pttl

Pretty cool! Is that done in camera, a Sony thing, or did you you pp it that way?

slickooz

Milky way by slickoooz, on Flickr

pttl

^
Fan -effin - tastic Dude!

I asked you on flickr...where did you find a place dark enough around NJ to get the Milky way? looks kinda like Cape May. I've been wanting to get it for some time now.

slickooz

Thanks Paul! I responded to you on Flickr. It was in Avalon, New Jersey. I was about 2 hours south of Freehold.

is300eater

In camera

srika

I'd have to ultimately disagree with this. Because the bottom line is, it's a great lens in terms of art effect, sharpness and IQ. It has a specific "artsy" purpose and when used for that purpose returns splendid images.

jupitersolo

He did say, half of the people. I starting to assist with instruction, and I have come across more than a few that think they can't get a landscape image w/o a "L" lens.

When I show them they can, they are still like, I have to have a "L". And I know it's for the factor....

pttl

Cool! I've got to head out that way and give it a shot. What did you use to light your foreground?

slickooz

I have a few L lenses, that makes me a pro.

slickooz

We tried couple several things. But what I found worked best was those cheap LED video lights.

srika

and I said, "ultimately".

but I get what you are saying, this is in reference to those "gear"-centric people who don't actually shoot photos.

Sarlacc

He's always gotta know more, always gotta be the contrarian

Glad to see the comedy hasn't left the room.

is300eater

as opposed to spending $1000-$2500 to do a rather novelty effect? lol... I actually own a t/s lens, and I won't even bother mounting that lens for that. In fact, I've only used the "tilt" part of the lens ONCE just for shitz and giggles (when it first got delivered). FOR ME, the toy/miniature effect is a total novelty, I would never spend that kind of money for a lens to do just that. THAT SAID, why not use the "fake" miniature mode by a push of a button?

srika

slickooz

One more Milky
Milk Please! by slickoooz, on Flickr

Nicks2001tl

Very nice!

Mizouse

I just had a cookie. Would've loved to have that milk with it

stogie1020

Doesn't the "L" stand for "Landscape?"

einsatz

Just like the "P" mode in the camera stands for "Professional" right?

Sly Raskal

iTrader: (1)

And the "A" is for Amateur.

stogie1020

jupitersolo

srika

compare this f/1.2 shot with Sigma 50 1.4 at f/2.0:

4D2C5372sw by Rasidel Slika, on Flickr

- the L is clearly better.

slickooz

You got a sharp copy of Siggy 50. I would never let it gooooooo.

pttl

Yep...I actually like it better than the L, in those 2 shots.

srika

damn is that uncommon? yeah its IQ is as good as a L lens.

Italiano

Both nice shots..But I agree the L looks better..Mainly due to the focal length with better compression...

srika

look at the detail in the hair on the 1.2 tho - that is like missing on the 2.0 :-/

pttl

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/petshots/14061399993" title="faces in Philly phtm 9829-31. by Paul, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5159/14061399993_c05fb804c9_b.jpg" width="1024" height="683" alt="faces in Philly phtm 9829-31."></a>

Sarlacc

That is simply because of where your focus is...on the 1.2 The focus is more on the plane with the hair at the top of her head as her lips and chin start to fall off in to the softness.

On the 2.0 the focus is more on the plane of her nose as he eyes, lips, chin are tack sharp.

And with both lenses being at extremely shallow depth, that makes a huge difference...not the lenses themselves in this case.

MC MiYoung3269

Rig shots are fun

slickooz

Cardinal by slickoooz, on Flickr

slickooz

Great Blue Heron by slickoooz, on Flickr

pttl

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/petshots/13883694977" title="OC fishin pier BW 9979-82 MarS by Paul, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7186/13883694977_94d5302321_b.jpg" width="1024" height="683" alt="OC fishin pier BW 9979-82 MarS"></a>

is300eater

shot another fashion show tonight, this one was held inside a fancy department store after closing... the spot lighting coming directly above was frustrating to deal with

Eco Fashion Week, Vancouver/April 2014 @Holt Renfrew by trainerKEN., on Flickr

Sarlacc

I think the little bit of top light worked to your advantage. It added some much needed back/edge light to help separate your subjects. And it helps break up an otherwise boring floor.

Take advantage of what your environment gives you!

is300eater

the majority of the runway wasn't bad in terms of lighting, there was a lot of timing involved, you'd want to snap the pic(s) at a certain point other wise you get the eyes sunken in look... THAT said, at the end of the runway, is when they do a few poses, and that was terrible, the spot light would be either behind them or directly above, like this:


_DSC8543
by trainerKEN., on Flickr


when I shot the same fashion show last Oct (Eco Fashion), it was a different location and they had these two very powerful spot lights coming from behind the photographer's pit going across the runway... simply looked better on the models... I mean, I know.... it's suppose to be about the garments/design, and not so much the models... but still, I'm just not keen on that eyes sunken in look
_DSC1374 by trainerKEN., on Flickr

Sarlacc

are you able to use a flash to counter balance when there is direct top light?

is300eater

flash is generally NOT allowed at fashion shows (from the photographer's pit)

Steven Bell

iTrader: (2)

Love those rolling shots.