Photography related discussions

[mike c]

There it is!

i was supposed to spring for it recently ... but logic, reason, amount of money all told me to stop obsessing about it

1) just didn't make sense to buy something so specialized if my lens lineup wasn't complete.

2) i was afraid the 200/2 would be too awkward to bring out most of the time (awkward from everyone looking at you)

3) i was sure using off cam flash would give me better portraits than the 200/2

4) i wanted to make sure if 200mm is workable for me ... just recently an 85 on crop (136mm equivalent) felt a bit long for me.

5) my bank account is wishing an image stabilized version of the 135mm would come out soon ...

 

[Highlander]

i was supposed to spring for it recently ... but logic, reason, amount of money all told me to stop obsessing about it

Who are you trying to kid? Resistance is futile!

...didn't make sense to buy something so specialized if my lens lineup wasn't complete.

I absolutely agree that it's a specialized lens. I very rarely use mine but when I do, and I now have the 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII that I could more than 'get by' with, I absolutely love it. I suspect you will use yours far more than I do my mine, as landscapes are my forte.

i was afraid the 200/2 would be too awkward to bring out most of the time (awkward from everyone looking at you)

They will at first as there's no getting away from the fact that the lens is very conspicuous. I wouldn't let that get in your way of making a great photo though.

One word of advice; start doing the weights. If the Canon 200mm f/2 is as heavy as the Nikon (3kg) it is on the limit of being comfortably hand holdable.

 

[CaliHwyPatrol]

I've seen what the 100L can do with FF, definitely a badass lens!

Maybe when I'm rich and famous I'll be able to afford L glass. Someday... Someday.

 

[mike c]

I've seen what the 100L can do with FF, definitely a badass lens!

Maybe when I'm rich and famous I'll be able to afford L glass. Someday... Someday.

i love the focal length on FF. i felt 85 was a bit short and the 135 a bit long for what i shoot.

the IS was enough to convince me to get it over the 85L and 135L.
(since i was already shooting f/1.8 3200 ISO 1/100)

 

[Sheep]

Sheep,



You've misunderstood why I stated that light was the most important. It has nothing to do with the ability of a good modern camera to expose correctly in low light through an increase in ISO, with minimal noise.

Without light there is no photo so clearly from this consideration alone composition must take second place. However, even with light a well composed photograph can still look dull and lifeless. It takes great light to lift an otherwise good photo into the realm of a great one.

It is not the landscape, flower, building or person that you photograph; it is light itself. Remember, the literal translation of 'photograph' is 'writing with light'. Galen Rowell, for example, never set out to photograph the landscape; he sought to capture great light, and when it ocurred he would try and match it to sympathetic form and features.

OK, sorry, you are correct, light is why we photograph. But that is massive perversion of what he meant. I have seen pictures taken with phones that I liked more then DSLR photos. And Reduced noise? Are you on crack? I like some good clean noise in the right photograph. It makes it gritty, and edgy. Like me.

SheepStar

 

[Highlander]

...light is why we photograph. But that is massive perversion of what he meant.

What's a 'massive perversion'? Please expand.

...Reduced noise? Are you on crack? I like some good clean noise in the right photograph. It makes it gritty, and edgy. Like me.

If you like a grainy effect in a digital photograph, it's best introduced through post processing where it is 'clean' noise. This has the advantage of being removable at a future date if for any reason you want to revert to the original photo. Setting out to deliberately introduce noise in-camera is a poor alternative method.

 

[CaliHwyPatrol]

What's a 'massive perversion'? Please expand.



If you like a grainy effect in a digital photograph, it's best introduced through post processing where it is 'clean' noise. This has the advantage of being removable at a future date if for any reason you want to revert to the original photo. Setting out to deliberately introduce noise in-camera is a poor alternative method.

Stop feeding the dumbass. The only way he's going to shut up is if you stop responding. Worked for me.

 

[Sheep]

What's a 'massive perversion'? Please expand.

