to consider is I'd like to get out of shooting for money, especially weddings and family stuff. So my emphasis will be on stuff like travel and going out with friends.
> 
> Edit: Actually, everyone's opinions work here. Is an f/4 zoom useable indoors?



I had the 10-24 and sold it to buy the 16, so I'm obviously biased.

I had the 10-24 for a year and a half. It focuses very quickly, smoothly and quietly, and is actually reasonably compact given how wide angle it is. It's a big lens compared to Fuji's original primes, but it's not a big lens.

The image quality is fine, but not mind blowing. The zoom range is ideal for travel, the IS is good and in fact you can comfortably hand hold at over a second at the wide end.

I've now had the 16 coming up on a year. It also focuses very quickly and smoothly, and is surprisingly bulky for a prime. It's not as long as the 10-24 and has a smaller filter, but as it's quite chubby along it's whole length, it's pretty similar in balance a packing convenience. Doesn't quite pull forward as much as the 10-24, but both are a touch front heavy. 

Image quality is very good indeed, probably among Fuji's sharpest wide open lenses, stopped down I'd go as far as to use the word flawless. Things like Nik will pull detail out of shots with the 16 at f8 you can't imagine, and all the way across the frame.

I'm very happy with my change for a few reasons:
1. I already had a 23, and now have an X100T, so still have that covered.
2. To use f4 indoors you have to ask people to stay still. IS can be the best in the world, but if you want to photograph people who move (i.e. people) it's a pain to have to dig out 3 extra stops of ISO, as IS is useless if your subject moves.
3. I found I was rarely going wider than 13mm ish or longer than 18mm ish (because I had a 23), and that's definitely within step forward/step back territory with the 16.
4. I love the very very subtle background blur effect you can create with fast wides and use it a lot. The lens just has a great look to it.

So in short - the 10-24 is the better practical choice, the 16 is the better photography choice, for me. I keep trying to make practical decisions and they never work out haha.


----------



## Philligan

I went out yesterday and solved my problem. I borrowed a friend's Nikon with the Tokina 11-16 and shot it a bunch. Turns out I love 14mm, so I'm gonna grab one of those. The 16 looks amazing, but I've already got the 23 1.4, and I found that with 14mm, I preferred how it pushes the background farther away. The 16 would be great sometime, but paired with the 23, I'd rather have less compression. Plus, I'm shooting a handful of weddings this summer and the 14mm would be perfect for receptions.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Random question, do you guys ever go looking for models and if so, where do you find them? Most of the advice I read online is "ask friends" but well, I'm awkward like that and not one to ask  Plus, I don't always enjoy working with/for friends. I'd like to just meet new people to talk photography with and share ideas with but I'm not too sure where I'd do that. All of the modelling sites (purestorm, MM, etc) require you to already have a bit of a portfolio up... Which is exactly the reason I tried to join them, to build some portfolio.

Ideally, I'd meet some new people on my trip to London this summer so I can do some candid stuff and all that because honestly, my local surroundings aren't inspiring at all and I wouldn't know where to start. Cities like London have always motivated and inspired me more.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I used MM when it was still worthwhile (in my market it's now totally useless). I'd say network with hair/makeup artists, other photographers, and anyone in the business that uses models for their work. This has opened many more recently than MM did cumulatively in years. Also, if there is a site that organizes workshops or shootouts those might be worth checking out as well.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Thanks for the insight. I actually just found someone through instagram, of all places  might hit up some of the other photographers and MUAs I know though!

What do you guys use for light meters? Whenever I shoot using a non-metered camera I'd just use a metered one to meter but it feels like a hassle. I found my dad (or grandfathers even, maybe) old Gossen Lunasix 3 but it used to take mercury batteries so readings with a modern battery are all over the place and _way_ off. My local store carries the Sekonic L-308s which also has a flash meter mode and seems perfectly fine for what I need. However, I see all those higher end Sekonic meters and whatnot and was wondering, what's the difference? And for general photography, does it matter?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I have used an L-308 for years, but I'm looking to upgrade to something with a spot meter.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Most negative reviews complain about not having aperture priority which I don't mind. Think that's gonna be my next purchase then, nice addition to the Toyo camera.

They actually have a second hand Minolta Spotmeter F for the same price as a 308 but I'm not sure if it's a better option for me.


----------



## vansinn

Noticed this post on dpreview about being Prince's photographer by chance, when investigating possibly shopping gear, and thought it might be interesting:
Purple Reign: Photographer Brian Ach shares his experiences of working with Prince: Digital Photography Review


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A sea of glitter, 




Gelled 8" Reflector + Barndoors, 8" Reflector + Gridded Snoot
Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D + 2-Stop ND Filter: ISO 200 1/200 f/5.6


----------



## UnderTheSign

Are you still shooting glitter or just posting photos from previous shoots? I feel for whoever manages that studio


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That was shot on the third, and I posted a shot of the inside of the space I'm shooting in a few pages back. Most of the glitter is captured on a plastic drop cloth. I have two more upcoming shoots involving glitter (27th and the 2nd) and I'll be done with them for a little while (at least for the summer, it'll be too hot for the space I'm using then).


----------



## Philligan

I found a pretty large spec of dust under the rear element of my 23mm. I haven't tested it at all apertures to see when it kicks in, but it's very noticeable at f/16 - it's a really big piece. 

How normal is this? I usually don't stop down past f/4 in normal use and haven't noticed it in photos, but's really bugging me. I'd have to pay to get it cleaned by Fuji I would imagine, so I don't want to if one will show up again. But it's bad enough that I can't shoot at f/16 (or potentially wider) without having to clone every photo.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I haven't noticed dust collecting commonly, but there's definitely been imperceptible specks of dust gathering on lenses over the years. If it's bothering you, I'd say take it to a local camera technician. I had my 50 gutted and aperture blades sorted last year, included a complete clean and wasn't too expensive. Came out looking brand new.

Here's a shot from my living room window yesterday. Glad to see the leaves finally coming out on the trees.



Bristol by Joe Harvatt, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I don't know much about dust and such in lenses; I know my 80-200mm has a scratch on the front element that doesn't show up even at f/22. A little bit different take on the same stuff I've been shooting lately. When you need 4 stops of filtration to get the desired effect and DOF (we had a door to the outside open to get some ventilation going on) and still have to darken in post this is where you end up. 





Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D + 2x2-Stop ND filters: ISO 100 1/200s &#402;/5.6


----------



## Philligan

It's been driving me crazy. It doesn't show up in my regular shooting, but stopped down more than usual it shows up like a giant sensor dust spot. No one local does camera repairs, so in June when I have a break in weddings I'll probably go ask around and see if Henry's will send it to Fuji for me. Since it's not a "pro" body it doesn't fall under their X Series pro repair service, and their regular CS department sucks. 

I imported the pictures from our trip to Montreal and Ottawa today. When I get a chance I'll go through them and look for keepers. I wasn't really happy with my shooting this trip - I feel like all I really did was take the same usual pictures of Dawn, and didn't shoot a ton while we were walking around. I have a few jobs all within a couple weeks (documentary shoot at a craft beer show, wedding, then shooting a three day conference at the local college) so I'm hoping those jobs help shake things up. I've been having trouble visualizing different shots lately and need to get myself out of this rut.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Krunoslav has released a series on color management - it's been good to watch so far (and the guy's a killer retoucher).
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGg0Mcsc8P8NDaivkQB9p1hQw_8lxTNnn


----------



## A-Branger

UnderTheSign said:


> Thanks for the insight. I actually just found someone through instagram, of all places  might hit up some of the other photographers and MUAs I know though!
> 
> What do you guys use for light meters? Whenever I shoot using a non-metered camera I'd just use a metered one to meter but it feels like a hassle. I found my dad (or grandfathers even, maybe) old Gossen Lunasix 3 but it used to take mercury batteries so readings with a modern battery are all over the place and _way_ off. My local store carries the Sekonic L-308s which also has a flash meter mode and seems perfectly fine for what I need. However, I see all those higher end Sekonic meters and whatnot and was wondering, what's the difference? And for general photography, does it matter?



Instagram its a good place. A mate of mine found all his models trough there and now that he built a large Instagram portfolio, now hes the one who get asked by those Intagram models (the ones who actualy get paid to post stupid stuff in instagram) the ones with xxx.xxx followers. I recomend start searching there for models with low numbers of followers, they all would be happy to get extra free pro pics.

As for light metters. Use the back of your camera? lol. I never used one, and I never pay attention to the metering of the camera. Im used to my LCd screen and I know how it looks. When its hard to tell I turn on the historygram to chekc Im not peaking and that Im "corectly" exposed. So thats something you can use. Take your background photo first, get and lock the background exposure checking the back of your camera and start adding the lights one at the time.

...unless you are working with film, which Ive no idea


----------



## Philligan

Here are a couple from our trip. Dawn was in a wedding yesterday and I brought the X-E2 and 35mm, so I'll see if I got anything good there.



DSCF0126 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0374 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0135 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And got a few at the musical swings in Montreal. 



DSCF0102 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0086 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0107 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I just found out something really interesting. This wedding must have been the first time I've actually processed RAWs from the X-E2. I imported the photos into LR and it auto-cropped all of them to 16:9. I thought they looked funny and couldn't place it, until I got to an in-camera JPG and it was the proper 3:2 ratio. It took some digging, but apparently newer versions of Adobe RAW don't always play nicely with older files (it specifically mentioned the X-E1 and 5D3). There was no way to batch fix them, so I had to download a plugin called Recover Edges.

I had no idea that was an issue. Glad there's an easy fix. Having to manually crop every photo I want to edit would drive me crazy.

edit: Recover Edges doesn't seem to work. I found one thread on it on Fuji Rumors' X forum. Apparently it's new to FW4.00, and only some cameras are having the issue. No one seems to have a solution. I've read that it only happens when you use the camera in Average metering mode - I've switched to Multi to see if that really "solves" the issue. I'm not sure if there's some menu item I may have accidentally changed or not. I emailed Fuji's X series customer service to see if they have an answer.

This is bizarre.


----------



## A-Branger

so when you open a photo on the Develop mode in Lightroom and click to change the crop. Does it have the original 3:2 info in there. Or the photo is in 16:9 with no extra data to crop wider?


Have you check there no an option on the camera?. Some cameras have an option to shoot in 16:9. Having say this, did the photos on your camera screen looked in 16:9? I guess no since you would have notice but not sure, re-check the menus to see


----------



## Philligan

I can change it back to 3:2 in Lightroom, but it defaults to 16:9 and displays that. The camera displays 3:2 and the in-camera JPG conversions that were on the card are all 3:2. The JPGs import to LR at 3:2, but the RAWS don't. I couldn't see anything in the menu about shooting in 16:9 - you have to enable JPG shooting to access it, and I leave it in RAW and do JPG conversions later.


----------



## A-Branger

well you do can do a batch fix on lightroom.

open one pic, change the crop to watever you want. In this case to a 3:2. Hit the "copy" button, and select only the cropping option. Change into "Library", select all the photos, right click on your mouse, in that menu go to "develop settings > Paste settings" And done


----------



## Tang

Just arrived in Quincy, MA and sad to say I've been so busy (and tired) that I've taken zero shots.

Can't wait to go exploring though.. so much to shoot!


----------



## Whammy

A-Branger said:


> well you do can do a batch fix on lightroom.
> 
> open one pic, change the crop to watever you want. In this case to a 3:2. Hit the "copy" button, and select only the cropping option. Change into "Library", select all the photos, right click on your mouse, in that menu go to "develop settings > Paste settings" And done



The issues that Phil is having is that Lightroom is auto cropping his 3:2 photos to 16:9 and the information that is cropped out can not be recovered in Lightroom. You can't undo the crop and recover the lost information.
The top and bottom is missing when viewing in Lightroom.
Cropping this now 16:9 photo to 3:2 will cut away even more of the photo.

He wants to get back what he has lost, not crop away even more.

*Phil*, I had a similar issue with my 5d MK III.
When I took a photo in video mode the camera applied guide crop lines of 16:9. The photo was taken in 3:2 but these guide crop lines are embedded into the photo's data.
Unfortunately Lightroom actually acts on these guide points and crops it automatically rather than letting to decide.
If you have a "Add cropping information" or something similar in your menu, make sure it's disabled or set to 3:2.

If you have photos with this added cropping information, the only way I am aware of removing it is to convert the photo to DNG and then use Adobe DNG Recover Edge plug-in.


----------



## A-Branger

^ Thats what I asked before to see if he could crop the photo to his original wider 3:2 size and nt being locked into 16:9 with no extra information



A-Branger said:


> so when you open a photo on the Develop mode in Lightroom and click to change the crop. Does it have the original 3:2 info in there. Or the photo is in 16:9 with no extra data to crop wider?





Philligan said:


> I can change it back to 3:2 in Lightroom, but it defaults to 16:9 and displays that.



so I assume from his response that yes, the extra original info was there, so He could crop it back to its 3:2 original size. 

reason why I told him the way to do the batch processing in which it works with any kinda of cropping you do, in this case a wider cropping. AS he said before he couldnt batch fix them


----------



## Philligan

Whammy, I'm pretty sure you had the issue I was able to read about on Adobe. The Fuji X-E1 was included in their list. For whatever reason, Adobe is finding a crop embedded in the RAW file. A guy on the Fuji Rumours forums said he had two X-E2's running the same firmware, and one was did the crop and the other didn't. 

I emailed Fuji's pro service in Canada and got a reply asking what operating system I was using. I told him, and haven't heard back. That was yesterday morning, and they quote a 2-hour response time, so I'm guessing I won't be hearing from them. That's strange, because normally their pro CS is really good.


----------



## Philligan

Here are a couple from today with the 56mm. 1.2, of course.



DSCF0514 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0509 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

Just got my Polaroid 405 back for the Toyo. FP-100C here I come.


----------



## feilong29

Anyone pick up the Fujifilm X70 yet? I am thinking about getting that since I shoot mainly landscaping stuff!


----------



## UnderTheSign

Haven't used it myself yet but I assume it's good as it has the X-Trans sensor. Wether it suits you depends on if the lens and lack of EVF is your kind of thing.


----------



## Philligan

I'd really struggle with the lack of EVF. 2.8 is really pushing it for me, too. I spend a lot of time at 1.4-2. 

So Fuji pro CS got back to me about the X-E2 cropping issue in LR. Their solution is to upgrade to LR6.


----------



## Tang

Confession: I'm a serious bum and almost shoot in Live View.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

100% View OVF Master Race,


----------



## A-Branger

Tang said:


> Confession: I'm a serious bum and almost shoot in Live View.



I......Just....Cant.....But....Eh.......AHG.......You.....*facepalm*.... hahaha

just joking, whatever works for you. Once I did video on a wedding where the theassistant/second shooter of the photographer she shot everything using live view mode. One thing is to do a few pics here and there and as a hoby, but another is the whole day as a "pro"

Any reason you shoot like this?

the only advantage I see over the VF is that you can see the final exposure and the guessing game is out (I do love that game and see the back of the camera after and :O I nail it!..lol) but if this the case maybe a mirrorless camera is hte perfect option for you.

You are wasting heeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaappssss of batteries. For a wedding as a photographer using a 5DIII I use 2-3 batteries. I would say 4 but that is due to the battery grip, so its more of 2 maybe 3. Shooting the same wedding doing video (in which I use the live view mode all day) I waste 8-10 batteries

The biggest downfall of all is that the speed for you to autofocus gets reduced waaay too much, depending of the mettod you are using. If using the screen then the camera takes forever to focus, if not the the camera would need to lock the mirror for a second to foucs and unlock it again for you to see.

Also as you are holding the camera in front of you so you can see, you are more prone to move it after focus. If you want to repositin the camera aftr you get the focus point or "wait" till something happens, you prob moved the camera from the focus point position and now you are out of focus. With the camera glued to your face and arms close to your body you are more able to "hold" position 


If it works for you, then fine. But I would not recommend to shot like that


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Just snagged a Vivitar 35 ES. Looking forward to picking this up tonight!







It's basically a rebranded (sleeper) Minolta Hi-Matic 7SII / Konica AUTO S3.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Awesome!
Not too fond of shutter speeds on the lens barrel, but those rangefinder compacts in general are a treat to use.


----------



## soliloquy

Tang said:


> Confession: I'm a serious bum and almost shoot in Live View.



for what its worth, if you have a manual lens, shooting in live view will give you more in-focus shots. i'm only using the live view whenever i'm shooting with a manual lens and i need to ensure whatever i'm focusing on is sharp. more fun to go run-and-gun and shoot through the view finder though.




and still waiting for the k-1 pentax to show up in stores. while waiting for it, i recently got the 70-200 tamron. prolly wont be using this lens as my primary, nor a travel lens. just use it for specific goals. i got it cheap, so cant complain. so far my full-frame lens collection is gearing up well. so far i've got
50mm 1.4
100mm 2.8 macro wr
85mm 1.4 manual
70-200mm 2.8

waiting to get the 24-70mm and the 14mm both at 2.8


----------



## UnderTheSign

Hey Phil, it seems the X-T2 is coming soon. Fujirumours keeps talking about it!

X-T1's getting cheaper as well now. Who knows, they might go dirt cheap like the X-Pro1 did a year ago. Hmmm....


----------



## UnderTheSign

Finally got myself a light meter. &#8364;100 for a Minolta Auto Meter IV-F which is close to half the price I see at other places. Guy was selling it through a forum and gave fellow analog enthousiasts a discount. Always good to get a deal!


----------



## Rook

Yes, annoyingly X-T1 prices are indeed going down.

Right when I put mine up for sale.

Typical. Haha.


----------



## Philligan

I shot a craft beer show on Friday and a wedding Saturday, and my computer decided to stop writing to the hard drive (RIP). I just got a Retina MBP - nothing crazy, just the base 13" model with a 256GB hard drive.

I can't remember what I had for import settings in LR, so this is probably a good time to ask. Should I use Smart Previews? I don't think I care about 1:1 previews in the library, and I'm not using CC (not sure if I want to yet), so would smart previews speed up the editing process in the develop module?

edit: My first edit with the new computer, and AFAIK my first flower photo.  I shot this with one hand as we were walking. It's the 35mm at 1.4, 1/8000, and 200.



DSCF0002 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## A-Branger

nop.

smart previews are a solution if you wanna take the work somewhere else without needed the RAW files. Like for example you can send me your Lightroom catalog of your latest wedding with the smart previews. The file size would be "small", I can then edit the photos and do all the crazy tweaks I want without the need of the RAW file, only thing is I cant send to photoshop or export. Once I finish I send you back the catalog and you can then link to your HD and do the export.

What you are asking is to "build standard size previews"

1:1 previews would allow you to zoom into the photo without any delay, but how many times you do that?, no worth the extra time. "Standard size previews" is what "loads" the photos after upload so you can go trough them quick or start editing without delays.

Two ways to do it.

You can set it up on the import box like you used to, so once the photos from a card get imported then the computer proceed to build the previews.

or

you can leave the box un-tick. So once you import all the photos you select them all in library, go to menu > library > previews > build standard-sized previews. And the computer would do the rest.

The advantage of the second is the speed to load the media. If you have 3 memory cards. You can upload them all first quick and them let the computer build the previews for all the photos at once. The other way (that you used to have), the computer would build the previews per each card, so you wont be able to load the photos from your second memory card into the computer/HD until the computer finish building the previews from the first card. This also saves loads of time if the only thing you wanna do is to just import files or move them around to a different location and re-naming them


----------



## Tang

oh my gosh guys.. there is so much to explore here in Boston/Quincy. Love it!



blue hills, ma by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

A-Branger said:


> nop.
> 
> smart previews are a solution if you wanna take the work somewhere else without needed the RAW files. Like for example you can send me your Lightroom catalog of your latest wedding with the smart previews. The file size would be "small", I can then edit the photos and do all the crazy tweaks I want without the need of the RAW file, only thing is I cant send to photoshop or export. Once I finish I send you back the catalog and you can then link to your HD and do the export.
> 
> What you are asking is to "build standard size previews"
> 
> 1:1 previews would allow you to zoom into the photo without any delay, but how many times you do that?, no worth the extra time. "Standard size previews" is what "loads" the photos after upload so you can go trough them quick or start editing without delays.
> 
> Two ways to do it.
> 
> You can set it up on the import box like you used to, so once the photos from a card get imported then the computer proceed to build the previews.
> 
> or
> 
> you can leave the box un-tick. So once you import all the photos you select them all in library, go to menu > library > previews > build standard-sized previews. And the computer would do the rest.
> 
> The advantage of the second is the speed to load the media. If you have 3 memory cards. You can upload them all first quick and them let the computer build the previews for all the photos at once. The other way (that you used to have), the computer would build the previews per each card, so you wont be able to load the photos from your second memory card into the computer/HD until the computer finish building the previews from the first card. This also saves loads of time if the only thing you wanna do is to just import files or move them around to a different location and re-naming them



Awesome, thanks for the help man.  As much as I like the idea of LR mobile, I have no desire to just edit on my phone. And it's not like I have a desktop where I can archive and import everything, and can edit smart previews on another device. 

I'm glad I know the difference between smart previews and 1:1 previews now. I'm not gonna bother right now (already imported two jobs and want to get started on them) but I could see myself doing that for weddings, just to get them backed up and imported quickly.

I could also see importing regularly, culling in the Library, then building 1:1 previews on the remainder. But my organization in LR is awful, and I don't know fully how to implement that workflow right now.


----------



## Philligan

I got CS6 up and running before bed. I did one stitch quickly to see how it handled it. I do a batch export as TIFFs to a new folder, then reimport that folder into LR, send the TIFFs to PS to be stitched, then back into LR for final tweaks and JPG conversions.

The speed is insane, easily 1/5 the time it took my old laptop, if not faster. And I can't believe how detailed this retina display is. My lenses are sharper than I thought apparently.  In some of the photos, the 56mm looks totally useable wide open at 100%. I was floored.



DSCF0276-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## A-Branger

Philligan said:


> Awesome, thanks for the help man.  As much as I like the idea of LR mobile, I have no desire to just edit on my phone. And it's not like I have a desktop where I can archive and import everything, and can edit smart previews on another device.
> 
> I'm glad I know the difference between smart previews and 1:1 previews now. I'm not gonna bother right now (already imported two jobs and want to get started on them) but I could see myself doing that for weddings, just to get them backed up and imported quickly.
> 
> I could also see importing regularly, culling in the Library, then building 1:1 previews on the remainder. But my organization in LR is awful, and I don't know fully how to implement that workflow right now.



no prob man, happy to help.

But honestly you dont need to build 1:1 previews at all. The moment you need to zoom in into a photo to check detail then let that photo to "load" when you are doing the editing. Or if you are trying to check which photo out of a batch of 5 is the one, then you can select those 5 and build the 1:1 for those 5 only. Theres no point on doing it for the rest of a wedding. Too much HD space and too much time wasted. But you need to build the standard size ones for all of them, so you can go "next" a go trough them quick.

in order to do your idea is to import the photos, (you would have to build standard size previews in order to "see" them either on library module. If not you would have to wait to the photo to "load" in order to see it. Then do your culling process. I use the stars. 2 stars for my first culling, then I use the filters to only see the 2 stars photos and do my second culling by giving it 3 stars to the photos Im going to edit/give to them. So once you finish you culling process, then filter the view of photos by your desired star rating, select them all and go menu-library-build 1:1 previews


I usualy go:
* - Extra label if I need to. If I use it, is more of a behind the scenes photos, suppliers. Photos I wont give to the coupe but I might give to the other wedding vendors.
** - First culling process. Usually any "usable" photo. So if I need one more for my 3 star, I can find an extra in here
*** - Second culling, Final batch of photos. These are the photos the couple are going to recieve 
**** - Best photos, or any kind of photo which are going to be taken into photoshop for extra editing (usualy once the editing on photoshop is done I would re-rate them into 3 stars so they can be batch exported with the rest and no mess up the numbering)
***** - "Wow" photos fully edited after photoshop (I would export these with a different name so the couple would see these 5-10 photos first)

I also create a new Catalog per each wedding. Keep things cleaner


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I ran a test roll through my Vivitar 35ES that I picked up last week. To my surprise everything came out properly exposed. I was convinced that the light meter was slightly out. Here's a couple of shots from the test roll.



Bristol by Joe Harvatt, on Flickr



_6A_00011 by Joe Harvatt, on Flickr

This was a roll of Agfa Vista 200 which you can pick up readily for £1 here in the UK. Really happy with the lens sharpness. Unfortunately since getting the test roll developed, the focus ring seems to have just gone really stiff. I took the camera to a local camera repair shop, he said it'd be a few hours work to get at it, so not worth the money in his eyes. Hmm... I wonder if I can put up with it, or maybe look into doing something myself. The light seals were completely gooey so I'm wondering if some of that's gone into the space the lens focuses back and forth in. I've taken the light seals out and will try and make new ones this week.

There's another one on eBay now... hmm...


----------



## Negav

Decided to play with the 50mm f/1.4 ais since I hadn't had the chance to take photos in a while. This is my new toy, will post a NGD once I get to have some free time. I just love the depth of field created by the f/1.4, have found it to be nice for non moving objects, specially product photography (weirdly have not tried it on anyone yet). 



Ibanez RG421rw by Nelson Garcia, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

lets try this again.. what I've been up to. Gotta say I'm really enjoying the light here up North. It feels different at certain day parts and I think it might have something to do with being at a more northern latitude. Eh, who knows 



blue hills, ma by Scott Jones, on Flickr



blue hills #2.0 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



rock by Scott Jones, on Flickr



blue hills #3 by Scott Jones, on Flickr

I guess being somewhere new inspired me to try something a bit different than dog pics. It felt so nice to finally go out and shoot after almost a month.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Bought this ridiculous beast today. MTO 1000mm f10 mirror lens. It's almost as long as my regular Vivitar 400/5.6 but the thickness of a cannon.

See how it dwarfs the Sigma 600mm f8 mirror and my Pentax KX?













Here are the 3 filters it came with. 106mm or something like that in diameter. And I thought the regular 70-80 was big...





It's apparently pretty popular for astro. The guy I got it from used it with an adapter on an Olympus m43 camera but at 2000mm equiv it was too much for him  

Purchases like these make me want to get a Pentax DSLR with the astrotracer or one of those tripod astro-mounts.


----------



## Philligan

I just saw Christopher Frost's review of this and was checking them out on eBay. It actually looks really cool and surprisingly useable. If I could find one for around $100 I'd get one. It would be cool to try super compressed portraits.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Mine was &#8364;100 so you could probably get one for $100 if you know where to look. 

The weird thing about it is that it focuses beyond infinity and the minimum distance. It basically goes all the way down the barrell and turning it too far you just screw off the top.

Big props to people using it for wildlife. It ways 3.5kg (like 8lbs), that's more than my fully loaded medium format setup and only a pound or so shy of my 4x5


----------



## A-Branger

the only thing with those mirror lenses is the donut shape bokeh that it produce. So I wont recommend it for portraits


----------



## Tang

went out again today.. different theme but kinda the same.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Really like this Tang!


----------



## Tang

Joe Harvatt said:


> Really like this Tang!



Thanks so much man! I kinda feel like I've jumped a level in photography. It feels nice.

Here's another. This one was manually focused


----------



## UnderTheSign

I underestimated the use of a light meter. Figured it'd be a huge hassle but this autometer fits in most of my jacket pockets, bag pocket, whatever and if I throw it in a bag with a TLR camera it takes up less size than my Bronica. Paired with the bronica (with waist level finder) it takes up roughly the same amount as space as Bronica with the metered loupe finder. Which is awesome, because medium format waist level finders are a treat to use. Measuring also takes up a lot less time than I thought it would, as long as I set the iso and preferred shutter speed before I start shooting.


----------



## Tang

feeling inspired again. See, I can do more than just dog pics. 

Also a return to horizontal crops!


----------



## punisher911

Philligan said:


> DSCF0002 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



I just love the colors in this...


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Found a roll of Ilford XP2 that hadn't been developed on the weekend. Was excited to see the scans today.



_19_00063 by Joe Harvatt, on Flickr



_24_00068 by Joe Harvatt, on Flickr



_13_00057 by Joe Harvatt, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

I started with part two of my _Rune o Morfar_ project (my son with his grandad).
The first one was mostly indoors using softboxes. This time I'm keeping it all outdoors which I prefer.
The idea is to capture a series of photo of the two of them in care free spring/summer environment. I have a good few planned out. Just need to get the right locations and props.

The sign says _Runes Rabarbersaft _which is Swedish for Rune's rhubarb drink.
It's like the Swedish equivalent to American lemonade. Apparently rhubarb drinks are pretty popular here


----------



## UnderTheSign

I like it. I grew up on rhubarb too


----------



## Philligan

I've been quiet lately, but I've been pretty busy working. I'll have some jobs with potentially postable material soon. For the time being, here are two quick ones from a walk tonight.



DSCF0006 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0038 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I'm definitely on a film kick at the moment.



_20_00099 by Joe Harvatt, on Flickr



__8_00087 by Joe Harvatt, on Flickr



_14_00093 by Joe Harvatt, on Flickr


----------



## Chuck

Long time no see guys! Just stepped into the Fuji world with the XE-2S  found a killer mint condition one for a great deal. Can't wait to get my hands on it!


----------



## Philligan

So I'm finally getting the chance to sit down and look at things now. I had a crazy couple weeks, shooting a local craft beer show and a wedding a couple weeks ago, and shooting a 3-day mobile tech conference at the local college over the last three days.

EDIT: Actually, fun fact: Every photo, other than the wooden token one, is the 56mm wide open. And the token one is the 35mm wide open. 

The beer show was nothing too special. I'm pretty sure it was a pity job, because I got it the same day that I got laid off from my freelance writing job. 



DSCF0180 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0132 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

The wedding went pretty well. The couple wasn't the greatest to shoot (not super social or high energy) and the wedding party is small, but it still wasn't too bad. They both really like punk and ska, and the reception playlist was absolutely killer - I've never seen skank circles at a wedding before, and I was stoked on that.

As frustrating as the on-chip AF can be on the Fujis, it's worth it for the accuracy IMHO. The 56mm is both crazy sharp wide open and actually fairly practical to shoot. I pretty much always shoot the 56 wide open. Having that look when you want it really helps negate the need for full frame - I'd like to see a comparison between one of the Sony 85s (1.4 or 1.8) to this and see what the real-world difference really is. Other than falloff, I really don't see any potential benefits to full frame when you have useable 1.2 on APS-C.



DSCF0062 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0261 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0394 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

The event wasn't anything special. It wasn't a super high paying job, and they didn't have crazy expectations. They just wanted coverage to make a promo video for the next year. Last year they got a couple of the photography program students to do it - I saw the pictures and they were pretty bad, and apparently the students took almost 6 months to deliver them, so I didn't get to stressed out over the job. 

It was all indoors, though, and the artificial light was awful. 



DSCF0072 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0096 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0131 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

Freaking lost it at some of the shapes. He did exactly what I'd do 

My gf wants to do this too now.


----------



## Chuck

Some of my first shots mucking around with the XE-2S and 35mm 1.4. All post processing was Lightroom mobile.



Window sky by Chuck Haller, on Flickr



Woody_2 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr



BarLights by Chuck Haller, on Flickr



Woody_1 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

LR Mobile is great, eh? Especially for Facebook/Instagram posting, I could totally live with LRM and JPGs.

We got out for a solid bike ride today and I brought the X-E2, 23mm, and 50-230. In a backpack, too - last time I biked with a shoulder bag I regretted it.  I didn't touch the 50-230 (the plan was some super compressed portraits, but I didn't feel like stopping a ride to walk around and shoot).



DSCF0032 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0039 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Chuck

It is indeed nice! I plan on getting CC soon so I can learn the full version. 

And I love those shots dude. I've been contemplating which lens to get next, 23, 56, or 90.


----------



## Philligan

Chuck said:


> It is indeed nice! I plan on getting CC soon so I can learn the full version.
> 
> And I love those shots dude. I've been contemplating which lens to get next, 23, 56, or 90.



Have you just got the 35 right now? If so that's a tough call. I started off with just the 35 for a couple months, then got the 18, then the 23. I basically had just those three lenses for about a year until I got the 56.

It's hard to say because those lenses all do produce different looks, but I think that's mostly obvious to you, because know what you're looking for. And you might find that since they're close in focal length, one doesn't really allow you to do much that the other wouldn't. 

If you're really into portraits, then 35 + 90 is actually a great combo. But if you want something more all-around, I'd recommend the 16mm. Personally, I couldn't live with the 35mm as my widest lens, unless I was strictly shooting portraits. The 23mm is awesome, but a bit redundant when it's paired with the 35 IMHO (same aperture, fairly close focal length). 

If you're strictly looking at the lenses you'd mentioned, I'd say go with the 90 for practicality's sake. When I had 18/23/35, I either took the 18+35 or just the 23mm. Unless I was shooting a wedding, where I absolutely needed some width and compression on the same job, then the 23 and 35 were basically interchangeable. If you did 35 + 90, they'd be different enough to both be valuable because they'd give the photos a noticeably different look from each other.

If you want something more all-purpose, I'd definitely say get the 16. 16 covers landscapes, environmental portraits, indoor stuff, and some more exaggerated portraits, and the 35 covers your safer, more compressed portraits. I could go on vacation or go out with friends with those two lenses and not feel like I'm missing anything, and if need be, I'd be pretty comfortable shooting a wedding with them, too.


----------



## tank

my new D750 is near, Can't wait


----------



## Chuck

Philligan said:


> Have you just got the 35 right now? If so that's a tough call. I started off with just the 35 for a couple months, then got the 18, then the 23. I basically had just those three lenses for about a year until I got the 56.
> 
> It's hard to say because those lenses all do produce different looks, but I think that's mostly obvious to you, because know what you're looking for. And you might find that since they're close in focal length, one doesn't really allow you to do much that the other wouldn't.
> 
> If you're really into portraits, then 35 + 90 is actually a great combo. But if you want something more all-around, I'd recommend the 16mm. Personally, I couldn't live with the 35mm as my widest lens, unless I was strictly shooting portraits. The 23mm is awesome, but a bit redundant when it's paired with the 35 IMHO (same aperture, fairly close focal length).
> 
> If you're strictly looking at the lenses you'd mentioned, I'd say go with the 90 for practicality's sake. When I had 18/23/35, I either took the 18+35 or just the 23mm. Unless I was shooting a wedding, where I absolutely needed some width and compression on the same job, then the 23 and 35 were basically interchangeable. If you did 35 + 90, they'd be different enough to both be valuable because they'd give the photos a noticeably different look from each other.
> 
> If you want something more all-purpose, I'd definitely say get the 16. 16 covers landscapes, environmental portraits, indoor stuff, and some more exaggerated portraits, and the 35 covers your safer, more compressed portraits. I could go on vacation or go out with friends with those two lenses and not feel like I'm missing anything, and if need be, I'd be pretty comfortable shooting a wedding with them, too.



16, 35, 90...I dig that idea. I really love landscape and street but want to get into portraiture more. I think the 16, 35,and 90 would make an awesome trio.


----------



## Philligan

Finally delivered that wedding today. I've had a lot of jobs piling up around my day/retail job, and this wedding has been looming over my head the whole time.

The 56mm is unreal. The separation you still get with further working distances is great. I'd really like to try a shot like this with the 90mm (sadly, the 16mm must come first though haha).



DSCF0241 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And I got to use the extension tube. I wish I'd gotten the 11mm first.  You have to get so close with this thing, and your depth of field is tiny.



DSCF0556 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

That shot would have been nice with the 90mm Phil. Still nice with the 56mm
How many weddings do you shoot Phil? You seem to always be doing them 

I've got a wedding myself in two weeks.

I'm really liking the canon 35mm f1.4 (original version) for its character.
Not the best when the subjects are small in the frame. It seems to lose some resolution when the focus is closer to infinity. Older design I guess. I don't have such issues with my 85mm.
Still. This lens suits my tastes perfectly fine.


----------



## Philligan

Not too many so far, actually.  I posted a couple photos a while ago but they were from the same wedding. I just finally finished it and picked out a couple more I liked. I'm pretty sure I've done two so far this year, and have three more booked for the summer.

That's a great photo, man. I've actually found the same thing with my 23mm - it definitely doesn't seem as sharp at infinity.

Here's my official guess: that shot of the bridge I posted surprised me with how sharp it was, so I think the issue is more related to people and pixel density. We both seem to primarily do portraits, with common portrait focal lengths, so we're used to seeing lots of detail in people's faces. I think the shorter focal length combined with the longer working distance just means not as many pixels are landing on people's faces, so when you zoom in there's significantly less detail. 

Try shooting a landscape at infinity and see how sharp it is. If I shoot say a wide environmental shot with someone in it, the environment will look sharp but their face seems soft to me. So I think it's just the fact that I'm used to zooming into 1:1 and seeing pores and eyelashes, so when I pixel peep a wide shot, I'm unrealistically expecting the same amount of detail.


----------



## Negav

Some shots while at the Guanica Dry Forrest, and the ruins of the Guanica Lighthouse. Need to go again since the day was overcast and the lighting wasn't the best. 



Cactus Pod by Nelson Garcia, on Flickr



Flower and thorns by Nelson Garcia, on Flickr



Guayacan Centenario by Nelson Garcia, on Flickr



Guanica lighthouse ruins by Nelson Garcia, on Flickr



Guanica lighthouse ruins by Nelson Garcia, on Flickr



Guanica lighthouse stairs by Nelson Garcia, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I need some help with my workflow using multiple cameras.

So with this last wedding, I had my two Fuji cameras and a Nikon to deal with. This was my first wedding with two cameras, and basically my first with a second shooter. Long story short, I didn't do any prep, edited the photos one camera at a time, and had to spend ages renumbering them all by hand after.

I've watched some videos and understand syncing photos by time, and syncing times in post if need be. One thing I can't figure out how is how to store the files before I import them.

My next wedding will be at least three cameras, and maybe a fourth. At the end of the day, do I dump all the RAW files into one folder, and import that one single folder into LR? Or do I have a separate folder for each camera or card? If I use separate folders, how do I work on them all in one go, without having to go back in the Library and switch folders?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I would make sure that the time on all the cameras is the same, import them to one folder, sort by time/date, and rename them in that one folder so they have the proper sequencing.

Edit: I forgot you're using LR, I'm using Bridge and this is method works for me since I do my own file organization manually with folders.


----------



## Whammy

Yeap, make sure that you sync the clocks on all the cameras before the event. That way all photos will be in the chronological order, according to their time stamp.

