« on: February 11, 2014, 07:36:17 AM »
Safe to say a DPAF sensor ain't in that thing?
I think so!
Moving on along...
I think so!
Moving on along...
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.
I'm loving this 'Year of the Lens' so far
Having 1 value for a lens does not fix much.
Now Sigma offers a $900 version of a 50mm, which is much less affordable than four of Canon's offerings.
A prime between 45-100mm with a maximum aperture of 2.8 (so 1.8, 1.4 and so on are fine too!)
I can work with the 50mm, but also the 85 and so on, so I just need 1 that is the best.
A mid-range zoom with a maximum aperture of 2.8 (so 1.8, 1.4 and so on are fine too!)
Everything below 20mm to above 40mm is fine.
A decent lens for macro between 85 and 100mm. I don’t have a preference for the aperture here.
I have the 18-135, but I don’t find that sharp enough. I do like the zoom range though. Is there anything that comes close to the range, but sharper?
A zoom that goes beyond 250/300mm. If that is achieved by a teleconverter that is fine by me, if that gives me better results.
This photo was also printed on canvas and is currently hanging on a wall
Original source: blog.erikhammar.se
I like it. I think it works because it appears more candid them some of the other post pictures. Although technically, it may not be as sound, it conveys the mood very well. In the end, that is what matters.
If I may make a slight suggestion, if she kisses the horse closer to the front of the mouth, then there will be less shadow on her face, and you can see her lips better.
.... but, I've been told repeatedly that when someone KNOWS what they're doing with flash, you can't really tell they used it. I've yet to see an example of that myself, but I've had my eyes open for it. Until then, I prefer natural lighting.
So, window light, studio light, off camera Speedlite or on camera Speedlite?
Interesting opinion. I'm sure you know that if I didn't light her with anything and metered on her, then everything else would be completely blown.
Of course. I'd just wait for better light. Perhaps a less strong lighting would have been less obvious.
This isn't a knock against you but, I've been told repeatedly that when someone KNOWS what they're doing with flash, you can't really tell they used it. I've yet to see an example of that myself, but I've had my eyes open for it. Until then, I prefer natural lighting.
Yep, true. This shot was certain time of day, so either couldn't shoot down towards the water or use flash.
As you have said the time of the day and the angle of the sun you had to make the choice of taking the shot and use flash or do not get the shot at all. I shall always go for getting the shot.
Just one thing, the "obviousness" of the flash is basicaly due to couple of areas on the skin (and the rim of the glasses) with localized highlights/reflections which would not be there if flash is not used, and a bit of extra (cannot say overexposure) exposure on the entire body. It is upto your taste and liking - but you may want to thing about reducing that over exposure slightly and eliminating those highlights. My guess is that will give a more "natural look". Of course depending on your liking you may disagree.