The "Creative Photography " Thread [v2] In Memoriam
5,003 replies, posted
[QUOTE=bopie;23557388]Thank you, good sir.
ALSO, does anyone know about the 70-200 f/4L? I want an L series with flexibility for general shooting, sans paying out the ass.
Plus content:
img
13sec iso100 f/4.5[/QUOTE]
It is a great great lens. It is super sharp throughout the whole 70-200 range and doesn't suffer much from vignetting, ghosting etc.
It doesn't come with IS though(image stabilizer) and seeing as you can't stop it down too much to stop action, this might be a problem in low light. But still it is a fantastic lens though surpassed by the newer ones.
[editline]11:48AM[/editline]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/ndehaan]
[img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4137/4819625530_21ef3bf084_z.jpg[/img]
[/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/ndehaan][img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4097/4819037857_667501cd99_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/ndehaan][img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4142/4757004521_7fc98ede08_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/ndehaan][img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4117/4819033455_68e76a42ff_z.jpg[/img][/url]
I'm suffering from withdrawel effects because I sold my nikon D200 so I need to compensate by taking shitty pictures with my Nikon d60 ok
[IMG]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4102/4820779969_70c467c02d_z.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4121/4821397798_e617570997_z.jpg[/IMG]
I hope to take similar photos with persons. There are more or less test shots for now.
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;23561694]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/ndehaan][img_thumb]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4142/4757004521_7fc98ede08_z.jpg[/img_thumb][/url]
I'm suffering from withdrawel effects because I sold my nikon D200 so I need to compensate by taking shitty pictures with my Nikon d60 ok[/QUOTE]
I really like this one
I bought the Sigma 70-300 APO DG lens after all. And to my surprise it has performed really good, opposite to what many reviews says.
Works great in daylight, although lack in VR requires a steady hand.
[img]http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/205/8/d/Little_monkey_by_swebonny.jpg[/img]
[img]http://i32.tinypic.com/rhmrkj.jpg[/img]
[editline]10:52AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;23561694]It is a great great lens. It is super sharp throughout the whole 70-200 range and doesn't suffer much from vignetting, ghosting etc.
It doesn't come with IS though(image stabilizer) and seeing as you can't stop it down too much to stop action, this might be a problem in low light. But still it is a fantastic lens though surpassed by the newer ones.
I'm suffering from withdrawel effects because I sold my nikon D200 so I need to compensate by [b]taking shitty pictures with my Nikon d60 ok[/b][/QUOTE]
Don't say that :(
[QUOTE=Swebonny;23586810]I bought the Sigma 70-300 APO DG lens after all. And to my surprise it has performed really good, opposite to what many reviews says.
Works great in daylight, although lack in VR requires a steady hand.
*img*
[editline]10:52AM[/editline]
Don't say that :([/QUOTE]
it's true though. I went for a walk with my dog and just wanted to take pictures of something eventhough the area I live in is pretty boring. those pictures aren't very sharp either because they were taken with the standard kitlens.
But help is on the way. My Canon 7D will be here around monday eventhough the 50mm 1.8 I also ordered got lost in the store and they can't find it anymore :riker:
[url=http://www.phyrefile.com/image/view/Em02qmq4i8Qf39iW][img]http://thumb.phyrefile.com/w/wa/wayland/2010/07/24/300/portrait__1_of_2_.jpg[/img][/url][url=http://www.phyrefile.com/image/view/JSxT2Oq5RG54j2It][img]http://thumb.phyrefile.com/w/wa/wayland/2010/07/24/300/portrait__1_of_1_.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.phyrefile.com/image/view/jdhprgQDRVMTNcjM][img]http://thumb.phyrefile.com/w/wa/wayland/2010/07/24/300/dibnah-garden2.jpg[/img][/url][url=http://www.phyrefile.com/image/view/jMqTUVGPmCxZl2h8][img]http://thumb.phyrefile.com/w/wa/wayland/2010/07/24/300/dibnah-garden.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.phyrefile.com/image/view/uqMYy7w2FUt3ZrzW][img]http://thumb.phyrefile.com/w/wa/wayland/2010/07/24/300/capo__2_of_2_.jpg[/img][/url][url=http://www.phyrefile.com/image/view/RrgOjCCWO3xPGzjZ][img]http://thumb.phyrefile.com/w/wa/wayland/2010/07/24/300/capo__1_of_2_.jpg[/img][/url]
camera is a 550D and i think 50mm 1.8 for all of those
first two weren't taken by me, im the subject. as for the second two only lightrooms auto white balance and a bit of noise reduction was done no filtering/HDR
Facepunch, how to you feel about editing and cropping photos? I seem to be the only one who likes pure, unaltered images.
Anyway, I just recently got into photography, so here are some raw, untouched images from my current stay in the states where I'm visiting my father.