I have Lightroom set up so when I import new photos, it sorts them into folders with the date that the photos were taken.
If I use more than one camera on the same day it just dumps them into one folder with the relevant date.
Lightroom should then sort them in chronological order, regardless of the camera.

Afterwards in Lightroom in the Library section. If you go to the Metadata tab, you can select to view only a specific camera or lens.

EDIT:
When importing into Lightroom you need to select "Copy" photos. Then you can change the "Organize" section to "by date".
If you simply "Add" the photos into the catalog you won't have that option.


----------



## Chuck

AshleyBarrancasBridge by Chuck Haller, on Flickr

I think I like this.

Edit: This is my first shot processed through Lightroom CC. Only just learning how to use it. Looking for some constructive criticism, guys


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> I would make sure that the time on all the cameras is the same, import them to one folder, sort by time/date, and rename them in that one folder so they have the proper sequencing.
> 
> Edit: I forgot you're using LR, I'm using Bridge and this is method works for me since I do my own file organization manually with folders.





Whammy said:


> Yeap, make sure that you sync the clocks on all the cameras before the event. That way all photos will be in the chronological order, according to their time stamp.
> 
> I have Lightroom set up so when I import new photos, it sorts them into folders with the date that the photos were taken.
> If I use more than one camera on the same day it just dumps them into one folder with the relevant date.
> Lightroom should then sort them in chronological order, regardless of the camera.
> 
> Afterwards in Lightroom in the Library section. If you go to the Metadata tab, you can select to view only a specific camera or lens.
> 
> EDIT:
> When importing into Lightroom you need to select "Copy" photos. Then you can change the "Organize" section to "by date".
> If you simply "Add" the photos into the catalog you won't have that option.



Thanks guys. 

So I can handle that. I like the idea of putting them in one folder so I can access them all at once in the develop panel. 

But what's up with renaming them? My two Fujis used the same header, so if I import one camera first and rename them, won't LR have trouble with naming when I import the next camera's files?


----------



## Philligan

On an unrelated note, here are some photos from the shoot today. This is basically the same people as my last burger shoot (different restaurants but same marketing company) but I'm working with a different dude this time. He likes more natural, lifestyle-looking photos with burgers actually made by the truck - as opposed to us building each burger perfectly. It went way quicker, and editing only took me like 1/2 hour.



DSCF0025 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0059 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0067 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0074 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> Thanks guys.
> 
> So I can handle that. I like the idea of putting them in one folder so I can access them all at once in the develop panel.
> 
> But what's up with renaming them? My two Fujis used the same header, so if I import one camera first and rename them, won't LR have trouble with naming when I import the next camera's files?



I always use custom names for my shoots, and if I use multiple cameras I'll sort by date/time so the images are in order of the event or shoot before doing the batch rename.


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> I always use custom names for my shoots, and if I use multiple cameras I'll sort by date/time so the images are in order of the event or shoot before doing the batch rename.



Does LR get mad when you try and put two cards' worth of photos together? What if some of the RAWs have the same file name and numbering?


----------



## Philligan

Just because it's been so quiet lately, here's a pano. 

I did the math. It's a ~40BM file that works out to just under 97MP.  About 6 times the size of a typical Fuji JPG.



DSCF0092-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> Does LR get mad when you try and put two cards' worth of photos together? What if some of the RAWs have the same file name and numbering?



No idea, I don't use LR (I don't even have it installed). If I'm going to be using files from multiple cameras then I'll use generic names for the initial download (when I download in Bridge from my card this is an option I can set each time), sort the files by time and finally rename them.

A quick shot I took of a watch I've been wearing quite a bit lately. I should have tried pushing up to f/11 or so.




Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D + Nikon PK-13 27.5mm extension tube: ISO 800 1/40s f/5.6


----------



## A-Branger

Philligan said:


> I need some help with my workflow using multiple cameras.
> 
> So with this last wedding, I had my two Fuji cameras and a Nikon to deal with. This was my first wedding with two cameras, and basically my first with a second shooter. Long story short, I didn't do any prep, edited the photos one camera at a time, and had to spend ages renumbering them all by hand after.
> 
> I've watched some videos and understand syncing photos by time, and syncing times in post if need be. One thing I can't figure out how is how to store the files before I import them.
> 
> My next wedding will be at least three cameras, and maybe a fourth. At the end of the day, do I dump all the RAW files into one folder, and import that one single folder into LR? Or do I have a separate folder for each camera or card? If I use separate folders, how do I work on them all in one go, without having to go back in the Library and switch folders?




Like others say, sync the cameras time before the shooting and use the date/time order to see the photos. If by any chance you forgot to do that you can still manually fix that, as long as you have lets say two cameras who fired the same shot at the same time, then you can check how big the time difference between the two is and add that time difference to all the files from that camera (add 2 seconds). If you have that problem I can show you how in lightroom

The easiest way for files is to go with a main folder with sub-folders. For example on my weddings I have a main folder called "Wedding" inside that folder there is "1-Bride Prep" "2-Groom Prep" "3- Ceremony" ect ect. I dump the photos on the main folder while import and then manually selelct the batch on the library module and create a sub-folder and move them there with just drag and drop (this would move the raw files on the HD too) in that way I could import all the photos in one go and organize them latter while the next card is being imported.

then during the library module I can see only the sub-folder selected. If I click the "groom prep" folder, I would only see those. But if I click the main folder "wedding", I would see all the photos.

so in that way you can create a folder for each camera or card if you wish.

I also like to rename my files to a custom name while keeping the original file number, so I go "name of bride"_"initial of groom"_"Initial of who shoot it"(if two photog were on the wedding)-"original file number". I always keep the original file number of the camera, in that way it wont matter the order I import the memory cards it would always stay numbered as shot

You can create one that its "name of bride+groom"_"camera 1"(or 2 or 3)-original file number

in that way Lightroom wont mix names ever and you would know whos wedding is those photos if you happen to come across them in the future.

then when you export you can use any name as it wont affect the original






also worth to notice I create a new Lightroom catalog for each wedding. Taht catalog gets stored on the same folder with any documentation and raw files of that wedding. It makes the job much cleaner and easier to keep track of it


.....sneaky hero shots on that wedding using the star ratings filter


----------



## Whammy

Phil, can't you set a prefix in the numbering/naming system in your camera's menu?
All you need to do is something simple like camera_a / camera_b.

I have my numbering set to continuous, so if I put in a new card the numbering doesn't reset to 0001. No chance of numbers repeating during one session.


----------



## Chuck

BikeSunset by Chuck Haller, on Flickr

Captured this earlier tonight!


----------



## Whammy

Chuck said:


> Edit: This is my first shot processed through Lightroom CC. Only just learning how to use it. Looking for some constructive criticism, guys



Looks good. Not a lot of midrange information. Mostly shadows and highlights. You could try recovering some of the shadows to add more detail to her face. But then you lose the silhouette type look.



Guys, which do you prefer?
The first version is one photo.
For the second photo has two photos stitched together (top and bottom).

When viewing on a computer I prefer number 1. When on my phone I prefer number 2. But that is mainly due to how big the image displays on the different screens (without rotating the phone's screen).

On a note about landscape/portrait crops.
I've been finding that most portrait cropped photos I put up on my facebook page do better than landscape crops. That would leave me to believe that most people are viewing the photos on a mobile device where portrait photos look bigger.

Anyway here are the photos.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I prefer two, lovely composition and sense of scale. The only thing I'd say is that maybe some of the out of focus areas are a little too sharpened, but it's nitpicking.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I'm with Joe on this one. The larger photo actually puts more emphasis on the people while it has a more relaxed background. Also agree on the bokeh sharpening, on my phone when I zoom in its pretty harsh.

I've been loving your grandpa and grandson series of work though. Especially the colour pattern.


----------



## Whammy

Nitpicking  but you're right.
That harshness is coming from the clarity slider. I should just selectively use it on areas that need it. Thanks guys.


----------



## Philligan

I like the second one, too. I'm not sure if it's exactly square or not, but square tends to look better on social media, and I like how the second photo was sort of made for a square crop, as opposed to removing some of the scene from a photo you already like.

And I agree with Joe. The negative space gives them a sense of scale without being the centre of attention - it's a nice photo that happens to have negative space, instead of relying on negative space to make it interesting.


----------



## Whammy

Thanks Phil. And yeah, the crop is exactly square.
Most times when I do these portraits I also take addition photos outside of the original frame to allow me to add in extra space if I want it.

Uploaded a version with the bokeh areas softened and some other subtle changes.
Zooming in will still look harsh as I've only linked a 800px photo.
The actual photo is 5563 x 5563px


----------



## Chuck

Whammy said:


> Looks good. Not a lot of midrange information. Mostly shadows and highlights. You could try recovering some of the shadows to add more detail to her face. But then you lose the silhouette type look.



Thanks! I tried more shadow recovery but I didn't care for how it looked here too much. I do like the highlights on her face that give it that bit of detail, however. I appreciate the feedback man!


----------



## Whammy

I'm looking at getting my own domain and webpage for work. Facebook has worked out so far for getting work, but it's not very professional, photos look awful, and not all clients are going to come from Facebook so I need to expand.

Anyone here have experience with the many options out there like squarespace etc?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm using 1&1 for hosting because I've been using it forever and they have always had great service for me when I needed it. I do my own coding though so it might not be the best option if you need someone to build a site for you.

Today's watch shot.




Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D + Nikon PK-13 27.5mm extension tube: ISO 400 1/60s f/5.6


----------



## Philligan

I don't have a real website, but I use PicSurge to host low budget portfolios. It's nothing special, but it's at least a dedicated website where I can keep portfolios and refer people to it if they ask about my work.

I don't know what it's like now. The guy who wrote it posted a link to the beta on Reddit and I signed up then, and have been using it ever since. I think there's a social aspect to it, but I haven't spent enough time on it to check. The uploader is a bit clumsy and it's picky as far as file sizes go, but it's a clean-looking option that's free, at least.

This is nothing crazy, but here's one from last night. I had to do a lot of post sorcery to get the colour balance looking decent. There was a sunset, but we were standing beside some building that's right on the water, so Dawn was in a really orange light from one of their security lights. I did some split-toning to warm up the shadows, but then used a radial filter on Dawn to cool the white balance on her to something more human looking.



DSCF0077 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

On a side note, I've been using the radial filter a ton lately. I used to paint with the adjustment brush, but the radial filter's feathering is so smooth, and I like how adjustable it is after you've used it. I rarely touch the brush at all, and use the radial filter any time I need to make local adjustments (mostly exposure stuff, like bringing up the lighting on a person's face).


----------



## A-Branger

Whammy said:


> Guys, which do you prefer?



I actually prefer the first one

the negative space of the second one is cool, but it doesnt ad to the picture. It actually takes me away from the action they are doing.

If it were a couple having a romantic moment it would work nicely, but for this photo I want to focus more on what the two subjects are doing, on the kid pouring the glass and the granpa. With the negative space my eyes gets dragged out of the main action of the photo, even when its the only thing sharp.

Also the negative space is brighter than the main scene, so that could help for me to lift my eyes out of it 


I feel the first one is a more personal, intimate photo, so it goes well with them. The second one is more "airy" and gets lost a bit in a more "scenery" kinda shot

great work regardless


social media the second one with the more square crop would work nicely as it fills your phone better and looks better on instagram, even when you now have the option to have any kind of crop. But if I was going to print te photo to put on a wall I would go with the first one


----------



## Philligan

Finally got around to editing these. Here are some from Enter Shikari in London a few weeks ago. This was X-E2 with a combo of 18mm and 35mm, wide open for each lens.

Despite allegedly having the same firmware, I'd be tempted to try the X-T1 and 23mm next time. I'm sure it was more the lenses than the X-E2, but they both hunted like crazy in the terrible lighting.



DSCF0114 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0157 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0137 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0383 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0465 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0229 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0524 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

I find myself really itching for a 28mm equiv prime for my Pentax. 



boston calling 2 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



red line brainfreeze by Scott Jones, on Flickr



vertigo by Scott Jones, on Flickr



vertigo 2 by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I really like 28mm equiv. When I had my crop Canon (and my only prime was a 50mm) my 17-50 seemed so wide. Now ~28mm feels almost like a normal.

The main reason I use the 23mm so much is because of the speed. Once you get used to f/1.4 at night and indoors, it's hard to go slower. For shooting everyday life, I prefer the 18mm's field of view. If they made an 18 1.4, it would replace the 18mm and the 23mm for me.


----------



## UnderTheSign

So. I found a 6x7-6x12 adjustable film back on ebay, am looking into helicoids and I might just build my own 6x12 camera this summer. I've been GASing for one of those ALPA/Cambo/etc ones or a Hasselblad X-Pan but even those by Fotoman are terribly expensive. For the time being I think I'll just go and use it with the 150mm Sironar-N I already have but in the future I'd like a 75 or 90mm for landscape wide shots.

Should be fun! (and more portable than my 4x5 setup


----------



## UnderTheSign

Large format lens question because information found on Google is confusing and conflicting:
My 150mm Sironar-N has a focal flange distance of 142mm, meaning the rear element (correct me if I'm wrong here) has to be 142mm from the film plane to focus to infinity. To focus closer, just like when you use macro tubes, the lens will have to be further away from.the film plane, correct?

I'm going to have to figure out the 'depth' of the camera I'm making based on the lens I'm using, which explains why Fotoman cameras etc have these long tubes for longer focal lengths and why the Alpa/Cambo systems all use very wide lenses.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Yes, the lens moves further from the film plane as you want magnification to increase.


----------



## Philligan

So I did a grad shoot yesterday, against my better judgement.  It was for a couple ex-coworkers, so I let my niceness get in the way of reason and did the shoot even though it's not something I have a desire to do haha. I was going through the photos though and filled up my card unexpectedly, so had to pull an old card out that hadn't been formatted. It had photos from a walk Dawn and I went on a few weeks ago, and I found a photo of Dawn I really like that I apparently skipped when I edited them.



DSCF0041 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

I really like the skin tones on this one. The light was really soft, which never hurts, but instead of an S curve like I usually do, I did this new thing, and it made her skin pop like crazy.



Screen Shot 2016-06-11 at 9.48.18 PM by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

I shot my friend again a couple weeks ago. Finally finished editing the photos. This wasn't anything too exciting - we worried more about shooting lots of outfits as opposed to doing really creative photos, but I got a few I liked.



DSCF0059 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0067 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0081 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

What's different about that s-curve from your normal one?

I don't use a traditional s-curve that often. The highs and lows I end up softening off a little near the very end of the curve and the main mid section, while adjusted to suit the photo, is still flat enough. No sharp curve in the very middle.

Finished shooting a 12 hour wedding yesterday. I used two bodies 5d mkiii & mkiii and only needed to change battery in the mkiii once. Pretty surprised as I had two other spare batteries in my bag.
I also shot the 85mm & 35mm prime combo all day. Worked well.
I used an old retro lens for a freelensing tilt shift effect for a hand full of portraits.

Time to start processing.


----------



## Philligan

I normally put the points right on the quarter intersections, and pull the highs up and the darks down. This time I put the point for the highs a bit farther down, and instead of just pulling the curve up, I pulled it up and to the left. It seemed to do a lot more to the mid tones, whereas a normal S curve seems to kill the mid tones I think.


----------



## Whammy

Lately this would be close to my usual curve type for portraits. Fairly flat but with lots of little bumps. If the lighting levels are a bit skewed in the photo then the curve would be a bit more drastic to counteract it.
I usually has a little soft curve at the very lows.

I also adjust the RGB curve. But that is very subtle. The most common thing I do is to pull some blues from skin tones.
If I do make adjustments on any of the RGB curves, I make sure to place a few anchor points to help lock the curve in its default position.


----------



## Philligan

What percentage is your black point at?

I feel like with my Canon, I'd do 8%-15% easily. I'm sure my tastes are also changing, but the Fuji blacks seem to lift in a strange way, and I find myself only doing 3% or so. Lifting the black point seems to make the mid-tones get really harsh.


----------



## Whammy

I'm normally around 12-15%. 20 feels too faded to me and 10 and under feels way to subtle.

You should be able to lift the blacks without the mid tones being affected. I have my points set so a change in the blacks doesn't alter the curve further up the line. I also have the cut off point set to take place rather suddenly. So for the most part the curve follows the standard line until it gets under 20%. That keeps the mid tones intact


----------



## Tang

Downside of shooting with a phone #8: shooting in bright sunlight is the same as shooting from the hip. At that point you're hoping and praying.


----------



## A-Branger

so I was bored so I started to take photos of my guitars. Trying to aim towards something that can be used on a guitar brand website

This is my first try






bit harder than I though to fight against the reflections, and I am at least one speedlite too short. I used my octabox, my softbox and a reflector. The job would be easier with two stripboxes.

I shot it against a white background so I could cut the guitar out and clean the background, like on a website


----------



## vansinn

Whammy said:


> Guys, which do you prefer?
> The first version is one photo.
> For the second photo has two photos stitched together (top and bottom).



No. 1. This image is all about what the two generations are sharing together. The additional tree material merely serves to constantly lead my eyes to wander off the main topic for no reason whatsoever, thus breaking up the story.


----------



## vansinn

Whammy said:


> I'm really liking the canon 35mm f1.4 (original version) for its character.
> Not the best when the subjects are small in the frame. It seems to lose some resolution when the focus is closer to infinity. Older design I guess. I don't have such issues with my 85mm.
> Still. This lens suits my tastes perfectly fine.




I keep coming back to this picture.
It is more than lovely, it's amazing!
Because it has a story going on, and one that'll never end:

"I'm telling you..."
"Really? that's so cool."

And they'll still be talking next time I pass by.
You captured a moment that isn't a moment but something lasting. Plus I like the composition, DoF et al..


----------



## Philligan

A-Branger said:


> so I was bored so I started to take photos of my guitars. Trying to aim towards something that can be used on a guitar brand website
> 
> This is my first try
> 
> bit harder than I though to fight against the reflections, and I am at least one speedlite too short. I used my octabox, my softbox and a reflector. The job would be easier with two stripboxes.
> 
> I shot it against a white background so I could cut the guitar out and clean the background, like on a website



That looks great. I noticed the reflections when I started looking for them, but they still don't look bad IMHO. I've seen worse on guitar store websites. 

Sorry to get OT, but is that the EC-256? If so, what do you think of it? I've been thinking about getting an affordable LP, but I haven't been crazy about the Epiphones I've played. I have an X-tone PS-1 (one of the older set neck ones) and I absolutely love the neck and frets on it.


----------



## Philligan

Here's one I just took of Dawn. It's the 18mm @ f/2 on the X-E2. I really need to use this lens more. I get distracted by the 23mm's speed and forget how awesome this lens is. I also need to get out of the habit of relying on shallow DoF to make my photos look interesting. 

Also, this reminds me of Emmanuel Lubezki's still photography (chivexp on Instagram).



DSCF0021 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## A-Branger

Philligan said:


> That looks great. I noticed the reflections when I started looking for them, but they still don't look bad IMHO. I've seen worse on guitar store websites.
> 
> Sorry to get OT, but is that the EC-256? If so, what do you think of it? I've been thinking about getting an affordable LP, but I haven't been crazy about the Epiphones I've played. I have an X-tone PS-1 (one of the older set neck ones) and I absolutely love the neck and frets on it.



yeah its, hard-ish. I wanted to have a nice strip of light going on the sides of the boddy as a result of the carved top. You can see it on the right side. But Im guessing I need a different shape softboxes. I tried to put my other softbox on the left side of the body but I could never get the reflection for some reason, unless I shot the photo way out on an angle, so I end up using that light for the headstock. Also the pickups are chrome, I wanted them to look shinny, but If I did, then I loose the nice white strip of light on the side


Yes, this is a LTD-256. But I changed the pickups for the EMG Het-set. I think its a great guitar, specially for the price point. I got lucky to get a nice veneer top with a soft 3d-ish on it. And the back looks nice too, bit more orange-ish instead of plain red. Cant comment much on the original pups as I change them as soon I bough it. Its slim so doesnt weight much, fretboard is nice too. Never had an issue. It does need a good settup tho. I recently spend more time on it getting the neck relief and intonation but I have the action bit higher that I want due to some fret buzz, Im guessing frets are not 100% level. Its to be expected at this price point. I would like to address the frets, and maybe learn how to do so, but Im selling the guitar soon, I just need to instal back the original pups. Nothing wrong with it, its just Im used to my ibanez more, every time I play my Ibanez 24 fret 25.5" I feel more at home for some reason, plus I never quite gell with the red back look either, and I want a 7 string so I need money 

I think with a pro settup this guitar is great. Pups I dont know, I do know the original com with a split coil function tho. This year theres couple of new colors too

I forgot, when I tried at the store I also tried an 400 (or 1000) series and the Hetfield LTD sig too. I didnt notice any difference in playability. Also didnt help mine had brand new strings and the others old sets lol


----------



## Philligan

I'm just finishing up those grad photos I shot for ex-coworkers. Definitely not something I want to pursue as a career.  We shot some in a park and I got a few right at the entrance to a trail, and I tried doing a stitch there. I shot a big one (~20 photos) and really dig how it came out. I can only imagine doing this with a medium format like a Pentax 645.



DSCF0287-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

Jesus christ.

My cousin (and also very close/best friend right now) is getting married on the 30th. 2 freaking weeks from now. I'm his best man. They arranged a friend of theirs to do photography as apparently she had experience doing weddings. Due to personal circumstances, she cancelled today. Soooo they are in dire need of a photographer, who I'm now frantically looking for. (thankfully I know people who know people and now have to sift through emails from 7 different photographers offering me their services )

The big issue is... Because the original one was a friend of theirs, they never really thought about stuff like budget and their wishes. They just figured the photographer would tell them how things go down. So I'm pestering my cousin for details and he just doesn't know. He thought &#8364;400 was a lot of money for a photographer. He didn't know what kind of photos he wanted, wether he just wanted the photog for the ceremony, cake cutting and then some family photos, or if he was supposed to stay for dinner and the reception/party.

Man, I needed to vent. My cousin had a long day at work and he just went to bed, completely overwhelmed by all my questions while I'm dealing with the photographers. Weddings suck. I'm never getting married


----------



## Whammy

Is 400 the budget for the photographer? That's extremely low. I can't imagine you'll get an experienced wedding photographer who'll work for that. From the sounds of it they don't seem too pushed about having a photographer. Maybe I'm picking it up wrong.
But best of luck finding someone.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I wouldn't shoot a wedding for $400, I'd barely shoot engagements/bridals for that amount. Good luck to your cousin. 

PS: Weddings don't have to be that stressful, it's really a matter of prioritizing and proper planning.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Whammy said:


> Is &#8364;400 the budget for the photographer? That's extremely low. I can't imagine you'll get an experienced wedding photographer who'll work for that. From the sounds of it they don't seem too pushed about having a photographer. Maybe I'm picking it up wrong.
> But best of luck finding someone.


I think they just never realised photographers are often self employed people who need to make a living like everyone else. Sure, we've found a dozen people who can work with their budget or only slightly above it but most of them were the "I'll give you 500 photos in 4 hours" guys that looked like they just did the spray 'n pray thing. One lady who got in touch with me sent a link to her most recent wedding folder and some photos were legit out of focus. Like it looked like she used manual focus but focused 2ft in front of the couple instead of dead on them. Looking at all this stuff, I'd gladly raise my budget and get someone experienced


----------



## Philligan

That's a rough situation, man. Best of luck.  That's a crazy low budget. Maybe it's a good thing that happened - what if the friend had a totally different price in mind? Or maybe she wouldn't deliver the quality of photos they were hoping for.

Speaking of last minute, my friend works at a hair salon, and they were supposed to get new staff photos today and the photographer bailed on them the time of (he's stiffed them before, so I'm surprised they even hired him again). They asked me to come in last minute and do the photos. While I was there shooting, the other photographer showed up for a haircut.  

Pretty much everyone shot really well, though. Between that and being friends with them, it was a fun day. I'm not totally done all of them, but I wanted to deliver at least one of each of them in case they needed them in a hurry.



DSCF0158 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0012 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0145 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

Wow, 500 photos from 4 hours of shooting! That's certainly spray & pray. I'd imagine they would all be jpgs straight from the camera too.
I'm giving my last clients 400 photos from a 12 hour day.

A wedding doesn't have to be stressful. Good planning goes a long way.


----------



## Philligan

Agreed. I was at that last wedding for about 12 hours, and delivered just over 500 photos. That includes a lot of simple dancing photos from the reception, because they had a lot of drinkers and dancers at the wedding.

If they deliver 500 photos from four hours, they must either shoot an _insane_ amount of photos, or deliver everything they shoot.


----------



## UnderTheSign

That's what I was thinking. How do you shoot 500 in a couple hours?! 

Anyway, a friend of mine got me in touch with a couple of photographers, one of them had a really good website and portfolio. His rates seemed what I expect to pay for a wedding - packages starting at &#8364;1200 and going up if you add a book etc. He was willing to bend the budget a little as it was a last minute necessity and after I explained they aren't looking for 8-12 hours of coverage but rather just good photographs of the ceremony and some of them and the family, he estimated it'd be more like 4 hours of shooting which seems fair. He offered them a good deal and I told him I'd pay for the album as I just really wanted them to get a good photographer. They agreed on a price this evening so I'm super happy for everyone involved.


----------



## Whammy

I did quite a few stitches during this wedding.
This is only 5 photos.
Most times when I go to take a portrait like this I run into two issues. Get the framing the way I want it, but not the depth of field. Or get the right texture in the out of focus areas but not the framing.
So I normally get my distance from the subject to exactly where I want it to be, in order for me to be able to achieve a particular level of out-of-focusness and texture.
Once I get that right I then take as many photos as I need to get the framing that is in my head.


----------



## A-Branger

UnderTheSign said:


> That's what I was thinking. How do you shoot 500 in a couple hours?!



man you would be surprise how many photos you get after a wedding day  I have shot in 10-12 hour weddings anything between 1000-4000 photos. Depending on the day and what happened during the day. But againg, how many of those shots are useable is a different story 

but I can see easily a beginer getting that amount of photos on a ceremony- photoshoot alone. Not so muhc the spray and pray but the non-stop shooting during ceremony. It took me a while to "calm down" during stuff like ceremony/speeches/dancing shots, search for the good stuff and get it. That I didnt need it to shot everything all the time, as I hard learned by editing the photos that I shot like 50 photos of the "same angle"-ish. 

Also stuff like 1-3 pics of a speaker is more than enough, instead of non-stop shooting at the guy during all his speech making noise. Which makes me remember:
small rant: it surprises me on how little people now their gear. I do a lot of wedding videos too and it drives me nuts when the photog of the day cant be bothered to put his/her camera on "silent mode" for the important stuff lite ceremony and speeches.... "we gathered here, in this SPLANK day, on the union SPLANK of Martha SPLANK and Joe SPLANK SPLANK...." maybe on the day you dont 100% notice it, but when I have to edit the video and use the lapel mics of the celebrant and groom its the only noise that cuts trough and it crap in all over the video. That another reason I hate Nikon as they dont have a proper silent mode (all the ones I have used/seen), even a lady the last time, she been shooting for yeaaars, shes good, and she have a Canon 5dIII. I had to teach her how to change the shooting mode and show her the "S" stands for silent mode....... 



Whammy said:


> I'm giving my last clients 400 photos from a 12 hour day.



 man thas a low number, I have no idea how can you do that for a full on day 

I know you are getting the absolute best of the photos but are you sure you arent missing some pics just to get to the "number"

for a 12 hour day I give anything between 500-1000 photos. All depends on what happened on the day. I get the best pics and I dont give any "duplicates" At the start I forced myself to give only 500-600 as thats what we were "selling", but for a big day I always found myself deleting good photos or good moments just to get to the "number", it wasnt fair for the couple. I much rather work for an extra hour or two and deliver them extra photos so they dont miss any moment I shot, get more of what they got offered (bonus points there), and I wont get any complains of "you were there for two hours, why I only have 4 shots of the dancing" kinda scenarios (which it happened)


----------



## A-Branger

Philligan said:


> *hair salon pics*



great pics men, nice consistency and loved the little hair/side light



Whammy said:


> *wedding photo*



great pic men, love the editing


----------



## Whammy

A-Branger said:


> man thas a low number, I have no idea how can you do that for a full on day
> 
> I know you are getting the absolute best of the photos but are you sure you arent missing some pics just to get to the "number"
> 
> for a 12 hour day I give anything between 500-1000 photos. All depends on what happened on the day. I get the best pics and I dont give any "duplicates" At the start I forced myself to give only 500-600 as thats what we were "selling", but for a big day I always found myself deleting good photos or good moments just to get to the "number", it wasnt fair for the couple. I much rather work for an extra hour or two and deliver them extra photos so they dont miss any moment I shot, get more of what they got offered (bonus points there), and I wont get any complains of "you were there for two hours, why I only have 4 shots of the dancing" kinda scenarios (which it happened)



You work for an extra hour or two to deliver double the amount of photos?
How much editing do you do on that many photos? Is it just light editing? Every photo I give them is _fully_ edited as much as needs be. If I double the amount of photos given to them, then that doubles the amount of time I spend processing photos.
I also don't know many people who actually want _more_ than 500 photos for their wedding. At the end of the day they will only use a select few for printing and on social media.


----------



## vansinn

Whammy said:


> Wow, 500 photos from 4 hours of shooting! That's certainly spray & pray. I'd imagine they would all be jpgs straight from the camera too.
> I'm giving my last clients 400 photos from a 12 hour day.
> 
> A wedding doesn't have to be stressful. Good planning goes a long way.



Absolutely agree.
Back in the days, I shot weddings using a Canon T-70, 2.8/24, 1.8/50, Kalimar 3.9-5.6/60-300, polarizer, two medium and one small slave flashes, used max four rolls of film, changed lenses all the time, changed film from 100 to 400 and back by winding back the film, pulling back-out the snippet and write the last exposure on the roll, then the other roll in, click to last exposure + 1.
And this was for a full day, that is before and after the church, longer pause, then afternoon, dining and early evening.

I never felt stressed; rather, it was enjoyable and nicely demanding this way.
I don't remember a single shot that wasn't fully useful (composition, focus, light). And no auto whatsoever, it was all manual.

And I got paid!

I've spend the last 1½ month browsing up on photography and gear for my upcoming personal reboot, and notice these comments like if you lenses you'll miss the shot, and a con remark in a review complaining about 'only 6 FPS' etc..
Such rubbish 


EDIT: Just read Philligan's comments below, and have to agree on what's said as an accurate description of wedding works - maybe likely other photo genres too..
Just to comment on my 'rubbish' comment.. I merely meant to say that some things IMHO are being overrated (like the FPS) at times, and ought to have commented more on my ideas of when I most certainly do see such technology being relevant.


----------



## Philligan

I agree that some people can get caught up in specs and pixel-peeping (not to mention the people with the loudest voices are usually the least likely to actually buy the products they're complaining about ), but just to play the devil's advocate, I feel like the wedding market has changed a lot with digital and the internet, and a lot of those complaints are at least somewhat justified.

On one hand, people expect a lot more photos now. Most photographers offer in the neighbourhood of 500 photos, and whether that's reasonable or not, if that's what customers want, then they're going to hire someone who offers it. A photographer can stick to their guns and offer less photos, but if clients want more, the photographer will lose business. People expect photojournalistic coverage of _every_ aspect of the day, and you're usually looking at an 8-hour day minimum (the bulk of weddings I shoot I'm there 10-12 hours). They expect a lot of candid moments, and any little ways your gear can help you catch those make a difference. 

Social media and sites like Pinterest throw another wrench in things, too. It doesn't matter how big or small the city you're working in is, or what the wedding budget was or what background the couple comes from; you can pretty much guarantee that they were looking at wedding photos online and had the chance to see photos from the best photographers in the world. And they're going to compare you to that. While I agree that "spray and pray" techniques aren't the best practice and don't build much skill, you can bet that when they go in for the first kiss, I'm going to be shooting the entire time as quickly as reasonably possible. Storage is cheap and pretty much unlimited, so if taking more photos of something increases the chance of getting _that_ shot, then I'm going to do it. Just knowing my photos could be up against photos from people like Ryan Brenizer and Sam Hurd is enough to scare me into taking extra steps to make the best photos I can. And that doesn't necessarily make me a lazy or bad photographer.

A lot has changed since film was the norm. People expect a lot more of you, in terms of the quantity and quality of your photos, and if you don't want to adapt to the current market, then they'll find someone who will. So as much as I think there are problems with the pixel-peeping, measurebating trends in photography right now, I don't think it's fair to call that rubbish. Because, no offence intended, the shooting approach you just described isn't very marketable in today's world.


----------



## Whammy

Some good points Phil.

I offer 400 (I'll probably give them close to 500) for a full day, up until the first dance. After the first dance doesn't seem as popular in Sweden.

While I agree that your work is now being compared easier to amazing photographers, I still don't let that bother me. I will always try to do my best.
If for whatever reason a client still thinks my photos are not good enough (knock on wood), then they should be reminded what I charge, compared to the people they are comparing me too.

I also notice some awful photographers out there who are actually getting work. Maybe they are super cheap, I don't know. But their client doesn't seem to notice a difference in quality. Not all clients can see differences in photos.
I've noticed that most of the people who hire me are through recommendation and/our my price. They might like the photos but recommendation and price seem to be more important to most people.


Some more black & white photos from the portrait session. (I'm not liking how flickr is sharpening and re-sizing these photos)












I did a stitch during the slow parts of the ceremony.
Think there are around 20 photos here.


----------



## Philligan

Those look great.  Did you use for 85mm for those?


----------



## Whammy

Yeah it's all the 85. The first two aren't stitches.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Hey guys, it's been a while. I've been in China for just over a month now and have been so busy with everything other than photography that today was the first time I took a camera out with me. After about 10 days living in a high-rise on the outer ring of the city, I moved to a new place on a small street in a central location. These shots were all taken within 2 blocks of my place. Fuji X100S w/ wide conversion lens. 28mm equiv. I've been taking photos with my phone since I arrived as well, I have a few on there that I may share later, but trying to upload anything through the VPN on my phone takes forever.


----------



## Philligan

Those first two are great man.  

How are you liking China? It's good to have you back - looking forward to seeing more photos.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Philligan said:


> Those first two are great man.
> 
> How are you liking China? It's good to have you back - looking forward to seeing more photos.



Thanks, man. Just getting back into the groove now. I'm liking it here so far. Beijing was great too, and I wasn't there long enough. Now that I'm good and settled in Chengdu, I should have more opportunities to get around the country.

I also just finished my new bike build today so I took a quick photo. It just happens to match the city - everything here is either green or concrete. Now that I've got my bike, I'll be able to explore a lot more easily and quickly. Should help with the photography.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's a great shot of a great looking bike. I miss road biking, maybe now that I'm working again I'll be able to get something that's at least on par to what I rode in college.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

JeffFromMtl said:


> Hey guys, it's been a while. I've been in China...



Great photos Jeff.

I tried a Brenizer style stitch, this was using my Vivitar 135 2.8 (I think Flickr is over-sharpening the reduced sized images) This is about 35 photos, I think I may have gone overboard on the overlapping areas.






And this is the Avon Gorge in Bristol. (Not a stitch, just 50 1.2 @2.8)


----------



## A-Branger

Whammy said:


> You work for an extra hour or two to deliver double the amount of photos?
> How much editing do you do on that many photos? Is it just light editing? Every photo I give them is _fully_ edited as much as needs be. If I double the amount of photos given to them, then that doubles the amount of time I spend processing photos.
> I also don't know many people who actually want _more_ than 500 photos for their wedding. At the end of the day they will only use a select few for printing and on social media.



for the bulk of photos 500-1000 I only do RAW processing in lightroom. I apply a general look and then I go one by one manually fixing the white balance and checking the exposure is right, and fixing highlights-mid-shadows if requires, any any small crop if it needs to.

I would do bit more editing there like on a close up portrait if it really needs to, and only with what lightroom brushes gives me. I would only go into photoshop if I shot a panorama or a trick photo that requires to blend 2- layers

after that I would give 5-10 photos fully edited/retouched into photoshop. These are the hero shots of the day and the ones that we would use for our social media and website. If the client wants more photos fully retouched/edited, then I would give them those if they are like couple of pics, usually because they want to print those. Unless its a large batch, then I would charge. Also if I do an album or a large print, then I would fully edit those photos too.

Going into photoshop takes way too much time in order to do so with 500 photos, for that extra 20% that most people wont be able to tell or appreciate it. I could knock off a wedding from loading cards until fully exported in two days with relaxed working hours.

Also those extra 200-400 pics are usually on the same setting as others so I only need to copy/paste settings. Like one I got the settings for indoor reception, then copy paste to the rest and only need to check exposure levels.


I guess it all depends on what you shoot. I tend to be shooting most of the time getting candid stuff. For my preps I like to get photos of them having a chat and drinks with their friends and then shoot all the process t o get ready, the shirt, the tie, the jacket, the watch, the best men helping, the groonsmen helping eachother with the ties, one good portrait of each fella, the groom with each of his mens, group shot, solo portraits of him, ect. So all that ads up, same with the girls. Also stuff like in reception I like to take pics of each table but most of the time as decorations wont allow to do that I then go couple by couple around the table. During photoshot I take heaps of angles, one tight, one wide, one medium, one at him, one at her, close up, watching the camera, eachothers. All those stuff makes a bigger number quicker than you think.

I have edit photos for other guy that used to shot for the studio I worked at, and his numbers were sooooo low. Till the point I was "what you were doing on the day??, thats it???, did you miss a card???" he rock up shot 3-4 portraits and done kinda thing. And since I was there on the day doing the video I knew how many more opportunities he had to get more good and great shots

I always try to minimize the total number as I dont want to work too long and I dont want to give duplicates (same-ish shot), but if I shot something and its good, unique and in focus, then why not give that to them?. Why delete a good photo of the groom on a good angle only because Im trying to only give X amount of photos? 

Dont get me wrong, my average is 600-700 photos, I have only done 1000 3 times and those were the 13 hour wedding till farewell and dealing with two photographers worth of shots



BTW I LOVEd your pic of the ceremony. Great pic, looks awesome with the stitching technique thing, I need to try it now


----------



## A-Branger

so I changed back the pickups on my guitar as Its going on sale and I want to keep the EMGs for a future project, so I took couple fo pics more, including of my Ibanez too

















and a behind the scenes shot


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I really appreciate that BTS shot, you could move the octobox to the other side and do a composite if you really wanted the contouring highlight from the left as well. What kind of guitar stand is that, I've never found one that I liked for shooting guitars.


