Photographer's thread

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by Pwolf

Can someone with them skill please touch this up for me:

No problem!

FIXED!

[Pwolf]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

No problem!

FIXED!

You are a master of the craft my friend!

[Kaotic Lazagna]

Originally Posted by mothespaceman

Can I get some lens recommendations? I primarily take car pictures but I feel like I haven't quite found 'THE' go to lens yet within a reasonable price range. Right now I'm using a D3200 w/ Nikkor 35mm and kit lens.

Back when I was shooting with Nikon, I used the 35mm F1.8 all the time.

[Pwolf]

Originally Posted by mothespaceman

Can I get some lens recommendations? I primarily take car pictures but I feel like I haven't quite found 'THE' go to lens yet within a reasonable price range. Right now I'm using a D3200 w/ Nikkor 35mm and kit lens.

I've been shooting with the kit Canon 18mm-75mm for 6 years and liking the lower end of the range for wider shots. I also bought a wide angle macro attachment to make things even more wide. Has bad chromatic aberration though. Eventually I want to get a either a good <18mm to ~50mm zoom or a 18mm or less prime for the wide shots.

Example:



For a lot of the other photography that I do, I really like the 70-200 range. For the airshow pictures I posed earlier, I borrowed a 70-300 which was fantastic. I have a feeling the 70-300, when ever I get it, will be my new "go to" lens.

I figure I need at most 3 lenses: a good wide angle (~18), something in the 28mm-50mm range, and 70mm-300mm. When I stop spending money on my car, I might finally get the lenses I want... some day.

[Midarete]

Some late night shoot with Evo, and WRX. My FRS is too stock to join in the group lol

[M-17]

Originally Posted by Pwolf

I've been shooting with the kit Canon 18mm-75mm for 6 years and liking the lower end of the range for wider shots. I also bought a wide angle macro attachment to make things even more wide. Has bad chromatic aberration though. Eventually I want to get a either a good <18mm to ~50mm zoom or a 18mm or less prime for the wide shots.

Example:



For a lot of the other photography that I do, I really like the 70-200 range. For the airshow pictures I posed earlier, I borrowed a 70-300 which was fantastic. I have a feeling the 70-300, when ever I get it, will be my new "go to" lens.

I figure I need at most 3 lenses: a good wide angle (~18), something in the 28mm-50mm range, and 70mm-300mm. When I stop spending money on my car, I might finally get the lenses I want... some day.

+1 agreed ^.

I'll have to post some stuff here again and get more criticism on some of my random work. I have a few aircraft pictures from a recent encounter too. My 75-300 did very well and recommend one. Plus, I'm thinking of picking up a 50 mm soon.

[M-17]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

Like some people set their camera to be rather flat or unsaturated or remove the digital sharpness so that they can control those things in "post". I get that. That's also the glory of digital photography is that you can correct.

In other experiences beyond this forum I've had folks show me their "great photography" but they're all highly edited images. So I asked to see the originals and they're terrible. So all they've done is use software to mask their photography skills and in that case should they be saying "look at my great photography" or "look at my great editing skills"?

I completely get what you're saying. I also understand the other side when it comes to using touche ups and/or photo-shop software. Mainly because its being used to narrate a story, used for commercialism, or generally boost the picture to its fuller potential. Whatever the case is, its another skill worth working on, which I plan to start working on this year, just to broaden the view on it.

In my opinion I normally prefer natural lighting, texture, and settings overall. They seem to be the best and usually can out beat overly photo-shopped pictures.

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by M-17

+1 agreed ^.

I'll have to post some stuff here again and get more criticism on some of my random work. I have a few aircraft pictures from a recent encounter too. My 75-300 did very well and recommend one. Plus, I'm thinking of picking up a 50 mm soon.

I :heart: my "plastic fantastic" (1.8F 50mm prime) but on my APS-C it's really an 80mm prime isn't it?

This coming weekend I'm borrowing a friend's 150-500 Sigma and I just ordered a 10-22 ultra wide angle which I plan on doing some time-lapse and some long exposure of stars if I can get a clear night. I may head down to ThunderHill for the 25 if scheduling allows to shoot another documentary.

[Pwolf]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

I :heart: my "plastic fantastic" (1.8F 50mm prime) but on my APS-C it's really an 80mm prime isn't it?

This coming weekend I'm borrowing a friend's 150-500 Sigma and I just ordered a 10-22 ultra wide angle which I plan on doing some time-lapse and some long exposure of stars if I can get a clear night. I may head down to ThunderHill for the 25 if scheduling allows to shoot another documentary.

Yea, which is why I want to get 28mm. Darn APS-C!

I'll be up at Thunderhill on the 26th taking pictures of the norcal86 crew.

[AznKirby]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

I :heart: my "plastic fantastic" (1.8F 50mm prime) but on my APS-C it's really an 80mm prime isn't it?

This coming weekend I'm borrowing a friend's 150-500 Sigma and I just ordered a 10-22 ultra wide angle which I plan on doing some time-lapse and some long exposure of stars if I can get a clear night. I may head down to ThunderHill for the 25 if scheduling allows to shoot another documentary.

10-22? How's the peripheral distortions on that lens?

[rice_classic]

Originally Posted by AznKirby

10-22? How's the peripheral distortions on that lens?

As good as you're gonna get without spending $$$$. It's a $650 lens and for full disclosure I don't own it yet, it's still in transit.

I was deciding between the:
Canon 10-22mm F3.5-4.5
Canon 10-18mm F4.5-5.6
Tokina 11-16mm F2.8

From extensively checking lots of reviews I concluded:
The 10-18 canon is cheapest and has IS but the F-stop wasn't favorable.
The Tokina had the most favorable F-stop but wasn't as sharp (from reviews) as the Canon and has the worse chromatic aberration of the 3 along with the shortest zoom. But damn that F2.8 was tempting. The 10-22, while not having IS is very sharp, reasonable aperture and a decent range of zoom. I plan on shooting real-estate photos in the future for some of my friends who manage MDUs.

My next lens after this will most likely be the Sigma 18-35 F1.8 at all the full zoom range. It's a pretty damn amazing lens for $800 new.

[Hot Lava]

Ferndale California graveyard. Redwood coast.

[Skurge]

Originally Posted by rice_classic

In other experiences beyond this forum I've had folks show me their "great photography" but they're all highly edited images. So I asked to see the originals and they're terrible. So all they've done is use software to mask their photography skills and in that case should they be saying "look at my great photography" or "look at my great editing skills"?

I agree 100%, i'm the more natural shooter, I dont like a ton of post to clean or make an image "better" honestly the reason i got out of doing photography as a career, too many lightroom photographers that dont actually know how to use their camera how it was meant to be used

[Giccin]

Originally Posted by Skurge

I agree 100%, i'm the more natural shooter, I dont like a ton of post to clean or make an image "better" honestly the reason i got out of doing photography as a career, too many lightroom photographers that dont actually know how to use their camera how it was meant to be used

Yep.... I over expose too often. lol