March 11, 2014, 07:57:52 PM
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - sanj
I am not Jesus but I will offer some advice.
If you shoot off hand, keep the shutter speed near 1/125 or faster, if possible (the rule if thumb is 1/85). Choose the lowest ISO which would allow to shoot without noticeable motion blur (check the screen). Keep the camera steady, stop breathing and shoot (then resume breathing). One hand holds the camera, the other supports the lens. Use the center AF on one of the eyes and recompose. Try apertures from wide open, to f/4. All this depends on the background.
If you have a monopod, use it.
Framing is critical. Try half body, shoulders and face, etc. Avoid harsh light but also avoid situations in which the face is too dark compared to the rest. Again, watch the background. Bright (but not too bright) and colorful background, well blurred, works best, IMO. The background is as important as the main subject but since your model would not change, the background is even more important.
Keep the white balance to auto and take a few shots of gray things under the same lighting. You can use them later for WB correction. Shoot RAW, of course.
Brilliant! I would say JPEG though.
the problem is actually your original composition... as you say boring sky, so why have so much in the image
Good point. Perhaps.
These Rules apply to Nat Geo's Photographic Competition, they do not Apply to Nat Geo Photographers that are supplying Articles/Photographs that will eventually go into the Magazine, Yes, there are rules that apply to these Guys as well, but "No Manipulation at All" is not one of them.
Have you ever seen a B&W Image in a Nat Geo Magazine ?? Manipulated.
Have you ever seen a Stitched Panorama in a Nat Geo Magazine ?? Manipulated
Have you ever seen an Image that employs stacked focussing in a Nat geo Magazine ?? Manipulated
Have you ever seen an Image that's been cropped etc Saturation levels increased etc
You get the Picture I'm sure.
Why on earth are fish eye lenses not acceptable when telephoto lenses are??? Sounds biased to me!
Okay, call it people: this is the post that ends the discussion.
If you're not using a prime, you're faking photography.
There. I said it. Zooms are flat-out cheating, and have no place in the art.
I found the sky boring and added clouds to make it more interesting.
Do you think this is cheating? I really want to know.
Am very confused. I have made changes but not altered nature. Have I done something wrong?
After all the comments what have you decided? Are you a sinner or a saint ?
Hahahaha. Neither! I am a photographer!
Cheating, manipulation call it what you will has always gone on in the past. That was the past we are talking now. Im not bothered what we do, if its adjusted, manipulated whatever. But..if you think you are a top photographer, post your images to Nat Geo with all your manipulation and see what happens. If people amatuers and pros alike can take amazing images without a computer ask yourself this. Why cant I ?
I see your point totally.
Am not saying that I cant take amazing photos. Some of my other photos have been liked by some people.
BUT this photo seemed to look better with the clouds. I had the option of leaving it just as is or adding the clouds. I choose the latter.
Sanj, I'm by no stretch a scientific Photographer, what I did notice, and you can see in the Images I posted, that at equivalent everything (200-400f/4 shot @ f/4 compared to 200f/2 shot at f/4) there is a perceived difference in light to the Images, the 200-400 Images all are slightly darker than the equivalent Prime (200/300/600), I am making an assumption (Generally a huge mistake), that the slightly darker Images coming from the Zoom Lens compared to the Prime is due to more Glass in the Zoom, it's very evident when you drop the 1.4x Converter into place, an immediate darkening of the Image, which then requires around +1 to +1.5 stops more exposure to bring the Image back to "Normal", this is no different to when I'm using the separate 1.4x Converter on my 200/300/400 & 600 primes. I also found in dim light once you drop the Converter into place you begin to have some focus hunt, again, similar to the Primes when using a Converter.
But your right of course, no matter the Lens, Zoom or Prime, the measurement is always light onto the Sensor, but why the difference you can see in the Zoom compared to the Primes ?? it's fairly obvious the Primes have very slight + exposure at their respective focal lengths, beats me, I'm sure one of the Guys will know the reason, escapes me.
My main concern with the 200-400 was always how well it stacked against Primes for sharpness at 200/300/400 & 600 (almost at 560), in this regard I'm exceptionally satisfied, ability to Hand Hold, again very good, the 200-400 is slightly heavier than the 400f/2.8 but it doesn't feel that way when hand holding the 200-400, I hazard a guess this is due to the distribution of weight being across the Lens in the 200-400 and front heavy in the 400f/2.8. But to be honest I will generally be using this Lens on a Monopod or tripod with a Wimberley.
Length isn't an issue, the 200-400 is 1mm longer than the 400 so not an issue. Waiting now for a RRS foot replacement and some Lens Coat covers, then into the field, I'll post again mid July when I having something that moves quicker than the Flowers.
I am not scientific either...!
Wishing you lots of nice shots.
Am happy you 'exceptionally satisfied' with the sharpness comparison. Yes, that is the prime (zoom) concern. Lol.
It's obvious you need to add around 2/3 stop exposure when using the 200-400 compared to the equivalent Prime, makes sense, more Glass.
When using the 1.4x Converter, same as any converter, add about 1.5 stops exposure.
at 1/1 I'm sort of battling to find any difference in sharpness, I imagine if you got right into the files you will come up with the Primes being sharper, I hope so otherwise why Pay all that Money for the Prime, but at 1/1, it's hard to tell the difference.
Except for the comparison with the 600f/4 @ f/5.6, it's minimal, but the 600 is marginally sharper, then you would expect that as the 600 isn't using the 1.4x converter.
I'm impressed, of course I just paid 11.5k for the 200-400f/4 so I need to be impressed, but I am, especially in the side by side with my 300f/2.8 V2 Lens, this has been my go to Lens for sharpness at all times, the 200-400 really does compare well against it.
Next thing is to test the 200-400 against a Cheetah @ 80 KPH, then we see how it really compares.
Hope this is of some limited use to you all.
Thank you so much sir!
I had no idea that zoom lenses f stops do not tally with prime lens equivalent f stop. Hmmm. Are you sure about this? I would think that f stop is calculated based on how much light hits the sensor and no the front element of the lens. Am confused.
Yes, next test is focus and I think it will fare well in that!
Question: Why is your keyboard with a cord?
Number pad and I don't need to take my keyboard away from the desk. Batteries are annoying.... lots of reasons really.