----------



## A-Branger

I did a composite for the back of the guitar shot. I tried to use the softbox I have for the headstock as the left light but I couldnt find the reflection on the arched top, so hard.

the stand is similar like this






so I rest the guitar on the first "flat" section of it, so the guitar is barely holding itself there. I was bit afraid that one of the lights would knock the guitar off. I just needed to do some photoshop to erase the legs. Quick and simple with the pen tool


----------



## UnderTheSign

New Hasselblad announced and the new Sigma turns out to be pretty cheap, too. A good week for landscape/studio photographers.
Sigma announces pricing and availability for sd Quattro and EF-630 flash: Digital Photography Review


----------



## Philligan

With the SD Quattro, all I can think about is how my face would be smashed against my right hand with the camera up to my eye. 

I'm not sure how left eye dominant people are supposed to use this.


----------



## UnderTheSign

The VF extends a bit out of the back so it's not something I'm overly worried about. Maybe it's because I wear glasses though, my face is usually further away from the camera.


----------



## A-Branger

plus the ergonomics are not really a thing in there.

Sadly with all the new mirrorless cameras is all about making them "small" or "oldschool" and flat.

It works great for a hobby or traveling. But in my case for a job camera on a wedding day it actually its worse..... at least for me

thats how I felt when I have used the Sony's AS7. My hand ends up all cramp because Im holding the camera all day with my fingers instead of my whole hand like on a Canon 6D or 5DIII.

not only that but some say the lightweight of those its better for a full day of work. And that might be tru to some extend. But when Im using big heavy lenses, either primes, or even a 70-200mm then the whole weight of the gear goes into the lens so now Im fighting the "lens dive" of the camera in my hand, instead of a more balanced rig with a bigger body

call me old school but I still preffer my Canon big body cameras with a mirror. And I know eventually I would have to change to a tinny mirrorless camera as the technology wont let me do other thing (I already have a friend who wont let me shot for him unless I use his Sony's *rolleyes* ) but until then Im happy with my current rig


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A quick shot of my modded Seiko on a new bracelet, I'm trying out a jubilee on it to see how I like it. Nothing like macro to make you realize how much you need to clean up.




Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 400 1/3s f/5.6


----------



## Philligan

This is definitely no Hosking photo, but I shot a friend's new car tonight. This was my first time shooting a car at all. For this one, I just did an HDR blend of 5 exposures in Photoshop (and ended up toning it down a lot ).

I haven't done any light painting or composites, but next time, I'm gonna try doing a small composite and using a couple flashes to light the car.



DSCF0007-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## A-Branger

if you can, take a CP filter (circular polarized filter), thats the otehr main trick for car photography as it removes the reflections depending on the angle of the filter


----------



## Philligan

Good idea, thanks.  I'm pretty sure I actually have one of those. We're gonna take another shot at it in a week or two, I'll try to remember to bring use it then.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I've been meaning to take a shot of this watch for some time now. I used an LED lantern to light this by moving the lantern across the watch face during the exposure. I probably took 20 different shots before getting the light how I liked it.

MVMT All Black Chrono on custom strap:





Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 400 1s f/11

I picked this guy up for $50 with two extra straps and thought it looked nice for a cheap Seagull watch. Natural light for this shot.

Rodina ST17 on blue python printed leather:




Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 400 1/3s f/8


----------



## Azyiu

Say Yo, Grandpa!


----------



## Dalcan

ThePhilosopher said:


> I've been meaning to take a shot of this watch for some time now. I used an LED lantern to light this by moving the lantern across the watch face during the exposure. I probably took 20 different shots before getting the light how I liked it.
> 
> MVMT All Black Chrono on custom strap:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 400 1s f/11
> 
> I picked this guy up for $50 with two extra straps and thought it looked nice for a cheap Seagull watch. Natural light for this shot.
> 
> Rodina ST17 on blue python printed leather:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 400 1/3s f/8





These shots are ....ing great dude.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Thanks, I've been working on my watch photography lately to show off my collection. I could (should) have done some focus stacking to get the MVMT logo in focus as well as the hand stack, but that's a field I've not delved into much.


----------



## Whammy

You certainly love your watches. How many have you got?
I'm surprised you haven't done any focus stacking.

I just try and do two things to make sure the image is as sharp as possible.

One thing I do is to make sure I shoot the lens around its sharpest f stop. There is no point going f16 for more depth of field, if you end up introducing diffraction.
Keep at the sharpest f stop for the lens and let the stacking take care of the depth of field.

Another thing I do involves aligning the photos.
If the camera is still (camera on tripod) I make sure to select "reposition" when stacking the photos in Photoshop.
Selecting any other option allows Photoshop to resize and change the perspective of the photo, which in turn can reduce the sharpness.
Having it set to "reposition" only moves the photo which is sometimes needed as the camera can still move a tiny amount on the tripod.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I have 19 currently (not including my Polar M400, which I tend to only wear when I'm exercising), though I've had some of them for at least 15 years now and they're still kicking. I think f/16 is the sharpest aperture for this macro lens, but I tend to keep it around f/8 - f/11. I'll experiment with some stacking this weekend as I'll have time to experiment.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A quickie of my modded Orange Monster:




Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 400 1.3s f/8


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Seiko Chronograph:




Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 200 1s f/8


----------



## Philligan

Awesome. 

I got paid in advance for a wedding last week and ordered the 16 1.4.  It's back-ordered, unfortunately, so I'm hoping it shows up in time for a wedding this coming weekend. 

It was a toss-up between that and the 90mm, but there are more times than I want wider, especially for personal use.


----------



## MrYakob

It's been a loooong time since I've posted in this thread, but I check it every day 

Doing almost exclusively video stuff rather than photos these days but here is a pair of handheld pano's that I shot on my way up Whiteface Mountain.

Lens was a 28mm 3.5 Pentax M42 mount > M42 to EF adpator > Metabones EF speedbooster > GH4 (Kind of a wonky setup but I love the old film lenses on the speedbooster)



_1440296-Pano by Mr Yakob, on Flickr



_1440280-Pano by Mr Yakob, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm really like the shadows cast by the clouds in those panos. There's a whole heap of cheap M42 lenses out there 

Probably the most patriotic watch I own for the fourth.


----------



## Philligan

Here are a couple from yesterday. The first one is the 23mm, and the second is the 56mm @ 1.2.



DSCF0157 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



DSCF0204 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

New Fuji X-T2 officially announced plus some new lenses. 80mm 2.8 with 1:1 macro? Yes please.

Also for the first time ever I've encountered a situation where I wished for more than f2 and better autofocus. After the hired photographer left me and my cousins brother in law were asked to get some casual party shots at the reception/party. The venue was poorly pit and the 35mm f2 had some trouble focusing and I couldn't always get a decent shutter speed. Having the 56 1.2 would've given me some extra room there.


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> New Fuji X-T2 officially announced plus some new lenses. 80mm 2.8 with 1:1 macro? Yes please.
> 
> Also for the first time ever I've encountered a situation where I wished for more than f2 and better autofocus. After the hired photographer left me and my cousins brother in law were asked to get some casual party shots at the reception/party. The venue was poorly pit and the 35mm f2 had some trouble focusing and I couldn't always get a decent shutter speed. Having the 56 1.2 would've given me some extra room there.



I'm pretty interested in the X-T2. I really like the beefier grip, and the fact that the battery grip adds additional bulk to the regular grip, too. That, the improved dials, and the small changes like RAW at all ISOs and reduced JPG noise reduction are the main reasons I'm interested in the camera. That and the better doors. 

I'm on the fence about buying it, though. The price is a lot higher than I was expecting ($1949 in Canada, vs ~$1499 for the X-T1 at launch, and $1899 for the X-Pro2). I think a lot of that comes from the added video features, which don't affect me. The rumours going around were that the X-T2 launch price would be similar to the X-T1's launch price, but it looks like it's a good 30% higher, and it's above the X-Pro2.

I like the X-Pro2 form factor, but figured the X-T2 would be cheaper due to the lack of HVF, so I'd go with that. Now the X-Pro2 is back on the table. I think the X-Pro2 form factor is more enjoyable to shoot, and since I'm not planning on pursuing more paid work, the battery grip wouldn't be as important. The X-T's big EVF would be nice, so I'll see how the X-Pro EVF works with my glasses.


----------



## UnderTheSign

The x-pro1 evf works well with my glasses. I mostly use the ovf but both work fine. I can see pretty much the whole frame (some 'vignetting' around the edges if I'm not close enough) and that's pretty good considering I don't get full coverage on my analog Pentax cameras. I assume the pro-2 isn't much different from the 1 in that department.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Also, I've been a fan of hydraulic press channel for a while and now they've made it onto the dpr front page. The amount of whining and comments is hilarious to me. As if anyone cares about the thousands of broken cameras that end up in the trash every day... But someone crushes it and it's suddenly an engineering masterpiece 
Under pressure: Canon vs. Nikon in a hydraulic press: Digital Photography Review


----------



## Chuck

So I shot my first wedding this past saturday, it was actually my cousin Molleigh's wedding and my aunt really wanted me to shoot it. I hadn't done anything professional before this, but I figured it being for my family that it would be a great way to start out with weddings. Here's one of my favorites from that day.



GameOverColor by Chuck Haller, on Flickr

Flickr doesn't handle this shot well :/


----------



## Azyiu

^ love the humor, Chuck, lol!


----------



## vansinn

I do wonder what's printed under the bride's shoes..
Great shot, groom looks quite happy about the situation


----------



## aciek_l

I just made myself new desktop wallpaper.


----------



## Philligan

I'm shooting a wedding right now. Some lady brought a gripped 6D and just pulled the couple outside during dinner for a photoshoot.


----------



## Chuck

Damn Phil! That's gotta be crossing the line.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> I'm shooting a wedding right now. Some lady brought a gripped 6D and just pulled the couple outside during dinner for a photoshoot.



 Some people really don't have any sense. I wonder if she was married, I'd ask if she'd appreciate being treated that way on her wedding day.


----------



## Philligan

I lied, I got closer and saw it was a gripped 5D haha. Still, it was pretty weird. I felt like she was kind of crossing a line. I should have seen it coming when I saw her with it at the ceremony.

When stuff like this happens, one of the big things I wonder is, why the battery grip? It makes it seem like she's trying to make a scene. I wonder if she did anything with that grip and 24-70 that she couldn't have done with just the body and a 50mm.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

My guess is no, but she may not have known how to take the grip off 
I won't even take my camera to weddings any more: the D3 is obnoxiously loud and large.


----------



## vansinn

Thread careful on those weddings, folks.
On one I was shooting, the bride of course tore her dress on some rose bushes; classic..
Now, I of course carried sewing needles and black/white/silver/gold thread.
The girls loved it with several nice comments and looks in my direction.
I nearly got shanghai'd, and only got saved by the fact this was a wedding to one of my GF's friends 
Careful how you thread, folks..


----------



## Philligan

That lady who brought the camera already has the photos posted on her website. 

Kelly and Sarah


----------



## Whammy

Phil, I saw you tagged in a Facebook post by the couple. They also tagged the woman, mentioning that she was their cousin.

Still it's really bad form on the couple not to mention it to you.
The woman should have at the very least have introduced herself to you, asking if it was okay.

I'd be quite annoyed in that situation.


----------



## Philligan

I'm more weirded out than anything. To be honest, I was worried she'd be an amazing photographer, mainly because I'd feel bad if they got better photos for free.  

It does seem to be in poor taste, though. It looks like she's a professional photographer, so I would have hoped she'd known better.


----------



## Whammy

Yeah her page looks like she has shot a few wedding so she really should have better etiquette.

Regardless I'm sure your photos are better. It just sucks that the excitement of the couple getting their wedding photos has been stolen somewhat by her giving them photos first.


----------



## A-Branger

being that photog their family member theres nothing you could do about it. If a guest want to bring their camera then let them. As long as they dont interrupt your work.

Only once I had to tell a guest to (in a nice respectful manner) to please go away, as she was taking all the family photos I was doing next to me, which leds to half of the people watching her camera and half towards mine.

Now the couple and the photog should had come to you to introduce themself as a way of respect, because shes using the photos for her website. So for me that its crossing the line, the least you can do is to say "hi" and to ask if its ok to take the couple out for couple of pics if you are not shooting them.

IMO she shouldnt post a full on wedding day on her site, just a couple of pics and done, now she looks like it was her job and her wedding day. Which is a d$&*k move to you, and also to her as the photos reflect that shes not in control. Its a half ceremony with 2 couple shots, its making more harm to her than good, instead of just post those couple shots with better editing and calling it a day... Oh well

At the end of the day you were the one who got paid and you were the one who they hired to do the job. They could still hired their cousin but but they hired you. Would I take photos for free on a friends wedding? nope nope nope, unless they are my brother or something like that, and still I would only do couple of pics of them, not all day.

Thats what I think every time I see a guest with a DSLR on a wedding. Im the one hired to do the job, so the priority of the shot is mine first (couple listen to me first and I get to move anywhere). Guest wnats to shoot?, awesome, let them. This is "their" wedding day NOT "mine".

same goes when couple ask if I want a "no phone, no camera day/ceremony/ect". I dont care if they spent the whole day on their phones shooting. Let them, is they day to enjoy too. Put a # of the day for instagram so you can access all the photos. Worst, worst, extreme worst case scenario.... I lost ALL the cards. At least the couple still have photos of their day


----------



## A-Branger

I also did a engagement shoot on the weekend. This is the first one Ive done in many many many months. Works is being almost none. I had to remember bunch of stuff lol

This is one I really liked






this was shot using my canon plastic crap 50mm f1.8 Not the best lens, but for this one photo, it does the job, not the sharppest lens but well. I did 3 shots vertically to create the panorama for a wider shallow look. I should have gone full-on 20 photos merges like you guys do. I tough about it after the shot. Next time tho


----------



## Philligan

I haven't had time to shoot it much because of work, but I just picked this up yesterday. 

Build quality is amazing, aperture ring is the best yet. It's a bit stiffer than the 56mm and a bit more clicky. I love how clicky my 23's ring is, but the dampening of the 56 is nice, too. This seems like a bit of both. AF is quiet, smooth, and fast. Seems like a BOBW between the 56mm (smooth but kind of slow) and the 23mm (fast but a bit rough). 

I played with the 50-140 while I was at Henry's. It's big and heavy, but even without the grip on my X-T1, balance wasn't too bad. Handling wasn't as nice, though - it sucks trying to turn the zoom ring with the same hand that's supporting the bulk of the weight, and the tripod collar made it feel cramped. It was a cool lens, but I'd rather shoot the primes. The zoom ring was really stiff, too, and turning it would wiggle the lens in the mount slightly. Not sure if that's normal or not.


----------



## Philligan

So I'm shooting a wedding in two weeks. It's a smaller farm wedding, but I'm most excited for this one - the couple is really cool and the location is amazing.

I just got a message from the bride, and they've decided to do a first look. I've never shot one before.

Any tips on setup or shooting approach? i.e. He walks up to her, whose reaction should I prioritize, etc.


----------



## Tang

I haven't picked up my Pentax in over a month.


----------



## MrYakob

Philligan said:


> So I'm shooting a wedding in two weeks. It's a smaller farm wedding, but I'm most excited for this one - the couple is really cool and the location is amazing.
> 
> I just got a message from the bride, and they've decided to do a first look. I've never shot one before.
> 
> Any tips on setup or shooting approach? i.e. He walks up to her, whose reaction should I prioritize, etc.



I just second-shot my first wedding a few weeks ago and they also did a first look. Granted I was shooting video so things are quite different but for the photos they had a photographer each covering the bride and groom.

https://vimeo.com/172231670

You can see it at about 30 seconds in this video (shameless plug, sorry!)


----------



## Tang

Finally getting around to editing all the shots I took on vacation. I really need a lightweight compact with a 24mm equiv prime. I adore shooting with my Galaxy S6, but I am starting to run into its limitations.


----------



## Philligan

MrYakob said:


> I just second-shot my first wedding a few weeks ago and they also did a first look. Granted I was shooting video so things are quite different but for the photos they had a photographer each covering the bride and groom.
> 
> https://vimeo.com/172231670
> 
> You can see it at about 30 seconds in this video (shameless plug, sorry!)



Looks great. 

That's the issue, I'm shooting this one alone.  I'm thinking have the bride walk up behind the groom, then sort of flip around and shoot his reaction to her first, then get both of them.


----------



## Philligan

I need some help with LR again. 

So I had a friend shoot with me on this last wedding, and we each shot with two cameras. I imported all the photos, and re-synced the timestamps in the metadata so that the photos from all four cameras are sorted in chronological order (thanks for helping me with that last time).

So I've got my photos imported and ready to edit, but I'm not sure about exporting them. How can I rename photos on export so they have the same prefix, but the number is automatically applied? 

I know how to rename files on export individually, but I can't figure out how to do it so I can set the prefix, and the number increases in sequence with each export.


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> I really need a lightweight compact with a 24mm equiv prime.


----------



## A-Branger

Philligan said:


> I need some help with LR again.
> 
> So I had a friend shoot with me on this last wedding, and we each shot with two cameras. I imported all the photos, and re-synced the timestamps in the metadata so that the photos from all four cameras are sorted in chronological order (thanks for helping me with that last time).
> 
> So I've got my photos imported and ready to edit, but I'm not sure about exporting them. How can I rename photos on export so they have the same prefix, but the number is automatically applied?
> 
> I know how to rename files on export individually, but I can't figure out how to do it so I can set the prefix, and the number increases in sequence with each export.



easy,
select all the photos you want to export 

go on the export tab windown in File Naming. Click the tab to rename to "Custom Name - Sequence" 

under it you would write the name and select the starting number of the export

all the photos would be numbered in the same order they appear on your library window starting from 1 (or any number you choose)

if you want to go more custom you can select the "edit" option in the tab, in there you can add more text if you want, and have the photos with x, 0x, 00x, 000x, or 0000x numbering

if you later want to add or export another batch into the same folder, take notice of the last number and add the next number up into the "start number" so your next batch would start from 346 and up. That or find a way to export all the photos at the same time. IF you have the 4 cameras in 4 different folders (for example), you can select the Main Folder (the one who contains the sub-folders of each camera), so in that way you could see ALL the photos on the library tab. go to your filter settings, select pics, export

thats why when I export a batch, I do 3 exports at the same time with the same group of photos selected. One high ress, one low ress, and one low ress with a wattermark. In that way I know the photos would have the same numbering in each folder, and I didnt miss any photo. Then I move into a next batch


----------



## Whammy

^
Yeap, you've got it covered with the export options 



I normally export in two batches.
High Res (max resolution - 300 dpi) and Low Res (smaller resolution - 72 dpi).

I got sick and tired of offering low res flies to clients. I found that if someone was going to buy low res files only, that they would still probably try and print them. I even had one client complain that their smartphone could take bigger photos than the low res file I supplied to them.

So I removed low res from my list and made high res the only option.
I do give clients low res flies along side their high res. But I don't like the term "low res". It gives the client the impression that they are inferior in quality.
I now use the term "web resolution". I explain to the client that the high res are best used for printing (if they don't want to order prints from me) and the web res are best used for uploading to social media.
Once a photo has been paid for I don't watermark it in any way.

Just curious what people here use for low res photos. What are your max pixel dimensions?
I find that now everyone has high resolution screens on their smartphones and bigger and better computer screens, it really puts a limit on how small you can make a low res file.


----------



## A-Branger

I always do High and low, and sometimes depending on the job a low ress with watermark. The client already paid, pictures are their, so they get the full high ress. They can do what they want with them, also its a way of "backup" as if they want extra editing, it still can be done and printed. I never heard of people offering only low ress? appart of a nighclub setting where they just want photos to facebook and be done

apart from the full high ress 300dpi, I give a low ress at 100dpi with resize to fit "megapixel" at 2.0 megapixel (or 5.0 I got it mixed up now). Its a setting I got told worked the best and I havent had any problem with it. This is the one I use for the photos I post in here.

I also give one with the wattermark, marked as "social media". A way for the client to promote if they want. If they are happy and want to use the ones with the wattermark, then good for me, if not then they can use the non-marked one, both are same quality. It doest take any space on a UBS so no harm on trowing it there


----------



## Philligan

So am I better off culling to the photos I want to keep, editing them without exporting them, and exporting them all as one batch when I'm done?

I never thought of that before. I've always exported each photo after I'm done editing.


----------



## A-Branger

^^ yup yup

its a waaaaay quicker way to do it. It seems soo time consuming to export each photo individually for me, cant see myself doing it lol

Depending on the setting, if its a small shot then fine, but for a wedding, to do that process with 500 photos is crazy. You better edit everything on one go so you stay in "the zone" editing, once finish just export everything.

also that way would help if you want to re-touch anything at the end. Like you might started editing the photos certain way, but half way you decided your settings were bit off, so now you can go back and fix the first photos


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> So am I better off culling to the photos I want to keep, editing them without exporting them, and exporting them all as one batch when I'm done?
> 
> I never thought of that before. I've always exported each photo after I'm done editing.



Yeah it's a more efficient workflow. In the long run it should save you time.

I only export when I finish editing everything.
Before the final export I'll check over all the photos one last time.
Sometimes the white balance can be a little different on a few photos, or maybe they have too much or too little vignetting compared to the rest.
I also check over skin tones and make sure they are all similar.

I'm talking small changes, just to help make all the photos feel like they belong together, because small variances can develop if you focus strictly one photo at a time.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Cycling the sea to sea route from Newcastle to Whitehaven with my little (6'7") brother. We went through the Pennines yesterday and the view across Eden Valley and the Lake District was great. Today we rode into Keswick and it was even better. Going from the small countryside hills into the steep mountainous regions... Man, awe inspiring. I only have the Fuji with 35mm on me and it's so grey and cloudy today I don't know if my shots turned out any good (I'll find out when I get to my laptop in 2 weeks ) but this makes me wish I had a medium or large format camera with wide angle on me. There was a couple shooting a Hasselblad from Hartside Pass and I can't blame them. This place is a landscape photography wet dream.


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> my little (6'7") brother.



As soon as you said that, I checked to see if you were from the Netherlands.  In the wedding I was just in, the groom's 6'2" and the baby of the family.

I bought some welding glass from a hardware store and tried some long exposures today. I wish there was a sunset, but ah well. This is the 16mm at 200, f/4, and 30s. I didn't have a tripod handy, and the weather was bad so didn't bother connecting to my phone - the glass is so dark that I needed f/4 to get a half decent exposure at 30s.

This thing is soft, and super green. I imported the RAW, turned the Tint slider as far magenta as it would go, exported the photo as a TIFF, reimported it, and pulled in more magenta.

I got the welding helmet glass because, for $4, it's probably not that much worse than the $20-$30 ND filters on eBay, and it's a cheap way to see if I like doing this before spending ~$100 on a real filter.



FXT11197 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



FXT11196 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



Screen Shot 2016-07-15 at 9.19.31 PM by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## vansinn

Welding glass monochrome photography is a new to me 
Looks pretty pretty - kindof makes Missisippi look like England in the summer.
Just joking, I like the plasticity and soft details in the clouds.
Why bother about the real ND when this stuff makes for a real creative effect..

Where did the Like button go? Gone? I wanted to like the welding info. No reps, no likes  am I suffering from oxygen deprivation, or..


----------



## A-Branger

Im pretty amazed an the amount of color you could recover from that green :O


----------



## Tang

we've got pictures.. mostly from the Galaxy S6.



15% or more by Scott Jones, on Flickr



storms a coming by Scott Jones, on Flickr



home 4 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



resolve by Scott Jones, on Flickr

and a lone shot from the Pentax..



street cat life by Scott Jones, on Flickr

anyone sense a common theme between these all? Trying something a bit different for a series.


----------



## Philligan

That second one is so good man.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Nice. Where's the like button gone?


----------



## A-Branger

good stuff man, love that second one


and agree ^^ sup with the like button??


----------



## Tang

Like button is gone while ss.org migrates servers. At least that's what I read. 



How can I live without likes?


----------



## soliloquy

i've been gone last lil while busy with my new gear.
since i was here, i have gotten the following:
rokinon 85mm 1.4
pentax 100mm wr macro
pentax k1 full frame camera
tamron 70-200 2.8 macro
pentax 24-70mm 2.8

i'm super happy with all the lenses, and also how the k1 is preforming.
one thing that i'm super bummed about is the 70-200.

i was at a wedding shoot over the weekend. i was mainly using the 24-70 and was pleasantly surprised at how it preforms in low light situations. then i tried the tamron and was blown away by its low light preformance and image quality. worked super well.

the same night, my friends wanted to go out for a night out, and i decided to bring my k1 and tamron 70-200 with me. something happened between the wedding shoot to me seeing my friends, where this lens just stopped working. its autofocus was malfunctioning. i would half-press the shutter, and i could hear the lens trying to adjust the focus, only give up prematurely. on rare occasions, it would go through the entire focal range from closest to infinity, and back, but not lock in focus. on other occasions, it would lock in focus, but if you inspect the image, its WAY off focus (ie, if its supposed to be at infinity, it'll focus at something/nothing close by).

i thought it was an issue with the contact between the camera and the lens, so i cleaned them and tried it out. no dice.

i tried the same lens on the k5, and it was reacting a little differently. it would accurately lock focus, however, i had to keep tapping the shutter button more than a dozen times, with each tap, the focus would get a bit better. but the results were not consistent.

i tried all my other lenses and the issue isn't there.

this lens worked really well on both the k5 and the k1 just fine till the wedding. i thought it maybe the battery, but that isn't it either as its full batteries that i'm trying this on. 

and i got the lens used, so there is no warranty on this. :-/

i looked up online, and i'm coming across several people having similar issues with this lens on their canon and nikon. yet not a single person mentioned a solution. the acknowledged the problem, then stopped talking about it online... so not sure what the solution or the reason is for this :S

guess i'll have to send it off to tamron to get it sorted.

i do have another photoshoot this weekend coming up. cant rent a pentax 70-200 as no store locally is carrying it. same goes for its sigma variety 

:-(


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Going a little abstract on this large format shot at Wortham Theater in Houston. I'll be posting some more shots from my outing to test out the HP5+ I bought last year.





Sinar Alpina 4x5 with Rodenstock Sironar-n 210mm f/5.6: Ilford HP5+ 400 1/2s f/11


----------



## capoeiraesp

Long time no post for me in here. Awesome to see everyone still kickin' goals, but damn! I miss that like button.

I did a thing yesterday. Now to wait.


----------



## Philligan

Nice.  I don't need the video or AF tracking features and didn't think it would cost as much as it does, so I'm hoping to get an X-Pro2 at the end of the summer.

I just shot a wedding under the heat dome.  It was outdoors in ~35 degree heat. It was pretty rough. The sky was really clear, too, so I'm nervous to see how the light turns out with those. 

I used the 16mm for a lot of the reception, and it was amazing. I'm falling in love with that lens. If I had to pick one focal length, it would be either the 23mm or 35mm (23mm if it was for personal, 35mm if it was for work), but if I can run two lenses, 16 + 56 is an amazing combo. If it's for something like a wedding, or a portrait shoot, I'd mostly use 23/56 because the 23mm looks more natural. 

Now I'm really wishing I'd gotten an X100T instead of the 23mm, so I could do 16mm + X100 + 56mm all at the same time. Triple-wielding FTW.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Those Fuji cameras always have me intrigued, not enough to invest in one - but they're always in the back of my mind.

A few more sheets from yesterday, this time in Glenwood Cemetery in Houston. I don't remember all the details of exposure times (I should start writing them down as I take images). These are all with the Sinar Alpina 4x5 with Rodenstock Sironar-N 210mm f/5.6 loaded with Ilford HP5+ and stand developed in Rodinal. I may try some HC-110 in dilution H some time.






The 9th Mayor of Houston:


----------



## Philligan

Those are awesome. 



ThePhilosopher said:


> Those Fuji cameras always have me intrigued, not enough to invest in one - but they're always in the back of my mind.



I'm really happy with the Fuji stuff. I've been doing jobs when they come my way, but I'm not really interested in pursuing photography as a career, or even a serious side job (Sarnia's too small and saturated with mom photographers, so you need to fight even for jobs like family shoots, which I hate ). 

The Fujis are a nice balance between being good enough for serious work, but small enough to be ideal for casual shooting. I still prefer how DSLRs feel in my hand (I like the bigger grip), and would be happy dragging a 6D and 35 f/2 around with me, but I got tired of being noticed be everyone.

The biggest pluses to the Fuji stuff, IMHO, is the image quality (from a technical point of view it's good enough, but I really do love the colours, even in the raw files), the size/look, and the love/hate relationship I have with the on-chip AF. Sometimes it'll screw you (a couple times yesterday it decided to randomly rack focus and I missed a good shot each time), but it's worth it to get consistently accurate AF at wide apertures IMHO.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Some very fast (LR > JPG export > Ps merge > export JPG, no adjustments) panos/stitches from Derwentwater in Keswick. Been digging through my photos and can't be bothered to do any editing so the exposure etc looks a little rough still, but I was super curious to see if the panorama stuff turned out alright. The first one is downsized from 15 images (72 megapixel after cropping), the other from 55mp after cropping. Might do some proper post on them and treat myself to a huge print. Should be able to safely print up to 2ft in width.

I resized them using some "picture resize" app I have on my computer so there's not a lot of detail in them but trust me, it's a ton of detail in the full files


----------



## Tang

You should definitely work on the first one.


----------



## Tang

back in action. listening to the new thank you scientist album really put my creative juices a-fire.

I like this shot a. because of the gorgeous light and b, because of the bokeh. tried to create a painterly feel with the background and it turned out marvelous. it almost looks like there could be a hint of a figure on the right side of the frame.



the entirety by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

I'm starting a new project.
Just wondering what you guys think about the idea?

Old cars are fairly popular here in Sweden along with Volvo cars (it is Swedish after all).
So I'm doing a project of retro Volvo cars & their owners.

I started off with my father-in-law.
The idea is that every photo is framed the same. Car in the same position. Owner standing in the same spot (I took measurements of how far the camera was away from the car along with how far my father-in-law was standing from the car).

Obviously the owner will be different in every photo, along with how they compose themselves, the car will also be different and so will the location. Ideally I want to shoot the photos on their property to keep things more interesting and personal.

The challenge for me is framing the photo in their environment, with the restriction of the car, owner and camera being set up the same.

So yeah, every photo should be completely different while also the same.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I think if you can follow through on your plan without deviating too much, it will come out quite nicely.


----------



## Whammy

ThePhilosopher said:


> I think if you can follow through on your plan without deviating too much, it will come out quite nicely.



Thanks.
I still have my doubts about the project. It might look nice as a collection, but I'm unsure how many people will actually be interested in it.

I'm trying to come up with a few different ideas for projects but it's difficult.


----------



## Furtive Glance

I went to the Dolomites a few weeks ago. Probably the most beautiful place I've ever been. Basically just used my 21mm Zeiss the entire time there. That glass was made for those mountains.


----------



## Tang

^^^^ very nice!!



the earth will shake by Scott Jones, on Flickr



friends by


----------



## Whammy

^ That place is beautiful.



So I've decided to start up a second project along with the old cars and their owners.
This one revolves around the idea of keeping things (multiples of the same thing), that to an outsider would be perceived as junk.

This is the first photo.
I'm doing it all black & white using the Brenizer method.
This first photo came out huge. Around 18,000 pixels on the long side.


----------



## Philligan

I love the idea of the car project.  Especially the idea of framing everything the same in different environments.

As far as interest, I couldn't see myself ordering a print if it was someone I didn't know, but friends and family of those involved would probably be very interested, and I think the work taken in as a whole would have a lot of weight.

edit: No photos just yet - I'm trying to get through two weddings right now, so I'll hopefully have some after that, and a few from our trip to Cleveland. I've been busy with work - I started a new job at the beginning of July, and it was a terrible time to shoot two weddings.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Just got around to getting a shot of my new (used) beast of a lens, Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. I have a shoot scheduled for Sunday, so hopefully I'll get to try it out a bit (though I'm supposed to be using the Sinar for a portion).


----------



## Mattykoda

Furtive Glance said:


> [/URL]



Wow. What a beautiful place and shot


----------



## A-Branger

Shot a wedding over the weekend, this time under my name, so finally I would have stuff to start uploading into my instagram to start promoting myself


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> I love the idea of the car project.  Especially the idea of framing everything the same in different environments.
> 
> As far as interest, I couldn't see myself ordering a print if it was someone I didn't know, but friends and family of those involved would probably be very interested, and I think the work taken in as a whole would have a lot of weight.
> 
> edit: No photos just yet - I'm trying to get through two weddings right now, so I'll hopefully have some after that, and a few from our trip to Cleveland. I've been busy with work - I started a new job at the beginning of July, and it was a terrible time to shoot two weddings.



I have no expectation of selling any prints. I doubt anyone would want them apart from the owner of the car 
And I'm actually offering everyone who I photograph for this project a free print as a thank you.
I won't be giving any digital copies out. The main reason for that is I don't want someone contacting me who just wants a new facebook profile photo. I want people who are actually passionate about their car and who want to be a part of this body of work. So far it seems to be working with the people I've been talking too.

This is going to be mostly local people in my county, so hopefully it will help spread my name around which is obviously a good thing for business.
And because it's of local people, cafes and galleries may also be interested in displaying the collection for a while.
I have a few people lined up already to photograph. It should be interesting to see things develop.



ThePhilosopher said:


> Just got around to getting a shot of my new (used) beast of a lens, Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8. I have a shoot scheduled for Sunday, so hopefully I'll get to try it out a bit (though I'm supposed to be using the Sinar for a portion).



That's quite a zoom range for an f/2.8. Should be interesting to see the quality of the photos.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Me too, I haven't shot anything with it that I've loaded up on my PC yet so it's hard to tell. My guess is it's going to be a little soft at f/2.8, but quite a bit sharper at f/4.


----------



## Whammy

Took another photo for the car project this morning.
I'm liking the idea that all cars and people in the photos will be in scale with one another.






And here is the first photo again as a reference.


----------



## Tang

Like.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's definitely awesome - if you made some sort of book out of it, I'd buying it.


----------



## Philligan

It's crazy what the consistent perspective does regardless of the environment. Very awesome.


----------



## A-Branger

agree wiht the above pretty awesome project, and it would only become more awesome when you have all teh different pics in a context form as all of them have the "same look" only car and person changes. Would love to see a collage at the end of it, like 3x3 grid with all the pics

Yo could easily make a cofee table book thing out of it.

If I were you try to contact the car manufacter, and see if yhey would be interested on buying the concept for a book/display thing for their offices. 

This concept could open the door to maybe do it but with a different brand too as a paid thing, who knows


----------



## Whammy

Thanks for the encouragement guys 

Working away on the other project too. Unloved car parts, or junk. Depending on your view


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Great stuff Whammy. Dig the project. I wanna steal it.


----------



## Chuck

That's an awesome project idea, Whammy. Beautiful shots as always.

I recently took a trip to the San Francisco area, I think I had my camera in hand the entire time 



Ash + Mountains by Chuck Haller, on Flickr

Flickr's over-sharpening is killing me here. This was in the Sequoia National Park.

This was shot from the car on the way back to SF. Despite all the beautiful mountains and everything I else I saw on the trip this was probably my favorite scenery for one reason or another.



Cali Rolling Hills by Chuck Haller, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Finally did some testing with the new lens.





Nikon D3 with Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 @300mm: ISO 100 1/50s f/4

The lead duckling had just nabbed a little fish from the pond.




Nikon D3 with Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 @300mm: ISO 200 1/1600s f/4





Nikon D3 with Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 @300mm: ISO 200 1/1600s f/4


----------



## Philligan

I like it.  It seems to be a mix of sharp enough + still having some unique bokeh. I'd be interested to see portraits shot with it.

I finally have some photos to post.  It's been a busy month of work and editing. I'm just finished up the first wedding from last month - the second shouldn't take as long.

Here are a couple photos from the weekend. We drove to Windsor to stay at a friend's place.



FXE20002 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



FXE20025 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And here's a pano from the wedding.



FXT10625-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm really digging that second shot. I'm looking to shoot some portraits with it, but I'm trying to find a time when I can either shoot indoors or wait until it's not so hot that we'll melt shooting outdoors.


----------



## Tang

Phil, 

That second shot is absolutely screaming for a 2 or 3 exposure HDR.


----------



## Whammy

I'm up to 5 photos for the Car Enthusiasts of Sweden project. I have another 4 booked in over the week.
I should have at least 12 for the small exhibition I have as part of a culture night at the end of the month.
Flickr's being a pain at the moment, so I can't show the recent ones.

Phil, I agree with everyone, the second shot is something special.

Chuck, the tones in those photos is lovely.

Philosopher, did you try the lens wide open? The lens seems good at f4. Are those photos taken at close to the minimal focus distance?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I did, I'll have to find a shot with it wide open.
The first shot is at 2.24m (which is pretty close to MFD) and the second is at 5.62m, both according to the EXIF data I have available.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Here are some f/2.8 shots.

Focus distance~20m




Nikon D3 with Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 @300mm: ISO 200 1/3200s f/2.8

Focus distance~6.31m




Nikon D3 with Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 @270mm: ISO 200 1/640s f/2.8

Focus distance~2.24m (close to MFD)




Nikon D3 with Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 @300mm: ISO 200 1/2000s f/2.8


----------



## Whammy

^ The lens looks pretty good wide open. It'll be interesting to see the results from a portrait shoot.



I've been taking a lot of photos for my project. I'm up to 16 now.
The self imposed limit of always being the same distance from the car is actually really challenging as it's over 12 meters (over 40 feet).
It's difficult to get the background framed just the way I want it while also getting the car the right distance away.

Anyway, here are a few of my favorites so far.

Volvo Amazon [1961]





Volvo Duett [1968]





Volvo PV831 [1953]






The guy in the first photo actually has Volvo tattooed on his arm.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I need that like button back, those look pretty great.


----------



## Jonathan20022

That's a very nice set Whammy, I hope you can get a large collection of those photos rolling. I love the concept.


----------



## Tang

Like button desperately needed.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

There's some nice separation (3D) effect in that shot, Tang. I'd have shot it with that sprout coming out of the bottom left corner - it's interesting to see it shot this way.


----------



## Philligan

Here's a stitch that didn't work  and a couple of Dawn.