All else equal, you want proper composition. That is what he was referring to. I rarely hear someone say they shoot for light. If people just shot for light, we'd have endless photographs of the sun. Most good photographs come in area's where light isn't easy to come by (hence, why there isn't many photographs like it). At the end of the day, it's the subjects and how they are placed that is what you are looking at. A photograph is art.

If you like a grainy effect in a digital photograph, it's best introduced through post processing where it is 'clean' noise. This has the advantage of being removable at a future date if for any reason you want to revert to the original photo. Setting out to deliberately introduce noise in-camera is a poor alternative method.

Another missing the point. When I first started shooting my DSLR, I was wide open, with the lowest ISO possible. All I wanted was light, and a fast shutter. Over time I realized that some ISO never hurt, and stopping down usually resulted in a sharper image (unless you're shooting a macro lens). High ISO allows you to get a photograph with proper exposure in conditions that don't have lots of natural light. If you don't raise your ISO, it will literally be the difference between getting a photograph, and walking away empty handed. I shoot all the way up to 6400 if I need to. I don't care, the noise in the long run doesn't hurt the photo as much as poor lighting, or bad composition. If you're doing landscapes (boooorrring) you can use a tripod and have longer then holdable shutters if you need to. However, shooting bands (which is what I do quite regularly), requires free handing.

And to reply to Cali, You're ****ing kidding right? Who the **** cares what you have to say? I remember a while ago you started some kind of dumb thread, and had a lot of people pissed at you. You ended up taking quite a hit for it, and are slowly making your way back into good graces. You ****ing joke. No one is talking to you, I never talked to you. No one cares about you.


Ahhh, I miss this place sometimes, but then I turn around and be awesome.
SheepStar

 

[Sheep]

And just to clarify for the pansy, I'm ripped out of my mind.

SheepStar

 

[Highlander]

All else equal, you want proper composition. That is what [Galen Rowell] was referring to.

Most amateur photographers think of landscapes simply as objects to be photographed. They tend to forget that they are never photographing and object, but rather light itself. Where there is no light they will have no picture; where there is remarkable light, they may have a remarkable picture. When the magic hour arrives, my thoughts centre on light rather than the landscape. I search for perfect light, then hunt for something earthbound to match it with.

Seems unambiguous to me.

At the end of the day, it's the subjects and how they are placed that is what you are looking at.

Refer to Galen Rowell quote above (and, if it comes to it, any material covering the physics of seeing). You are not looking at objects, but light reflected from them.

Another missing the point. When I first started shooting my DSLR, I was wide open, with the lowest ISO possible. All I wanted was light, and a fast shutter. Over time I realized that some ISO never hurt, and stopping down usually resulted in a sharper image (unless you're shooting a macro lens).

You give the impression that it takes time and vaunted experiance to learn this, when in fact even the most basic photography 'how to' book will explain the above elementary technical aspects of a camera.

High ISO allows you to get a photograph with proper exposure in conditions that don't have lots of natural light. If you don't raise your ISO, it will literally be the difference between getting a photograph, and walking away empty handed.

Increasing ISO as a last resort in order to get a shot at all is not the same as casually increasing ISO in a level of light that could've resulted in a lower ISO value being adopted, simply to achieve a grainy look. Your previous post suggests that you consciously practice the latter.

Ahhh, I miss this place sometimes, but then I turn around and be awesome.

You're a legend in your own mind, right enough.

 

[CaliHwyPatrol]

And to reply to Cali, You're ****ing kidding right? Who the **** cares what you have to say? I remember a while ago you started some kind of dumb thread, and had a lot of people pissed at you. You ended up taking quite a hit for it, and are slowly making your way back into good graces. You ****ing joke. No one is talking to you, I never talked to you. No one cares about you.

Thank you for that attempt to degrade my e-self esteem, and play by play of something that never happened.

I guess since you say that nobody cares about me I should definitely believe it, because you know everything.

I think I'll go paint my nails black and wear tight pants. Good bye cruel world.

 

[mike c]

ok. let's consider that the last post of the subject.

 

[Highlander]

I put the sexy in dyslexia.

Now that's funny. Like that one.

 

[Sheep]

Seems unambiguous to me.

