Photography Thread
Comments
-
rjsterry said:
Ah, the second was just zoomed in to compensate for the brutal compression. Agree that the first is better.briantrumpet said:BTW, I think I prefer the first version, as I don't find the composition ratios as pleasing in the cropped one, and it foregrounds the sign on the pavement and loses its shadow too.
Just a reminder that the *maximum* direct upload size here is 335 pixels. Almost worse than nothing. It never does your photos justice (or anyone else's).
Although I've gone off Wordpress, as not only is any increase in storage stupidly expensive (at least in comparison with Google), but they've also cut the free storage down to 1gb per blog (used to be 3gb, which all of mine are), it's still worth having a blog or two for storing linkable photos.
Just as an example (right up your street), the first uploaded here, the second linked from my churches blog.
2 -
Talk of shadows reminded me of this I took back in the summer
2 -
Another disappearing person.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Just a couple of phone photos taken on my way to the pub...
4 -
Long exposure in calmer conditions.
3 -
Picture this. Driving through countryside and go round a bend. See a scene that could not have been lit better by professionals, and you have your camera.
Stop, get out with the camera, and clouds block the sun. Arghhhhh!
Yeah, no photo worth sharing. Small consolation is that I saw it.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Just touristy tat, but it was nice day, before and after work, with no shower dodging required.
3 -
Sitting outside a pub in the sun. Bliss!The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Double locks?
EDIT yes it is!0 -
-
Some thoroughly miserable weather today.
4 -
Both work exceedingly well. One tip I read is that if you have a B&W option to use that for composition, then switch back as colours impact your judgement. Something to consider.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Hey thanks. Nice tip, I could see that being useful.pblakeney said:Both work exceedingly well. One tip I read is that if you have a B&W option to use that for composition, then switch back as colours impact your judgement. Something to consider.
Edit
Something I'll add. I used a mirrorless, which makes it easier with images like this, mainly concerning depth of field blur. What you see in the screen is what the photo will actually look like.1 -
Made it quite fun doing a Dartmoor walk with another photographer. Less fun was my foot slipping and half of me plunging into the East Okement, with my Sony camera in a pocket in the half that plunged. It's currently sitting in a bowl of rice over a radiator, but wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't feel like booting up again, having seen the amount of condensation on the inside of the screen, when I left it in the sun during our lunch.
So the sundew shot was done on my mobile, which came out quite well.
2 -
Bummer, hopefully if you leave it long enough to dry out it could make a comeback. I’ve had condensation in the screen of my Samsung (through rain, not dunking) and it’s been ok.
The Samsung’s been living dangerously recently. Mounted on a lightweight tripod, timer pressed, I’ve left to do its thing, whilst the incoming waves wash around it. Then wait (for what seems longer than it probably was) the waves to recede and go in to retrieve. Trouble was the shots were cr@p, so it was risking it all for nothing.
0 -
I guess I'll find out tomorrow. Will probably go for a second-hand one on eBay if this one refuses to start after desiccation. They go for about £160.0
-
🤣🤣🤣masjer said:Bummer, hopefully if you leave it long enough to dry out it could make a comeback. I’ve had condensation in the screen of my Samsung (through rain, not dunking) and it’s been ok.
The Samsung’s been living dangerously recently. Mounted on a lightweight tripod, timer pressed, I’ve left to do its thing, whilst the incoming waves wash around it. Then wait (for what seems longer than it probably was) the waves to recede and go in to retrieve. Trouble was the shots were cr@p, so it was risking it all for nothing.
Sorry, I know that not funny for you. The rest of us though...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
You need to ensure electronics are completely dry before turning them on, so I would give it a lot longer. I know that's annoying.briantrumpet said:I guess I'll find out tomorrow. Will probably go for a second-hand one on eBay if this one refuses to start after desiccation. They go for about £160.
0 -
This could equally have gone in the 'humidity in house' thread, given today's weather. I don't think my sheets are going to dry much, indoors or out.
5 -
That's a cracker - first thing I did this morning was Google 'how to photograph cobwebs' as I saw a fantastic opportunity this morning but my previous attempts have been rubbish. I take it your camera is working again then or is that on a phone?briantrumpet said:This could equally have gone in the 'humidity in house' thread, given today's weather. I don't think my sheets are going to dry much, indoors or out.
0 -
Looks like I'm getting a new camera as an early birthday / Christmas present off teh wife ready for our cruise to the fjords and, hopefully, Northern Lights action in a few weeks. Getting Canon EOS 250d which is giving me a far greater range of econd hand lens options than my current Sony so I'll also be buying myself a nice fast, wide-angle lens.0
-
Thanks - for once, pretty much what I wanted, with either side of the spider being out of focus in the depth of field.Pross said:
That's a cracker - first thing I did this morning was Google 'how to photograph cobwebs' as I saw a fantastic opportunity this morning but my previous attempts have been rubbish. I take it your camera is working again then or is that on a phone?briantrumpet said:This could equally have gone in the 'humidity in house' thread, given today's weather. I don't think my sheets are going to dry much, indoors or out.