Screen Shot 2016-08-20 at 8.30.38 PM by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



FXT10191 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



FXT10168 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Like like.


----------



## vansinn

Phil, that [Photoshop] stitch of Dawn you claim didn't work actually looks quite interesting..
I'd like to see it; looks like artsy folded mirrors or mirages to me..


----------



## Furtive Glance

Speaking of photo stitching, I decided to throw together a panorama I took in Switzerland last month. If anyone wants to look at it (it's not edited or anything, just pieced together with like, IDK, 12-16 images or something), the 51MB (!!!) JPG file can be found here along with a resized 13MB version:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ohumofcnekstt70/AAAA4AtCQ4ZdO5g0cOqPXwura?dl=0

My computer can barely even open the damn thing. I can't even remember how big the RAW file is so any actual edits will need to be done some other time when I have a new computer or something.

And yes, I know it's unfortunate that I didn't get more of the restaurant in the shot. Towards the right I didn't pan low enough and the stitching wouldn't have worked.


----------



## Philligan

vansinn said:


> Phil, that [Photoshop] stitch of Dawn you claim didn't work actually looks quite interesting..
> I'd like to see it; looks like artsy folded mirrors or mirages to me..



Sadly I deleted it.  I've got a 13" Retina Macbook Pro (basically the base model) and I'm using a copy of CS6 for stitching, and even exporting the massive Fuji files to TIFFs, it till probably took 20+ minutes to stitch ~50 photos, and that was the result. 

That's one of the main reasons I'm planning on buying Lightroom 6 soon. I was on the fence, considering the CC membership, but I don't like the idea of a monthly subscription to a server-based app, and PS is just so heavy and bloated. It's also one of the reasons I want to get an XT-2 - gotta get those compressed RAWs.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Still working through my photos from the UK trip. Can't get a feel for how to work them in lightroom so I think I need to change my workflow and process a bit.

I did get 4 rolls of film developed recently, including a roll of expired ektachrome that's like 80% Derwentwater in Keswick and 2 rolls of superia 400 pushed 2 stops in Brussels last December. Superia pushes surprisingly well, if you like some grain anyway.

[url=https://flic.kr/p/KuNZb3]

Nidrosian Black Mass 2015 Pentax k1000 50mm 1.7 smc takumar Fuji Superia 400 +2 stops by Bart B, on Flickr[/URL]


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I'd like the like button back.



Scotland by Joe Harvatt, on Flickr



Cumbria by Joe Harvatt, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

Cool stuff Joe, where in Cumbria were you?


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Thanks. I was just passing through, had some shows in Scotland on the weekend and we headed home through Cumbria.


----------



## Whammy

Finally finished the car project. Well it's finished for now anyways. I might continue it at a later stage.
I took 20 photos in total.

These are my personal favorites from the set (in no particular order).

Keeping the format and distances the same helped in my opinion to create a sense of scale between all the cars and people, along with keeping a feeling of unity.
But of course every car, owner and background was different. Which in turn made each photo unique.
To help keep things personal, I always took the photo on their property. If anyone lived in an apartment I took the photo in the area.

I always stood 12.6 meters from the car (odd number I know but that is the measurement taken from the first photo, so I kept that distance). That restriction along with shooting on their property actually turned out to be the biggest challenge when framing the photo. For most photos I ended up framing the photo without the car and then measured out the distance from where the camera was.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Those last few posts are need a like (or 7) or perhaps REP even.


----------



## Philligan

The guy with the blue shirt in front of the lake is my favourite, man.


----------



## Tang

Likes for days.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Was in Amsterdam and walked past a tiny but stacked shop run by some old, somewhat grumpy guy that looks like he could've retired years ago. Stacked to the brim with analog and some digital cameras and lenses, from Leica and Hasselblad to cheap old stuff. I've been looking for a little compact of my own ever since I gave my gf an Olympus 35rc but the guy wanted two times the price I paid for hers... 

I now do, however, own one of these oddballs:





Ridiculously small. A good bit smaller than the Oly 35 even. The price was just around what I've seen them go for online lately so I couldn't resist. I like weird cameras (also have an Agfa optima with one of those weird big orange buttons and would love a Nikon ti series). It's no Contax t2 but I don't doubt the Tessar in this one is a solid lens. Contrasty and very much suited for black and white I've been told.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Nice.


----------



## Philligan

I'm not too far into this wedding yet, but here's a stitch from the latest wedding. I've got one more for the year this Saturday, my friend/barber's.



FXT10102-Edit by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Hey guys, long time no post. I haven't had much chance to shoot with anything other than my phone during my first 3 months here. First, because my summer work schedule is hell and second, because a pretty serious shoulder injury has kept me at home and on the mend for over two weeks now. The good news is that since I've been so busy, I haven't been spending much money. That changed today and the next time I do get to go out with the 6D, it'll have a 24-70 f/2.8 II attached to it. In the meantime, I'm trying to upload some of my phone pictures but trying to use flickr/VPNs here is a nightmare. I'll throw some of those photos in here when flickr finally works or I figure out a decent alternative.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I was able to upload a few - there will be more later. Shot and edited w/ my phone.


----------



## JeffFromMtl

I took out my Canon today and shot a couple with the new 24-70mm f/2.8L. It's a damn nice lens. As usual, I'm favouring the wider end of things and it's reinforcing my love of the 24mm focal length. I constantly find myself just wishing the conversion lens on my Fuji was only that 4mm wider. If someone made a compact with a fast 24mm equiv., it would be a damn dream for me.


----------



## AmoryB

I know it's kind of random, but I love the pictures you guys post. Some of these places are so beautiful and make my work day go by quicker. Thanks guys!


----------



## UnderTheSign

Meter on the Rollei wasn't working too well, turned out to be oxidation on the battery contact so I replaced the battery and scraped the contact clean. It's 100% now and even though I use a 1.5v battery instead of 1.35v it's fully accurate. Sweet.

Found my grandpas old Präzisa rangefinder in a box as well. Had it recalibrated in minutes so now I have something more accurate than guestimating distance if I have to.

A true pocket setup.






Loaded it with Portra 160 and once I finish that roll I think I'll move to Rollei IR400 or 80S (as I have an IR filter ready to use as well). Fun times coming up.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I forgot all about this one from last September, it's almost straight SOOC:





Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D+2-Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/100s f/2.8


----------



## vansinn

^ my good man, this looks more like 500_cc_ - with turbo - to me 

Very neat shot in a simple, but effective arrangement; not that easy shooting a blond with light skin toning with all that light coming in at the upper part of the settings, and still keep the details.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Nice play on the acronym (+1 REP). I initially hated this shot for months because I cut off her foot about half way up and couldn't decide on a good crop that didn't look terrible to my eyes. I decided a couple of days ago to give it a go and liked it. Revisiting old work is always fun.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Some photos I took at Lyme Regis. More here.



DSC_5943 by Joe Harvatt, on Flickr



DSC_5941 by Joe Harvatt, on Flickr


----------



## A-Branger

hey guys, long time not being here, bunch of awesome photos lately, Im missing the like button. I have been having issues with my internet provider. Long story short, Its been barely working and now I got a huge bill on my phone data 

but well. I did a wedding last weekend. This is my favourite shot of the day. Ive never though about this location till they show me a photo. I love it now.

Shot with a Canon 6D, Tamrom 70-200mm f2.8 with a softbox off camera right


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Joe, I dig those blues.
Branger, I almost feel like the shot would be more amazing without the couple.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Fun times in my parents' garden today.









IR filter test shot with my X-Pro1, handheld. Doesn't entirely behave the way I expected it to (based on what I've seen online) but some practise and it'll come.


----------



## vansinn

I have no experience with IR photography, so merely thinking..

The bottom half with all the vegetation has been licking lots of energy from Mother Sun, and as such is capable of radiating a lot of IR, while the skies above cannot do this.
Hence, I think maybe using a graduated ND filter 'upside down' might make the lower parts render less, and as such allow enough energy in to not render the sky old-school sepia.


----------



## feilong29

Y'all, after going through a divorce and trying to rebuild my life, I finally was able to purchase a camera (got rid of my old set up). So, I have a Fujifilm X-E2 and an 18mm f/2.0 coming in the mail and I can't wait to share some more work! That is all, haha


----------



## Chuck

Thanks awesome man! I adore my XE-2S.


----------



## Philligan

feilong29 said:


> Y'all, after going through a divorce and trying to rebuild my life, I finally was able to purchase a camera (got rid of my old set up). So, I have a Fujifilm X-E2 and an 18mm f/2.0 coming in the mail and I can't wait to share some more work! That is all, haha



The 18mm is a great lens.  Definitely the most underrated Fuji lens IMHO.


----------



## Tang

One emergency appendectomy later.. it's been a painful couple of days but I'm home now.


----------



## feilong29

Tang said:


> One emergency appendectomy later.. it's been a painful couple of days but I'm home now.



Hope you have a speedy recovery bro!


----------



## Philligan

Ouch man, hope you're feeling better soon!


----------



## Tang

thanks guys.. feeling 200% better today. The last 2 days were a ....ing blur, no joke.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Glad to hear you're recovering well, keep it up and you'll be back at it in no time.


----------



## Philligan

I've been quiet lately - I started a new job a couple months ago and haven't had been on much. I shot a couple weddings and seconded one - I'm not done editing, but have a few so far. 

This was my friend/barber's wedding a couple weeks ago.



CC_14 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



CC_15 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



CC_20 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



CC_24 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



CC_29 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



CC_46 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

I shot the one below with my friend's X100S. Flash sync at 1/1000+ is amazing. The next camera I buy will be an X100T (unless the new version launches at <$1600).



CC_48 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And some of Dawn. 



FXT10010 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



FXT10016 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



FXT10024 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Looks like you had fun shooting into the light. 

Definitely bored at home.. ah well! There's something to be said for taking it easy.


----------



## UnderTheSign

So I'm doing some b&w portraits soon but I'm not that familiar with b&w film (portra 400 guy here mostly!). What I'm seeing from a lot of photographers on my local forum is their b&w work tends to have a lot of 'flat' greys in it. Not very exciting. I want some punch/contrast, more strong black and whites, less grey. What do you think is a good idea to get the look down a little better? 
Some of my ideas are using a red filter (makes skin more pale, darkens hair/dark clothes), pushing the film 2 stops or so, or maybe overexposing by a stop. Not trying to go full on Ralph Gibson here (especially as I don't develop at home yet) but I like a little extra in my looks.

Any other suggestions? I'm thinking Tri-X or HP5+ for film.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I really like Ilford XP2, I find I get good contrast, not too wild grain and c41 processing costs.

Here's a couple of examples I've taken:



_24_00068 by Joe Harvatt, on Flickr



_10_00054 by Joe Harvatt, on Flickr



_29_00073 by Joe Harvatt, on Flickr


----------



## vansinn

Ah yes, the XP2.. I shot a lot on it back in the days. That, and the TX.
What I liked the most about the XP2 was the ability to expose as I saw fit on the same roll - within reasonable limits, of course, which meant from 80 to 320, and still be able to get a good print.
On the other hand, trying to expand or limit contrast by speeding up/down with corresponding opposite processing of course didn't do much..


----------



## UnderTheSign

I was looking at the 50 iso Washi S (or whatever letter) film too, that stuff is wild.
What might make xp2 an interesting choice is the fact it's much more reliable to send off to a lab and have it processed correctly. Most shops here send film to the Fuji plant in Germany and their b/w processing is apparently a lot less reliable than c41 because it's not standardised.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

If you're not going to dip the B&W yourself, definitely look into a C-41 based film.


----------



## soliloquy

shot with the rokinon 85mm. i was shooting at f2, and it seems i missed the eyes and focused on his hair. 
i created a ring of light out of a hoola hoop and some christmas lights. need to experiment some more with this


IMGP4790 by hadi khan, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Nice DIY lighting soliloquy!

Finally getting out of the house a bit!


----------



## tank

D750 + tamron 70-200 f2.8 and processed in lightroom with VSCO


----------



## JeffFromMtl

Spent a night in &#37325;&#24198; (Chongqing) recently. Canon 6D | 24-70mm f/2.8L @ 24mm f/2.8. I wifi'd it to my phone and edited it entirely with VSCO.


----------



## feilong29

Did some walking down in Waikiki; gosh it's been so long since I held a camera in my hand that I didn't know how to compose my shots like I used to...guess I better get out more! Been wanting to get into b/w photography so, here are a few that I felt looked decent. All done with my Fujifilm X-E2 w/xf 18mm lens at ISO 1600 at ISO 3200 for the first two and 2500 for the last one, edited with VSCO on my iPhone.


----------



## vansinn

Fun, when you think about it..
We're all creative in multiple ways, and, although this is a music forum, this non-music thread has to be the longest of them all.. 

You can expect me in too a Bit later; only a matter of when my apartment gets sold, so I can go traveling for month.
New photo gear shopping list ready, and have been (re)studying up on technique for three+ month..


----------



## UnderTheSign

With the DIY-panorama project on hold for a bit, I decided to just buy a 135W back for my Bronica. 1 : 2.25 aspect ratio is as close as i can get now to the Hasselblad X-Pan which my pretty much my dream camera (but a grand too expensive or so ). 

Been a busy month photography purchase-wise. Also just scored a Paterson tank with 135 and 120 reel and the capacity for 4x5 film so now I just need some chems, a changing bag and the time to start developing my own b/w. I'm also shopping for a decent scanner...


----------



## Tang

So uh,

looks like the Fuji medium format camera is officially a thing.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Curious to see how it'll be priced VS the Pentax Mf offerings. "sub 10k" might still mean the price of a kidney.


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I saw $9k body somewhere.


----------



## UnderTheSign

"Well below $10k" for body/lens/evf combo has been said by Fuji reps but 'well below' could just mean $9k.


----------



## feilong29

View from me casa! I really dig VSCOcam but I can't wait to get Lightroom again


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A shot of my nephews from Labor Day weekend:




Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D: ISO 200 1/125s f/1.8

One HDR from atop Mount Bonnell:




Nikon D3 with Sigma 15-30mm f/[email protected]: ISO 200, 1/1000 [-2,-1,0,+1,+2], f/8


----------



## Philligan

Awesome guys. 

Here are a couple stitches from a wedding I just finished.



BM-497 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



BM-498 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## capoeiraesp

Long time no post so here's my share. 










I'm about 2 weeks into owning it now and have used it across a good mix of circumstances such as kids dancing and playing sport, muay thai classes, some simple speedlite lit portraits, street stuff, live music, and some other general portrait work.

The X-T2 is a significant improvement over its predecessor. The build feels more solid, particularly the new grip material. The improvements in the ISO and shutter controls are fantastic with the new lock method and max shutter of 1/8000 is a nice addition.
The BIG ONE! Auto-focus! Night and day difference
It tracks exceptionally well in CF mode to the point that I was able to track a kid dancing through a crowd of dozens of other dancers flawlessly. The burst mode of 11fps is ridiculous with the added grip. I have only tested some cars around ~50kmph but my 56 1.2 @1.2 was able to track them perfectly. In poor light it's far more responsive than the X-T1 and easily as good as my 6D, if not better, at focusing in dim light. Need to test it more but totally satisfied with results so far, especially with focusing on subjects near to far.
The battery grip is a bloody nice addition and can be charged by just plugging into the wall or a USB port for the main camera battery, which shortens charge time greatly by charging all simultaneously.

Other additions? The dual card slot is great to have and i use my second slot as jpeg backup with the killer Acros simulation. Loving the extra resolution of the new sensor.
'scuse the ranty write up. Here's some snaps.





No hunting or deciding to shoot the bags in the rear with burst and CF during this set.














Bit of macro with the extension tube.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Awesome stuff Matt. Tony Northrup has been super positive about the X-T2 as well.


----------



## Philligan

Awesome.  I really want to get one, but I'm not shooting enough to justify the cost (especially since I'm just working a contract right now). 

I'll probably be starting a new contract in a few weeks doing social media, promotion, and client relations for a branch of the local college in my town, so if I'm shooting a lot maybe I can justify it as a career move.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Holy cow, a Huff article I at least partially agree with.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2016/09/23/where-i-think-the-camera-industry-is-headed-by-steve-huff/


----------



## Philligan

That actually does make sense for once. 

It's a good point. I was thinking about it, and crop DSLRs were like $3k in the early days. Then pro FF bodies came out at $7k, and it was a big deal when the 5D launched at $3k. 

Maybe we're a few years away from a "semi-pro" ~$3k MF body.


----------



## Dalcan

Any suggestions in moving your LR catalog from OS X to Windows? I'm scared I'm going to .... everything up


----------



## Philligan

I honestly have no clue. I'm terrible with LR cataloguing.

Here are a few from my second last wedding. Still working through the most recent one.



BM-032 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



BM-036 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



BM-045 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



BM-311 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

Dealing with sunlight and shade is brutal. This wedding was almost entirely outdoors, so trying to find shade was difficult enough, and even when I found it, there was usually dappled sunlight. It's crazy how much the colour temperature can change from direct daylight to shade. I did a lot of spot white balance adjustments on this one.


----------



## Whammy

Nice photos Phil.
The first and last are great.

Photo number 3. The groom is slightly forward past the focus point. I've had that happen in a few photos where I wasn't paying close enough attention and didn't realise that both faces where not the same distance from the camera.
I don't mind when one of them is slightly further away and a little soft. But when one is slightly closer the out of focus rendering just isn't as natural.

And yeah I hear you about spots of sunlight coming through the shade under trees. I've had issues with that during the last two weddings. So now I am going to get a diffuser. It should come in handy when the light is a bit difficult during the portraits.


----------



## Tang

What a terrible day to forget my camera at home. Just so ya'll know, New Hampshire is beautiful. Even distractingly beautiful when you're trying to drive. 

Oh well  at least I had my phone.


----------



## Azyiu




----------



## Philligan

Awesome, guys.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Well, started scanning my film from the UK trip with my 'new' 8800f. Average time per 8 shots... 45 minutes. I'm glad I have other stuff to do around the house


----------



## A-Branger

Dalcan said:


> Any suggestions in moving your LR catalog from OS X to Windows? I'm scared I'm going to .... everything up



nothing is going to happen, just open your catalog on the new computer and done..... (short answer)

so first, what you want exactly to be transferred? this depends on how you work with your photos. Meaning, some people have only one catalog for everything, in which case you only need to find where about its the folder with the catalog and save it into a HD, transfer to the new computer and then go with the annoying taks of re-sync all your photos (this task gets eassier if you sync the folder where the photos are saved instead of one photo at a time.

In my case for my weddings (and every job) I create a new catalog. Each catalog is saved in the same main folder the photos of such job are. So if I transfer "Karina+Mark'sWedding" folder into the new computer, I just open the catalog and done... I might just need to again sync the main folder so LR knows the HD path for the photos.

If you only want few photos transfer, you can select all the photos that you want and click "export new catalog", so it would create a new catalog with those photos.

If the whole thing is on a HD, you can create a new catalog on the new computer, click "Import from another catalog" and select photos or folders that you want

ect ect





Philligan said:


> Dealing with sunlight and shade is brutal. This wedding was almost entirely outdoors, so trying to find shade was difficult enough, and even when I found it, there was usually dappled sunlight. It's crazy how much the colour temperature can change from direct daylight to shade. I did a lot of spot white balance adjustments on this one.



welcome to the wonderful world of outdoor weddings, where your camera never has enough dynamic range, someone skin is going to get blown and loose skin tone, bride dresses become blue, the background is always brighter than your subject, the sky doesnt have any color, and white balancing is a B#$%* 

its always hard. And since I like to give bit of contrast to my photos I laways end up fighting to keep some skin tones.

Your last pic was pretty good. A 5in1 reflector/diffuser is awesome. Or either put the couple under the diffuser (the bridal party is always handy to hold it  ) or use the white side to bounce some light back into the couple shooting againts the sun light, just remember to hold the reflector as high as you can 

but yeah, try to avoid mixed lighting. Or they are either on shadow or in daylight.

Also a good trick for these kinds of outdoor weddings with the white balance blue thing, is to de-saturate the blue and sometimes the magenta channel on the HSL panel.

For the bride you can grab the brush and paint over her dress and bring down the saturation. Not all the way down, but just enough to have her dress "white" again, but still remain a bit of the natural lighting colors


----------



## Azyiu

*Queen* is arguably my favorite band of all-time. When Freddie died in 1991, I thought that was the end of the band... fast forward 25 years... being able to see the surviving members (+ Adam Lambert) live for the first, and most likely for the last time; is an amazing experience. I can die in peace now. By the way, these shots were taken at their Hong Kong show on 9/28/2016.


----------



## Dalcan

A-Branger said:


> nothing is going to happen, just open your catalog on the new computer and done..... (short answer)
> 
> so first, what you want exactly to be transferred? this depends on how you work with your photos. Meaning, some people have only one catalog for everything, in which case you only need to find where about its the folder with the catalog and save it into a HD, transfer to the new computer and then go with the annoying taks of re-sync all your photos (this task gets eassier if you sync the folder where the photos are saved instead of one photo at a time.
> 
> In my case for my weddings (and every job) I create a new catalog. Each catalog is saved in the same main folder the photos of such job are. So if I transfer "Karina+Mark'sWedding" folder into the new computer, I just open the catalog and done... I might just need to again sync the main folder so LR knows the HD path for the photos.
> 
> If you only want few photos transfer, you can select all the photos that you want and click "export new catalog", so it would create a new catalog with those photos.
> 
> If the whole thing is on a HD, you can create a new catalog on the new computer, click "Import from another catalog" and select photos or folders that you want
> 
> ect ect



You're the best, thank you


----------



## Philligan

Man, that last photo is great.


----------



## Philligan

Here's one I shot of Dawn last night. I don't have a beauty dish, so I tried to use an umbrella to imitate one. I got it up as high as my ceiling would realistically allow, and had it fairly centred on her.



FXT10122 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That looks like a candidate for the RAW challenge thread .
It doesn't look too much like a BD to me, but it's a good shot either way.


----------



## Philligan

Oh, not at all. I was trying to get the sort of top-down spill though that I see in a lot of fashion photos, and assumed they were mostly beauty dish.

I'd like to try a dish for faster falloff, and use something like a softbox from below to fill in the shadow information a bit.


----------



## elnyrb10

I have been taking pictures for around a year and a half, and some of my existing clients wanted to show my previous work to new people, so i finally got around top throwing a website together. Any suggestions (on both the site and the photos)? There's some awesome stuff on this thread, its always making me try and up my game!

http://ericlagg.wixsite.com/mysite1


----------



## Joe Harvatt

I started working for Zilla cabs in the UK recently. I've been taking a few product photos, here's a Marshall JMP head that was in for rehousing in a custom small enclosure.



Marshall JMP Front by Joe Harvatt, on Flickr



Marshall JMP Rear by Joe Harvatt, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Joe, those are pretty awesome. I'd love to see them with a more still life composition; I think your processing and eye would lend itself well to that style.



elnyrb10 said:


> I have been taking pictures for around a year and a half, and some of my existing clients wanted to show my previous work to new people, so i finally got around top throwing a website together. Any suggestions (on both the site and the photos)? There's some awesome stuff on this thread, its always making me try and up my game!
> 
> http://ericlagg.wixsite.com/mysite1



On the website side of things:

1) Lose the mysite1 in the title bar that shows up in the tab of the browser.
2) Why does the site scroll vertically on the home page? There's not any additional content below the gallery.
3) Lose the caption bar on the images on the home page.
4) Having 91 images to look through is too many for the homepage, pair it down to your best work (for instance, shot 1 and shot 91 almost identical).
5) Functionally, it's not intuitive that the method of browsing your images changes from a self-contained gallery that you click through (home page) to vertically scrolling to see the images on your other pages.
6) The grey font color used is hard to read the PEOPLE text against the brown/tan background of your background image.
7) You menu is floating on top of your images, but it's not left aligned - it looks odd.
8) Your contact information lists your location as "Metropolitan Area", this is less than helpful.
9) Either use all proper case or all upper case for your larger text headers (site name, menu, etc)
10) If I scroll to the bottom of one of your galleries, I have to all the way back to the top to go to different gallery; this is not user-friendly at all
11) It's not obvious that you have a "full screen site/page" and the it somewhat bothers me that it doesn't actually fill my browser window.The way your images are scaling for the large "thumbnails" is cutting off some of your images; for instance, the 4th image down in people looks like an out-of-focus, poorly cropped image. When you open it in full screen you more easily tell it's just an image with not enough depth of field.​12) Overall it looks very amateurish, but there is potential to polish it up some​
On the photography side, I'm going to focus on the people section:

1) Some of your images are softer than I would consider posting; 5th image is the first example.
2) Group the images by subject or theme, the random smattering doesn't allow me to see your ability to tell a story with your images
3) Work on your post-processing, you don't need to be producing magazine quality work, but removing large blemishes, single flyaway hairs and such will go a long way to making your work look better
4) The first shot in your nature category isn't of nature nor are those guys hairy legs 
5) ...nor the Audi
6) If you're going to categorize your work, make sure the images fit
7) The random all bokeh shot doesn't do anything for me - it makes it look like you might like posting shots that are OOF and as I client that could be me.
8) When I think of studio for photography work, I think of shots you completed in a photo studio not images shot in a music studio. You already have a music category; find a way to make it all encompassing or choose a better name for this gallery.
9) To be as honest as possible, it looks like any other person who just got a camera and took a few hundred shots over a couple of weekends and posted them. For instance: using ISO500, f/2.8, 1/6400s isn't going to give you the highest quality image; why not go down to ISO100, f/2.8, 1/1250s and get the best S/N ratio possible and thus the cleanest base image you can?​
Develop a style, post single images (or series of images here) and get help from the photo community that is here. Know how to photograph anything, but specialize in something and that's what should live on your website. 
It took me a long time to realize that.

I'm not trying to come across as crass or as a dick, just trying to provide the most honest but helpful feedback I can; hopefully it's helpful.


----------



## Tang

I've forgotten how to shoot landscape orientation.

It was an overcast day so I must made the most of it. 



bulb by Scott Jones, on Flickr



squiggly by Scott Jones, on Flickr



skyline by Scott Jones, on Flickr



try by Scott Jones, on Flickr



20161002_133909 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



20161002_134418-2 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



20161002_140241 by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That 5th image is something special, you should do a series like that.


----------



## A-Branger

Philligan said:


> Here's one I shot of Dawn last night. I don't have a beauty dish, so I tried to use an umbrella to imitate one. I got it up as high as my ceiling would realistically allow, and had it fairly centred on her.



pretty cool shot. Just a couple of tips:

for that magazine model look thing. Yeah most of them use a beauty dish. Some of them with no fill light. But have a look at those pics shadows and yours.

I know you say you put the light pretty high up, but I could tell by the shadow under the nose. 

Try to bring the source light closer to her and aimed to her nose tip. The "model shoot" look, usually have the shadow of the nose barely showing up under, without touching the lips. Once you get the height right, try experimenting with how close or far it needs to be to change the fall off


Also, careful in the post not to loose skin tones, you are right in the limit, bit more contrast and her tones are gone. I know your GF is pretty white and its hard to edit (Most of my brides, or grooms are like that), specially when I like to give contrast to my photos. But a mate made me aware of my "issue" and now I hate that I need to choose between not adding contrast, or having to brush out every face to recover tones


----------



## A-Branger

elnyrb10 said:


> I have been taking pictures for around a year and a half, and some of my existing clients wanted to show my previous work to new people, so i finally got around top throwing a website together. Any suggestions (on both the site and the photos)? There's some awesome stuff on this thread, its always making me try and up my game!
> 
> http://ericlagg.wixsite.com/mysite1



ThePhilosopher said it pretty good

this is my take and Im going to be pretty harsh, Im sorry in advance:

What are your existing clients? and what are you trying to sell? or target?

honestly the work seems like you mention, you are jsut starting. I took the same kinds of photos, we all did. But sadly majority of what you are showing is not going to land you new jobs, unless you are looking into live gigs. Think what your new potential clients are and what they want to see.

Be truly honest with yourself and only show your absolute best work. This is the most difficult part of photography, and the hardest lesson to learn, to let go of some photos. But remember "less is more"

I know you are starting and you still dont have either a "style" or better said a photography field/specialisation. And thats fine, Im not hopping you do this early, heck I still dont really have it either, I just shoot mostly weddings because thats what my career path took me into. So in the mean time I recon just have one folder with your absolute best, instead of 4 categories with random photos to fill a number. Down the track once you get enough good shoots that you could build a proper sub-category, then do it

Im not commenting on the live music as I dont have experience. The do look good, you just need to work bit extra on your post-process to make them look bit better, also show some wide shoots too. Show the venue, try some weird compositions. The only thing it does boters me is that first shot of a B&W guitar closeup on your home page, this is you home page and thats the first photo your clients are going to see, it has to be the absolute best pic you have, and the following 5 too. That pic doesnt tell me much, is too shallow DOF focused on the 19th fret

^ that goes with lots of your studio shots. Cool you have a fast lens, but not every shot (specially closeups/macro) needs such shallow DOF. For example the drumstick shot, you cant read the brand. The shot of the Gibson LP on the rack, it was cool, but as you focus on the fretboard, the headstock is out of focus, so your eyes goes to the sharp part of the shot which is nothing. Careful with the focus point. I also agree that "Studio" implies a photogrphy studio, controlled lighting situation

the People tab, you have couple of good shots with the dude/modeling there and others, but few soft focus shots, and shots of jsut random people doing radom things, like a shot of a girl obiusly talking with someone, but you dont show that someone, so it looks more like a phone pic than a proper photo(if this were part of "blah blah festival"...or "mrX party" then it would be fine, but by itself it means nothing). If you are going to shot a girl, shoot her, but dont show me her looking at her phone, it doesnt tell me anything unless it is put on a context. Again here try to show your best shot first

Nature. Unless you are doing proper landscape shots, you can get rid of that folder. Is not going to land you any job, it only makes you look more "amateur" wiht the "look another photog shooting flowers, chairs, signs, ect" because we all did that, I shot bicycles, old cofee shops, rocks, trees, ect. And although yes, it shows you can use a camera, reality is when you apply for a job, they want to see content related to what the job is about. 

I got model shots but they didnt hire me as a wedding photog, now Im a wedding photog but they didnt hire me for a model/lifestyle job. Even when both things are pretty much the same minus the white dress.


the car shots are pretty cool, the bottle shot even that its not fully a product shot, is still "wow" enough so keep it and keep working on that. But things like one photo of a cat, or a flower, get rid of those, unless you have more cats or more dogs in order to sell yourself as a pet photog. Get rid of most of peoples shots (sorry), and grab some friends and do some re-shooting, shoot more. shoot with a purpose show that you are putting though on it, not like you just sneek into a park and took a pic of a random girl watching her phone. And every time you get a better shot, update the site. Upload a better shot, get rid of the worst one you have up. Do this till your portfolio looks better and better.

Grab some friends and make them pretend they are a band, make a band cover shot, and individual portraits. No-one is going to look into if they are a real band or not. Grab a couple of friends nd make them pretend they are having a couple shot. Ect ect. 

Think what you want to shoot, or the job you want to apply for, and shot that. Practice, find a way to do some free shots, and only show those pics to your new clients/job application. The rest of the "arty" stuff, leave it for yourself. There is always a way to make money shooting what you love. I got a mate who loved surfing and it took him couple of years of shooting everyday before he started to get paid for some shoots. Not sure hows the music scene, but if you like it you can find a way, shoot for venues not for bands, bands would come latter till that one band who would pay you. That unless you want to "work" and make more of a "living", in which you can go into venues/nightclub/events, Weddings/couples/families, or realstate. Those are the main 3 quick cash grabs that you can find an add for a job

Sorry to be harsh, I still love you  hehehe. But really, grab the best of the best you have and make a "porfolio" website. Less is more (even with your current pics, you can make yourself look like a better photog by just deleting the "bad" pics), keep practicing and keep updating the site until looks better and better. Then you can go and create sub-folders for different genres


----------



## Tang

All this advice is great.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

One from my yesterday's shoot, my first in quite a while. I could have lost the ND filter, but I had just switched from using my strobe so I didn't want to miss the moments that were happening. I also left my tripod in the car, so it's a little softer than I would have liked.





Nikon D3 with Sigma 120 -300mm f/2.8 at 120mm+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 800 1/100s f/2.8


----------



## elnyrb10

for some reason i cant delete this post: so see below - _sorry_


----------



## elnyrb10

A-Branger said:


> ThePhilosopher said it pretty good
> 
> this is my take and Im going to be pretty harsh, Im sorry in advance:
> 
> What are your existing clients? and what are you trying to sell? or target?
> 
> honestly the work seems like you mention, you are jsut starting. I took the same kinds of photos, we all did. But sadly majority of what you are showing is not going to land you new jobs, unless you are looking into live gigs. Think what your new potential clients are and what they want to see.
> 
> Be truly honest with yourself and only show your absolute best work. This is the most difficult part of photography, and the hardest lesson to learn, to let go of some photos. But remember "less is more"
> 
> I know you are starting and you still dont have either a "style" or better said a photography field/specialisation. And thats fine, Im not hopping you do this early, heck I still dont really have it either, I just shoot mostly weddings because thats what my career path took me into. So in the mean time I recon just have one folder with your absolute best, instead of 4 categories with random photos to fill a number. Down the track once you get enough good shoots that you could build a proper sub-category, then do it
> 
> Im not commenting on the live music as I dont have experience. The do look good, you just need to work bit extra on your post-process to make them look bit better, also show some wide shoots too. Show the venue, try some weird compositions. The only thing it does boters me is that first shot of a B&W guitar closeup on your home page, this is you home page and thats the first photo your clients are going to see, it has to be the absolute best pic you have, and the following 5 too. That pic doesnt tell me much, is too shallow DOF focused on the 19th fret
> 
> ^ that goes with lots of your studio shots. Cool you have a fast lens, but not every shot (specially closeups/macro) needs such shallow DOF. For example the drumstick shot, you cant read the brand. The shot of the Gibson LP on the rack, it was cool, but as you focus on the fretboard, the headstock is out of focus, so your eyes goes to the sharp part of the shot which is nothing. Careful with the focus point. I also agree that "Studio" implies a photogrphy studio, controlled lighting situation
> 
> the People tab, you have couple of good shots with the dude/modeling there and others, but few soft focus shots, and shots of jsut random people doing radom things, like a shot of a girl obiusly talking with someone, but you dont show that someone, so it looks more like a phone pic than a proper photo(if this were part of "blah blah festival"...or "mrX party" then it would be fine, but by itself it means nothing). If you are going to shot a girl, shoot her, but dont show me her looking at her phone, it doesnt tell me anything unless it is put on a context. Again here try to show your best shot first
> 
> Nature. Unless you are doing proper landscape shots, you can get rid of that folder. Is not going to land you any job, it only makes you look more "amateur" wiht the "look another photog shooting flowers, chairs, signs, ect" because we all did that, I shot bicycles, old cofee shops, rocks, trees, ect. And although yes, it shows you can use a camera, reality is when you apply for a job, they want to see content related to what the job is about.
> 
> I got model shots but they didnt hire me as a wedding photog, now Im a wedding photog but they didnt hire me for a model/lifestyle job. Even when both things are pretty much the same minus the white dress.
> 
> 
> the car shots are pretty cool, the bottle shot even that its not fully a product shot, is still "wow" enough so keep it and keep working on that. But things like one photo of a cat, or a flower, get rid of those, unless you have more cats or more dogs in order to sell yourself as a pet photog. Get rid of most of peoples shots (sorry), and grab some friends and do some re-shooting, shoot more. shoot with a purpose show that you are putting though on it, not like you just sneek into a park and took a pic of a random girl watching her phone. And every time you get a better shot, update the site. Upload a better shot, get rid of the worst one you have up. Do this till your portfolio looks better and better.
> 
> Grab some friends and make them pretend they are a band, make a band cover shot, and individual portraits. No-one is going to look into if they are a real band or not. Grab a couple of friends nd make them pretend they are having a couple shot. Ect ect.
> 
> Think what you want to shoot, or the job you want to apply for, and shot that. Practice, find a way to do some free shots, and only show those pics to your new clients/job application. The rest of the "arty" stuff, leave it for yourself. There is always a way to make money shooting what you love. I got a mate who loved surfing and it took him couple of years of shooting everyday before he started to get paid for some shoots. Not sure hows the music scene, but if you like it you can find a way, shoot for venues not for bands, bands would come latter till that one band who would pay you. That unless you want to "work" and make more of a "living", in which you can go into venues/nightclub/events, Weddings/couples/families, or realstate. Those are the main 3 quick cash grabs that you can find an add for a job
> 
> Sorry to be harsh, I still love you  hehehe. But really, grab the best of the best you have and make a "porfolio" website. Less is more (even with your current pics, you can make yourself look like a better photog by just deleting the "bad" pics), keep practicing and keep updating the site until looks better and better. Then you can go and create sub-folders for different genres





ThePhilosopher said:


> Joe, those are pretty awesome. I'd love to see them with a more still life composition; I think your processing and eye would lend itself well to that style.
> 
> 
> 
> On the website side of things:
> 
> 1) Lose the mysite1 in the title bar that shows up in the tab of the browser.
> 2) Why does the site scroll vertically on the home page? There's not any additional content below the gallery.
> 3) Lose the caption bar on the images on the home page.
> 4) Having 91 images to look through is too many for the homepage, pair it down to your best work (for instance, shot 1 and shot 91 almost identical).
> 5) Functionally, it's not intuitive that the method of browsing your images changes from a self-contained gallery that you click through (home page) to vertically scrolling to see the images on your other pages.
> 6) The grey font color used is hard to read the PEOPLE text against the brown/tan background of your background image.
> 7) You menu is floating on top of your images, but it's not left aligned - it looks odd.
> 8) Your contact information lists your location as "Metropolitan Area", this is less than helpful.
> 9) Either use all proper case or all upper case for your larger text headers (site name, menu, etc)
> 10) If I scroll to the bottom of one of your galleries, I have to all the way back to the top to go to different gallery; this is not user-friendly at all
> 11) It's not obvious that you have a "full screen site/page" and the it somewhat bothers me that it doesn't actually fill my browser window.The way your images are scaling for the large "thumbnails" is cutting off some of your images; for instance, the 4th image down in people looks like an out-of-focus, poorly cropped image. When you open it in full screen you more easily tell it's just an image with not enough depth of field.​12) Overall it looks very amateurish, but there is potential to polish it up some​
> On the photography side, I'm going to focus on the people section:
> 
> 1) Some of your images are softer than I would consider posting; 5th image is the first example.
> 2) Group the images by subject or theme, the random smattering doesn't allow me to see your ability to tell a story with your images
> 3) Work on your post-processing, you don't need to be producing magazine quality work, but removing large blemishes, single flyaway hairs and such will go a long way to making your work look better
> 4) The first shot in your nature category isn't of nature nor are those guys hairy legs
> 5) ...nor the Audi
> 6) If you're going to categorize your work, make sure the images fit
> 7) The random all bokeh shot doesn't do anything for me - it makes it look like you might like posting shots that are OOF and as I client that could be me.
> 8) When I think of studio for photography work, I think of shots you completed in a photo studio not images shot in a music studio. You already have a music category; find a way to make it all encompassing or choose a better name for this gallery.
> 9) To be as honest as possible, it looks like any other person who just got a camera and took a few hundred shots over a couple of weekends and posted them. For instance: using ISO500, f/2.8, 1/6400s isn't going to give you the highest quality image; why not go down to ISO100, f/2.8, 1/1250s and get the best S/N ratio possible and thus the cleanest base image you can?​
> Develop a style, post single images (or series of images here) and get help from the photo community that is here. Know how to photograph anything, but specialize in something and that's what should live on your website.
> It took me a long time to realize that.
> 
> I'm not trying to come across as crass or as a dick, just trying to provide the most honest but helpful feedback I can; hopefully it's helpful.




