wndrlst

Haven't contributed for a while. Been a little busy...

Hope you guys are well!

<iframe src="https://www.flickr.com/photos/moxiephotos/16271209632/player/" width="800" height="534" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>



Also...
pttl went to the dark side??

pttl

Saw your shots of the little one on flickr...How sweet! Good work Mom!!!!

SamDoe1

fvck me running, that's one exposure? You must be kidding me.

What all did you dump from Canon and what all did you buy on Nikon?

pttl

No, I'm not kidding. It is surely one exposure. Coming from a canon crop to the Nikon FF is truly astonishing. I didn't want to go Canon FF because their FF offerings couldn't do what I want.

I'm still in the process of "dumping" my canon gear. It seems no one really wants it.

I got a D750 and a couple lenses.

wndrlst

Thanks! Congrats on the new gear!

Sarlacc

Make up artist friend and model friend have been wanting to do something for awhile. So, they decided they wanted to do an elven style shoot.

I'm still playing with these...as this is the first time Ive used photoshop in a loooong time, and I'm re-learning some thing. But since it was an Elf, I used PS to try and add an "ethereal" glow to her.

Not sure if I want to start trying to add more to the frame than just the couple trees we had...but this is what I have so far.

Undying Dreams

iTrader: (3)

Right?! What a pain in the ass. I have my stuff listed on Fred Miranda, Craigslist and Amazon.

Congrats on the upgrade though, that's quite a jump!

I picked up a D7000 and 50mm 1.8G. When I do sell the Canon stuff I'm going with a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VR and Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR. Probably get the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 also.

pttl

Thanks! Yeah I'm finding moving to FF takes a different way of thinking in order to get the shots I was so used to getting on the crop camera. But the benefits are astounding.

I finally sold my 70-300L last night. I'm listing one piece at a time. Next will probably be my Sigma 150-500. A GREAT lens especially on a crop body.

I LOVE those Tamron lenses. I was able to pick up a 70-200 2.8 VC and it's fantastic. I was going to get the Tokina 16-28 2.8 but I didn't like that it doesn't take filters. So I got a Nikon 16-35 f4. I might get one later and dedicate it to astro photography.

Undying Dreams

iTrader: (3)

What's your take on the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC vs Nikon's version?

pttl

I never used the Nikon version. But all the reviews say it's as sharp and has less CA. I can tell you, the Bokeh is really nice, its effin sharp, and the VC is awesome! It allows sharp hand held shots easily. Plus its $1000 LESS than the Nikon...I bought a MINT used copy from a guy in north jersey for $900.

Undying Dreams

iTrader: (3)

Awesome to hear, I might have to look into that as well! Thank you!

Although, I won't be looking forward to carrying a tele that's twice as heavy as my f/4 version.

pttl

It's not that big or heavy at all.

Sarlacc

BUT...is it parafocal?

Nikons 70-200 2.8 VR I is parafocal the II is not and I don't think the Tamron is either.

Not important to you guys...but to me it is...means if I set focus while at 70mm...focus will NOT change when I zoom in or out. Much like a Cinelens...still lenses typically are not like that. There is a VERY short list of still zoom lenses that are...and the vI of the Nikon is on that list. And I own one

The Tamron 11-16 is also on that list.

PortlandRL

This 'Eaglelux' brand traffic signal has been hanging over the intersection of Broadway and Jefferson in downtown Portland since at least the late 1940s, its only alteration being the conversion from incandescent to LED. Years of wet NW weather has given it a well-worn patina (I believe it was originally dark green).

SW Broadway &amp; Columbia St. by deloreanman14, on Flickr

MarbleGT

Going from a not so great camera and shit lenses to a great camera and all good lenses should be illegal. First shoot with new gear...call me impressed.

SamDoe1

If I can offer some feedback on this one...

When I think elven, I think bright and colorful. I'd increase the brightness on foreground subjects and kick the saturation up quite a bit. The version you have seems to be a bit dull to me to fit the elven theme. The shot itself is good though.

Sarlacc

Agree. I was playing with adjusting the foreground levels. Got tired and fed up for the night, lol.

Im going to revisit these shots later when I have more time. But I definitely agree with your comments, thanks.

Steven Bell

iTrader: (2)

srika

some behind the scenes


5B8A4854sw by Rasidel Slika, on Flickr

e30cabrio

iTrader: (6)

Really great pics guys, I just got an EOS T5i, I plan to use my EF-S 55-250mm at a hockey game next month. Any input as to how to get better than crappy shots would be much appreciated.

pttl

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/petshots/16305265615" title="Philly traffic n train 432 by Paul, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7566/16305265615_5f50227fc9_b.jpg" width="1024" height="684" alt="Philly traffic n train 432"></a>

Sarlacc

I haven't had time to deal with the photos, and a friend of mine who is really good with PS wanted to take a crack at them. So, I let him have the files and have at it. I gave some notes and he tweaked, and this is the result. He more or less conveyed my vision on the first try. Pretty good for a collaboration. I quite liked working that way to some degree.

pttl

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/petshots/16312442112" title="rose reflection e 488 by Paul, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7469/16312442112_1e45956e6f_b.jpg" width="1024" height="684" alt="rose reflection e 488"></a>

<a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/petshots/16313310145" title="Single pale rose e 476 by Paul, on Flickr"><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7550/16313310145_c0e7b08866_h.jpg" width="1068" height="1600" alt="Single pale rose e 476"></a>

Undying Dreams

iTrader: (3)

Practice panning shots now, moving cars, bicycles, whatever. Panning can be a hard skill to master. And keep an eye on your shutter speed, you may need to bump the ISO to make it faster. I know my old 55-250 was slow in the tele range.