Cobwebs can be annoyingly tricky, so I just go for trial and error and take a lot of shots. Things that seem to work are contre jour lighting on a longish lens with a dark background, and trying to persuade your autofocus to pick up the spider itself (as in this one).
Oh, and this is on a slightly dodgy old HX50 with a faulty screen and lens cover, and a small mark on the lens. I've bought a second hand HX60 from eBay which should arrive later in the week, as I doubt the submerged one is going to spring back into life... its submersion actually turned the camera on when I took it out of my pocket, so the damage had probably already been done, or when I gently persuaded the lens to retract.
Next time I try to cross a river, I'll know to put the camera in the rucksack and to throw the rucksack to the other side first... I'd done three dry boulders, and the last wet one was more slippery than I'd anticipated. At least I didn't break any bones.0 -
St Davids cathedral.
4 -
A question for those of you who know more about kit than me. I'm about get a new camera, Canon EOS 250d, as an early birthday / Christmas present ahead of my Norway cruise next month. It comes with a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 DC III kit lens which should be fine for day to day snaps but I want to ensure I get the best possible photos when / if we do get to see the Northern Lights so I'm looking at second-hand options for a replacement. The two best options within budget that I've seen are:
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 dc art hsm
Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 at-x pro dx ii
Both of these get good reviews and are both designed for APS-C sensors. The Sigma in particular gets great reviews for picture quality and I've seen it called the best lens available for APS-C cameras. I've looked at images taken with the lens (and often similar / lower spec Canon cameras) on Flickr and have been very impressed. As I enjoy night photography, the faster speed is very appealing. However, the focal length range is minimal and overlaps fully with the kit lens. It is also heavier and longer than the Tokina but that doesn't really bother me.
The Tokina is slower which will be a slight downside for doing astro landscapes but still an improvement on the f3.5 I've been using on my Sony A58. However, the focal length range will expand what comes with the kit lens. It is also available around £150 cheaper which I'm keen not to use as a deciding factor but does come into the equation with the cost of the holiday (and buying a load of new clothes to take!).
My heart is erring towards the Sigma and it feels the better option for the night shooting as I can always take panoramas / mosaics if the lens isn't wide enough to capture everything in one shot. However, if we get to see the Northern Lights I suspect I'll want to capture as much sky as possible in a single shot as I doubt a panorama will work well with the moving light. The main issue is whether 16mm maximum (24mm full frame equivalent) zoom is going to be enough for other photos but I have the kit lens if that does prove a problem. There is also a fairly basic Canon telephoto zoom lying around somewhere (80-300mm I think) that I bought my wife years ago for a very early Canon DSLR when she was more into photography than me so I would be covering quite a large range with those 3 lenses even if the image quality on 2 of them might be a bit more limited.
In time I'll get both of the above and then start on a few others like a decent telephoto and a macro. However, for now I think I should go with my head and buy the Tokina but would welcome any thoughts and comments on my thinking (if anyone has used either / both than that would be even better!).0 -
If you were to only have one lens then I'd go for the Sigma.
As you will have the kit lens then I'd prioritise the Tokina purely on a focal length basis.
Edit - No experience of using either.
My full bag would have wide, normal and tele zooms. Fast zooms are nice but expensive and heavy. Then go for primes for specific use once you know your interests.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
Pretty much my thinking. I saw one professional review that described the Sigma as 3 fast primes in one lens. I can pick it up for around £400 in excellent second-hand condition with a 6 month warranty. If I eventually get both of the above the kit lens will be limited to just 55mm use which would be rare. I think I'll bite the bullet and buy the Tokina, the vast majority of my photography is landscape so the wide angle will be useful and worse case is either the kit lens or taking wider than required photos then cropping.pblakeney said:If you were to only have one lens then I'd go for the Sigma.
As you will have the kit lens then I'd prioritise the Tokina purely on a focal length basis.
Edit - No experience of using either.
My full bag would have wide, normal and tele zooms. Fast zooms are nice but expensive and heavy. Then go for primes for specific use once you know your interests.0 -
I have previously had the Sigma lens, albeit as a Nikon fit. I used to have that lens, a 24-70 and a 70-300. I found that the 18-35 was the one which I got most usage from. It is great for landscape and also city/architecture.
I no longer have the lens as traded whole lot in for Nikon Z upgrade but would not hesitate to buy Sigma nor that specific lens again if suitable fit.1 -
I just use a fixed 50mm lens on a full frame camera. None of this zooming business.
0 -
TheBigBean said:
I just use a fixed 50mm lens on a full frame camera. None of this zooming business.
I did for years, on my OM1, but then splashed out on a 35-70mm zoom (I think), which Just stayed on the camera. I enjoyed the extra bit of flexibility.0 -
Most of my current stuff is done at the widest available angle of 17mm, I very rarely zoom out further than 35mm (abeit on a crop sensor).TheBigBean said:I just use a fixed 50mm lens on a full frame camera. None of this zooming business.
0