I SERIOUSLY cannot express how thankful I am for the honest feedback. Im going to go back and redevelop the site and make some changes to it. This is nowhere near my day job nor do I have many friends that shoot so I rarely get proper feedback so this is seriously helpful. 

I'll make some changes to my site and more importantly my style of shooting. Thanks again guys!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Anytime, I had a similar site for years ('08-'10). I'm a statistician by day, and hardly anybody I work with has an interest in photography (aside from consumption) - though I have managed to find myself a little group of photographers locally to associate with. Post some images here as you shoot more, it's easier to give meaningful feedback on small sets of images as opposed to massive collections at a time.

That said, here's another from Saturday.
This image may not be suitable for all work environments, follow at your own risk.
Nikon D3 with Sigma 120 -300mm f/2.8 at 180mm+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 200 1/200s f/4


----------



## Philligan

Alright, the inevitable has come. I should clean the sensor on the X-T1. 

I was doing a big lens/body cleaning (mainly using a microfibre cloth to get into all the exterior nooks and crannies) and since I had the lens off and was in good light, I figured I'd take a peek at the sensor. It's got a handful of small dust particles on it. I haven't noticed any issues in photos (and I'm not gonna go looking for them ) but I can't get them off with a blower and I've never cleaned a sensor before, so I should probably get my first time over with. 

Any recommendations for products? 

I'd prefer to keep this affordable (I'm not ready to throw down for an Arctic Butterfly just yet) and would like the safest, most reliable bet. I'm leaning towards the swabs - how careful do I need to be about the brand/type?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

No clue, I pay a professional to clean mine - I'm not that good with small movements.


----------



## Philligan

I would, but I don't know if there are any shops nearby I trust. There's one local shop in town, and a Henry's an hour away.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A third shot from Saturday.
This image may not be suitable for all work environments, follow at your own risk.
Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D: ISO 800 1/80s f/2.2


----------



## Philligan

I like the light in that one, man. 

So I ordered a Visible Dust kit last night - a set of 5 APS-C swabs. I was on the fence because the swaps are $40 and a bottle of cleaner is $35, but I found out the swaps come with a much smaller bottle of cleaner, so $40 would get me everything I need.

I'm gonna try cleaning the X-E2, first. I only paid $600 for it, and my wife will be using it as a snapshot camera from now on - so better to practice on that.


----------



## soliloquy

did a selfie:





in other news, my friends and i are launching a website for photography to cover corporate and event/wedding photography. even before launch, i'm already getting irritated. they want to cater to everyone in the same way all other local photography businesses are doing. cliche pictures, and the same type of demographic with very little variety.

i'm on the other hand approaching it in a more artsy way. lets see how it goes...


----------



## UnderTheSign

Got some film from London developed.

Not sure what's going on here. Weird colours. It's fresh Portra 400 so I guess I need to work on my scanning and film post processing.


IMG_0003 by Bart B, on Flickr

I like this one, even though I forgot to rewind properly  (had a small TLR on me which has manual winding, no stops, just indicator numbers). 


IMG_0002 by Bart B, on Flickr

Barely took any digital photos. I shot a roll of black and white on my Rollei 35 including a bunch of IR stuff which I'll either develop myself or get developed at a good lab sometime soon. This is one of the few digitals I took and was really happy about. SOOC. Just suited the mood in the park.


DSCF3728.jpg by Bart B, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Those colors are definitely scanning issues.

Here's a quick shot of a modded Seiko on a Staib mesh.


----------



## Tang

here's a fall set.. got a city set coming soon too!



IMGP5458 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



20161014_175110 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



20161014_175255-2 by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Nice, Tang. 



ThePhilosopher said:


> Here's a quick shot of a modded Seiko on a Staib mesh.



Very awesome watch.

So I cleaned both sensors the other night. It was easy, and seemed to go fine. I didn't look super close at the X-E2, but I noticed what looks like a few remaining dust spots on the X-T1. I haven't looked for them in photos, just saw them on the sensor when I looked with my phone's flashlight. I'm not sure if I should try cleaning it again or just leave it be. I'm still mildly scared that I somehow damaged my sensor.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

You may have some spots that are under the filter (I'm assuming it has an AA filter, I don't know the specs) and cannot be removed. Try a test shot of sheet of a white paper stopped down all the way (make sure you do not blow out the white) to see any spots.


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> You may have some spots that are under the filter (I'm assuming it has an AA filter, I don't know the specs) and cannot be removed. Try a test shot of sheet of a white paper stopped down all the way (make sure you do not blow out the white) to see any spots.



It took me a minute (it's early and I just got to work ) but the Fuji bodies don't have AA filters.

I'm wondering if I just didn't apply enough pressure during the last half of my sweep. I know they say be gentle, but I think I may have taken it a bit too far.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I quickly reworked a shot from one of my very first shoots back in 2008, my composition was terrible back then (but not as bad as my editing). This was most likely strobed with an 11" reflector and a Speedotron M11.





Olympus E-500 with 18-50mm f/[email protected]: ISO100 1/200s f/7.1


----------



## Philligan

Nice. CCD 4/3 Olympus? Very old school.  Can you post the original? It would be cool to see how much your processing has changed.

We went for a walk before Dawn had to work. These are the 16mm, other than the last one, which is a stitch with the 56mm.

Dawn's a bit noisy, but I pushed these photos like crazy. +100 shadows, -100 highlights, 1+ exposure pushes, plus additional local adjustments on Dawn.



FXT10052 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



FXT10050 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



FXT10026-Pano by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tyler

Just ordered a Tamron 70-200 2.8 and a Sigma Art 24-35 f2 for my 5d III. Cant wait to get these in


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> Nice. CCD 4/3 Olympus? Very old school.  Can you post the original? It would be cool to see how much your processing has changed.



I saw some of these on Instagram, that second shot is definitely my favorite. I'd still use the old E-500 if it wouldn't cost me more to clean the contacts on the main board than the camera is worth.

Here's the original edit from 2008, I'm pretty sure I was heavy into the Orton-glow at the time (what is gamut ). I know I pushed the hell out of my RAW files (most of the heavy saturation was done in ACR).


----------



## Philligan

When you said Orton glow, I was expecting the worst.  That really doesn't look bad, but your new edit is definitely better. I should hunt around for some old photos - I probably did some terrible editing haha.


----------



## A-Branger

Tyler said:


> Just ordered a Tamron 70-200 2.8 and a Sigma Art 24-35 f2 for my 5d III. Cant wait to get these in



I got the Tamrom and its a great lens. Only thing that I hate of it, is that the focus and zoom rings work the wrong way around, like NIkons 

in photog is not that bad. It is terrible when I have to use it for video as I always track focus in the wrong way and I miss the subject (and the shot)


----------



## UnderTheSign

Don't bother much with brand forums (because fanboys... Ever seen the Pentax forums? Dear Lord..) but the first post on page 3 had me laughing hard.
http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/4194-ken-rockwell-x-t2-review-x-t2-not-really-for-pros/page-3


----------



## Azyiu

UnderTheSign said:


> Don't bother much with brand forums (because fanboys... Ever seen the Pentax forums? Dear Lord..) but the first post on page 3 had me laughing hard.
> http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/4194-ken-rockwell-x-t2-review-x-t2-not-really-for-pros/page-3



That smells like a joke post


----------



## Tyler

A-Branger said:


> I got the Tamrom and its a great lens. Only thing that I hate of it, is that the focus and zoom rings work the wrong way around, like NIkons
> 
> in photog is not that bad. It is terrible when I have to use it for video as I always track focus in the wrong way and I miss the subject (and the shot)



haha I can imagine thats quite confusing to get used to. The Sigma may also be the same way if Im not mistaken


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Some challenging retouching work lies ahead:


----------



## Philligan

UnderTheSign said:


> Don't bother much with brand forums (because fanboys... Ever seen the Pentax forums? Dear Lord..) but the first post on page 3 had me laughing hard.
> http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/4194-ken-rockwell-x-t2-review-x-t2-not-really-for-pros/page-3



The amount of complaining that happens on that forum blows my mind. Like people asking why Fuji hasn't released their full frame yet, or why they haven't implementing IBIS, or why they haven't switched to a Bayer array...

It's a combination of that and people starting threads about the ridiculously obscure lenses they want to see, because they think Fuji will read that and make it.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Philligan said:


> The amount of complaining that happens on that forum blows my mind. Like people asking why Fuji hasn't released their full frame yet, or why they haven't implementing IBIS, or why they haven't switched to a Bayer array...
> 
> It's a combination of that and people starting threads about the ridiculously obscure lenses they want to see, because they think Fuji will read that and make it.


Haha, yeah. I love Fujirumours but the X forums are garbage. The Ken Rockwell/Chuck Norris comparison cracked me up though.

Pentax forums are the worst though. Like, having been raised on it, I'm a pretty big Pentax supporter. If I had 2k to spend, I'd very much consider a K-1 or even K-3II plus lenses for astro (dat gps tracker!). But the second you even hint at Pentax being a lesser brand on those forums, people get ridiculously defensive. Point out a shortcoming of their gear (like autofocus speed) and you'll be bombarded by middle aged men desperately fighting for their brand. It's both sad and hilarious


----------



## ThePhilosopher

All you would have to do is hand them a used D3 (about $1200 now) and a decent lens to show them the shortcomings of any Pentax camera (645D and 645Z not included, but come close with that terrible 1/125s sync speed)


----------



## Tang

Eh. I'll shoot with whatever. They all do the same thing with varying degrees of difficulty and success.


----------



## A-Branger

Tyler said:


> haha I can imagine thats quite confusing to get used to. The Sigma may also be the same way if Im not mistaken



the new Sigma arts come the proper way. Maybe the old ones, I got a sigma super telephoto 50-500mm and it is the wrong way too


----------



## UnderTheSign

ThePhilosopher said:


> All you would have to do is hand them a used D3 (about $1200 now) and a decent lens to show them the shortcomings of any Pentax camera (645D and 645Z not included, but come close with that terrible 1/125s sync speed)



D3 seems great value nowadays if you aren't a megapixel junkie!


----------



## Tyler

The first one is from the Tamron 70-200 2.8 and the show pics are with the Sigma Art 24-35 f/2. All in all, Im absolutely in love with both of these lenses, theyre tack sharp and sup fast


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A first shot at some beauty work in quite a while.




Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 200 1/200s f/22
Bowens Gemini 500 with 16x20" softbox


----------



## Tyler

Got some more shots with the Sigma today at the pumpkin farm with some co workers .


----------



## Philligan

Here's a stitch of Dawn from yesterday. I upgraded to LR6 for the in-house stitching, and I really like it. I don't see any stitching artifacts, it's faster, uses RAWs and delivers DNGs, and it doesn't require exporting to an outside app.

You can't tell at viewing sizes further than 1:2, but this one picked a softer one for Dawn's face, despite there being multiple frames with a sharp face. Is there a way to get around that?



FXT10150-Pano by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

So I'm working at the college in town, in a temporary office admin/project assistant job at the school's firefighter training centre. Part of my job is doing social media, so I've been shooting photos when I get the chance to post on Facebook and Twitter.

I was just out shooting a corporate training session, and a middle aged guy came up to me.

Guy: "What kind of camera is that?"

Me: "Fuji X-T1."

Guy: "How do you like it?"

Me: "It's great, I really like it."

Guy: "Full frame?"

Me: "No."

Guy: "Oh." *walks away*


----------



## Tyler

Philligan said:


> So I'm working at the college in town, in a temporary office admin/project assistant job at the school's firefighter training centre. Part of my job is doing social media, so I've been shooting photos when I get the chance to post on Facebook and Twitter.
> 
> I was just out shooting a corporate training session, and a middle aged guy came up to me.
> 
> Guy: "What kind of camera is that?"
> 
> Me: "Fuji X-T1."
> 
> Guy: "How do you like it?"
> 
> Me: "It's great, I really like it."
> 
> Guy: "Full frame?"
> 
> Me: "No."
> 
> Guy: "Oh." *walks away*



Some people are sticklers for full frames. IMO if it gets you good results and you're happy, so be it. Ive seen fantastic shots from a t5i all the way to a 6D or above.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Still editing from a couple of weeks ago, this one may be NSFW. Use your better judgement.
Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D: ISO 400 1/125s f/2.2


----------



## Tang

Someone that looks down on me because I use an APSC camera is someone I don't want to associate with.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

It was the case for most paid work you wouldn't really be considered if you shot anything other than Canon/Nikon and/or FF (this still is the case in some fields), but I think for the most part people that are actually in the know understand that Joe Mcnally could shoot with a pinhole and make a better image than most could with a Phase One setup.


----------



## Philligan

I sort of had this conversation with a friend who's starting photography. He got a D3300 with the 50 1.8 and Tokina 11-16mm, and was going to get a D7200, but took a huge loss and traded in all his crop gear at the shop because "full frame is better". I told him it really doesn't matter, but he watched some videos and determined full frame is for professionals (he's starting the photography program at the local college).

I'm by no means a professional, but I've done enough paid work, and I've never had a client even ask what size the sensor in my camera is, never mind turn me down because of it. But according to my friend, you need a full frame for professional work. So what kind of jobs have I been doing?

So many people, if they're not into photography enough to know what a Fuji is, ask me what kind of camera I have, and literally the second thing out of their mouth is "is it full frame". 

I should start telling people it is a full frame, so I can watch them drool over the photos.


----------



## Tyler

Please do that as an experiment, that would actually be hilarious once you tell them otherwise afterward


----------



## Philligan

Have any of you guys sent lenses away to be cleaned? There's a pretty big dust spot under the rear element of my 23mm that shows up at f/16, 11, and a little bit at 8.

I don't shoot that stopped down very often, but it's driving my crazy. It's more diffuse around f/11 and 8, but it's a lot bigger because of it.

For some weird reason, Fuji's lenses don't fall under their "pro camera" category, and aren't eligible for the X series customer support (which is great). I don't know how much I trust their regular customer service, but I'm not sure if sending it to a third party would be a good idea, either.

Thoughts?

Edit: I'm hesitant to take it to Henry's. When I worked at the jewelers, the markup on repairs was 300%, and I'm assuming Henry's will do the same. From what I can tell, Henry's either sends stuff to the manufacturer, or Vistek in Toronto. Vistek has pretty bad reviews on Yelp, so I'm gonna try talking to Fuji and go from there.

The first time I sent in my X-T1 for the bendy door, I didn't know about Fuji's X customer service and emailed their regular customer service. I got some generic email from a New Jersey repair centre and the guy was no help, so I gave up. 

I just found an email address for their Canadian repairs department, so we'll see what happens there.


----------



## Philligan

Update: Emailed them and they were great. It was the same address as their "pro" repair service, so I'm betting it's the same repair centre, and you just lose out on the complimentary shipping and faster turnaround. 

Luckily I could send it from work so it only cost me $7 for both ways. Quoted turnaround is up to a week for the estimate, then 3-4 weeks.


----------



## vansinn

3-4 weeks is a long time for a pro - I did read you don't consider yourself a pro, but that's irrelevant, as you're doing paid jobs.

I'm merely awaiting my apartment getting sold, and will then shop new gear and go traveling.
On my selection list is also the compromises, one of them being care taking service.
As an example, I'm a touch reluctant on the Pentax K1 due to lack of a pro service arrangement (which they have on the 645). 3+ weeks for a body repair is a fairly long wait when traveling..


----------



## UnderTheSign

I don't know where you're from but isn't the US repair service for Pentax also known to be crap? Precision or whatever they're called.

I've hopefully got a bigger months long woodworking project coming up and plan on putting part of those earnings towards photography and travel as well. Hopefully I can get a good deal on a set of lights, diffusers and a backdrop system so we can do our own photography at the workshop. And maybe upgrade my X-pro1 to a newer body


----------



## Philligan

Check out the Yongnuo stuff. I've been using their flashes and cheap triggers since I started, and it's been great for me. I don't know what it's like in the Netherlands, but Amazon should have a house brand for photography stuff; I'd check that out for a backdrop.

Apologies if you're familiar with this already, but most complete backdrop kits come with constant lights (with literally just a lightbulb in them). I'd avoid those and just get the backdrop, stands, and diffusers from there, then grab some Yongnuo lights from their ebay store.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Yeah, I've got a Yongnuo 560-something and the simplest wireless trigger they had. It's literally a receiver and transmitter with 1 button  I'd likely upgrade the wireless stuff if I were to set up the 'studio' but Yongnuo has more options luckily. 

I haven't actually seen any complete kits like that over here. The small product photography boxes do have continuous lights but the bigger ones (I'm looking at full size backdrops, suitable for tables etc as well) have studio flashes. The cheaper kits look alright but usually have lower wattage flashes. Before I buy into that sort of stuff I'll have to test drive some stuff and figure out what our needs are.

Is the Yongnuo ebay store significantly cheaper than buying in-store over there, or do you not have any stores that carry their gear? There's a store here with an absolutely great and helpful owner who carries them and a number of other cheaper asian brands. It's great. He's the kind of guy to send you eBay links of whatever stuff you're looking for but can't find in his store, haha.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A bit more macro - I shouldn't have been so lazy and used my tripod.





Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 200 1/60s f/22
Bowens Gemini 500 with 16x20" softbox


----------



## Tang

^^^^ like


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Thanks, it's quite a lot of work, I'll post the RAW file up in the challenge thread for anyone that is interested.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

More macro goodness:




Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 200 1/60s f/22
Bowens Gemini 500 with 16x20" softbox


----------



## Tang

I have to say again that I really appreciate the wide array of styles we have in this thread. 

So over the next few days I'll be posting shots from a series i shot Sunday. For this series I decided to take only one shot of each scene I came across to see how good my shot discipline was. This will come in handy when I finally get my Pentax 6x7. There's something extremely satisfying about getting a shot right the first time. 

For today's shot I finally got to mark an item off my photography bucket list. Over the past few weeks I keep seeing wonderful examples of the fall colors reflected in various bodies of water. You guys know how much I love reflections! I also used Capture One Pro 9 for the whole set. The color editor is, IMO, way more advanced than Lightroom. 






EDIT: apparently I've embraced my inner Bob Ross.


----------



## Philligan

That's awesome. I really like the framing - the proportions are great man. 

We visited my sister on Sunday. I haven't gone through all the photos yet, but here are a couple.

This one's a stitch where I really wish I shot farther to the sides - I lost a lot of vertical information cropping this to a sensible ratio.



FXT10162-Pano by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And my sister showed us this killer spot on a hill where there's enough break in the trees to see the river below.



FXT10244 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

Man, those fall colours in the past few posts are amazing. Wish I had the time to go out and shoot now.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang said:


> I have to say again that I really appreciate the wide array of styles we have in this thread.
> 
> So over the next few days I'll be posting shots from a series i shot Sunday. For this series I decided to take only one shot of each scene I came across to see how good my shot discipline was. This will come in handy when I finally get my Pentax 6x7. There's something extremely satisfying about getting a shot right the first time.
> 
> For today's shot I finally got to mark an item off my photography bucket list. Over the past few weeks I keep seeing wonderful examples of the fall colors reflected in various bodies of water. You guys know how much I love reflections! I also used Capture One Pro 9 for the whole set. The color editor is, IMO, way more advanced than Lightroom.
> 
> EDIT: apparently I've embraced my inner Bob Ross.



That's pretty killer. Try it with a tripod and long exposure to get some super glassy reflections in the water. Autumn in Houston - it's still 75°F. 
Capture One is on my shortlist after the mods to my RG8 are complete.


----------



## Tang

I thought about that too, but I wanted the fisherman to be frozen in the frame. It's such a small detail but the fisherman was the first thing that caught my eye. 

This is a variation on a shot I've done before. The mostly overcast light combined with the already extraordinary fall colors took it to the next level. 







And another from the giant pond. Once again the people were what drew my eye to this. Adds the right balance to it. The exposure was tricky but I think it works.


----------



## the.godfather

I'm a complete novice when it comes to almost everything photography but it's something that's been on my 'list' of things to get into for a while. I was thinking of maybe getting started in the New Year but don't know where to begin! 

I don't want to spend £1000's so I just wondered what would you guys recommend? Buy entry-level new? Or maybe look for something older but better quality, used? I ideally want something that will be plenty good enough to last me if I decide to stick with it and maybe take things to an 'intermediate' level.


----------



## Philligan

I covered a bit of a women's firefighting conference at work this weekend. I didn't shoot much because my boss sprung it on me last minute, but I got a few decent shots.

I haven't edited all of them (waiting 'til I'm on the clock to do that ) so I'll see what else I find tomorrow.



FXT10162 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



FXT10230 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



FXT10126 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

the.godfather said:


> I'm a complete novice when it comes to almost everything photography but it's something that's been on my 'list' of things to get into for a while. I was thinking of maybe getting started in the New Year but don't know where to begin!
> 
> I don't want to spend £1000's so I just wondered what would you guys recommend? Buy entry-level new? Or maybe look for something older but better quality, used? I ideally want something that will be plenty good enough to last me if I decide to stick with it and maybe take things to an 'intermediate' level.



Older and used will be a step down in image quality and connectivity, and a step up in everything else (handling, speed, build quality, etc).

A higher end camera mostly lets you work faster. It has a lot more external buttons and dials so you can get to settings more quickly, and chances are the autofocus system will be better (it'll be able to track moving subjects better, the autofocus points will cover a larger area, etc).

The downsides to a higher end camera are size and weight - they look "pro" so people notice you more, and they weigh double or triple what a beginner camera does. So it's more of a hassle to bring around.

The additional downsides to an older, higher end camera are image quality and potentially storage. If you go old enough or high end enough, you'll see CF cards instead of SD cards, so you'll need to buy a card reader to get photos on your computer. It also definitely won't have wifi, which is handy for editing and posting photos on your phone while you're out and about. Also, unless you get a full frame camera, image quality in low light will be noticeably worse than a newer camera.

Making a suggestion is tough without having a better idea of your budget.

I live in Canada so I'm only really familiar with CAD, but if your budget is under $1000 for the camera body only, I wouldn't get a full frame. Older full frames still take great photos, but you'll be stuck with CF cards, less user-friendly UI, no wifi, and more expensive full frame lenses.

Again, suggesting a crop sensor camera also really depends on your budget. A generation-old enthusiast camera (like a Canon 70D) is a great choice because you get the more professional body and features, plus the benefits of a newer camera like better image quality and wifi. The 70D is currently $1100CAD new, and you can probably find them for $700-$800 used. 

If your budget is lower than that, you'll be looking at cameras from 2-3+ generations ago, and the decision gets more difficult. Image quality will be noticeably worse (this mainly affects low light shooting), you're guaranteed to lose out on modern features like wifi, and the cameras overall will just seem old.

If your budget is in the ~$500 range or so, I think I'd recommend starting with a new entry-level camera. The image quality will be great (indistinguishable from $3000 pro cameras except for a few situations), you can get wifi, and the interfaces will be better designed. If you get into photography more seriously, you'll start to wish for a camera with more professional handling, but unless you're shooting in situations where you need to work quickly, the worst thing about the beginner camera is that it'll make you work more slowly. So if you end up shooting stuff like landscapes and still life, the handling won't be as big a deal. And if you do decide to upgrade, it'll be a lot easier to sell a recent beginner camera than an outdated enthusiast camera.

One other thing to consider is a mirrorless camera. If you're not familiar with DSLRs, the light goes into the lenses, bounces off a couple mirrors and is reflected into the viewfinder. Mirrorless cameras get rid of the mirror and most have a little screen in the viewfinder, and you're seeing directly what the sensor is reading.

Mirrorless cameras are smaller and have worse battery life. Most mirrorless companies have less lenses and accessories available (especially on the used market). That means, depending on the company, it can be more difficult to buy new lenses (less lenses = less options within your budget).

A few of us on here (myself included) switched to mirrorless and are happy. I switched from Canon to Fuji a couple years ago, and prefer Fuji. The only downside is their lenses are all pretty expensive (the cheap ones are $500). Whereas with Canon, you can find some great lenses in the $100-$200 range, especially if you're looking used.

/rant. If you have any more questions, just ask. We're a good bunch around here.


----------



## Tang

Finally someone else posts something. I've been waiting patiently!

godfather: looks like Phil said everything I would've said!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Golden macro glitter time:




Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro: ISO 200 1/200s f/22
Bowens Gemini 500 with 16x20" softbox


----------



## feilong29

Did some shooting here in Hawaii; all with my Fujifilm X-E2 w/18mm f/2


----------



## JmCastor

Hey guys! Since I've been here last, I've upgraded to a D7100 and have been using an 85mm 1.8 quite extensively. Here are some of my pictures from the last weekend and I would really appreciate some critiques.



Seoul &amp; Chiaksan by Justin Castor, on Flickr



Seoul &amp; Chiaksan by Justin Castor, on Flickr



Seoul &amp; Chiaksan by Justin Castor, on Flickr



Seoul &amp; Chiaksan by Justin Castor, on Flickr


----------



## Joe Harvatt

Tang, killer shots man.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang, you're making me jealous; I wish we had leaves that had something between green and brown here.
Feilong, that last shot is awesome.

Jm, I really don't know what I'm supposed to be critiquing here: the technical aspects of the shots, the creative aspects, the story (if there is one that is discernible from the images you've chosen to share), etc.


----------



## Philligan

I took a stab at more fashion-oriented shooting on the weekend. My friend's hair salon wanted to do a shoot to promote their Christmas product bundles. The shoot was a bit of a gong show (for multiple reasons), so I only really ended up getting one look out of it.

I'm gonna try and find a couple slightly different poses (the way they styled her hair she could only be posed one way) and do two or three edits of each (clean, trendy, b&w) to give them some more options.

Here's the only edit I've done so far.



FXT10129 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## JmCastor

ThePhilosopher said:


> Tang, you're making me jealous; I wish we had leaves that had something between green and brown here.
> Feilong, that last shot is awesome.
> 
> Jm, I really don't know what I'm supposed to be critiquing here: the technical aspects of the shots, the creative aspects, the story (if there is one that is discernible from the images you've chosen to share), etc.



I definitely would say my composition and framing need work so any help there would be awesome. Any technical points (use of DOF, controlling my aperture settings to better suit the photograph, etc.) Definitely not the story as these are really just snapshots of the weekend and my journey through Seoul and Wonju. I think that its just going to take me shooting thousands of photos before I get to that level of inspiration. 

Also, somewhat related but how do you guys go about ensuring that you get the picture straight out of the camera fairly close to what you are aiming for in your mind. My guess would just be to spend time with the camera but if someone happens to have a process laid out, I'd love to hear it.


----------



## Philligan

And here's a BTS. I definitely wish I had like four speedlights instead of two. I wanted the back wall to be white (like she's out in the winter) originally, but I couldn't get the back wall white with those outdoor floodlights, and I was having trouble rim-lighting her with those sticks in the way. 

I ended up letting the walls stay warm from the floodlights and gelling and moving the rim light to make it look like evening sun instead. I think it actually worked out pretty well.



FXT10141 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

It's not a bad attempt at all, but I'd nitpick and say her face is too hot on exposure and too cold in the WB 
Though, if you're going to split tone - go for it and make it dramatic.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

JmCastor said:


> I definitely would say my composition and framing need work so any help there would be awesome. Any technical points (use of DOF, controlling my aperture settings to better suit the photograph, etc.)





JmCastor said:


> Definitely not the story as these are really just snapshots of the weekend and my journey through Seoul and Wonju. I think that its just going to take me shooting thousands of photos before I get to that level of inspiration.



I'd like to be more helpful, but the specific technical point you mentioned is actually a creative point for the types of images you've posted (aside from the stick, but I'll save that for below). Without knowing what you're trying to convey through your image it's hard to provide much information aside from nice background separation, if that makes any sense. With that said, I'll try to provide some information on each image posted.



JmCastor said:


>



I'd move her to camera right, it would remove the clutter behind her and maybe provide some insight as to why she's laughing.



JmCastor said:


>



I don't know why you'd show this off - if it's a lens test, great. Keep it for your records, but you didn't even go to f/1.8. What's special about this stick?



JmCastor said:


>



If this image is about the dog's expression, get closer - use a wider aperture and make it about the dog and it's reaction to the human. A portrait would help eliminate (or make it easier to eliminate) some of the distracting items, such as the bright leash.



JmCastor said:


>



Watch for the pole growing out of his head. The shot is strange because of how you've cut off his hand in the frame. You could probably lose some off the top of the image instead of the awkward hand placement in frame. Peter Hurley talks ad absurdum about chopping off the tops of heads for an overall better shot.

For snapshots there's not much to say really. Go shoot some with a purpose and show some of that work for critique, it'd probably be more helpful.



JmCastor said:


> Also, somewhat related but how do you guys go about ensuring that you get the picture straight out of the camera fairly close to what you are aiming for in your mind. My guess would just be to spend time with the camera but if someone happens to have a process laid out, I'd love to hear it.



Personally, this has come from a lot of experience and shooting film (especially large format). Just framing and focusing a shot with my LF camera takes minutes and when you're shooting at $1+developing per piece of film - you make sure what you see on the ground glass is the image you're truly after. This thought process carries over to my digital work - I shoot deliberately. I wait for the moment and the right shot. Yes, I have a camera that can shoot 9 fps, I don't want to rely on that to get lucky.

You also have to know the medium and how far you can push it in processing. I know I have the skills to retouch beauty macro work to a certain level, so I know what things to correct in camera and what are actually more feasible and easier in post.


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> It's not a bad attempt at all, but I'd nitpick and say her face is too hot on exposure and too cold in the WB
> Though, if you're going to split tone - go for it and make it dramatic.



Thanks for the feedback man.  I'll go back and take another look at it. I'm tempted to leave the white balance as it is - they specifically had her do pale makeup because it was supposed to be a winter themed thing. Does that change things, or do you still think it's too bright and cold?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Brightness, IMO, is too hot independent of any color work - you are starting to lose the detail (especially if you're trying to showcase the makeup work). The styling doesn't look anything like winter to me either, the whole set is too warm and fall toned. This leads me to the coloring.

When I think of a wintery sunset, the sun is still a warm color (maybe yellow as opposed to an orange) and the sky has a different tonality than in summer (which the feigned sky looks like IMO). Maybe Google image search "winter sunsets" to get an idea of how the color palette doesn't really match the vibe of the shot and how to split tone it subtly to match some of those images - washed out blue/violet toned shadows with richer (but not full-blown) distinct pockets of warm tones in the highlights. 

There's a crispness to the winter air that you could try to convey in the color story, but you can only push the image so far given the styling you were provided to shoot.


----------



## Philligan

I'm actually not too concerned about losing makeup detail. I was told they don't care about the makeup, to the point where they wouldn't let me shoot any photos where her face was prominent, because it looked "too much like a fashion photo, and not enough like a hair photo". 

I'm trying to decide if I want to try and mess with the colour - I think I'd have to go back and start from scratch. I'll probably play with it more on my own, but they're happy with what I've done so far, so I think I'm just gonna deliver them for now.  

The main reason I ended up going for a warm sunset look, is because it was too dark to get the wall behind her white - I was already shooting at f/2, 1/60, and ISO 400. My original plan was just a clean white background and the sticks, and I was going to side light her with a bare flash to add contrast to her hair. I couldn't get the wall to go white (it kept shooting medium blue), and it was hard to get a clean side light with all the little sticks in the way, so I tried this on a whim and they ended up liking it.

That's where another two flashes would have come in handy, so I could light the wall evenly, with the same temperature across all the lights.

Here's the test shot from the setup I initially thought of:



Screen Shot 2016-11-16 at 8.32.49 AM by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

This is my own fault for not having enough equipment, but I'm not sure how I could have fixed that with two speedlights and one set of gels.

I get what you mean and I agree with you, but I'm not sure if I can correct those issues in post, and am thinking I should just play the photo's strengths instead.


----------



## Philligan

On a less frustrating note, I could see the moon on my drive to work this morning. 



FXT10208 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

I'm liking what I'm seeing. 

Phil, I agree with TP. I like the shot itself but her face, while not blown out, is a tad bright to my eyes. Regardless it's better than anything I could do. Still almost 100% clueless about artificial light. It's interesting to see how much our styles have changed since that day we shot in St. Augustine. 



So this shot was 100% intended to look like a waveform. I knew it before I even put the camera to my eye this is how the shot would look. Another tricky exposure on this one as well. The overcast clouds are way brighter than they actually look IRL but Capture One's highlight slider is quite effective when used in combination with the luminosity curve.


----------



## Chuck

Hey guys, haven't been too active lately(but I need to change that) anyway, I've been messing around a bit with the Brenizer method lately and wanted some input. 

My younger brother volunteered to be a test subject in my first time trying out the technique, now these were taken about 1hr-45min before sunset but the clouds almost entirely blocked out the sun. So suffice to say the lighting isn't great.



WoodyBrenizer1 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr



WoodyBrenizer2 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr


I didn't bother to edit out the sunglasses or cars in the background, just looking for input on my usage of the method.

Oh and Tang I love that shot. So cool seeing you shot outside of the city.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'll admit I don't know much about the technique, but from the examples I've seen they really don't look too much different from panoramas nor do they look like the DOF seen in LF images.


----------



## Chuck

Yeah I was pretty far away from him for both shots, using the 90mm f2. I was trying to get a lot of the scene in there with him, I didn't get quite as much as I wanted out of either. First attempt struggles lol


----------



## Philligan

Tang said:


> Phil, I agree with TP. I like the shot itself but her face, while not blown out, is a tad bright to my eyes. Regardless it's better than anything I could do. Still almost 100% clueless about artificial light. It's interesting to see how much our styles have changed since that day we shot in St. Augustine.



I know eh? I feel like our styles were pretty similar back then, and we both veered off over the years.

Hmm, okay, cool. I didn't actually lighten her face, but in addition to adding vignetting, I did a radial mask around her face and darkened everything else a bit. I pulled highlights down on her face a bit, but didn't lower the overall exposure. If I remember next time I'm on my own computer, I'll post the before and after comparison from LR.



Chuck said:


> Yeah I was pretty far away from him for both shots, using the 90mm f2. I was trying to get a lot of the scene in there with him, I didn't get quite as much as I wanted out of either. First attempt struggles lol



I shoot those pretty frequently.  You should be able to get a pretty shallow depth of field with the 90mm. One of the tricks, I've found, is look for a more dynamic background - i.e. like a trail in the forest, where you can have background elements falling in and out of focus. In both of yours, the backgrounds are pretty uniformly far away from your subject, so it doesn't emphasize the focus falloff. It still looks cool, but doing it then is more appropriate when you want more resolution. To get the "larger format" look, you need to put him in the right environment. 

This photo isn't the best example, but you've got the busy trees all around them, and since you can more obviously see them falling in and out of focus, it really puts emphasis on it.



DSCF0287-Edit-2 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

Compared to this one, where the background is flat, and it might as well just be a single shot from a fast APS-C lens.



BM-498 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

As far as actual shooting technique goes, the hardest part is being able to mentally visualize what you're covering with frames. So many times I've had to drastically crop a stitch because I missed an entire corner or something like that.  So make sure you're careful and cover everything you want covered. That and there's a happy medium between having lots of overlap so your software knows what goes where, but not having so much that you bog your computer down or confuse it with redundancy. That just takes practice, and varies from camera to camera (i.e. for me, with a 13" Macbook Pro and huge uncompressed Fuji raws, I try to keep my stitches under 20 images, where someone like Ryan Brenizer might stitch like 50 images).

The other big technique part I had to work on was holding my camera as straight as realistically possible (instead of rotating it all over) so the plane of focus stays about the same. Longer focal lengths work better for that (look through the viewfinder and wobble the 90mm around, then put a wide angle on and see how much your lines go crazy). I've stitched with the 35mm, and my longest good lens is the 56mm right now, so wider is doable, but it's one of the main reasons I want to get the 90mm.

So, in short: 90mm, always wide open , try to rotate the plane of focus around as little as possible. I normally try for about 50% overlap in my frames, maybe a little bit less.

If you have trouble with file sizes, and are stitching in Photoshop, try converting your files to TIFF first. When I used LR + PS, I'd do the Fuji sharpening (+100 Detail and standard Sharpness) in LR, then convert to TIFF, reimport them, bounce them into PS for stitching, and then back into LR for exposure, colour, etc. I wouldn't touch exposure beforehand unless it was global exposure, because what LR sees as "highlights" from one image to another can differ, and it'll mess up your stitching.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

This technique sounds interesting - I kind of want to try it with at 300 f/2.8


----------



## Chuck

Phil, thank you for the awesome response! I'm very grateful. After trying the technique a few times now I can definitely see the importance of trying to keep the camera as straight as possible. And thank you for the location/backdrop tip. I'll have to scout out some good spots around here. I'll keep this post handy next time I'm shooting


----------



## Tang




----------



## Tyler

Did some senior portraits with the Tamron 70-200. Theres definitely a learning curve after using a 50 prime for so long, but Im really happy with the clarity of this beast.


----------



## Tang

Went hiking yesterday. The new england area is such as inspiration.


