Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Art, Media & Photography' started by Eddie_uv777, Nov 28, 2006.
went out again today.. different theme but kinda the same.
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
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.
feeling inspired again. See, I can do more than just dog pics.
Also a return to horizontal crops!
I just love the colors in this...
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
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
I like it. I grew up on rhubarb too
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
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
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!
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
Freaking lost it at some of the shapes. He did exactly what I'd do
My gf wants to do this too now.
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
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
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.
my new D750 is near, Can't wait
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.