StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Phantasee wrote:I'd think a picture of fields would do better in a landscape format, wider than it is tall. Unless you get a grain silo in the image, or some tall tree.

Agreed. Framing is integral to composition, so (e.g.) tilted-camera shots work under some circumstances but not others. Use the frame to reinforce the flow of the lines within the photo.

Death wrote:grass, statue, other plant things

Now that you've got peace of mind that your lens's f1.4 works, allow me to suggest that there is actually very limited use for an aperture that wide, never mind wider. This is because most subjects are a lot deeper than f1.4's DoF, as your photos show. Only getting part of your subject in focus is seldom effective.

Where a f1.4 lens is handy is that you get good performance at wider apertures than with slower lenses. If the 'sweet spot' is a couple of stops down from wide open, then your f2-f4 ought to be better than they would be on a f2 or f2.8 lens. You can shoot 'open' and get good results, without going so open that you can't get your subject completely in focus.

Simplicius wrote:

Phantasee wrote:I'd think a picture of fields would do better in a landscape format, wider than it is tall. Unless you get a grain silo in the image, or some tall tree.

Agreed. Framing is integral to composition, so (e.g.) tilted-camera shots work under some circumstances but not others. Use the frame to reinforce the flow of the lines within the photo.

Yeah, the frame didn't work as well as I hoped. Better luck next time I think, maybe a slightly different ratio or higher angle.

Death wrote:grass, statue, other plant things

Now that you've got peace of mind that your lens's f1.4 works, allow me to suggest that there is actually very limited use for an aperture that wide, never mind wider.

I like everything being in focus .

This is because most subjects are a lot deeper than f1.4's DoF, as your photos show. Only getting part of your subject in focus is seldom effective.

True, but I tried it in those shots due to smooth lines and colours/shapes in the elements (the statue, the orange fruits), where the fade would massage the shapes rather than blurring them.

Where a f1.4 lens is handy is that you get good performance at wider apertures than with slower lenses.

And low light work where I NEED the aperture. (Conventions, concerts).

If the 'sweet spot' is a couple of stops down from wide open, then your f2-f4 ought to be better than they would be on a f2 or f2.8 lens. You can shoot 'open' and get good results, without going so open that you can't get your subject completely in focus.

Yeah. I Really miss that in my old 4/3 Olympus (greater DOF), I still regret upgrading to the Canon 40D rather than getting a better Olympus at the time with a good lens. Well, maybe in a few years and a few improvements in m4/3 .

Phantasee wrote:I'd think a picture of fields would do better in a landscape format, wider than it is tall. Unless you get a grain silo in the image, or some tall tree.

Point taken. I see I still have a great deal of work to do with it, I guess using a telescopic lens for landscape work isn't as easy as some claim .


Not sure if this works or not, on one hand the base of the frame is too spread out and the shapes aren't tight or that distinctive, on the other there's something "nice" about the sky and colours of the picture. I probably wouldn't link the upload if I weren't posting anyway .

One of my shop projects from way back when I was in high school.

Just 2 bored guys messing around with one coconut

One general critique I have for you, Death, is that you don't use light very well. It especially shows in your outdoor photos, where you'll shoot with little visible regard for where the light's coming from, what the light is like, and how it interacts with your subjects. You shoot a lot in very bland midday lighting, which does nothing for color, shape, or texture, and so the photos you take of pedestrian subjects are missing the interest they would gain from good lighting.

I encourage you to be more aware of your light, and to go out shooting when the light is interesting whenever possible. Think about whether the light accentuates your color composition, shoot in oblique modeling light rather than overhead midday light, find shadows and incorporate them your composition, and seek out unusual lighting conditions whenever you can. Maybe you don't get much overcast in Israel (Y? N?), but if you do, use it. Shoot long exposures in moonlight. Play with the light as much as you can; it will add a lot to your photos.