----------



## soliloquy

someone care to explain sync speed to me?
currently i have the pentax k1 (loving it!!!)
its an upgrade from my kx, and the k5, k3. now the kx and k5/k3, their max sync speed was 1/160 and 1/180 respectfully. the k1 can shoot at 1/200 max sync speed with a flash.

the flash i've been using the cameras with is a yongnuo 560-iv. works just fine, i have no complains here.

yet, going through flicker, i see people using the k5, or k3, or k1 with shutter speeds well over 1/500 where the flash was used. how? do different flashes work differently?

and if i'm not mistaken, most canons shoot at 1/250 with third party flashes?


----------



## Philligan

high-speed-flash-sync by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

A GIF would explain it better, but I can't find what I'm looking for.

So a shutter has two curtains: a top and a bottom. The bottom goes down and opens, and then the top one closes to end the exposure.

A flash is a single pop of light. So to make sure the entire image is exposed to the flash pop, the entire sensor has to be exposed. A camera's flash sync speed is the fastest shutter speed during which the sensor is entirely exposed (i.e. the shutter opens, then closes). At any speeds faster than that, the top curtain starts to close before the bottom curtain fully opens (like the top curtain is chasing the bottom one down the sensor).

Because the flash is a single pop, if you fire it at a faster shutter speed, only part of the sensor will be exposed to the flash.

The way people get around that is to use high speed sync (HSS). HSS is entirely dependent on your camera and flash - they both have to be capable of HSS, and they have to be able to talk to each other properly.

With HSS, the flash knows all the different shutter speeds really well (i.e. how fast the curtains are traveling at different shutter speeds, etc). So with HSS, the flash will time a burst of several flash pops as the curtains move down the sensor, so each "section" of sensor is properly exposed to the flash.

There are some downsides to this. Mainly you lose flash power and it's hard on your flash batteries. But it's better than nothing.

The only time you really need this is if you want to use a flash in brighter conditions. You could use a faster shutter speed to darken a bright sky and make it more dynamic, and use a flash to light your subject nicely. Depending on your situation, it can also let you get away with a wider aperture for a more shallow depth of field.


----------



## Tang

More? Sure.


----------



## neotronic

Tang said:


> More? Sure.



oooh I love this one. I like the composition and how it preserves the dynamic of the water without making it too mushy.


----------



## vansinn

@Tang: Are those absolutely lovely images really from Florida?
Shutter speeds? ~1/25 to 1/40 or so..?

If so, I really should've paid more attention back in the days - instead of 'just' skydiving my so-called off.
Had a ride with a dude from the Zephyrhills area to Deland, where we crossed through some, for me, quite unexpected nature.


----------



## Tang

vansinn said:


> @Tang: Are those absolutely lovely images really from Florida?
> Shutter speeds? ~1/25 to 1/40 or so..?
> 
> If so, I really should've paid more attention back in the days - instead of 'just' skydiving my so-called off.
> Had a ride with a dude from the Zephyrhills area to Deland, where we crossed through some, for me, quite unexpected nature.



Ha, I really should update my info. I'm actually living in Boston now. Those particular shots were taken in the White Mountain area of New Hampshire.

The shot you've quoted was 1/8s.


----------



## vansinn

Oh, that location I can better understand 
1/8th is decently slower than expected, I would've bet at least 1/20th; at your speed I would've expected to water to render as mostly one body mass. Interesting..
You can tell I haven't shot water in quite a while..


----------



## Philligan

I took some band photos the other night. I actually shot this band playing a bar gig a couple years ago; they had a drummer change and have started writing and recording originals, and wanted to take things more seriously, and asked me about photos.

Fun fact: the bass player is also the bass player from Dead and Divine. I went to their shows a lot back in the day, so it was a little strange meeting him in my hometown.  

The shoot was pretty last minute, and quick and dirty, but they liked the photos and asked me to shoot with them regularly. They all have jobs and are just doing this for fun, so they won't be playing farther than a couple hours away, but they want me to shoot every show I can, and they're gonna treat me like the fourth band member (i.e. making sure I'm fed, on the roster for backstage access, including me in the pay splits). It's nothing huge, but it'll be a great experience, and depending on the shows they play, I could get to shoot some really cool stuff.

They were able to get access to a local marketing firm's office for the evening, which wasn't as nice inside as I was expecting.  We shot some on a couch and against the wall behind it. 



FXT10052 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



FXT10076 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



FXT10064 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

The guitar player's apartment was the building right beside the marketing firm, and he said his building had a laundry room with an exposed brick wall that looked cool. We got up there and it was absolutely tiny. I didn't get a picture of the set up, but it was so small that I had to sit on the washing machine, and I couldn't bounce the flash because the room was so tight the light washed everything out.

So this one was me sitting on a washing machine, with the 16mm, holding the camera in one hand and a bare flash in the other. This was actually the one they liked the best, and are using as their billing photo.



FXT10087-2 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

I've officially missed out on fall  it started freezing a week ago and there's barely a leaf to be seen. 

On the upside, I did finally get somewhat close to the European Robin that visits my parents garden sometimes.

The Fuji 50-230 also focuses a lot faster than I remember it doing...



DSCF3847.jpg by Bart B, on Flickr

Blurry because 1/60th at 230mm. Happy I got a shot of the little guy though.


DSCF3834.jpg by Bart B, on Flickr

The light here was great. OOC shot, debating myself wether to crop/edit anything or leave it this way.


DSCF3813.jpg by Bart B, on Flickr

This one is just because I'm ridiculously jealous of Tang and all his fall colour glory 


DSCF3802.jpg by Bart B, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

^^^


----------



## Philligan

That is awesome, Tang.


----------



## High Plains Drifter

UnderTheSign said:


> The light here was great. OOC shot, debating myself wether to crop/edit anything or leave it this way.
> 
> 
> DSCF3813.jpg by Bart B, on Flickr
> 
> I don't have the kind of equipment that you guys do but I do take a good deal of [sometimes okay] photographs.
> 
> I wouldn't crop this one too much if at all. IMO The success of the composition relies heavily upon the darkness of the surrounding foreground. My eye is very naturally drawn into the subject matter due it's vibrancy contrasted against the coolness of the soil.


----------



## vansinn

Do not crop the image; it works perfect just the way you did it. Lovely 
If any, you could crop off a very small part of the top where it drifts into mostly light patterns to emphasize the main theme, but be careful not to overdo it.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A snap with my cell phone of my camera setup for a shot.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> A snap with my cell phone of my camera setup for a shot.



More please!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Here's what I was shooting in that shot, I scratched the paper a bit trying to print this one:





Another shot from the day, I played with the contrast on my enlarger a bit for this one and lost some detail:


----------



## Philligan

What was it like trying to frame your shot with the camera at that angle?


----------



## Rook

What the fridge, I can't like posts or swear any more!

Seriously?!


----------



## Tang

Rook said:


> What the fridge, I can't like posts or swear any more!
> 
> Seriously?!




I know! What's the ....ing point then!?

Here's one from the Thank You Scientist show from last week. Probably the only shot I'll ever do in 9x16!






And one from the apartment complex.


----------



## Philligan

Rook said:


> What the fridge, I can't like posts or swear any more!
> 
> Seriously?!



Man, I feel like swearing has been censored for at least a year.  Liking posts went away more recently at least.

I don't understand why they got rid of liking _and_ repping though. This forum just keeps getting worse. This thread is literally the only reason I still come here.



Tang said:


> I know! What's the ....ing point then!?
> 
> Here's one from the Thank You Scientist show from last week. Probably the only shot I'll ever do in 9x16!



That first one is awesome man.


----------



## Philligan

I haven't shot anything serious lately, so here are some phone edits from LR Mobile.



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Philligan said:


> What was it like trying to frame your shot with the camera at that angle?



It wasn't too bad actually, but I wish I had taken the time to get the angles sorted correctly to have no divergence in the lines.


----------



## Azyiu

Just a random snap using my Sony RX100ii


----------



## Tang

Got this baby coming in tomorrow. Awwww YEAH! 70mm f/2.4. My first new lens in 4 years.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's a nice focal length for a crop body - about a 106mm FOV. I prefer 135mm over 105mm for portraits, though I wouldn't think twice about owning the Nikkor 105mm f/1.8.

New lens day feelings are great - almost better than NGD.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> That's a nice focal length for a crop body - about a 106mm FOV. I prefer 135mm over 105mm for portraits, though I wouldn't think twice about owning the Nikkor 105mm f/1.8.
> 
> New lens day feelings are great - almost better than NGD.



I'm sure it'll be used for portraits eventually but I really wanted something longer for the compression which is why f/2.4 really didn't bother me. I've never felt good either a 50mm on crop but this 70 feels just right. Can't wait to take it out Sunday. 

It's so damn light.

Oh wait, I couldn't wait! Felt like B&W tonight..



IMGP5831 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP5828 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP5821-3 by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's the same reason I like shooting with the 200mm and 300mm at 2.8, background compression is amazing (even at f/4 with the 300).


----------



## Philligan

That's awesome, Tang. That's a great focal length for APS-C, and I love how small that lenses is. 



ThePhilosopher said:


> That's the same reason I like shooting with the 200mm and 300mm at 2.8, background compression is amazing (even at f/4 with the 300).



I'm hoping to get something more tele before this coming summer, and this is what's got me waffling between the 90 2.0 and 50-140 2.8. It's not so much the shallow depth of field I'm after, but the options for compression. Plus, somewhat ironically, the longer lenses get you a more useable depth of field in addition to the crazy compression.


----------



## Tang

I keep forgetting that I'm not shooting with a 35mm lens anymore. Gotta keep a better eye on my shutter speeds!


----------



## Philligan

I shot a friend and his bandmate tonight. I'm not completely thrilled with the photos, but the location was more difficult to work with than I was expecting (this was a small room that was used for storage) and it was a rushed job right before they played a show. It's a cool spot, though, and it would be fun to get the chance to empty it out and really shoot it for a day.

These are all the 23mm around f/2.8-4, with umbrella'd speedlights on either side of them. Not ideal, but not too bad.



FXT10315 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



FXT10300 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And here's my clone job. 



Screen Shot 2016-12-12 at 8.33.58 PM by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And I did a headshot for the friend - a local venue wanted one because he plays a lot of solo gigs there. I really dig this one. This is the 56mm at 2.2, with an umbrella and bare flash. I was going for that Martin Schoeller look. I should have shot a wider aperture, and/or used the 35mm, but I didn't bring that lens and was in a rush.



FXT10333 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## tank

i'm in love with my new 20mm f1.4 from sigma ART series.


----------



## Tang

That looks sharp as fack. Very nice.


----------



## CircuitalPlacidity

Anyone had a chance to mess with the canon 50 f/1.4 on a full frame? I'm thinking about grabbing one soon. I had the 1.8 and it was a nice lens in my aps-c 20d for as cheap as it was.


----------



## Azyiu

Crowd gathers to buy chestnuts from a street vendor


----------



## Philligan

Would those be betel nuts? I had a whole day of talking about betel nut vendors in one of my fourth year seminars.  (English major here.)

I shot a friend's band at a local pub last night.



FXT10124 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



FXT10183-Pano by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Like ^^^^^^^^^^^

winter decided to show up Saturday morning.. I've been waiting 6 months to shoot in the snow!



hoops by Scott Jones, on Flickr



fargoish by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP5915-2 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP5911 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP5916 by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

It's been a long long time since I posted here.
Good to see everyone posting great photos 

Haven't done much personal stuff lately.
This is the latest one.
Just a portrait of my son with a subtle Christmas mood.
I had a softbox facing 180 degrees away, pointing at the wall on the right.
The idea was to fill the entire room with a soft light to match the brightness of outside.
I was able to shoot wide open at 1.4 on my 35mm.


----------



## CykkVii

Took these while being in Berlin, unfortunately received my Canon FD f/1.8 just after going there


----------



## ThePhilosopher

My glitter series has become so popular in a private photo Facebook group that I belong to that I'll probably be leading a workshop on how I get the glitter looks. I'm both nervous and excited by the opportunity. If anyone will be in Houston Q1/early Q2 of 2017 and wants to join in I'll send you details after I get everything squared away and booked.


----------



## Philligan

Whammy and Tang: Those are awesome photos. We need the like button back (what's happening to this forum?).



ThePhilosopher said:


> My glitter series has become so popular in a private photo Facebook group that I belong to that I'll probably be leading a workshop on how I get the glitter looks. I'm both nervous and excited by the opportunity. If anyone will be in Houston Q1/early Q2 of 2017 and wants to join in I'll send you details after I get everything squared away and booked.



That's great, man.  Sadly, I live in Canada, so count me out.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Thanks, I'm still in the really early planning stage, but I'm hoping it's a success. I'm trying to keep it small and worthwhile for the participants, but still cost effective as I'll have to rent studio space and such. One cost-saving measure is I'm thinking about making the post-production a video download for those that participated in the class - it would save rental time and give them a reference they could keep around and replay.

Some large files showing retouching work in progress.


----------



## Tang

Nicely done. You put way more effort into post than I do! Kinda glad I don't shoot models  excellent work!

Having a grand 'ol time with this 70mm.. haven't done a single portrait 



IMGP5992 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP5964-2 by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That lens looks to be quite the performer, I dig it. That's an interesting crop choice for that second shot.

Honestly, I should probably spend a little more time to get the details just right especially in the beauty macro stuff. I probably should go back and remove the little hairs catching light above and below her lips, but it's not hyper critical and I think it looks slightly more natural leaving them there.


----------



## Philligan

The Chamber of Commerce has a local business event, where they have drinks/appetizers and a sort of meet and greet at a new local business each week.

My friends' hair salon was up last night, so I shot it. I haven't gone through all the photos yet, but they wanted a full group photo for their website asap, since they have a couple new employees.

I'm not thrilled with this, but it was really quick and dirty. I was at f/2 on the 23mm, and bounced a single flash against the wall opposite them, which wasn't very efficient because the wall is mostly window.



FXE20123 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

Originally they thought the guy on the far right was too far away, and wanted me to "photoshop" him closer. I don't even have Photoshop anymore, and wouldn't know how to do that even if I did, so I managed to do it with the clone tool.

Surprisingly enough, it mostly worked. 

The original:



FXE20123-2 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



Screen Shot 2016-12-22 at 10.59.51 AM by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

I basically did one giant clone of him with very little feathering, and LR chose to copy a couple of the girls onto him. I moved the initial "clone to" spot out of the way, moved the source/"clone from" spot onto the guy, and then moved the "clone to" spot back and just a little over to the left.

If you look closely (I'm not sure if it's visible or not) the left shoulder of the girl beside him is missing, but since it's grey you can't really tell (it's a lot more obvious in colour). Other than that, I had to clone out the back edges of the original guy, and then just use the brush to dodge some spots on the wall where the light gradient was messed up.

Sorry for the terrible explanation, I hope that made sense.


----------



## vansinn

I of course missed that shoulder; had you not mentioned it, I wouldn't have caught it.
Now, your friends always amaze me in their style - and, I'm sure, lifestyles.
What I mean is that their sheer expression in a group shoot like this is more catching than noticing this detail.

BTW, some lovely shots coming in here. I have a real hard time accepting the waiting time on getting back into photography, but it'll come by..
Thanks for keeping me aroused, if may put it like this


----------



## Philligan

My dad and I went to Cleveland in the summer and I finally got around to posting the photos. They were almost all JPGs (thankfully) so they just got dumped in a Facebook album. I took a couple raws outdoors, though, and edited the one. 

This is me channeling my inner Tang.



FXE20321 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

^^^^ ha! 

I need my Like button back!


----------



## Tyler

Ive been pondering the thought of selling my Mark III lately for an XT-2 or something else, but plunging onto an Art 24-35 and a Tamron 70-200 about 2 months ago has been stopping me. The dynamic range on the Canon has just been bothering me more and more lately with making me have to do extra work in post for shots, along with occasional focus issues.

Anyone have insight on options or input? I mainly do portraits, but do weddings and concerts every now and then as well.


----------



## Philligan

There are quite a few of us here who moved to Fuji. I can't speak for the X-T2 from personal experience (I'm hoping to get one in the next few months) but I own an X-T1. 

Even on the X-T1, low ISO dynamic range smokes the 5D3. High ISO isn't quite as clean (I'd say there's around a stop of difference in real world use), but Fuji's noise is a lot more attractive. I use 3200 on jobs without thinking twice, and am fine with 6400 if it's needed.

Other than that, the colours are good, the SOOC JPGs are fantastic, and the handling is subjective.

The lenses are all fantastic, and look great wide open. Being able to shoot confidently at 1.4 helps make up for the smaller sensor in the Fuji. AF won't be as fast, but it'll be more accurate because it's all on-chip. Once you learn the AF system, it's very useable in low light (f/1.4, 1/125, 3200); you just need to learn to predict its speed. Personally, I'd take the tradeoff, because I prefer the extra accuracy.


----------



## Tang

channeling my inner... who the hell even knows. I sure don't know where it comes from.



the bar by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## Tyler

Philligan said:


> There are quite a few of us here who moved to Fuji. I can't speak for the X-T2 from personal experience (I'm hoping to get one in the next few months) but I own an X-T1.
> 
> Even on the X-T1, low ISO dynamic range smokes the 5D3. High ISO isn't quite as clean (I'd say there's around a stop of difference in real world use), but Fuji's noise is a lot more attractive. I use 3200 on jobs without thinking twice, and am fine with 6400 if it's needed.
> 
> Other than that, the colours are good, the SOOC JPGs are fantastic, and the handling is subjective.
> 
> The lenses are all fantastic, and look great wide open. Being able to shoot confidently at 1.4 helps make up for the smaller sensor in the Fuji. AF won't be as fast, but it'll be more accurate because it's all on-chip. Once you learn the AF system, it's very useable in low light (f/1.4, 1/125, 3200); you just need to learn to predict its speed. Personally, I'd take the tradeoff, because I prefer the extra accuracy.



Do you use lightroom for your RAWs with the Fuji? Ive heard thats been a big issue, and I've looked into other Capture One, but already have all my presets and workflow down to a T as it is. Im definitely leaning towards selling all of my glass for a Fuji, but I might try and rent one first just to make sure I would like it


----------



## Philligan

Tyler said:


> Do you use lightroom for your RAWs with the Fuji? Ive heard thats been a big issue, and I've looked into other Capture One, but already have all my presets and workflow down to a T as it is. Im definitely leaning towards selling all of my glass for a Fuji, but I might try and rent one first just to make sure I would like it



Yeah. Honestly, it's perfectly fine. I've shot for a local marketing firm and the local college, and they've been happy with the files. I tried the Capture One trial and it does show a bit more detail, but there's more to it than that IMHO. I didn't spend enough time with it, but I couldn't get smooth, flattering tones I was happy with, and it showed detail to the point of being unflattering. So C1 _is_ sharper, but if I stuck with it, I'd be finding a way to remove detail.

A lot of the RAF Lightroom horror stories are from a few years ago, when Fuji was still very new, and people who don't own Fujis continue to repeat that on the internet. I could have learned C1 and gotten more out of it, but I stuck with LR because I know it and I like the workflow. 

A tip if you rent one: for sharpening, crank the Detail slider to +100. I read that it changes some interpretation algorithm, and reads the Fuji files more properly. My default is +100 Detail and +40 Sharpening. For people, I find any more than that gets funny looking, but you can push it a bit farther for non-human subjects.


----------



## Tyler

Philligan said:


> Yeah. Honestly, it's perfectly fine. I've shot for a local marketing firm and the local college, and they've been happy with the files. I tried the Capture One trial and it does show a bit more detail, but there's more to it than that IMHO. I didn't spend enough time with it, but I couldn't get smooth, flattering tones I was happy with, and it showed detail to the point of being unflattering. So C1 _is_ sharper, but if I stuck with it, I'd be finding a way to remove detail.
> 
> A lot of the RAF Lightroom horror stories are from a few years ago, when Fuji was still very new, and people who don't own Fujis continue to repeat that on the internet. I could have learned C1 and gotten more out of it, but I stuck with LR because I know it and I like the workflow.
> 
> A tip if you rent one: for sharpening, crank the Detail slider to +100. I read that it changes some interpretation algorithm, and reads the Fuji files more properly. My default is +100 Detail and +40 Sharpening. For people, I find any more than that gets funny looking, but you can push it a bit farther for non-human subjects.



Awesome, I'll make sure to keep that in mind. I'm hoping to rent one after I get off tour on the 10th, and then decide if I want to list my current gear for sale. From all the videos I've watched, I think this would be more up my alley and as long as it would get by for weddings then I should be all in for it.


----------



## Tang

I can't bear to be out-Tanged! 



IMGP6081 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP6061 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP6078 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP6068 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP6082 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP6058 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP6060 by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## Azyiu

I will be without a proper camera for a couple weeks, as I've just sold my beloved Canon 5D Mark III. The 5D Mark IV is what I am going for next, but I won't likely have a chance to go get it until later this month though... until that time, my Sony RX100ii is the only camera I have.


----------



## Tang

I'd shoot with an RX100! No problemo 

BTW, I have a K1 + 24-70 f/2.8 and a 43mm f/1.9 coming in tomorrow. Just rentals but I'm on vacation. So .... it! Finally getting a taste of that Full-frame life.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

You're not going to want to return to smaller sensors .

I used one of my old images from the area around Alpine, Tx to help me outline the rock shape. I hand drew the feathers without a reference and added some texture atop it to start getting ideas for the cover art for my next release.


----------



## Tang

ThePhilosopher said:


> You're not going to want to return to smaller sensors .



Oh wow. 

You weren't kidding. 

I'm in love.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Aw yeah. 
http://www.kodakalaris.com/en-us/ab...ris-reintroduces-iconic-ektachrome-still-film


----------



## vansinn

Oh dear, nice, the return of EctaChrome!
And the complete color negative list: http://imaging.kodakalaris.com/professional-photographers/professional-films

Now, if Agfa would be kind enough to return the Ultra 50 and the Portrait 160, I'll be on [film] chemicals again.

I think I'll second-think selling my OM-1 kit, and maybe consider a Mamiya or Pentax 645 too..


----------



## Tang

a couple of my first shots from the K1... it's a thing of beauty!!

Also, the Pentax 24-70 f/2.8 (which is really just a Tamron 24-70 that Pentax fiddled with) is amazing. Just an absolutely killer lens. 



IMGP6230 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP6144-2 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP6141 by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## Chuck

Lovely photos, Tang. Can't wait to see some city/architectural shots with that K1.

I did some family portraits for my Aunt's family last month, here's a couple of my favorite shots.



DSCF9336 (1) by Chuck Haller, on Flickr



DSCF9331 (1) by Chuck Haller, on Flickr

also, i realize the watermark is not in the greatest spot and bit large, i fixed those issues on the final images.


----------



## Azyiu

Tang said:


> I'd shoot with an RX100! No problemo



True, the RX100ii is a damn good camera for its size. Still, as crappy a photographer as I am, I still prefer using a full frame D-SLR whenever I can. Lol!


----------



## Tang

Azyiu said:


> True, the RX100ii is a damn good camera for its size. Still, as crappy a photographer as I am, I still prefer using a full frame D-SLR whenever I can. Lol!



After shooting with a full-frame body I totally get it 

24-70 @ 70mm f/4


----------



## tank

another bright day with my 20mm art


----------



## Philligan

Are those all with the 20mm? The perspective still looks pretty natural, especially the portrait at the end.

I took some photos for a friend's wife who wants to try blogging. They're the typical Instagram style fashion photos, but it was still fun. I'd take this over couple's photos any day. 



raven-7 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



raven-3 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And a stitch, because that seems to be a party of my very identity now. 



raven-6 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Getting more and more in tune with this camera. 

Let's just say I can't wait for my tax return.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I really dig that last shot, wait until you get to try a large aperture telephoto (thinking 300mm f/2.8) and see the compression/bokeh.


----------



## Tang

Finally got a decent fireworks ....!

I.had originally camped out at the location below but the fireworks were so off-center I was forced to run and change locations. 






And the final shot...


----------



## Philligan

That's great. I like the angled shot. You lose that moon thing in the background, but I like how the people are included - gives a little more context.


----------



## Tang

Since no one else feels like posting.


----------



## Chuck

My daughter was born on wednesday!



DSCF9536 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr

And it wasn't the easiest using my 90mm inside the various hospital rooms


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang, that's a nice shot. Congrats Chuck, I'd assume a 90mm isn't ideal at all 

Testing out the 120-300 f/2.8




Nikon D3 with Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 @300mm: ISO 100 1/2000s &#402;/4.0


----------



## Chuck

Not particularly!  I also brought my X70, which is a 28mm FF equiv, but the IQ with the 90mm is just too nice, I don't even do that lens justice.


----------



## Philligan

Congrats man!

I haven't finished the whole set yet, but here's one from a local show last night.



FXT10039 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

IMGP7526 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP7576 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP7403 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP7006 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



long game by Scott Jones, on Flickr



surprise by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## Chuck

One of my favorite portraits I've taken recently. 



HallwaySilhouette by Chuck Haller, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Looks great man.  I really like how you can make out enough of their heads/facing to know what's going on. Lots of kissing silhouette photos just turn them into one creepy blob.

One small thing I noticed though, is I find the brick wall on the right a bit distracting. The detail is cool, but it's a big splash of colour in a fairly monochrome photo, and takes my attention away from the couple.

My suggestion would be to either pull saturation down, or to boost the blues behind them to make the photo a bit more two-tone. I think either way would help balance the left and right sides of the photo out, and draw attention back to the silhouette in the middle.  

Another idea would be to pull the highlights down to really accentuate the detail in the wall behind them - that would add balance and make them pop, too. I'm on my work computer, and the monitor is a terrible old 4:3 thing, so I can't tell how much highlight detail there is. 

As is, though, this photo would be great for a promotional piece. That brick wall is the perfect negative space for some text. I think this would be an awesome photo for a wedding announcement or invitation.


----------



## Chuck

You know that's a great point, Phil. I too really like detail of the brick, but I also see what you're saying. I'm gonna try a couple of those things and see how it turns it. I really appreciate the CC and kind words 

One thing however, do you have opinion over his hand being just barely visible on her side? I didn't think much of it before but I think I should just darken the whole hand to make it in line with the silhouette.


----------



## Philligan

Chuck said:


> You know that's a great point, Phil. I too really like detail of the brick, but I also see what you're saying. I'm gonna try a couple of those things and see how it turns it. I really appreciate the CC and kind words
> 
> One thing however, do you have opinion over his hand being just barely visible on her side? I didn't think much of it before but I think I should just darken the whole hand to make it in line with the silhouette.



No problem man.  

I was thinking about that, and I'm torn. I think I prefer how you can see the hand. It looks a little out of place in the silhouette, but it gives context and a reference point, instead of it just being a total sea of black.


----------



## Philligan

Fuji just announced the GFX medium format, X100F, X-T20, and 50mm f/2 WR.

http://www.fujirumors.com/fujifilm-...02-first-looks-pre-orders-more-live-blogging/

The GFX looks awesome. The sample photo on Fuji's website for the 120mm macro has an insane amount of detail:
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/di.../index/ff_gf120mmf4_r_lm_ois_wr_macro_001.JPG

The X100F has the same lens as before, and has the new sensor/processor, combination shutter speed + ISO dial, joystick, etc. The price is in between the X100T and X Pro2. 

The X-T20 looks really similar to the 10, but has the new sensor and processor, the AF from the X-Pro2 (no X-T2 tracking), and a touch screen instead of a joystick.

Personally, I'm not really interested in either. I'd like to get a new interchangeable lens body sometime this year, but my main priorities for that are dual card slots and the joystick, and the X-T20 has neither. Everyone online is excited about the 4K video and 24MP sensor, and I don't care about either of those things. The only changes I'm interested in are the faster AF in low light and ACROS, but that's not enough for me to buy a whole new body. I'll probably just wait and get an X Pro2 or X-T2 eventually.

I thought I'd be really into the X100F, but same thing, it's too much money for the changes I'm interested in. I don't care enough about the 24MP sensor, and that seems to be what most people online are excited about. I have a wedding coming up in June and I know I want a leaf shutter for it, so I'll be picking up a used X100T sometime in the next couple months.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I'm sort of with you on all your points Phil. I'm not sure how much I care about the improved resolution (largest prints here are A3 sized and 16mp works fine for that I guess). However, coming from the X-pro1 which is still great but showing signs of age, all new fuji models look interesting. While I prefer the Pro body style, I'm actually considering saving some money for the T2 or T20. Different features and I use the ovf less than I'd like to.

The GFX looks amazing and I'm sure it'd be great for my product photography and travel landscapes but I could never justify the price  I'll stick to medium and large format film for that.

Not that I've been able to shoot much recently. Super busy and by the time I finally get home, it's dark out. We're finally planning a small getaway to the woods in March and I'm looking forward to it so much it's getting a little crazy.


----------



## Tang

So I think I'm finally gonna pick up the Ricoh GRII. It just feels right. Pocketable with absolutely stellar IQ. 
Cheap too in camera terms.

Edit: photography is boring and I hate it.


----------



## Philligan

Here are some from the last week or so.

That show I shot:



tdr-jan13-36 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



tdr-jan13-45 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



tdr-jan13-53 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And a couple from last night, when a buddy and I tried some new tobacco:



FXT10033 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

Not sure if I prefer colour or B&W for this one. In the colour, I like the crazy teal of the sodium vapour lights, but I like how the B&W one shows off the smoke trail more.



FXT10052 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



FXT10052-2 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Azyiu

Hey guys, how are you? I haven't shot anything for weeks until last night... recognize any of these guys?


----------



## Tang

Lucky!

I've always wanted to see Megadeth!


----------



## Azyiu

Tang said:


> Lucky!
> 
> I've always wanted to see Megadeth!



Dude, they are Coldplay! What a mellow show, man...


----------



## ThePhilosopher

One of two models I shot yesterday - it's sparkly season.




Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm &#402;/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/200s &#402;/7.1


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The other model I shot yesterday - it's sparkly season.




Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm &#402;/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/200s &#402;/5.6


----------



## Tang

back at it.. around the apartment.



IMGP7789-2 by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's a rather interesting composition, I really like the negative space. I feel like it could go really graphic in super high contrast B&W.

How about more sparkles for Saturday?





Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm &#402;/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/200s &#402;/6.3


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Quick cellphone shot as I was out running errands this morning:


----------



## Azyiu

Shot this video last March, but I was too lazy to edit it until this morning... anyway, enjoy a ride on-board this diesel powered Yufuin No Mori (&#12422;&#12405;&#12356;&#12435;&#12398;&#26862 train. Enjoy. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhkaA0DWpXQ&t=6s


----------



## Philligan

Awesome stuff, guys. 

I did another fashion/lifestyle shoot on Sunday. It went okay. It was cold and we were pressed for time, and I'm starting to run out of posing ideas.  



raven-jan29-12 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Azyiu

Philligan said:


> Awesome stuff, guys.
> 
> I did another fashion/lifestyle shoot on Sunday. It went okay. It was cold and we were pressed for time, and I'm starting to run out of posing ideas.



Some good stuff you've got there... but personally I like these two way better. I thought those shots look even more candid and nice.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/philbabbey/31794787314/in/photostream/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/philbabbey/31794784354/in/photostream/


----------



## Tang

I discovered a way to make snow shots really look great. For the first shot i kept the white balance as shot (5500k). For the other two I cranked the WB up to 15k or so. It really brings the snow to the color that I saw in person. I'm not sure how the physics works that makes snow look blue in what should be the proper WB. 



IMGP7823 by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

That's strange. I can definitely see the underexposure, but the white balance is odd.

I shot my friends' band again last weekend. It was a really rough night - no stage so they were on the floor, super dark venue, and it was packed so I couldn't move around.

These were all 1.4, 1/60, 6400, and then pushed 1.5-2 stops in LR. I should have brought lights. 



tdr-jan27-12 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



tdr-jan27-8 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



tdr-jan27-17 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## feilong29

It's been SO LONG since I posted here. These are some of my favorite shots of my walk through Chinatown in Honolulu, HI.


----------



## aciek_l

Yesterday I went to friend's bands concert - the place was nice, but lights on the stage was horrible... 10 minutes only red, 10 minutes only green, 10 minutes only blue. :/ So I will end up with turning most of the pics to B&W.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

A few more edits from my last shoot:




Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm /1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 200 1/200s /8





Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm /1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/200s /5.6


----------



## Whammy

*Tang* I have similar problems shooting in the snow. It&#8217;s normally worse when it&#8217;s a cloudless sunny day. Any shadows cast on the snow by objects really mess up the white balance when combined with snow that has direct sunlight on it.
It&#8217;s so much easier when it&#8217;s a cloudy day and no mixing of colour temperatures.
I&#8217;ve never gone as high as 15k though. 8K is normally the highest I would go. I&#8217;ll adjust the RGB curves to pull out some blues in the highs.
Or even pull back on the saturation for the blue spectrum.

*Philosopher *I really do enjoy those sparkle photos. Each setup must be extremely time consuming (not to mention cleanup)?


I&#8217;ve set up some adobe spark pages recently. I&#8217;m in the process of setting up a webpage. But for now this will do as a place to displaying photos.

"Rune & Morfar" Photo Project
"Car enthusiasts of Sweden" Photo Project
Wedding photography portfolio (Text is in Swedish)

This is the latest photo from the Rune & Morfar series. I should be adding more to this over the coming months.


----------



## Tang

Whammy: we're supposed to get 12-14 inches Thursday so I'll more than likely will shoot a ton. Scared and excited!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Whammy said:


> *Tang* I have similar problems shooting in the snow. It&#8217;s normally worse when it&#8217;s a cloudless sunny day. Any shadows cast on the snow by objects really mess up the white balance when combined with snow that has direct sunlight on it.
> It&#8217;s so much easier when it&#8217;s a cloudy day and no mixing of colour temperatures.
> I&#8217;ve never gone as high as 15k though. 8K is normally the highest I would go. I&#8217;ll adjust the RGB curves to pull out some blues in the highs.
> Or even pull back on the saturation for the blue spectrum.



Two selective color adjustment layers make quick work of this with masking. 



Whammy said:


> *Philosopher *I really do enjoy those sparkle photos. Each setup must be extremely time consuming (not to mention cleanup)?



It's only about 10 minutes extra time in hair and makeup for the model. Cleanup is relatively simple for the set with the drop cloth on the ground, the model's cleanup  I'm not around for.




Whammy said:


> I&#8217;ve set up some adobe spark pages recently. I&#8217;m in the process of setting up a webpage. But for now this will do as a place to displaying photos.
> 
> "Rune & Morfar" Photo Project
> "Car enthusiasts of Sweden" Photo Project
> Wedding photography portfolio (Text is in Swedish)


The load times are slow for the high-quality images (at least for me tonight), but I really like the layout - I've never seen an Adobe Spark page before.


----------



## Tang

I really need to learn photoshop for real.

ALSO::: that Adobe Spark page looks GREAT! Nice and cohesive

Phil, I reedited this shot from above... obviously something was wrong with my eyes in the previous version.



IMGP7823-2 by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Tang said:


> I discovered a way to make snow shots really look great. For the first shot i kept the white balance as shot (5500k). For the other two I cranked the WB up to 15k or so. It really brings the snow to the color that I saw in person. I'm not sure how the physics works that makes snow look blue in what should be the proper WB.



Snow crystals absorb red more than they do blue and objects in shadow/open shade will tend to reflect their surroundings (sky) more than those in open sunlight.



Tang said:


> I really need to learn photoshop for real.



I'm sure C1Pro has something similar you could do with its awesome color tools.


----------



## Tang

Snow is here and work is cancelled. 

Time to go shoot.

Here's the first shot from my blizzard adventures. I probably shouldn't have been out in it but who cares


----------



## feilong29

Did a hike right down the road from me. This latter is the H-3 going in to the Tetsuo Harano Tunnel. I gave the shot a vintage look. Love Hawaii!


----------



## Chuck

That last one is stunning, Feilong.

Whammy, I hope to gather your compositional skills one day. Always loving your work.

My little girl is one month old today so naturally I had to take a few shots. This one ended up as my favorite.



SorayaOneMonth_3 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr

I've also been toying with photographing some of my guitars lately. I want to start practicing product photography a bit, purely for the sake of taking nice pictures of guitars.



DSCF9676 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr

My PRS SE Custom Semi-Hollow.


----------



## Tang

Oh dear that PRS!

Alright! Time for the blizzard shots. My whole camera body was covered in a layer of ice but handled the conditions with no problem. It was awesome. 

I decided to try and process these in b&w with an emphasis on keeping them consistent shot to shot. Also my first real attempt at doing a series that's made to be seen together. 

As you can see I'm trying to boil my compositions down to the simplest possible.. compositions. I'm not sure where these shots are coming from tbh, but I'm enjoying it


----------



## ThePhilosopher

feilong29 said:


> Did a hike right down the road from me. This latter is the H-3 going in to the Tetsuo Harano Tunnel. I gave the shot a vintage look. Love Hawaii!



That last shot is killer, I don't dig the faded look as much as I used to but I think it works on that shot.



Tang said:


> Oh dear that PRS!
> 
> Alright! Time for the blizzard shots. My whole camera body was covered in a layer of ice but handled the conditions with no problem. It was awesome.
> 
> I decided to try and process these in b&w with an emphasis on keeping them consistent shot to shot. Also my first real attempt at doing a series that's made to be seen together.
> 
> As you can see I'm trying to boil my compositions down to the simplest possible.. compositions. I'm not sure where these shots are coming from tbh, but I'm enjoying it



I dig that second shot the most, it really pushes on the abstract composition.

I wore shorts to shoot this today, as it's cooled down to 65° .




Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm /2.8 Macro: ISO 400 1/100s /8


----------



## feilong29

ThePhilosopher said:


> That last shot is killer, I don't dig the faded look as much as I used to but I think it works on that shot.
> 
> Thanks! Like you, I am starting to move on from the matte/faded look, but that means I need to relearn how to edit haha.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Just group the old layers, turn off their visibility and go from there. A quick tip to boost contrast and colors is setting a Selective Color Adjustment layer to soft light blending mode and adjusting the opacity. You can also do the same thing with black and white conversions.

I don't know if I ever posted this up or not, but here's the dry side of my darkroom printing setup.





Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm &#402;/1.8D: ISO 200 1s &#402;/5.6


----------



## Philligan

Awesome, guys.  

I've been pretty quiet lately. I haven't done many photo jobs lately, and the weather has been brutal - cold enough to be winter, but warm enough that we get freezing rain a couple times a week, so I haven't been going out/shooting much. I started a new job at work, too, so I've been busy with that.