I have a 70-200 f/4 if you're interested.

is300eater

no, by bumping the ISO (during panning shots), with the shutter speed slow (or slower), thus cause the blurring effects, you'd have a larger depth of field thus making focusing on the moving subject easier. But when I do panning shots, I don't ever bump the ISO since I usually slow the shutter speed down so slow that aperture is automatically stops down. I guess it just depends on how much available light there is

Undying Dreams

iTrader: (3)

Yeah, I would only bump it up if there was too little light, thus making the shutter so slow you can't get anything in focus.

SamDoe1

What he's trying to say is that you do want a slower shutter speed (within reason) so that you can blur out the background to convey a sense of motion. Panning shots are probably the hardest to properly capture, they are for sure the hardest I've ever come across. You need to follow your target at the same speed to allow it to be in focus while blurring out the background. Not doing that will yield a picture of a subject that appears to be stationary which = boring.

To the guy who wants to learn how to make good shots, please read around the internet for camera basics and basics of light. Starting with panning shots is a sure fire way to get disappointed. You need a lot more experience before you get into that. Shit, I can't even do those properly and I've been shooting for years.

is300eater

just for f%^'s sake, I decided to do some panning shots while I was out

<iframe src="https://www.flickr.com/photos/63271580@N00/16133665698/player/" width="1024" height="576" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>

srika

There is no requirement of having a slow shutter to get a blurred background on panning shots - the blur comes primarily from the motion of you moving the camera as the car goes by, with the shutter speed being a secondary factor. Obviously this also has to do with how fast the subject is moving. If you have a slower moving vehicle you can give the impression of it moving much faster than it really is, by using a slower shutter.

The main key for objects moving at a good pace is the aperture. From my experience having a faster shutter speed will give you a better chance of getting a sharp shot.

Also, since you have such a tight aperture, you may have to bump the ISO to adjust for exposure, depending on light.

Here is one of my fav panning shots from last year, at 1/100th F/18 ISO 500:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/delobbo/13502222845

is300eater

well I learned it from this video (a long time ago) that said you should go slower in shutter speed, but yes... the speed of the object has a lot to do with it... the picture above, of the MB he wasn't going fast at all, I wanted to blur the effects even more

Sarlacc

You realize this ranks up there with one of the dumbest things you've said, right?

srika

no, I don't. how so?

I'm just explaining from experience.

tell me how, I might have to elaborate.

srika

there is def more than one way to do it.

Sarlacc

Your shutter has EVERYTHING to do with a motion shot. A deeper aperture will give you more DoF to play with while trying to nail these shots. But more importantly its your shutter...not the speed of your object or your pan that allows you capture "motion blur" You take the same shot with a 1/100 and 1/500....The first one will give you motion blur. The later will give you a crystal "frozen in time image"

You can adjust your ISO and your aperture around your planned shutter speed...but shutter IS the reason behind creating the feeling of motion.

Choosing your shutter just allows you to decide how much or little blur you want in your image.

The movement of your lens with the object can accentuate the motion...once again BASED off the shutter you choose.

Its all based around your shutter.

srika

yeah, that's true.

When I mentioned aperture it was in the interest of panning cars in daylight. You need to set that tight aperture IN ORDER to shoot at 1/100th during the day. So I would say both things are related. But, I think the aperture setting comes first, then the shutter. I did mention light and speed, which this is related to.

I think people mostly know if you shoot at 1/2500th you are gonna get a frozen frame as opposed to say 1/100th. But to me 1/100th isn't a slow shutter speed. This might just be a question of definitions - I think it gets "slow" around 1/40th or so. Anyways.

Undying Dreams

iTrader: (3)

srika, although that is a really clear shot, the wheels aren't as blurred as they could be, meaning your shutter should have been a bit slower, I think anyway. I like the wheels to be completely blurred.

srika

Agreed there is def more than one way to do it. You may even want more blur for that "action" look where only some parts of the car are sharp. I was just trying to say there is no definite rule that you have to follow in doing it. Personal preference also comes in to play, I like seeing the wheel pattern slightly in that 458 shot, for instance.

SamDoe1

There are lots of variables as you said but shutter speed should as low as possible to still yield a shot that displays motion blur. Yes, a faster speed is fine for fast moving targets and a slower speed is required for slow moving targets, there aren't any absolutes here. Aperture helps in creating a larger DOF to accommodate for any change in distance of camera to subject but doesn't at all directly effect the motion blur.

1/100th is a fairly low shutter speed for something that moves fast like a car.

Sarlacc

ding ding ding, thank you

srika

are you a doorbell?


I can agree 1/100th is a slow shutter speed. A slow shutter speed that is achievable in daylight shooting, due to aperture.