Simplicius wrote:One general critique I have for you, Death, is that you don't use light very well. It especially shows in your outdoor photos, where you'll shoot with little visible regard for where the light's coming from, what the light is like, and how it interacts with your subjects.

In all fairness, in the vast majority of those cases, I was working against the light, not with it. (Street photos, documentary style stuff, exploratory, concerts). My modeling practice plans have kinda been put on halt.

You shoot a lot in very bland midday lighting, which does nothing for color, shape, or texture, and so the photos you take of pedestrian subjects are missing the interest they would gain from good lighting.

True that, it's a flaw of mine that persisted over too long and I didn't pay attention to it for ages. I plan to do my work over the semester vacation (when it finally gets here) in the morning or late afternoon. (As time and traffic dictate ).

I encourage you to be more aware of your light, and to go out shooting when the light is interesting whenever possible.

Morning, late afternoon, the magic hour, golden sunlit days, etc'

Maybe you don't get much overcast in Israel (Y? N?), but if you do, use it.

If we do, it's usually raining .

Shoot long exposures in moonlight.

Hey, stop guessing my upcoming ideas based on pictures I uploaded ages ago .

Play with the light as much as you can; it will add a lot to your photos.

Thanks for the advice .

The Grim Squeaker wrote:Morning, late afternoon, the magic hour, golden sunlit days, etc'

That, but a lot more too - thin fog or dust, cloud cover with small breaks to make 'spotlight' effects, building storms, clearing storms, and so on. Anything that works for the shot; always ask yourself "How is the subject lit, and how can I use that to my advantage?"

Yeah, I'm pretty bored these days.

Teddy bear?

aerius wrote:Yeah, I'm pretty bored these days.

How could you?

Dipping into the archives again since I haven't been taking pictures recently.

The Grim Squeaker wrote:Teddy bear?

My wife's baby elephant.

Snow:

I LOVE that shot. White balance could use a tad more tuning though.
Second shot, different area, time & altitude.


Modeling: (More to come).


Odd, I could have sworn I posted the snow pics already.

My people posing skills have improved .

This thread gets more attention than the other, so I'll just post these two here, from my iPhone:

Heh, Power armour>Divine "evolution" huh Rye?

Modelling again:

Open ground:

That last image is nice. Would have been nice to see some more on the left, with some background mountains to frame it a little better. As I see it, there are two things to look at: the foggy valley, and the dude. The dude can be there on the bottom at the side, but the valley definitely needed to be more in the centre.

Phantasee wrote:That last image is nice. Would have been nice to see some more on the left, with some background mountains to frame it a little better. As I see it, there are two things to look at: the foggy valley, and the dude. The dude can be there on the bottom at the side, but the valley definitely needed to be more in the centre.

Dude? You mean the redhead girl?

Acquired an ancient Leica Summicron 50mm R mount (about 30 years old probably?) that still works like a charm.

Nice background.
Good lighting for indoors.

What kind of flower is that, Fingolfin?

I'm pretty sure they're phalaenopsis orchids. I like the 2nd picture more, the 1st one is too distant and there's too much stuff in the picture with no clear focus nor subject to draw the eye. I'd also try playing around with various background colours, maybe a coloured bedsheet or large T-shirt, something to contrast with the flowers and make them stand out more.

Street:

J wrote:I'm pretty sure they're phalaenopsis orchids. I like the 2nd picture more, the 1st one is too distant and there's too much stuff in the picture with no clear focus nor subject to draw the eye. I'd also try playing around with various background colours, maybe a coloured bedsheet or large T-shirt, something to contrast with the flowers and make them stand out more.

They are definitely a kind of orchids. As for background.. hmm.. well, it was done with my wall in the background, and maybe the lighting had something to do with it. I'll think of something..

Personally, I would prefer focusing on one orchid, but the trouble with the four-thirds system is the focusing distance is double the 35mm equivalent, and the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 isn't so good for bokeh/macro. Never mind the reduced depth of field.

Some costume party commy pics (I was a hitchhiker):




(He really is a biologist).