[IMG]http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/1184/dsc0034tx.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/5677/dsc0035sb.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/349/dsc0049xy.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/602/dsc0058er.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/9371/dsc0068sa.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/861/dsc0173kh.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/4220/dsc0398.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/775/dsc0425qu.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/9509/dsc0438e.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/7568/dsc0480i.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/4661/dsc0500.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/9296/dsc0629u.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/5156/dsc0754.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/3397/dsc0797y.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/7461/dsc0632n.jpg[/IMG]
C&C very much appreciated.
[IMG_thumb]http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/861/dsc0173kh.jpg[/IMG_thumb]
This one made me giggle. It's a nice shot.
[IMG_thumb]http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/775/dsc0425qu.jpg[/IMG_thumb]
That girl to the left really ruins what would have been a perfect picture but the little girl is so adorable - so it is still a good picture.
[IMG_thumb]http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/9509/dsc0438e.jpg[/IMG_thumb]
One of my favourites as the light is so perfect.
[IMG_thumb]http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/4661/dsc0500.jpg[/IMG_thumb]
In my opinion, if you had made the light and the person central and made sure the silhouette was fully black it would have been a more powerful capture but that is just me. I love the idea behind it though.
[IMG_thumb]http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/3397/dsc0797y.jpg[/IMG_thumb]
So cute. :h:
[QUOTE=Emz;23602277][IMG_thumb]http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/775/dsc0425qu.jpg[/IMG_thumb]
That girl to the left really ruins what would have been a perfect picture but the little girl is so adorable - so it is still a good picture.[/QUOTE]
I thought the girl to the left made it interesting, but true, in this case cropping could change the picture a lot.
Thanks for the C&C :)
So im not too sure about this one but i think its the best out of the bunch of pictures i took with my blackberry camera.
[IMG]http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs166.snc4/37629_1544909778335_1102725478_31529403_2340671_n.jpg[/IMG]
The problem with the girl to the left is she is too distracting from the intended subject of the photo. If she didn't have such a, uh ... "fleshy" outfit on she wouldn't be distracting. Not to mention the outfit doesn't suit her body type and so it makes her stand out even more. It is one of the rare cases where I agree that cropping it would improve the image but most of the time all I do is resize my images and perhaps use sharpen. I prefer the natural look in a photo.
[editline]01:55AM[/editline]
Rougelead: you could do with being closer to the dog and having the dog more central. Pretty nice quality from a camera phone though.
[QUOTE=Emz;23602277]
[IMG_thumb]http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/775/dsc0425qu.jpg[/IMG_thumb]
That girl to the left really ruins what would have been a perfect picture but the little girl is so adorable - so it is still a good picture.
[/QUOTE]
I dunno why, but I like it. It seems to show two different phases in life, one of innocence and the other of all out skimpiness
You do make a good point actually nice idea. I still find her a bit distracting but when you think of it like that it makes the picture seem a lot nicer.
[QUOTE=Neolithic v7;23601835]Facepunch, how to you feel about editing and cropping photos? I seem to be the only one who likes pure, unaltered images.
C&C very much appreciated.[/QUOTE]
Editing and cropping photos is part of the creative process. There is no merit or glory to abstaining from it.
Half of your pictures are ruined by tilt. Either edit your photos or learn to hold a camera straight.
[QUOTE=Neolithic v7;23601835][IMG_thumb]http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/7461/dsc0632n.jpg[/IMG_thumb][/QUOTE]
I didn't see this one before. Did you edit it in to your post later? This is the one image I agree with sin2051 on as this image is really nice but I personally think just a quick change and it seems even better.
[img]http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/6981/testgk.jpg[/img]
Though it is a fabulous picture as it is. The sky is a beautiful colour. :h:
[QUOTE=bopie;23557388]ALSO, does anyone know about the 70-200 f/4L? I want an L series with flexibility for general shooting, sans paying out the ass.[/QUOTE]
A 70-200 f/4 isn't going to be very flexible, and you won't be able to use it indoors at all, due to both the slowness of the lens and the extreme minimum focal length.
If you want something flexible, go with something with the range of a kit lens. If the image quality of the kit isn't enough, get something like the Canon 17-55 or 15-85, or the Tamron 17-50.
If you're desperate for extreme image quality, go with something like the 28-70L, assuming you have a crop body, but don't be a gear whore, because it doesn't make your photography any better.
If you aren't getting paid for your images, you probably shouldn't be buying L glass anyway. There are [B]plenty [/B]of fantastic lenses out there for amateurs and prosumers.
[QUOTE=Emz;23607296]I didn't see this one before. Did you edit it in to your post later? This is the one image I agree with sin2051 on as this image is really nice but I personally think just a quick change and it seems even better.
[IMG]http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/6981/testgk.jpg[/IMG]
Though it is a fabulous picture as it is. The sky is a beautiful colour. :h:[/QUOTE]
That does look cool. And yes I added it.