Refer to Galen Rowell quote above (and, if it comes to it, any material covering the physics of seeing). You are not looking at objects, but light reflected from them.

You give the impression that it takes time and vaunted experiance to learn this, when in fact even the most basic photography 'how to' book will explain the above elementary technical aspects of a camera.

Increasing ISO as a last resort in order to get a shot at all is not the same as casually increasing ISO in a level of light that could've resulted in a lower ISO value being adopted, simply to achieve a grainy look. Your previous post suggests that you consciously practice the latter.

Are you saying that if you don't have perfect light, you won't take a picture? There is lots of places in this world that never see perfect light. You have to compromise at some point to get those shots. Otherwise you're going away empty handed, as I stated before.

If you never read photography books you won't know the first and most basic tools. Also, the complex rules regarding lens aperture settings for sharpness is usually over every beginners head. I've tried explaining it numerous times and it still is hard for them to understand without the visual aids that you get at photozone.

I never said I increase ISO for fun, it's just that I'm not afraid of it. I know a lot of people that shoot at only low ISO, and try to use post processing to increase the light. In the long run, the ISO increase doesn't hurt the photograph at all. I wouldn't recommend blowing up a 10mb shot with 3200 ISO to a massive size and standing close to it though.

SheepStar

 

[Highlander]

...the complex rules regarding lens aperture settings for sharpness is usually over every beginners head. I've tried explaining it numerous times and it still is hard for them to understand without the visual aids that you get at photozone.

Complex rules? What complex rules? Please explain them to me.

 

[Sheep]

Complex rules? What complex rules? Please explain them to me.

Oh, like diffraction. Lots of people don't understand that you can loose a lot of sharpness if the lens is stopped down past like F13 on the APS-C sensor cameras. Some lenses are still sharp, but not many. Also, understanding what aperture settings will give you the sharpest performance from your lens. All stuff that just confuses beginners.

SheepStar

 

[Highlander]

...the complex rules regarding lens aperture settings for sharpness is usually over every beginners head...

...like diffraction. Lots of people don't understand that you can loose a lot of sharpness if the lens is stopped down past like F13 on the APS-C sensor cameras.

The effect of diffraction, that is the increase in relative proportion of diffracted light compared to non-diffracted light passing through increasingly smaller apertures, is a property of the lens, not the sensor. The sensor simply captures the effect.

Explaining to someone that "a lens will have an aperture at which it returns maximum sharpness in detail. Larger and smaller apertures will increasingly return less sharp detail" is hardly difficult to grasp, and certainly not 'complex'.

...understanding what aperture settings will give you the sharpest performance from your lens. All stuff that just confuses beginners.

All they need to do is take a series of photos of the same subject at a range of aperture settings and compare the results when viewed at 100% to determine the lens aperture that returns the greatest sharpness. Either that or save themselves the effort and look at the charts on www.photozone.de like everybody else. Again, hardly rocket science.

 

[Sheep]

The effect of diffraction, that is the increase in relative proportion of diffracted light compared to non-diffracted light passing through increasingly smaller apertures, is a property of the lens, not the sensor. The sensor simply captures the effect.

Explaining to someone that "a lens will have an aperture at which it returns maximum sharpness in detail. Larger and smaller apertures will increasingly return less sharp detail" is hardly difficult to grasp, and certainly not 'complex'.



All they need to do is take a series of photos of the same subject at a range of aperture settings and compare the results when viewed at 100% to determine the lens aperture that returns the greatest sharpness. Either that or save themselves the effort and look at the charts on www.photozone.de like everybody else. Again, hardly rocket science.

You seem to think you can teach this to anyone. It's not hard for people like us to understand this, but I did take a photography class, just the beginner one to see how it was. This stuff, was WAY over peoples heads. The teacher had me helping with lessons mainly because I knew my way around a camera. You might think it's easy, try explaining it to someone that just picked up a DSLR.

SheepStar

 

[Highlander]

You seem to think you can teach this to anyone.

There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that I can.

 

[Alex2507]

There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that I can.

That's because you don't know me.