|
Post by Steve (FloppyDog) on Sept 30, 2009 6:37:30 GMT -5
This is a test, I've been having problems attaching photos. Attachments:
|
|
OrcaBob
Lead Photographer
Frank Zappa lives
Posts: 394
|
Post by OrcaBob on Sept 30, 2009 7:17:52 GMT -5
It loads, but slowly. I noticed the file is about 710k. Most of mine range from 150k to 400k.
|
|
|
Post by john101477 on Sept 30, 2009 10:25:28 GMT -5
didn't load for me.
|
|
|
Post by NCPhotoTrekker on Sept 30, 2009 12:48:21 GMT -5
I get the red "x" on my end.
|
|
OrcaBob
Lead Photographer
Frank Zappa lives
Posts: 394
|
Post by OrcaBob on Sept 30, 2009 14:52:12 GMT -5
Shot through a patch of tall grass and horsetails with 80-200mm, f/2.8, max aperture. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Steve (FloppyDog) on Oct 1, 2009 7:46:01 GMT -5
Second try This is Mountain Ash (often mistaken for red elderberry which has longer and fewer leaves). I shot this over the weekend on a trail near Mt. Rainier. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Neva on Oct 2, 2009 21:25:03 GMT -5
I don't know how well this is going to come out. I discovered it yesterday under the carport. I sprayed it with water to try to bring out some of the detail of it. I also tried different angles so I wouldn't capture the beams of the carport.... Attachments:
|
|
OrcaBob
Lead Photographer
Frank Zappa lives
Posts: 394
|
Post by OrcaBob on Oct 2, 2009 21:41:58 GMT -5
At today's wedding rehearsal, this three-year-old niece of the bride was just a natural for the camera. I shot with my sister's 80mm f/1.4 prime for the first time. The lighting was poor, so I opened up the aperture all the way. I was amazed at how short the depth of field was! I was shooting from 6-8ft back and focused on her forehead. Her eyes were out of focus! Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by NCPhotoTrekker on Oct 3, 2009 3:53:37 GMT -5
At today's wedding rehearsal, this three-year-old niece of the bride was just a natural for the camera. I shot with my sister's 80mm f/1.4 prime for the first time. The lighting was poor, so I opened up the aperture all the way. I was amazed at how short the depth of field was! I was shooting from 6-8ft back and focused on her forehead. Her eyes were out of focus! Wonderful shot, and you have now seen the reason that those superfast lenses are so great for portraiture. Since the only thing you really want to focus on is the eyes, you can soften the rest of the face while nearly removing the background. I would love to get the 50mm f/1.2L lens, but the blamed things is like $1200. I think its Leica that has a lens that tests out to f/0.9...talk about a narrow depth of field!
|
|
|
Post by john101477 on Oct 3, 2009 10:53:04 GMT -5
Great image Bob. Just remember what that narrow ap does when your at the wedding lol. You could screw up a lot of pics real quick when trying to get both bride and groom lol. 0.9? Wow talk about having to have your focus spot on. I like my 50 1.8 but I hear amazing things about the 50 1.4
|
|
OrcaBob
Lead Photographer
Frank Zappa lives
Posts: 394
|
Post by OrcaBob on Oct 3, 2009 13:03:27 GMT -5
Actually wide ap, John. But the lesson is learned, I hope. Like I said, it's the first time I user used that lens. Now that I've seen the results on the computer, I'm going to be careful when I use that glass. I don't plan on using it exclusively. And when I do use it, it won't always be at f/1.4. The biggest shock wasn't the shallow DoF, but the fact that it's a prime. No zoom! Zooming is done by moving. And I took that shot of the girl while I was among the rows of folding chairs. I was limited in my back-and-forth movement. I managed to get the shot of the girl, but being among the chairs that allowed me almost no range of movement blew a great family candid. I think I'll be using the 80-200mm f/2.8 most of the time today.
|
|
|
Post by NCPhotoTrekker on Oct 3, 2009 14:48:35 GMT -5
Most serious photographers swear by their primes, and they are usually sharper than zooms, but I tell you what, a zoom lens can be a godsend for several reasons. The primary one is what you mentioned. Second of all, you can crop to get the precise framing, but you will lose all sorts of resolution when trimming. Much easier to adjust your focal length a tad and keep all your pixels in tact.
For a landscape photographer, it would be impractical to have primes to cover the 16-640mm that my zooms cover. I would need a pack mule and a moving truck to go on a hike.
|
|
|
Post by john101477 on Oct 3, 2009 23:26:02 GMT -5
Everyone is a smart elick today lol. At least you knew what I meant. I would use the zoom for the wedding itself and the prime for after pictures when you can pose the people.
|
|
OrcaBob
Lead Photographer
Frank Zappa lives
Posts: 394
|
Post by OrcaBob on Oct 4, 2009 1:35:41 GMT -5
Since I was second-shooter to my sister, she got first choice of gear. I had the 80-200mm f/2.8, the 80mm f/1.4, and my dead-dog Tamron 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3.
I used the Tamron (locked max wide) for the first part of the ceremony. I was near the entrance in the back of the wedding area and caught the wedding party entering by pairs.
I immediately circled around to the front side and did a hasty switch to the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8. There I caught the bride, the groom, the bridesmaids and grooms and the parents.
For the outdoor reception under a huge canopy, I used the Tamron with bounce flash from the SB-800. I caught candids among the crowd.
The crowd then went indoors for a banquet and dance. More candids. It was dark, so I switched to the 80mm f/1.4 and switched between ambient light and bounce-flash. But I did use the slow Tamron with flash for some wide shots. That 80mm prime is narrow. When I photographed three ladies posing close together I had to step back... back... back... about 20ft. That distance is tough to maintain a clear line-of-sight in a crowd.
I'll post a few samples in the next day or two.
|
|
|
Post by Steve (FloppyDog) on Oct 4, 2009 7:27:50 GMT -5
At today's wedding rehearsal, this three-year-old niece of the bride was just a natural for the camera. I shot with my sister's 80mm f/1.4 prime for the first time. The lighting was poor, so I opened up the aperture all the way. I was amazed at how short the depth of field was! I was shooting from 6-8ft back and focused on her forehead. Her eyes were out of focus! This is a really sweet photo Bob, and a great lens choice for portraits. (but the 1.4 makes the dof tricky to deal with)
|
|