It looks like you just didn't tilt the picture, but actually changed the perspective? Being aware of this bugs me, even though I would never be able to tell which was the original if I didn't know. Meh, I'll just have to get over it.
[editline]05:00AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=sin2051;23607091]Editing and cropping photos is part of the creative process. There is no merit or glory to abstaining from it.
Half of your pictures are ruined by tilt. Either edit your photos or learn to hold a camera straight.[/QUOTE]
Of course it's more challenging to get everything right as you're taking the picture. You don't necessarily have to appritiate it though.
All I did was rotate it and sharpen it ever so slightly.
[QUOTE=Emz;23555885]she's a bit hidden in the dark[/QUOTE]
heh
[QUOTE=Perfumly;23608423]heh[/QUOTE]
exemplary mod behavior
[editline]10:57PM[/editline]
god damn it your avatar keeps making me want to watch brodyquest
[QUOTE=sin2051;23607422]A 70-200 f/4 isn't going to be very flexible, and you won't be able to use it indoors at all, due to both the slowness of the lens and the extreme minimum focal length.
If you want something flexible, go with something with the range of a kit lens. If the image quality of the kit isn't enough, get something like the Canon 17-55 or 15-85, or the Tamron 17-50.
If you're desperate for extreme image quality, go with something like the 28-70L, assuming you have a crop body, but don't be a gear whore, because it doesn't make your photography any better.
If you aren't getting paid for your images, you probably shouldn't be buying L glass anyway. There are [B]plenty [/B]of fantastic lenses out there for amateurs and prosumers.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the info. I have the 28-105 3.5-4.5 usm that I bought used for $80 to hold me over until I get something better. I mostly want long(ish) focal length for bokeh, but still retaining the ability to zoom in and out so I can frame things more flexibly. I'd prefer to have a lens I could take everywhere and have a wide variety of options without lugging around extra gear. I've used my aunt's 28-135 IS usm, and while it was nice, I feel like I could find a better lens. I'm getting $500 for graduation and if I need to I could scrape together another hundred or two. I don't want to derail, but any suggestions?
Also, content.
[img]http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/85/beandvdntsc.jpg[/img]
I know its nothing amazing, and the hand and mirror interrupt the picture, but it was my best shot all day haha.
[IMG]http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs229.snc4/38791_143177095708553_100000487908172_369141_2982496_n.jpg[/IMG]
Spring break in DC. Took this in the bus on program. Looking back i lol'd that i even attempted.
D40 - f/5.6 - 2.2 sec - ISO 800
[QUOTE=sin2051;23607422]A 70-200 f/4 isn't going to be very flexible, and you won't be able to use it indoors at all, due to both the slowness of the lens and the extreme minimum focal length.
If you want something flexible, go with something with the range of a kit lens. If the image quality of the kit isn't enough, get something like the Canon 17-55 or 15-85, or the Tamron 17-50.
If you're desperate for extreme image quality, go with something like the 28-70L, assuming you have a crop body, but don't be a gear whore, because it doesn't make your photography any better.
If you aren't getting paid for your images, you probably shouldn't be buying L glass anyway. There are [B]plenty [/B]of fantastic lenses out there for amateurs and prosumers.[/QUOTE]
i found you can get a lot of shots with a 50mm and the 1.8 is cheap but still quality, even the 1.4 isnt that expensive iirc the top end 1.2 cost over a grand and i doubt it gives 4x the image quality. also both the 1.8 and 1.4 have small filters 52 and 58 mm so filters dont cost the earth either. i use my 50 1.8 95% of the time, what i would like to go along with it is a ultra wide zoom 10-22 just a issue of money and finding one which is the best value for money
[QUOTE=latirCole;23621343]206/365:
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/latircoleetti/4827509779][img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4134/4827509779_ec759209b5.jpg[/img][/url]
yeah...the grain.[/QUOTE]
I like it. Alot.
It does feel a little unbalanced with the table taking up so much of the frame. And the ball in the background is distracting.
[QUOTE=bopie;23621626]I like it. Alot.
It does feel a little unbalanced with the table taking up so much of the frame. And the ball in the background is distracting.[/QUOTE]
Yeah i agree about the balance being off, i took the shot a weird angle, and didn't realise until late. I liked the ball being in the background (i'm assuming you mean the white ball?)
Crazy blue.
Oh, by the way, I just flew to LA for Siggraph. Gonna be taking lots of pictures of booth babes, beach babes and two dollar hookers.
Also other stuff.
Probably Gonna make a thread soon, once I get the start of the adventure uploaded. :buddy:
[QUOTE=waylander;23613573]what i would like to go along with it is a ultra wide zoom 10-22 just a issue of money and finding one which is the best value for money[/QUOTE]
best ultra wide zoom is the Tokina 11-16 f2.8
It's sharp, very wide and the cheapest one around I believe.
I am going to get one to when I have the money
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