My friends' salon is getting featured in a book about local businesses, so I took some group photos for them today. They're probably gonna use a B&W version of the first photo, but I included the colour here because I like it more. I actually really like the white wall one, too - it's a bit awkward, but we were really cramped because we moved all their stuff off of one of the walls, and rushed it at the very end.



group-colour by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



group-wbg2 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I strongly prefer that second shot - it's much cleaner. You could even add in their logo/artwork to the background and still have a better image.


----------



## Philligan

Thanks man. I'll go spend some more time on those.

The idea was to do a group shot and show their work environment, but I only have two speedlights and had trouble getting the angle/perspective I was hoping for.


----------



## Azyiu

Finally got the new Canon 5D Mark IV last night. Yay!

Since I only have the older Lr5, RAW files from the 5D4 are not supported. Currently I am first converting those files to DNG files via the Adobe DNG Converter 9.7, before importing them into my Lr5. Does anyone here have a better workflow to share? Or am I doing anything incorrectly with my files? Thanks.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I got quite lucky that this bee flew into the flower I was shooting.




Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm &#402;/1.8D+Nikon PK-13 Extension Tube: ISO 400 1/200s &#402;/2.8


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Another Azalea macro from this morning - though some argue this borders on microscopy 




Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm /1.8D+Nikon PK-13 Extension Tube: ISO 400 1/80s /4


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Last photo for the evening I promise, I'll be shooting more glitterati tomorrow .




Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm &#402;/1.8D+2 Stop ND Filter: ISO 100 1/200s &#402;/5.6


----------



## UnderTheSign

Heads up, Kameratori.fi/cameraventures.com has a pretty big sale going on this weekend. Lots of nice goodies. I'm browsing.


----------



## soliloquy

anyone have any experience with making photobooks?
i went to a recent trip to Pakistan for vacation. when i came back, i thought i should make a small coffee-table type book with some of the pics i took. also a neat way to show customers what a difference photobooks make (kinda like a physical portfolio). 

i was looking around with several companies and decided to go with Adoramapix. was i ever surprised!!! and not only i, but everyone i showed the book to too. i took it to work, and i got so many compliments from people i've never met (apparently they work in my building...) not believing i took the pics, and that those pics turned out awesome.

sure, i uploaded them online like instagram and facebook and stuff, and got a few thumbs ups and stuff. but something totally different about holding the pics in hand and seeing them in person vs a computer/phone screen.

working on an actual portrait photobook idea now.

was thinking of trying out other companies too, but after trying adoramapix, and their quality, and images, and colors and etc, i think i'll stick with em until i find something super awesome


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I have an 11x14 hardcover photobook that I've sold 2 copies of so far. I do all my printing through Bayphoto (aside from the traditional darkroom stuff). I'll probably also put together a nice book on metallic paper when I get my glitter project complete.


----------



## A-Branger

helloo I havent been in this aprt of the forum for sooo long, soo many cool shots  

I havent shot much, the guy who Im working with now on weddings he does mainly videos, so Ive only done one photo wedding "recently" lol

Either way here is a self portrait I did. I was teaching my mate how to work with lights so I took the opportunity to bring my bass and take a show. All lights were video lights


----------



## Philligan

Awesome pictures, everyone. 

I haven't been on at all in the past couple weeks. Life has been busy, and we've had a few really nice days, but it's been mostly terrible weather (alternating between snow and rain pretty much every day) and I haven't been shooting much.

I did take some photos for a friend tonight - he's playing at a pub next month.

I wish this wasn't so tight, but I had to use my 35mm since I didn't want to exaggerate the guitar/hand, and there was a bunch of stuff beside him that I didn't want in the frame. I shot him in his guitar room, which is tiny, so I had my back against the wall and actually had the camera up above my shoulder to get as much of him in the frame as possible.

I would have liked to have backed up a few more steps, gotten the entire guitar in the frame, and done a square crop, but what can you do. 

This was 1/180, ISO 200, and f/2.8, with a single 24x36 softbox probably arm's length from him. I really like softbox light - it seems a bit more contrasty than umbrellas, but just as soft, and it's a lot easier to control. I just have the one 24x36, and it's one of the ones where the light mounts in the middle of the softbox and points backwards - I'd really like a square or octa that rear-mounts the flash, so it's easier to position.



cory-wide by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

lets get weird. First shot is a single exposure, but the following two were both double-exposures done in-camera. Live View double-exposure feels like cheating. 





IMGP8096 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP8080-Edit by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP8076-Edit by Scott Jones, on Flickr

and a *SPLASH* of color..



IMGP8041 by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's all nice stuff there from Abranger down through Tang's B&W's (the color just doesn't have the impact of the first three shots).

Phil, wait until you can try a gridded 22" or 27"+ beauty dish - then the fun really begins.


----------



## soliloquy

working on a new series


2017-03-08_12-16-09 by hadi khan, on Flickr



IMGP84801 by hadi khan, on Flickr


----------



## CircuitalPlacidity

^Was the posing of the feet in that first photo intentional? Adds so much more depth and interest.


----------



## soliloquy

CircuitalPlacidity said:


> ^Was the posing of the feet in that first photo intentional? Adds so much more depth and interest.



thank you for noticing 

i was going with the literal translation of 'hanging the boots'. kinda like a corporate life exhausting someone, so they are contemplating if its worth going with it further. 

also the 'hitman' outfit. quitting killing people kinda thing


----------



## LeviathanKiller

soliloquy said:


> anyone have any experience with making photobooks?
> i went to a recent trip to Pakistan for vacation. when i came back, i thought i should make a small coffee-table type book with some of the pics i took. also a neat way to show customers what a difference photobooks make (kinda like a physical portfolio).
> 
> i was looking around with several companies and decided to go with Adoramapix. was i ever surprised!!! and not only i, but everyone i showed the book to too. i took it to work, and i got so many compliments from people i've never met (apparently they work in my building...) not believing i took the pics, and that those pics turned out awesome.
> 
> sure, i uploaded them online like instagram and facebook and stuff, and got a few thumbs ups and stuff. but something totally different about holding the pics in hand and seeing them in person vs a computer/phone screen.
> 
> working on an actual portrait photobook idea now.
> 
> was thinking of trying out other companies too, but after trying adoramapix, and their quality, and images, and colors and etc, i think i'll stick with em until i find something super awesome



I ordered a photobook from there and the pages stuck together eventually ripping spots into the pages. So YMMV. I don't use them professionally anymore but I always snag their free and special offers for personal use.


----------



## CircuitalPlacidity

Anyone have any tips for lightroom for me? I'm having a hard time exporting. Images are sharp when viewed in lightroom. Once exported to jpeg I'm noticing they're a tiny bit softer. Has anyone ran across this Problem? Any fixes?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Switch to CaptureOne or PS ; I wish I could help, but I don't use LR.

Here's a little BTS shot of a little series I'm putting together. My D3 mounted on my ABR800 with the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro. Lighting is set to be ISO100 1/200s f/16 and triggered with Pocketwizard Plus III's. This shot was taken with my E-PL3 and Helios 44-2.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Results of the above setup: I'm intentionally going for gobs of contrast and harshness in these shots, thoughts?




Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm &#402;/2.8 Macro: ISO 100 1/200s &#402;/16


----------



## Philligan

That leaf study is awesome. 



CircuitalPlacidity said:


> Anyone have any tips for lightroom for me? I'm having a hard time exporting. Images are sharp when viewed in lightroom. Once exported to jpeg I'm noticing they're a tiny bit softer. Has anyone ran across this Problem? Any fixes?



I haven't noticed any issues with JPGs coming out of LR, but I usually don't pixel peep JPGs too hard. My guess would be check your export - when you go to export, you can choose resolution, output sharpening, etc. I usually do no output sharpening, 100% image quality, and 300dpi JPGs.

I bought something last week. 



FXT10045 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



FXT10048 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



FXT10054 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

And here's a quick and dirty HDR - this is the 16mm with a 6-stop HOYA filter I picked up on the cheap. It's not the sharpest - I'm assuming it's the filter - but it's sharp enough for my needs. I'd like to pick up a second 6-stop; that should be a lot cheaper than $100+ for a 10-stop.



FXT10056-HDR by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm always wary of stacking multiple filters (especially of questionable quality) as they can cause multiple reflections off the glass - a good 10-stop filter is going to be better than stacking two 6-stop filters. 

That's one sexy tele for sure. Here's another from my study.




Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm &#402;/2.8 Macro: ISO 100 1/200s &#402;/16


----------



## tank

I had a Sony A7 lately, with the 28mm f2 sony/Zeiss


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That last shot is quite nice even though it is a bit hazy looking (I'm more fond of vibrant colors lately) and there's a strange darkness in the lower right of the frame.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

My modded OM found it's way onto the same setup I was using for my leaves, thought I used a different light source.




Nikon D3 with Tamron 90mm /2.8 Macro: ISO 200 1/2s /16


----------



## UnderTheSign

I'm really enjoying your leaf study.

I finally had time to go for a long walk this Tuesday and the weather was amazing. Carried my fuji with 35mm and 55-230 with me and my Bronica SQ with 6x6 and 135 pano back. Seeing everything through that huge viewfinder, especially on a bright sunny day, reminded me why I still love shooting like that. I hope to get the films developed and scanned next week.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm really missing shooting larger lately, I should take out my 4x5 and do some shooting soon.

Thanks, it's been a fun little project over a week of vacation. Here's the completed set, I've already ordered one 11x14 book of the images. I'd like to get a large print behind acrylic to hang, but it's quite costly.


----------



## UnderTheSign

I actually bought a beat up Japanese wooden 4x5 field camera so once I finish my current workload, I can rebuild the wood parts and have a lightweight, even larger camera to take with me  the only reason I'm not rebuilding an 8x10 is because it won't fit my backpack.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The biggest reason I don't have an 8x10 is film+developing equipment costs; they're astronomical compared to 4x5.


----------



## UnderTheSign

That too, haha. Though I have a Patterson tank so I van develop b&w at home. DIY is the way to go for large format I think, as one neg costs as much to develop at the lab as a whole roll of 120.


----------



## feilong29

Did a hike today:


----------



## Philligan

How do you guys feel about Creative Cloud?

My old CS6 copy is giving me grief. I don't use it often, but when you need PS, you need PS. Plus, I just recently learned how much better the healing tool is in Photoshop. 

I'm not overly hung up on the cost, more the principle behind the subscription-based service. But, it would be nice to have a modern version of Photoshop, and to get more updates (I know the perpetual LR license loses out on some updates and features).

Thoughts?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm still using CS5 if that's any indicator.


----------



## LeviathanKiller

Philligan said:


> How do you guys feel about Creative Cloud?
> 
> My old CS6 copy is giving me grief. I don't use it often, but when you need PS, you need PS. Plus, I just recently learned how much better the healing tool is in Photoshop.
> 
> I'm not overly hung up on the cost, more the principle behind the subscription-based service. But, it would be nice to have a modern version of Photoshop, and to get more updates (I know the perpetual LR license loses out on some updates and features).
> 
> Thoughts?



Super pissed about Creative Cloud honestly. I don't do anything crazy to my photos usually, so Lightroom does everything I need. I don't use healing for anything but minor touch ups either, so that's not an issue for me too. I have CS6 and the Lightroom 6 permanent license. Once I graduate, if I decide to take more photo jobs or market my artwork more, I may buy into the subscription. Until then, I'll stick with the current features offered since I've been doing just fine with them.


----------



## A-Branger

Philligan said:


> How do you guys feel about Creative Cloud?
> 
> My old CS6 copy is giving me grief. I don't use it often, but when you need PS, you need PS. Plus, I just recently learned how much better the healing tool is in Photoshop.
> 
> I'm not overly hung up on the cost, more the principle behind the subscription-based service. But, it would be nice to have a modern version of Photoshop, and to get more updates (I know the perpetual LR license loses out on some updates and features).
> 
> Thoughts?




never had a drama with photoshop cc. Mind you I still have the 2014 version (not sure how the new one would handle). I honestly despite the suscription method as it would be something that forever you would pay. Mostly because I wont be able to find a crack version anymore  But I guess if you have a steady income it doesnt matter, like you "ideally" are paying for the same price. Also I like to not upgrade things untill absolutely necessary, so now you kinda are forced to be updating the softwares as if not then its like you are paying more for them 

Also, once your in, you can still download and use the previous versions of the softwares you sign in for. For example using Premier pro. The CC 2014 version works fine, on the limit of what my computer can handle for multicam editing features. So I download the CS6 and perfect. But due to the guy Im owrking now uses Sony, The CS6 version wont open the files, so Im stuff using CC14. Only because for some reason the CC15 drains more computer power and everything becomes bit slower to do

For lightroom I stayed at v5. But again I had to edit some files using the Sony cameras as another friend wanted me to shoot a ceremony and another night party using his camera because "its better" than my Canon6D (its not). So stupid Lightroom5 doesnt have the RAW support for Sonny, so off to lightroom CC. Which as soon as you hit the "Edit" module, my macbookpro goes into "overheated mode" at 500%CPU power, re-directing into the fans and slowing everything down ideally so you dont burn the computer. End result I have a 2 second delay for each time I move any slider. CAnt tell you how much fun its to work a wedding like that  

this is a common issue with lightroomCC and macbookpros (or mac in general dont remember)


----------



## Tang

Mmm. I found my Tamron 17-50 2.8 a few days ago and it made me go shoot. Pushy little bastard.

Super jealous of feilong's hiking locale! I don't know what I'd do with so much color!


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> I'm still using CS5 if that's any indicator.





LeviathanKiller said:


> Super pissed about Creative Cloud honestly. I don't do anything crazy to my photos usually, so Lightroom does everything I need. I don't use healing for anything but minor touch ups either, so that's not an issue for me too. I have CS6 and the Lightroom 6 permanent license. Once I graduate, if I decide to take more photo jobs or market my artwork more, I may buy into the subscription. Until then, I'll stick with the current features offered since I've been doing just fine with them.



I'm fine with CS6, it's just that I'm having trouble installing my copy properly, and there are issues with the resolution and my Retina display. It's my own fault really, I'm just getting tired of fighting with it. 

I don't use PS too often, but it's one of those cases where when I need it, it's really valuable. 

I'm sort of against the subscription method (mainly I don't agree with how hard Adobe is pushing it), but I've been trying to decide if I should just accept defeat and subscribe to make my life easier.


----------



## Chuck

Hey guys, so I'm a total PS noob and could use a little help. I took this picture of my PRS and Jackson and I must get rid of the reflection on the Jackson to the left of the neck pickup. I think I took this at night in our sun room and wasn't thinking about the overhead light. I tried a few healing tools in PS but all of them left that part of the guitar looking kinda fuzzy/just not right. Anyway to mend it while keeping looking real?



DSCF9776 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr

I did take this on a whim earlier today, I really dig how it came out.



DSCF9858 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I did this in two minutes on the small file you have posted using frequency separation and some color grading. With a bigger file I'd spend more time to get the color just right for the contour.


----------



## Chuck

That looks good! I'll look up a tutorial for those techniques. Thank you, sir!


----------



## ThePhilosopher

The action I use (for CS5) is in the zip file located on this page: http://www.fx-ray.com/tutorials/fs/ - their tutorial isn't worth a damn, but the FS actions are good.


----------



## Philligan

The college I work at had it's 50th anniversary last week, and there was much ado. I got pulled from my department to shoot for Marketing for the day (which is great, because I'm just on contract right now and would like to work in Marketing permanently ).

They wanted a quick turnaround so I shot the whole day RAW + JPG (first time I've done that, actually) and just delivered RAWs. I haven't gone through them all looking for favourites yet, but here's one I really dug.

The whole day was Auto WB with the Provia film sim, and I shot probably 90% of it with the 23 and 56.



Untitled by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Tang

Pushing the Galaxy S7 camera to it's limit


----------



## Philligan

That's a great shot man, and doesn't look like it was shot on a cell phone.

What a time to be alive.


----------



## Mattykoda

So what would you guys recommend camera wise for someone starting out? Let's just say for $400-600


----------



## tank

Keep Exploring with My A7


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Mattykoda said:


> So what would you guys recommend camera wise for someone starting out? Let's just say for $400-600



Nikon F-3.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Analog: something like a good Nikon, yeah.

Digital: what do you want? There are so many options. Olympus omd e-m10, the lower/mid range Nikon and Canon dslr, a compact like Sony rx100


----------



## Mattykoda

Digital I guess? I'm open to both options and what the pros/cons are. That dsc rx100 looks pretty damn friendly.


----------



## Philligan

Mattykoda said:


> So what would you guys recommend camera wise for someone starting out? Let's just say for $400-600



If you want something small that you'll bring everywhere (like a point & shoot that doesn't suck), the Sony RX100 line is a great bet. Just get the most recent model that your budget would allow. IMHO, if you end up wanting to get more serious (like shooting actual portrait sessions or wildlife), you'd probably start to feel limited with one of those. If you feel limited, you can't add anything onto those cameras, so you'd have to buy into a new system to go along with it. It would be incredible for walking around/every day use, travel, going out with friends, etc.

The easiest and safest answer is whatever Canon or Nikon is in your budget. Buying used can save you a lot of money. The upside to Canon or Nikon is that they're the most common, so there are going to be more accessories and resources available. All cameras from the past 5+ years will take good photos, so I'd worry more about the handling (how much do you like holding it) and features (wifi, tilty screen, etc) than I would about the image quality. 

One thing to consider is that in addition to the kit lens that comes with the camera, you'll probably want to add another lens or two fairly early on (like a fast prime lens for portraits and low light) and you can do that for significantly less money with Canon or Nikon (not a lot of other companies have such an affordable selection).

Your other option is mirrorless. A mirrorless is the same as a DSLR only without a mirror eek, so instead of an optical viewfinder bouncing light around, your viewfinder is a little digital screen. The upside to this is that the camera can be made smaller and the screen gives you a better idea of what your finished photo will look like; the downside is that the battery life isn't as good as a DSLR, and the autofocus won't be as good for fast-moving subjects like sports.

Mirrorless cameras are great; a bunch of us here have switched to them from DSLRs. Some potential downsides, though, are that they're not as common as Canon or Nikon DSLRs, so it can be harder to find accessories and the used market isn't as good. Also, the lens selection is usually smaller, and there aren't as many cheaper options (for example, Canon has a few lenses in the ~$150 range, while Fuji's cheapest lenses are around $400). So depending on how much you're ready to potentially invest in photography, mirrorless may not be as a good a choice.

To give you an example (I'm thinking in US dollars here), you could buy a Canon Rebel DSLR with the 18-55mm kit lens for $300 used, if not cheaper. That's a great all-around lens that goes from a landscape wide angle to a portrait length, but it's not great for low light or blurry backgrounds. For another ~$100, you could get the 50mm 1.8, which is great for portraits and is more useful in low light situations. Then for another $100 or $150, you could get the 24mm 2.8 pancake; it's a tiny wide-ish angle lens that's perfect for walking around and everyday use, and is also useful in low light. So for around $500 all in, you could have a very versatile kit that's capable of taking professional photos. I'd be perfectly content to take that kit traveling or out with friends.

Fuji's lenses are more on the expensive side, but I'll use them as an example because I shoot them and am familiar with the lineup. You're probably looking at $500 minimum to get a used Fuji X-T10 or X-E2 with their 16-50mm kit lens. Then if you want their 50mm and 27mm lenses, you're looking at $450 _each_ to buy them new (I can't see them going for any less than $350 used, if you can find them). Fuji makes absolutely incredible lenses, but that probably won't make a noticeable difference in your photos. So sure, the lenses are good, but if they're out of your budget and you can't buy them, what's the point?

So like I said, the big thing to think about is how much you think you'd potentially be ready to invest in photography. If you get a mirrorless camera, regardless of the brand, expect to spend around $500 or more on new lenses, or have extremely limited selection. If you could see yourself getting into it and wanting to eventually drop a good amount of money into lenses, then I think you should definitely look at mirrorless. I switched from Canon to Fuji and couldn't be happier. But if you're not sure how much you'll be into photography, I'd recommend a Canon or Nikon DSLR; if you shop around, your current budget would allow you to get the basic starter kit plus an extra lens or two to play with, and you can experiment and try new lenses with a lot less money than a mirrorless system.

/rant


----------



## Sumsar

^ Thx for the above rant. I am currently also looking into getting into photography / video with a DSLR, and so far my plan was to spend around 300$ on a used Canon, maybe + some for extra lenses and then see how far that can take me, and give me an idea of what I actually need for what I want to do with it. Nice for you to confirm that that approach seems to be a good solution


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Sumsar said:


> ^ Thx for the above rant. I am currently also looking into getting into photography / video with a DSLR, and so far my plan was to spend around 300$ on a used Canon, maybe + some for extra lenses and then see how far that can take me, and give me an idea of what I actually need for what I want to do with it. Nice for you to confirm that that approach seems to be a good solution



I've not been into the market recently, but $300 seems to be at the low-end for a used entry-level body alone that is video capable from reputable resellers (B&H and KEH). 

I have two trains of thought for people looking to start in photo:
1) Get a small kit: There is a lot you can do with a crop-body sensor + a 35mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8 lens. Push this as far as you can to learn about composition, lighting, and general photography. This will seem limiting and frustrating at time; however, it's a way to not have to suffer through lens selection, zoom settings, variable minimum aperture, etc. This hearkens back to when I learned to shoot in high school (digital wasn't a thing that schools could afford) and then when I was teaching film photography in second semester photo classes.

2) Get a specific outcomes kit: It might actually easier to start with a small-specific set of desired outputs and build a starter kit around that as opposed to buying kit and being frustrated that you cannot achieve what you would like to see. This might require more upfront costs and be more narrow in scope, but if you have a very specific vision then this is the fastest way to get there.​


----------



## Philligan

ThePhilosopher said:


> I've not been into the market recently, but $300 seems to be at the low-end for a used entry-level body alone that is video capable from reputable resellers (B&H and KEH).
> 
> I have two trains of thought for people looking to start in photo:
> 1) Get a small kit: There is a lot you can do with a crop-body sensor + a 35mm f/1.8 and 50mm f/1.8 lens. Push this as far as you can to learn about composition, lighting, and general photography. This will seem limiting and frustrating at time; however, it's a way to not have to suffer through lens selection, zoom settings, variable minimum aperture, etc. This hearkens back to when I learned to shoot in high school (digital wasn't a thing that schools could afford) and then when I was teaching film photography in second semester photo classes.
> 
> 2) Get a specific outcomes kit: It might actually easier to start with a small-specific set of desired outputs and build a starter kit around that as opposed to buying kit and being frustrated that you cannot achieve what you would like to see. This might require more upfront costs and be more narrow in scope, but if you have a very specific vision then this is the fastest way to get there.​



This. When I mentioned buying a couple extra lenses, I should have said that it's good to start out with as little as possible, and to only upgrade when you know _why_ you want to get a new lens and what you want from it. Having said that, as you start to hone your style, you'll most likely want to add a lens or two, and it's worth keeping that in mind when you're budgeting initially.

That's a good point about video, too. I didn't realize you were interested in video. That could up the price a little bit. I'm not sure how much video image quality is important to you, but I just looked and eBay has Canon T3i's with the 18055mm kit lens for around $500CAD. If you look around on Craigslist or something, I would imagine you could find something like that for around $400USD. It won't be amazing video (it could only be 720p), but it'll get you started. But if you're interested in more competitive video quality (1080p at 60p, etc) that will stretch your budget more as you'll need a newer body.


----------



## Mattykoda

Thanks for all the input. Seriously. I mainly would like to shoot landscapes from hunting and hiking but also have the versatility for closer shots as well. I know that will all fall on the lense but I just would like to be able to capture some cool moments while not being limited to my phone. I've looked around at the d3300 and 3400 models but I know down the road I wouldn't mind making the investment for lenses. Would the J5 be a good choice for mirroless?


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Nikon-focused semi-rant:

The D3xxx and D5xxx Nikon bodies do not have AF motors on the body, so you must buy lenses that have AF motors built-in (this leaves out a major-if not all-of the AF-D lenses). This is a predicament for most people looking to enter photography as a serious hobby (as opposed to taking snapshots with a dSLR), but not spend a lot of money. 

You get the most lens economy by buying lenses that work with full-frame cameras (if you should ever upgrade), which means buying used AF-D (or older) lenses. However, these lenses do not work on the entry-level camera bodies except as manual focus lenses. While this isn't a deal breaker for some people, it's an added source of frustration for new-to-photography folks (especially with those tiny viewfinders). 

The Nikon 1 (the J5 is one of these cameras) is extremely lens poor and does not use the same lens mount as the traditional dSLR line.


----------



## flint757

At that price range I'd personally just get a higher end compact that you'd want to keep after upgrading to interchangeable down the road when you're more experienced and have more cash to work with. Photography is an expensive hobby.

Lenses on their own aren't particularly cheap and a descent interchangeable is going to eat up almost the entire budget all by itself.


----------



## Tang

Pentax K5 + Tamron 17-50 f/2.8






Samsung Galaxy S7 shot in RAW and edited in Lightroom Mobile.


----------



## Chuck

I really dig that second one, Tang!

I actually was able to get out and shoot for the first time in awhile recently, felt really awesome.



DSCF9932 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr




DSCF9992 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

Mattykoda said:


> Thanks for all the input. Seriously. I mainly would like to shoot landscapes from hunting and hiking but also have the versatility for closer shots as well. I know that will all fall on the lense but I just would like to be able to capture some cool moments while not being limited to my phone. I've looked around at the d3300 and 3400 models but I know down the road I wouldn't mind making the investment for lenses. Would the J5 be a good choice for mirroless?





ThePhilosopher said:


> Nikon-focused semi-rant:
> 
> The D3xxx and D5xxx Nikon bodies do not have AF motors on the body, so you must buy lenses that have AF motors built-in (this leaves out a major-if not all-of the AF-D lenses). This is a predicament for most people looking to enter photography as a serious hobby (as opposed to taking snapshots with a dSLR), but not spend a lot of money.
> 
> You get the most lens economy by buying lenses that work with full-frame cameras (if you should ever upgrade), which means buying used AF-D (or older) lenses. However, these lenses do not work on the entry-level camera bodies except as manual focus lenses. While this isn't a deal breaker for some people, it's an added source of frustration for new-to-photography folks (especially with those tiny viewfinders).
> 
> The Nikon 1 (the J5 is one of these cameras) is extremely lens poor and does not use the same lens mount as the traditional dSLR line.



Agreed. Stay away from the J5/Nikon 1 cameras.

I'm not sure if this would fit your budget or not, but see if you can find a D7000 used (or a D7100 is possible). They let you use the AF-D lenses that Philosopher was talking about, so you have a lot more lens options on the cheap. Plus, a D7000 will grow with you more because it has a layout more like the professional bodies.


----------



## Mattykoda

Philligan said:


> Agreed. Stay away from the J5/Nikon 1 cameras.
> 
> I'm not sure if this would fit your budget or not, but see if you can find a D7000 used (or a D7100 is possible). They let you use the AF-D lenses that Philosopher was talking about, so you have a lot more lens options on the cheap. Plus, a D7000 will grow with you more because it has a layout more like the professional bodies.



Will do. Thanks for all the feedback. I may just end up going with a good compact for now just to get a feel for everything and after a while start making the investment after finding where it takes me.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Mattykoda said:


> Will do. Thanks for all the feedback. I may just end up going with a good compact for now just to get a feel for everything and after a while start making the investment after finding where it takes me.



If you do go this route, please find one that has full manual controls and can shoot RAW. These two options will give you a feel for what it is like to shoot with a DSLR without the high price point, the mess that can be lens selection, and experience with RAW processing workflow. Treat it like a rangefinder and you should be good to go.

Having a clear goal/mindset when you say, "I want to get into photography," helps direct others on how to give advice on how to allocate a budget (even if it's to say your budget is too small ) for the desired outcomes.


----------



## takotakumi

Hi guys, maybe someone can enlighten me on what lens I should get next

Currently I have a Canon T2i with the kit lens (18-35mm I believe) and a 50mm 1.8

My original plan was to get the Yungnuo 35mm 2F since I like the lowlight capabilities of my 50mm but find that it is a bit to tight or crops too much for me. I want to eventually use it for some cover videos as well so the 1.8 is great.

I then started looking at Canon 35mm 2F that was a bit more expensive but had sharper images.

Kept on reading forums and started to like the 24mm 2.8 suggestions but that 2.8 kind of took me off.

Kept doing some more research and currently debating about getting a Sigma 30mm F 1.4 for Canon. 

I have a photographer friend and he suggested a canon 55-250mm to get into telephotos. While I like the idea, I currently do not need that much zoom I believe, unless I go out on a trip to a zoo or something like that. I will definitively get one in the future.

Anything I am skipping here? My reasoning is that I want a sharp low light friendly lens less than $300 and that does the same a 50mm does but with more range.

Also, going to my sister's graduation next week and would like to use the new lens there haha I think I should be fine with a 30mm? I'd take the zoom lens but since its going to be at night I do not think it would be light friendly...

thanks


----------



## Philligan

My wife had the 24mm 2.8 pancake and it's a great lens. It's essentially only 1 stop slower than the 50mm, but it lets you use a slower shutter speed, so it can help mitigate the difference. I would definitely recommend that lens, especially for the price.

I almost bought the Sigma 30mm 1.4 (the newer Art one, although I'm sure the older one will still be a decent lens). Having 1.4 is really great in low light, and if you can fit it in your budget, it will be better for that purpose than the Canon. If it's the older version, read some reviews - I know autofocus and overall image quality can be a bit hit or miss on the older Sigma lenses.

I'd stay away from the Yongnuo lens personally. Image quality will be fine but not great, autofocus will almost definitely be noisy and probably not that great, and the build will be super cheap. If that's the only one that's in your budget, it will definitely get the job done, but if you're looking at more expensive lenses, I'd avoid this one.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Finally processed some of the past 3 months worth of photos. Eternally trying to find a decent workflow and style.



DSCF3853.jpg by Bart B, on Flickr



DSCF4091.jpg by Bart B, on Flickr

Whatever sharpening was appplied here turned the moss into goo. Wtf.


DSCF4092.jpg by Bart B, on Flickr


----------



## Furtive Glance

After a lot of hemming and hawing, I sold my two most expensive L lenses because I never used them. Realized that 90% of my favourite things to shoot involve either a really wide angle or a supertelephoto. (And it was also somewhat sad that I seriously considered picking up a used 400mm 2.8 IS II a few weeks ago. So ridiculously expensive and since it's purely a hobby, I'd feel really stupid doing that.)


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Our little one, born on 4/14 (2lb 8oz, 14.5") connecting with mum at 1 day old under photo therapy:





Olympus E-PL3 with Olympus 14-42 f/3.5-5.6: ISO 400 1/160s /5.6

...and turned 1 week old yesterday:




Olympus E-PL3 with Olympus 14-42 f/3.5-5.6: ISO 1600 1/30s /8


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Mom and baby connecting a little better.




Olympus E-PL3 with Olympus 14-42 f/3.5-5.6: ISO 1600 1/30s &#402;/5.6


----------



## Tyler

Just bought a Polaroid 250 land camera. Its such a shame the film for it got discontinued last year though, anyone have any stories with them? Im looking forward to not only taking some shots with it, but also doing some negative reclamation


----------



## UnderTheSign

I have a Land Camera. Not used it much but it's great fun. Giving someone a direct print is a cool thing and having a neg to take home is even more useful!


----------



## Philligan

It's been a while. Life has been busy.

We just took a short anniversary trip to Niagara Falls. I shot the whole thing RAW + JPG. This was only the second time I've done that and I loved it. I normally would shoot RAW and do JPG conversions in-camera as I wanted them, or shoot straight JPG if it was just gonna be like snapshots. R+J was great because I could wifi whatever I wanted to my phone without having to do a conversion first, but now I've got all the RAWs to work on if I want.

I'd like to print something on canvas from the weekend - I'm currently thinking one of these two, but I haven't gone through everything yet.

From the Skylon Tower observation deck (X-T1 + 35mm). I'm leaning towards printing this one, because I like the context of the river.



FXT10078 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr

From the walkway beside the falls, at ground level (with the 16mm).



FXT10161 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Philligan

And just for something different than portraits of my wife  here's one I shot last week for someone who got a new job at a bank. I don't have a good place with enough space, so portrait sessions like this are ad-hoc; I shot this one in a hallway at the college I work at.

This was with the 35mm, because I didn't have enough space to use the 56.



brad-fullres-005 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## UnderTheSign

Portrait looks good Phil! What did you use for lighting?


----------



## Philligan

Thanks man! It's a 24x36 softbox to camera left and a bare flash on the right and slightly behind the subject. 

It's somewhere in the neighbourhood of f/2.8, ISO 200, and 1/180, with the softbox light probably at 1/16 power and the rim light at lowest power (1/64 or 1/128).


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Our boy is now tube-free.




Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D: ISO 800 1/60s &#402;/2.8


----------



## LeviathanKiller

ThePhilosopher said:


> Our boy is now tube-free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nikon D3 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8D: ISO 800 1/60s /2.8



I guess you could say he's in a solid state...


----------



## Philligan

My friend's tattoo shop had a fundraiser last weekend that I took some photos at. I've never shot an indoor event with so much light - I was shooting at 1.4, 125-250, and ISO 400. 

Also, I shot the tracing desk every chance I got, because the light coming off that is incredible. 



JNL-50 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



JNL-17 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



JNL-06 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr



JNL-10 by Phil Babbey, on Flickr


----------



## Whammy

I love dropping back in here and seeing everyone still talking gear and sharing photos.




ThePhilosopher said:


> Our little one, born on 4/14 (2lb 8oz, 14.5") connecting with mum at 1 day old under photo therapy:



A little late to the party but congratulations on the baby body 


So I finally set up a proper webpage for getting work. I held off on that for way too long. Don't know why because it's been so helpful. I went with Squarespace and so far am really happy with the service. I tried smugmug first. That was awfully bad.
Unfortunately the page is in Swedish so not much point sharing it 

The blog is in English though. I've been trying to keep it stuff related to educating potential wedding clients and the other posts are aimed at hobby photographers. Just doing what I can to get a better organic reach in google.
https://www.primaluxphotography.com/blog/

I still use the Adobe Spark page for the displaying the personal projects that I worked on but I plan on having everything self contained on the main wedpage as the Spark page, while it looks nice, is slow to load.

But yeah apart from that this is me dropping in saying I should post more but never do because I don't have many personal photos to share 

Anyone out there working on some projects?
I need to try a project again as it'll give me a reason to take photos for myself again.



Philligan said:


> My friend's tattoo shop had a fundraiser last weekend that I took some photos at. I've never shot an indoor event with so much light - I was shooting at 1.4, 125-250, and ISO 400.
> 
> Also, I shot the tracing desk every chance I got, because the light coming off that is incredible.



It's great. Modern tattoo studios are so well lit  It's been a while since I hung out in one.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Phil,

Those are some cool shots, tattoo shops really have come a long way from the dingy/dark places I used to visit in the 90's/00's.



Whammy said:


> A little late to the party but congratulations on the baby body



Thanks, he's doing well - almost up to 1800g so he can get out of the Isolette (enclosed warming bed) and into an open crib. We're hoping he can come home by his due date (14/6).

I really dug your post about the B&W weddings.


----------



## Whammy

I obviously meant baby boy. Not baby body 
It obviously can be quite stressful and worrying when your newborn has to stay in the hospital. Hopefully you'll have him home soon


----------



## Azyiu

Hotei Tomoyasu, whose career spread over 35 years, is one of the most influential and famous guitarists in Japan, playing Hong Kong for the first time ever! Great show!


----------



## Tang

firstly some shots from an event I shot for work..



IMGP8309 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP8313 by Scott Jones, on Flickr



IMGP8317 by Scott Jones, on Flickr

and one from today... it's amazing how quickly everything turned green here.



IMGP8331 by Scott Jones, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I really like that first shot. You've got to watch those yellows on the flowers, I feel like they blow out of gamut faster than whites do.


----------



## Chuck

So I'm really just getting into taking portraits for other people but here's a couple from my latest attempt. 

Once I was finished and had gotten the photos onto my computer I realized bringing a speedlight to set off camera to help with lighting up the subjects and smoothing out those shadows really would have made things easier. We started shooting about 4:30pm and shadows were abundant at the time.



Adams 2 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr



Adams 4 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr

Not sure which of these of the little girl alone I prefer.



Adams 11-3 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr 

I feel this was the strongest of the three together. 

CC would be much appreciated. I'm really trying to improve in the portraiture department.


----------



## UnderTheSign

A speedlight or even built in flash with plastiv diffuser already works magic in cases like that, just for fill flash. Or a reflector but forget about that if you're shooting solo and it's windy


----------



## Whammy

Philosopher has lots of experience with using lights under bright sunlight so he's best to answer that.
For me personally, if the sun is a little too much I look for shade for a soft diffused light.
A reflecter would have done the job to lift the shadows. I always carry a reflector with me but never use it as I just prefer shooting under shade.

Framing, posing and processing is nice. It's more the weather that's against you. As a result you can't really see their eyes. Mainly because of the shadows and because they are probably closing their eyes a little due to the bright sun.


----------



## Chuck

Yeah it was pretty windy outside(I spent so much time editing fly away hair strands and such  ) and I was indeed solo. I'll have to take a test subject out so I can practice using a speedlight in this kind of scenario. Anything else you guys see that I could have done better? I *really* appreciate the feedback.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Chuck said:


> Adams 4 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr
> 
> Not sure which of these of the little girl alone I prefer.


This one is stronger; the background is cleaner and doesn't need as much post to clean it up. I would have moved her away from the clump of grass that's near her feet at camera left. 

A tip I've learned is that if you're going to shoot infants outdoors then invest in a grey or white blanket. While the colored ones are cute (if you can get them to not blow out) they really alter the skin tone when they reflect back on the baby. Check out the skin tone near the baby's arm (very pink/magenta) and compared to her cheek that is illuminated (much more yellow). 

A speedlight might have been fairly useless in this situation, a scrim would have been a much better option to create some open shade to avoid blowing out various parts of the subject. Without a modifier, I would have shot this a stop or two darker and selectively brought back up some of the highlight areas and used luminosity masks to blend the two exposures seamlessly. I think this shot could be more interesting with more negative space above her - going with the one-two stops underexposure idea, you'd probably have room in post to then also bring in the sky some more (a grad ND would be great for this).



Chuck said:


> I feel this was the strongest of the three together.
> 
> CC would be much appreciated. I'm really trying to improve in the portraiture department.



First, a few of the background elements are distracting: light pole, cell/microwave tower, bright white box, and the people in the left of the frame. I'd also try to clean up the weeds growing up between the bricks. You chopped off their feet; either crop them at a different location or make sure you get the whole foot. The bench is crooked (it goes down from left-to-right across the frame).

Composition-wise it's in no-man's land for me, I would have either gone much tighter or much wider. I didn't do much else to these, but try to show the compositions I would have tried to shoot. There is some minor skin touch up that I would do (nothing the healing brush couldn't tackle, but no need for heavy DnB work. I might have tried some different poses with them sitting up a bit straighter if they were going to engage with you and something more natural if you were trying to capture a moment with the family. Being square with the camera works for males, but not so much with females. Having her cheat the pose a little bit might help her not look as boxy (it's not too bad in this shot, I've seen much worse in this regard).

A giant softbox and a light would have helped tame the shadows, but it might not help alleviate the squinting. Though you could try the trick of having them close their eyes count out "1,2,3" then open their eyes and you snap on "4" or "4.5".

If you're not using spot metering on your camera, I'd suggest it and meter for the hot spots. There is a lot of latitude in newer sensors for bringing back data when shooting in RAW (also clipping happens in the highlights while the data is more asymptotic in the shadows with digital sensors).












Whammy said:


> Philosopher has lots of experience with using lights under bright sunlight so he's best to answer that.



While true, I also use at least a 500w/s light and huge modifiers that will at least balance the sunlight (or overpower it so that the roles are reversed and the sun is now a fill light); I don't know if a speedlight can do that with a 24x36 (or larger) softbox/octadome. A scrim can be just as useful (if you can buy a beer/coffee for a friend to pay them to hold it) or more helpful than a light in many of these situations and costs much less.


----------



## Chuck

ThePhilosopher said:


> This one is stronger; the background is cleaner and doesn't need as much post to clean it up. I would have moved her away from the clump of grass that's near her feet at camera left.
> 
> A tip I've learned is that if you're going to shoot infants outdoors then invest in a grey or white blanket. While the colored ones are cute (if you can get them to not blow out) they really alter the skin tone when they reflect back on the baby. Check out the skin tone near the baby's arm (very pink/magenta) and compared to her cheek that is illuminated (much more yellow).
> 
> A speedlight might have been fairly useless in this situation, a scrim would have been a much better option to create some open shade to avoid blowing out various parts of the subject. Without a modifier, I would have shot this a stop or two darker and selectively brought back up some of the highlight areas and used luminosity masks to blend the two exposures seamlessly. I think this shot could be more interesting with more negative space above her - going with the one-two stops underexposure idea, you'd probably have room in post to then also bring in the sky some more (a grad ND would be great for this).
> 
> 
> First, a few of the background elements are distracting: light pole, cell/microwave tower, bright white box, and the people in the left of the frame. I'd also try to clean up the weeds growing up between the bricks. You chopped off their feet; either crop them at a different location or make sure you get the whole foot. The bench is crooked (it goes down from left-to-right across the frame).
> 
> Composition-wise it's in no-man's land for me, I would have either gone much tighter or much wider. I didn't do much else to these, but try to show the compositions I would have tried to shoot. There is some minor skin touch up that I would do (nothing the healing brush couldn't tackle, but no need for heavy DnB work. I might have tried some different poses with them sitting up a bit straighter if they were going to engage with you and something more natural if you were trying to capture a moment with the family. Being square with the camera works for males, but not so much with females. Having her cheat the pose a little bit might help her not look as boxy (it's not too bad in this shot, I've seen much worse in this regard).
> 
> A giant softbox and a light would have helped tame the shadows, but it might not help alleviate the squinting. Though you could try the trick of having them close their eyes count out "1,2,3" then open their eyes and you snap on "4" or "4.5".
> 
> If you're not using spot metering on your camera, I'd suggest it and meter for the hot spots. There is a lot of latitude in newer sensors for bringing back data when shooting in RAW (also clipping happens in the highlights while the data is more asymptotic in the shadows with digital sensors).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While true, I also use at least a 500w/s light and huge modifiers that will at least balance the sunlight (or overpower it so that the roles are reversed and the sun is now a fill light); I don't know if a speedlight can do that with a 24x36 (or larger) softbox/octadome. A scrim can be just as useful (if you can buy a beer/coffee for a friend to pay them to hold it) or more helpful than a light in many of these situations and costs much less.



Dang.  Much to learn, I have. 

On the shot of all three of them, I have a similar shot in landscape orientation but they had a different pose where they were all looking into the camera and I preferred the pose here in the portrait version. 

I had noticed after the fact that I had cut out their feet and I definitely didn't like that. I'll play with some different cropping ideas. 

Thank you so much man, I really appreciate the honest feedback.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Anytime I can help out I'll give it a go; groups are tough and I'm definitely no expert on shooting them. I can help with technical aspects of shooting a lot of the time, but sometimes the best thing to do is reshoot at a different time and/or location. I've had to bite the bullet and do that for a couple of people - it's a major time suck but sometimes well worth the effort.

It's far easier when you work with individuals and individuals that now how to position themselves in a frame so that they look best (most of my clientele).


It's been a while since I posted something not related to my new familial addition, so here's my Seiko Pepsi diver on a new custom strap:




Nikon D3 with Nikon 85mm f/1.8D+PK-13 27.5mm Extension Tube: ISO 800 1/25s &#402;/5.6


----------



## Tyler

I've been on a cross country tour with my band and have been snapping shots along the way. Seriously loving how they've turned out so far


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I'm really liking those shots, especially the Milky Way; that's on my list of must get shots.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Same here. Unfortunately we don't get to see the Milky Way often here, if at all.

Nice travel vibe.

Astro is pretty cool. I like how it's relatively easy to take a shot of a starry sky and make it look good, but once you get more in depth... Down the rabbit hole you go!


----------



## Tyler

UnderTheSign said:


> Same here. Unfortunately we don't get to see the Milky Way often here, if at all.
> 
> Nice travel vibe.
> 
> Astro is pretty cool. I like how it's relatively easy to take a shot of a starry sky and make it look good, but once you get more in depth... Down the rabbit hole you go!



Im from VA so its almost impossible to see there depending on what area youre in. That shot was in Wyoming at some place we pulled up to camp out at, and you could see the general form of the milky way with the naked eye. Very very cool


----------



## LeviathanKiller

Tyler said:


> I've been on a cross country tour with my band and have been snapping shots along the way. Seriously loving how they've turned out so far



Those first 3...man...that's my kinda stuff right there. The entire set is great.


----------



## Azyiu

I am back! Yes, I was on vacation in Hokkaido, Japan the entire last week. Anyway, I will share some photos here later, but first, here is a little video clip I shot of Mt.Yotei on one early morning, enjoy. 

Sorry for the slight movement in the video. It was all handheld with a 70-200mm L f/2.8 IS lens... it was heavy and I tried my best to eliminate movement as much as possible without a tripod.


----------



## Chuck

A couple of quick and dirty JPEG Fuji X70 shots from last week. Gotta love those Fuji colors!



Sunset563479 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr



5silhouettes by Chuck Haller, on Flickr

And also a candid shot of my dad just before my little brothers high school graduation ceremony.



PopsCandid by Chuck Haller, on Flickr

Noticing that Flickr's upload setting are seriously affecting this one...


----------



## Philligan

Those are great man, especially the silhouette. 

I've been in a bit of a slump lately, not shooting as much - I figure I'm not gonna try and force it. I've been pretty steady into photography the last few years and this is my first serious dead zone (only taking my camera out once a week or so and not shooting a whole lot). It's been probably two months of this or so. I'm a little worried about getting rusty, but I wonder if forcing myself to shoot is the right idea.

I've got a solo wedding and two I'm second shooting in June, so hopefully that gets me back into the swing of things.


----------



## Chuck

Philligan said:


> Those are great man, especially the silhouette.
> 
> I've been in a bit of a slump lately, not shooting as much - I figure I'm not gonna try and force it. I've been pretty steady into photography the last few years and this is my first serious dead zone (only taking my camera out once a week or so and not shooting a whole lot). It's been probably two months of this or so. I'm a little worried about getting rusty, but I wonder if forcing myself to shoot is the right idea.
> 
> I've got a solo wedding and two I'm second shooting in June, so hopefully that gets me back into the swing of things.




Thanks man! 

I should also note that the portrait of my dad was with the XE-2S and 90mmf2, but I think it's pretty obvious the X70 couldn't pull off that shot 

Personally I've never been one to force photography, for me right now it's mostly a hobby that I pick up odd jobs for friends and family here and there. I seem to always bounce back and forth between focusing more on guitar and less on photography and vice versa. 

It's been different lately though and I've had to adapt a little, for the longest time I just went out and did landscape photography, then slowly I progressed to trying street photography more often. Either way I'd spend hours outside - away from the house. And now that I have a little girl it's a lot more difficult to get out of the house for hours at a time. I've started shooting around the house more often, improving how I photograph guitars mostly and I've really been enjoying that. So I think a good way to get back into the swing of things without really forcing it is to try something new, are there any genres of photography you've never really experimented with?


----------



## Tang

We got likes again!


----------



## Whammy

Philligan said:


> Those are great man, especially the silhouette.
> 
> I've been in a bit of a slump lately, not shooting as much - I figure I'm not gonna try and force it. I've been pretty steady into photography the last few years and this is my first serious dead zone (only taking my camera out once a week or so and not shooting a whole lot). It's been probably two months of this or so. I'm a little worried about getting rusty, but I wonder if forcing myself to shoot is the right idea.
> 
> I've got a solo wedding and two I'm second shooting in June, so hopefully that gets me back into the swing of things.



Get back into it man.
Of course you will get rusty but that comes back. You just don't want to be working on it during a wedding 

I never worry about getting rusty with the technical side of the camera. But getting rusty with being creative, that's a little harder to get back.

A break is always good if it's needed, but it's too easy to go on an extended vacation. You sometimes need to force yourself back into it.

If I go on a little break (be it intentional or just a lack of time) I find my creative side suffers. I need to view my photos afterwards in Lightroom and make mental notes as to what areas I'm lacking in. The next time I shoot I force myself to work on said areas.
Then I repeat the process noticing other areas that are still lacking.
It's never ending really  

Everyone's method is different of course. This is just what works for me.

Get back into it man


----------



## Chuck

Did a little photoshoot with a new guitar the other day, just a simple(but awesome) Stering Cutlass. I think these are some of my cleanest shots yet.



DSCF0265 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr



Cutlass2 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr



Cutlass1 by Chuck Haller, on Flickr

And one with a cat, for good measure. 



MowgliCutlass by Chuck Haller, on Flickr


----------



## Chuck

Hey guys, I had a thought recently and wanted to see if any of you guys were interested - basically, I ADORE this thread and those who regularly post. Truly you guys are fantastic photographers and the CC I can get from you guys is invaluable. The only issue is the activity in this thread is particularly slow - and I think most of you, like me, don't really visit SSO often anymore and really only use SSO for this thread... So I was thinking of creating a Facebook group for us to share our work and chat about it and gear and whatever else you like. I'm already FB friends with a few of you guys so I don't see any reason to not make a group. Who's down? Cause I'd love to make that a thing.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Part of the reason for my slow down is that I have a 7 week old at home and I don't want to flood this thread with photos of him. I really haven't had any time to shoot much of anything. I'm not opposed to a group, but it's not going to up my level of participation (unless other participate more, then I may be able to provide more CC).


----------



## Chuck

ThePhilosopher said:


> Part of the reason for my slow down is that I have a 7 week old at home and I don't want to flood this thread with photos of him. I really haven't had any time to shoot much of anything. I'm not opposed to a group, but it's not going to up my level of participation (unless other participate more, then I may be able to provide more CC).



Yeah of course man, my little girl is 5 months tomorrow so I know how that goes  I just figured a FB group might be an easier way to communicate. And god knows I spend more time on FB(typically on my phone or iPad) than here on SSO. Of course this is a great place to share photos cause it can support large files, unalike FB. But like I said I think having a FB group might stimulate more conversation/activity.


----------



## Chuck

Here's the link to the FB group I made!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1682491452060822/


----------



## Azyiu

^ request to join the group sent...


----------



## Kaff

Here's a cool photograph of my ex-bike, Ducati Hypermotard 1100S. This was taken for my sale ad (and it worked cause I no longer own that bike) by a photography enthusiast friend, who had a vision to get a "racey, dramatic look" to the pictures.


----------



## Whammy

Chuck said:


> Here's the link to the FB group I made!
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1682491452060822/



Made a request to join. I know I used to post more here. Think that was one or two years ago


----------



## takotakumi

What would you guys recommend for an upgrade for the Body coming from a Canon T2i?
Some things I would like are a Higher ISO (pictures to look better with lower lightning) movable display,and maybe 60 fps.
I'm really just selling the body for a friend of mine to get into photography as well as making a slight upgrade on my end, so nothing super expensive haha

Also, I'm using Canon lenses so I guess it has to be canon hehe


----------



## LeviathanKiller

takotakumi said:


> What would you guys recommend for an upgrade for the Body coming from a Canon T2i?
> Some things I would like are a Higher ISO (pictures to look better with lower lightning) movable display,and maybe 60 fps.
> I'm really just selling the body for a friend of mine to get into photography as well as making a slight upgrade on my end, so nothing super expensive haha
> 
> Also, I'm using Canon lenses so I guess it has to be canon hehe



There's plenty of new T6i kits for $400ish


----------



## CircuitalPlacidity

Hey guys. 

I'm going to be building a new pc soon for photo and music projects. I would really prefer not to go over the $1000 mark. Photo stuff will just be LR and PS and as far as the music side goes it'll be mostly VST stuff out of Cubase or something similar. Any tips? I'm looking into an i7, but am unsure of which processor exactly....


----------



## ThePhilosopher

RAM, and if you can afford it a separate SSD scratch disk.

Here's two of my mid-size camera, a Bronica ETRSi.


----------



## odibrom

Hi folks, very nice photos here... thought I'd share some of mine also. Some of you might have already seen "The Painting Thread", so, creating image is not new to me. I have a pretty nice camera, outdated already, but pretty nice nevertheless, however, this one photo was taken with my smartphone (Samsung S4 mini, yeah, and oldie also). No post production.

Let's pray for a working link to Google photos...
It's a vertical shoot of a stairwell from the floor up, to a window at the top, hence this kind of light. The next photo is from the opposite direction, just to show what this is all about and isn't half as awesome as this one (IMO obviously). I'll try to share some more photos, as I move along, I've been collecting some since 2004 and photography wasn't new to me by then...


----------



## feilong29

Just got back from my trip to the Big Island. It was absolutely AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Azyiu

^ Photobucket strikes again!


----------



## feilong29

Azyiu said:


> ^ Photobucket strikes again!



Crap! Here is the flickr feed then:


----------



## feilong29

Been a while y'all! Everyone still shooting? What's everyone's setup these days? After about 4 years, I've finally upgraded to the Fujifilm X-E3. I feel that since I'm moving to Japan, and it rains often, I should have gotten a weather-sealed upgrade, but...bills and being broke lol. I took this from my lanai yesterday. Yep, I'm still editing like doo-doo haha, but I wanted to have a reason to take my first shot. I pushed some of the colors and kept it as "dark" and colorful as possible. Looking forward to hearing from you all!


----------



## feilong29

I'm keeping this thread alive even if it kills me! Lol kidding. Did some Astrophotography this morning. 

Camera used: Fujifilm X-E3
Single shot ISO @3200, 18mm @f/2.0 for 9 secs






Stacked image of about 7-8 exposures, all ISO @800, 15-25 secs each


----------



## belleswell




----------



## High Plains Drifter

I know this is prob considered a fairly low-end rig to the pros here but I'm really excited that I finally got a decent camera after my Canon PowerShot SX30 IS bit the dust ( scratched lens). Anyway... I'm still learning a lot about this one and it'll take me a while before I'm any good with it but here she is and a couple pics that I've taken so far. 

Canon EOS Rebel SL2 DSLR with 18-55mm f/4 STM lens
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III telephoto zoom lens
Focus flash with wide/ tele lenses & 58mm filters


----------



## gnoll

Sweet, DSLRs are lots of fun! Looks like a good camera.


----------



## Isidore

We just came back from the Oregon desert. Purposely timed it during a new moon. Managed to capture this. Stack of 22 x 15sec images.

Light near horizons is Reno, NV about 300mi/480km away.

Nikon D5500, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, edited in PixInsight, Lightroom, Photoshop (1st image of the series for the mountain).


----------



## Isidore

Also managed to do this one..


----------



## feilong29

Took a day trip to Osaka, Japan! I was able to see the castle and the amazing Dotonbori!


----------



## Isidore

Dig em! I love that 1st one the most.


----------



## feilong29

Isidore said:


> Dig em! I love that 1st one the most.



Thanks bro! 

I took a day trip to Odaiba, Tokyo with my girlfriend and put the good ole Google Pixel 3a to use. I love this phone and it's camera! Gets the job done, I would say. I am definitely a bigger fan of the Original Mobile Suit Gundam, so only backshots for this dude:












'


----------



## R34CH

@feilong29 

Awesome shots of Dotonbori my dude! The lighting and colors of the first few make me think I should be listening to some Synthwave or something while looking at them.

Also digging the Lamp Room shot - man I miss Japan.


----------



## feilong29

R34CH said:


> @feilong29
> 
> Awesome shots of Dotonbori my dude! The lighting and colors of the first few make me think I should be listening to some Synthwave or something while looking at them.
> 
> Also digging the Lamp Room shot - man I miss Japan.



Thanks bro! Dotonbori is just an awesome place, but I wanna go back with some better settings and get some sharper images. I'm like a kid in a candy store living in Japan! I'll enjoy it as much as I can because I know I'll miss it when I have to leave.


----------



## feilong29

Took a day trip to Kyoto in November, and then a short trip to the Tokyo Skytree. Thanks for checking. 

Gear used: 

Fujifilm X-E3
Fujinon 18mm f/2


----------



## Azyiu

So I took a quick / short trip to Tokyo a couple weeks ago. I also spent one night in Kawaguchiko among the 4 days I spent in Japan. Kawaguchiko is a famous onsen town right at the foothills of Mount Fuji. Hope you enjoy this video as I visited a famous park / shrine where Mt. Fuji is in full view. 



For those who interested, I used some brand new gear for this video; as it was shot exclusively on a GoPro Hero 8. I also color graded it on DaVinci Resolve, but made a mistake by not editing on it. Rather I did the editing on the older PowerDirector, hence some video noise.


----------



## Isidore

Taken 1.8.20

Nikon D5500
Celestron 6" SCT
20 images stacked and wavelet sharpened 
2 raw images for color


----------



## Mattykoda

One of my local Walmart’s has a couple canon eos rebel t6’s with a 18-55mm lens for $299. Brand new is this a good deal or would it be better to find a d7000 used? I had asked a while ago about a beginner setup to grow into but just wanted to get some thoughts.


----------



## feilong29

Mattykoda said:


> One of my local Walmart’s has a couple canon eos rebel t6’s with a 18-55mm lens for $299. Brand new is this a good deal or would it be better to find a d7000 used? I had asked a while ago about a beginner setup to grow into but just wanted to get some thoughts.



Sounds like a really good deal for a beginner set up, but a D7000 would yield you some better IQ (if I recall correctly), but as many say, it's all about the glass, not the camera. How much are used D7000s these days?


----------



## Mattykoda

Based off eBay they look to be around $3-400+ but that’s all depending on what you get with them.


----------



## soliloquy

i've been altering my gear drastically over the last year. i've gone from mostly zooms, to mostly primes now, added another camera body, and moving things around.

i went from:
Pentax K1 body (main)
rokinon 14m 2.8
pentax 24-70 2.8
pentax 31mm 1.8
pentax 50mm 1.4
pentax 77 1.8
sigma 85mm 1.4
pentax 100mm 2.8 macro
tamron 70-200mm 2.8
tamron 70-300mm variable 

and now, i'm at:
Pentax k1 body (main)
pentax 31mm 1.8
pentax 50mm 1.4
pentax 77mm 1.8
sigma 85mm 1.4
pentax 100mm 2.8 macro
pentax 200mm 2.8 prime
*PLUS*
Sony A7rII
Rokinon 45mm 1.8
rokinon 135mm 2

i think i'm at a happy medium now with my gear. i may get rid of my 50mm as i hardly ever use it, though its a great focal length on FF camera bodies. and i REALLY hate the 70-300 lens, but it seems everyone else hates it equally, and i cant get rid of it...

i'm not really liking the sony as much as i thought i would. it is very cumbersome and requires more work than what it offers in return. very finicky. plus, the dynamic range is inferior to my pentax. I do wonder if i should sell my sigma 85 for my pentax, and pick up that same focal length in sony to take advantage of eye autofocus on portraits though. 

though i enjoy the hefty weight, and weather sealing, and build quality and feel and usability of pentax, plus its MASSIVE battery. the sony eye autofocus is neat, when it works.

now i need to figure out how to update my software on my sony to be up to date.


----------



## gnoll

soliloquy said:


> i've been altering my gear drastically over the last year. i've gone from mostly zooms, to mostly primes now, added another camera body, and moving things around.
> 
> i went from:
> Pentax K1 body (main)
> rokinon 14m 2.8
> pentax 24-70 2.8
> pentax 31mm 1.8
> pentax 50mm 1.4
> pentax 77 1.8
> sigma 85mm 1.4
> pentax 100mm 2.8 macro
> tamron 70-200mm 2.8
> tamron 70-300mm variable
> 
> and now, i'm at:
> Pentax k1 body (main)
> pentax 31mm 1.8
> pentax 50mm 1.4
> pentax 77mm 1.8
> sigma 85mm 1.4
> pentax 100mm 2.8 macro
> pentax 200mm 2.8 prime
> *PLUS*
> Sony A7rII
> Rokinon 45mm 1.8
> rokinon 135mm 2
> 
> i think i'm at a happy medium now with my gear. i may get rid of my 50mm as i hardly ever use it, though its a great focal length on FF camera bodies. and i REALLY hate the 70-300 lens, but it seems everyone else hates it equally, and i cant get rid of it...
> 
> i'm not really liking the sony as much as i thought i would. it is very cumbersome and requires more work than what it offers in return. very finicky. plus, the dynamic range is inferior to my pentax. I do wonder if i should sell my sigma 85 for my pentax, and pick up that same focal length in sony to take advantage of eye autofocus on portraits though.
> 
> though i enjoy the hefty weight, and weather sealing, and build quality and feel and usability of pentax, plus its MASSIVE battery. the sony eye autofocus is neat, when it works.
> 
> now i need to figure out how to update my software on my sony to be up to date.



Nice! My dad is thinking about getting the K-1, but he can't make up his mind, haha.

Primes vs zooms is difficult, I really like primes more but sometimes a zoom is really handy. I just got a wide angle zoom that I plan to use for travel and landscape stuff (if this stupid virus will ever allow me to travel again, lol...) but my favorite lenses are a 150mm f2.8 macro and a 20mm f1.8.

I'm also still using a big chunky DSLR. I know the newer mirrorless cameras are smaller and lighter but lenses are often big anyway and I like the feel of a bigger camera in my hand.


----------



## soliloquy

gnoll said:


> Nice! My dad is thinking about getting the K-1, but he can't make up his mind, haha.
> 
> Primes vs zooms is difficult, I really like primes more but sometimes a zoom is really handy. I just got a wide angle zoom that I plan to use for travel and landscape stuff (if this stupid virus will ever allow me to travel again, lol...) but my favorite lenses are a 150mm f2.8 macro and a 20mm f1.8.
> 
> I'm also still using a big chunky DSLR. I know the newer mirrorless cameras are smaller and lighter but lenses are often big anyway and I like the feel of a bigger camera in my hand.



tell him to get the k1, or the k1m2. phenomenal cameras that are built like tanks with great image quality and dynamic range, and great low light performance. he wont be disappointed. and with plenty of lens options with legacy lenses, or the offerings and third party support. 

my philosophy on landscape has changed drastically in regards to landscapes. I initially started off with landscape, and have gravitated towards portraits now, thus i may be using my portrait experience to landscape. previously, i was under the school of thought that the wider the lens, the better the landscape. i quickly found that wide angle lenses may capture the scene we are looking at, but its distracting as nothing in particular stands out. there is nothing particular to focus on or isolate. 

for example, if i see a nice lighthouse, or a tree, a wide angle lens wont be able to isolate it from the background. Where as a telephoto can easily isolate a certain element and still be a landscape shot. in this regard, a wide angle will take a look at EVERYTHING under the sun. But a telephoto will look at a rock and isolate it from the surroundings. 

alternatively, i also found that if, for whatever reason, i do want to capture a wider shot (say a mountain is my subject), and all i have is a telephoto lens, i shoot several shots and stitch them together for a panorama. this also allows to travel lighter. I once made the mistake of carrying about 8 or 9 lenses with me to a trip to Ireland. More than half the time, about 4 lenses spent time in the car (not recommended!) as the bag was way too heavy, and i was kicking myself for carrying so much. 

this also works wonders in portraits as well, where you can make, say an 85mm lens look somewhat similar to a 135, or even a 200mm lens with a drastic background blur and subject separation. though this requires your subject to stay VERY still when you shoot around it


----------



## gnoll

soliloquy said:


> tell him to get the k1, or the k1m2. phenomenal cameras that are built like tanks with great image quality and dynamic range, and great low light performance. he wont be disappointed. and with plenty of lens options with legacy lenses, or the offerings and third party support.
> 
> my philosophy on landscape has changed drastically in regards to landscapes. I initially started off with landscape, and have gravitated towards portraits now, thus i may be using my portrait experience to landscape. previously, i was under the school of thought that the wider the lens, the better the landscape. i quickly found that wide angle lenses may capture the scene we are looking at, but its distracting as nothing in particular stands out. there is nothing particular to focus on or isolate.
> 
> for example, if i see a nice lighthouse, or a tree, a wide angle lens wont be able to isolate it from the background. Where as a telephoto can easily isolate a certain element and still be a landscape shot. in this regard, a wide angle will take a look at EVERYTHING under the sun. But a telephoto will look at a rock and isolate it from the surroundings.
> 
> alternatively, i also found that if, for whatever reason, i do want to capture a wider shot (say a mountain is my subject), and all i have is a telephoto lens, i shoot several shots and stitch them together for a panorama. this also allows to travel lighter. I once made the mistake of carrying about 8 or 9 lenses with me to a trip to Ireland. More than half the time, about 4 lenses spent time in the car (not recommended!) as the bag was way too heavy, and i was kicking myself for carrying so much.
> 
> this also works wonders in portraits as well, where you can make, say an 85mm lens look somewhat similar to a 135, or even a 200mm lens with a drastic background blur and subject separation. though this requires your subject to stay VERY still when you shoot around it



Yeah, wide angles are tricky I think. I usually will only take it if I know that I'm going to a nice landscape spot where it will work and/or if there is a good sky/good weather conditions. And it's usually important to have something up close that can work as foreground since everything else becomes so small. But when wide angle works, I really like it. A nice looking sky stretched out by a really wide lens can be absolutely beautiful.

Tele is awesome for landscapes also, like you say, to isolate stuff. The focal lengths I don't really like are the "in between" ones. I have a 28-75 and a 50 but I hardly use them because I always end up wanting either something wider or something longer!


----------



## belleswell

Wood duck male






Wood ducks - Next gen





Fight club - Rear naked choke










Dancing deer













Bald Eagle


----------



## belleswell

Thanks for the like Werecow. I was beginning to believe no one viewed this thread.

I've been getting a bunch of Eagle shots of him
hanging out at our pond. Not as many picture opportunities this summer
versus last spring, but we still see him, and her every other day or so.
They have a nest about a half mile away.


----------



## Furtive Glance




----------



## ThePhilosopher

Those are quite fantastic.

We've had some interesting clouds lately.


----------



## Furtive Glance

Love me some clouds. 

I’ve pretty much sold off all my camera gear at this point. I only have a shutter release cable and a battery grip left.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I've got a small setup since I've moved and the D3 died: XT-2 and 3 primes (16, 35 and 56). I'm really missing my 4x5 monorail (though I'm looking to get a field camera to replace it) and all the film goodies. I haven't needed any of my lighting equipment since moving, but I would certainly use it if I had available.


----------



## Furtive Glance

My timing kind of worked out alright, given the fact that I can't really travel right now.I'll get back into it again one day. The improvements in gear will always exist.


----------



## Daemoniac

Not my photos, but my wife started doing photography professionally a couple of years back, and - after starting with what we had around the place (a 7D and a couple averageish lenses) she upgraded to a 5D Mk.IV and a couple of L series lenses (I forget which ones - I think one is a 24-70mm and the other might be 70-200?), and her actual photography chops have taken a MONSTER step up recently as well. Just figured I'd share some of them.


----------



## odibrom

Those are stunning good photos. Congrats to your wife.


----------



## Daemoniac

odibrom said:


> Those are stunning good photos. Congrats to your wife.



Cheers. She's always had a knack behind the lens, but it's amazing what a couple years practice and some good gear has done for her abilities.


----------



## illimmigrant

Guys,
I've been a long-time lurker of this thread, but it wasn't until recently that I decided to pick up an old camera my wife put away a long time ago (a Canon EOS Rebel t5i) and learn how to use it. Some of the photos posted here are super inspiring, so I wanted to share my first cityscape with you guys. I didn't intend to do a progression so the cropping is a bit off from image to image, but here's yesterday's sunrise in Houston.




Skyline Night 1 - 100-f11-25s by Carlos Anez, on Flickr




Skyline 3-100-f9-6s by Carlos Anez, on Flickr



Skyline 2 - HDR - 100-f9-2s-5s-13s by Carlos Anez, on Flickr



Skyline Daytime by Carlos Anez, on Flickr


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Daemoniac said:


> Not my photos, but my wife started doing photography professionally a couple of years back, and - after starting with what we had around the place (a 7D and a couple averageish lenses) she upgraded to a 5D Mk.IV and a couple of L series lenses (I forget which ones - I think one is a 24-70mm and the other might be 70-200?), and her actual photography chops have taken a MONSTER step up recently as well. Just figured I'd share some of them.



Those are quite nice and congrats on the new gear for her. I'd offer some feedback but it wasn't asked for.



illimmigrant said:


> Guys,
> I've been a long-time lurker of this thread, but it wasn't until recently that I decided to pick up an old camera my wife put away a long time ago (a Canon EOS Rebel t5i) and learn how to use it. Some of the photos posted here are super inspiring, so I wanted to share my first cityscape with you guys. I didn't intend to do a progression so the cropping is a bit off from image to image, but here's yesterday's sunrise in Houston.



Definitely one of my favorite spots to see downtown.

I've been revisiting some of my old shoots with some new tools.


----------



## odibrom

Super nice photos there...


----------



## Daemoniac

One of my own photos rather than the Mrs. Possibly my best, of our dog that just passed. 

Taken with a 7d and an EF100MM F2.8 lens


----------



## ThePhilosopher

Sad to hear about your pup, that lens is tack sharp though.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I've been working on my focus-stacking, each of these is about 30 images from the Fuji 16mm manually stitched together like a panorama (probably a bit overboard on the image count, but the XT-2 doesn't care and storage is cheap). I tried the auto merge in PS and wasn't satisified with the results.


----------



## Daemoniac

ThePhilosopher said:


> Sad to hear about your pup, that lens is tack sharp though.


Thanks, it was only last week.

The lens was our first "good" lens. Absolutely sensational for macro stuff (I'll see if I can find any of the macro shots I took after work).


----------



## soliloquy

I am kind of hating how the photography world is evolving so fast. I have the hardest time selling old gear, because company A (usually sony) has released 20 different bodies since my Pentax K5 was released. Though upgraded to the K1, the K5 sits there and no one seems interested in picked it up, even with a lens attached.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

I ran into that issue when I held onto my D3 for a while too long because it was such a damn good camera, but then the main power board went out and I couldn't find any replacement parts. Sold the Nikon kit and went for Fuji X. The weight savings are great for hiking, though I wonder if passing on the Phase One kit I was offered on trade+cash my end for my Nikon kit was the right decision. I feel like the Fuji GFX would be a better fit should I ever fill the MF itch again.


----------



## odibrom

soliloquy said:


> I am kind of hating how the photography world is evolving so fast. I have the hardest time selling old gear, because company A (usually sony) has released 20 different bodies since my Pentax K5 was released. Though upgraded to the K1, the K5 sits there and no one seems interested in picked it up, even with a lens attached.



Digital cameras body's are looked at as computers now. Put a few years over them and they're as old as yesterday's newspaper... then, there's the growing quality of smartphones cameras and "classic photography" gets lost in the noise...


----------



## Tang

Oh man, it's so nice to see people still posting.


----------



## illimmigrant

Still taking rather simple pictures, working on the basic skills, but got a gift from the sky the other morning for a pretty incredible sunrise.



Sugar Land Memorial Park Sunrise by Carlos Anez, on Flickr



Sugar Land Memorial Park Sunrise by Carlos Anez, on Flickr


----------



## Furtive Glance

My favourite shot I've ever taken, compressed to fit the forum haha.


----------



## ThePhilosopher

That's gorgeous right there.


----------



## Furtive Glance

That trip was very good to me in terms of scenery and understanding what I like about photography in general. High quality shots straight out of the camera (that one's a 9-stop filter on a Zeiss 21mm for maybe 30-45 seconds) beat photoshop work afterwards every time. Probably why I'll stick to black and white in the future, tbh. Whenever I end up buying another bunch of gear, anyway.


----------



## feilong29

Since I converted to Mac, I had to convert from Lightroom to Capture One, and I am pretty satisfied with the transition. These pics are from my trip to Hitachi Seaside Park, Japan. Still in love with my Fujifilm X-E3 and 18mm combo!


----------



## odibrom

Some of those photos are, imo, a bit compressed and lack white/dark gradient, they get a really vintage vibe like if they were colored Back&white photos like they used to do back in the first quarter of last century.

Some other photos are way too dark for my tastes, but that can well be your own intention/expression... or my computer monitor...?

Nice photos, nevertheless!


----------



## feilong29

odibrom said:


> Some of those photos are, imo, a bit compressed and lack white/dark gradient, they get a really vintage vibe like if they were colored Back&white photos like they used to do back in the first quarter of last century.
> 
> Some other photos are way too dark for my tastes, but that can well be your own intention/expression... or my computer monitor...?
> 
> Nice photos, nevertheless!



Hey hey! I make them dark--it's my thing until I grow up haha. but a lot of my pics were underexposed because it's been many MANY months since I last went out to shoot. So, I'm just trying to get back into the mix and also, learning a new software program. Thanks for checking them out though.


----------



## odibrom

@feilong29 all cool bro, if it's your thing to do underexposed photos, do so. Art it's not about technique, but about conscience and feelings.

... although, I still feel that the vertical photo of those flowers (the one with no sky) could benefit with a bit more light in it. Just for the fun of it, experiment with post production on that...? it's a challenge, I dare you!... lol, just kidding...

... but I still I dare you!...


----------



## feilong29

odibrom said:


> @feilong29 all cool bro, if it's your thing to do underexposed photos, do so. Art it's not about technique, but about conscience and feelings.
> 
> ... although, I still feel that the vertical photo of those flowers (the one with no sky) could benefit with a bit more light in it. Just for the fun of it, experiment with post production on that...? it's a challenge, I dare you!... lol, just kidding...
> 
> ... but I still I dare you!...



Challenge accepted! I appreciate that bro, and I thought about it when I was looking through my pics the other day. I was actually dead tired while editing and had just installed the new software, and wanted to put some stuff out there. But I'll edit again and place them here for you to check out!


----------



## odibrom

@feilong29 I took the liberty to save that photo to my computer and applied 2 filters layers to it in Photoshop, first filter layer is Levels, with a gradient circular mask centered over the front flowers (give or take) and the second filter layer is a Hue/Saturation to remove a bit of excess saturation resulting from the brighter filter that the Levels layer bring up. This is obviously super subjective, but I think it turned out a pretty decent editing that brought up front plane and got the background a little farther away, all without loosing the initial feeling and aesthetics of the photo... in my opinion, that is. What do you think?


----------



## feilong29

odibrom said:


> @feilong29 I took the liberty to save that photo to my computer and applied 2 filters layers to it in Photoshop, first filter layer is Levels, with a gradient circular mask centered over the front flowers (give or take) and the second filter layer is a Hue/Saturation to remove a bit of excess saturation resulting from the brighter filter that the Levels layer bring up. This is obviously super subjective, but I think it turned out a pretty decent editing that brought up front plane and got the background a little farther away, all without loosing the initial feeling and aesthetics of the photo... in my opinion, that is. What do you think?



Oh man! The highlights on the flowers are really nice! I am crappy with photoshop and layers, but you did a bang up job though  I'll see what else I can come up with.


----------



## odibrom

feilong29 said:


> Oh man! The highlights on the flowers are really nice! I am crappy with photoshop and layers, but you did a bang up job though  I'll see what else I can come up with.



Glad you liked, it really wasn't that much of an editing and it can/could be improved considerably, I just thought of it as an example of possible things to do. I only wished I had this kind of readiness on mixing my music... but I don't have a degree n music as I have in Visual Arts, so, I guess it's fair...?


----------



## Furtive Glance




----------



## soliloquy

Exploring random things on photoshop. Did a selfie for Halloween using a two light setup.
I hate doing selfies as it requires so much back and forth for me. I also usually shoot wide-open, but had to step down to f16 to increase my depth of field to allow for random things to be in focus as I run back and forth.


----------



## odibrom

It almost looks like CGI on my phone...


----------



## soliloquy

Got a new lens for the A7rii.
Though I still hate the camera, I got it for 2 reasons: eye autofocus, and 42megapixels. The lens i got is the 75mm f1.8. was debating in the 85mm samyang, or viltrox, but went with the smaller. 

Though I love the 85, the 75 is rather unusual. It also helps me save a bit more to eventually get the 105mm 1.4 lens. 

Did a selfie as the lockdown is keeping me from people at the moment


----------



## KnightBrolaire

I'm not much of a photographer but here's a few shots I took this summer that I thought turned out pretty well.


----------



## LunatiqueRob




----------



## soliloquy

Not sure why this thread is so inactive.
Selfie:



picture sharing img

Edit: damn Sony a7riii files for being massive....will try in a bit


----------

