1. Expose the photo correctly in the first take.
some times the DR of the image does not allow this
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.
1. Expose the photo correctly in the first take.
RGF, cinema video cameras basically don't use autofocus. The cinematographer has special attachments on the lenses for easy manual focus. Take a look at the cinema lenses, or the cinema versions of the Samyang/Rokinon lenses - there are gearlike focus rings that engage with other gears on a device known as a focus puller (I think - though the person doing the focus is also called a focus puller). If you notice cinema focus changes, they aren't "instantaneous", in fact they are relatively gradual to allow a smooth-looking transition from out of focus to in focus.
In filming video on a DSLR, the mirror is locked in the "up" position, and all work is done on the LCD live view. Shutters - I don't know how that works on DSLRs, I suspect most models just use the standard focal plane shutter mechanism for video. The high end cinema video cameras use electronic shutter only. I don't do video, yet, I just like knowing how things work.
It is kind of funny the way this knowledge slips out, seemingly everybody talks about it then it goes away for a while, then it is reignited and the debate starts again.
Anyway, the worst 'not the actual focal length on the label' I know of is the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR, their top of the line 70-200, at portrait distances the 200 becomes a 130mm! Now that os something to complain about, thinking you have a 200mm lens and not getting the focal length of your 135mm lens. But again, at infinity it is pretty close to the 200, so what can you do..........
As with many other posts, we seem to get repeats of the same information over and over. We have a lot of new members joining all the time, and its going to happen as they journey thru the process of learning about cameras, lenses, and how they work.
Fortunately, you and a lot of other knowledgeable and experienced photographers on the forum take the time to teach the same thing over and over.
That's a good thing, so thanks for helping.
The 8-15mm fisheye is famous for having a lens cap that automatically removes itself from the lens...
The best solution I have found for my 8-15mm is the soft-side-of-the-Velcro modification:
It looks like the lens cap for the new 11-24mm has its release tabs on the top & bottom (the same as the problematic 8-15mm fisheye), so when its mounted on a camera, & the camera/lens combo is placed on a hard table, the bottom release-tab may get pressed resulting in the cap accidentally popping off... My new 11-24mm should be arriving on Wednesday, and I'm going to really want to take care of that enormous front element, so I'm keeping the Velcro handy...
This is why wildlife (and landscape) photography is 99% hobby, 1% sales for me. I get the occasional print sale, but I rely on the work that amateurs can't easily do to make money.This is the difference between a "WILDlife photographer and someone who takes pictures at the zoo.
There is nothing wrong with taking pictures at a Zoo.
There is nothing wrong with taking pictures at the back yard feeder.
What is unethical is when you present your pictures as real "wildlife" taken in a natural setting.
But, in the end of the day, if a commercial photographer is assigned a task of getting a specific shot that an advertising or marketing manager wants of a leopard or wildcat stalking a prey and it has to be to ready for press on friday, t
The sad thing about your example is that images of wildlife have become such a basic commodity. Currently on Getty, if you search for a lion image, there are 17,701 results...and they are mostly fantastic shots.
I'm not criticizing you or your comment, I'm just lamenting the fact that there's a lot of "been there done that" in photography now days as a result of the digital camera revolution.
Couldn't agree more. The digital camera revolution changed everything, many good changed, many very bad changes... A lot of bad changes for the working photographers, especially with the rise of millions of amateur photographers popping up that weren't there before, many with pocketbooks and equipment greater than the average working pro. That being said, agencies and business's aren't helping either... It's all about cheaper, quicker, faster... Much like newspapers firing their pro photographers because of the plethora of other cheaper or in some cases free photos being submitted to them from their stories... Istock and getty are great resources, but in some instances, but depending on usage, licensing CAN become issue, and if they have in house photographers, if they can get the same shot, fraction of the price, most will go that route... Sucks, but it's the photography business as we know it.
Definitely looks good:
Like children in front of the Christmas tree on December 24!
Hope it's not like one Christmas when I was about 12 and was absolutely convinced that I was getting a much desired "transistor radio". When all was quiet and dark I snuck it into my bed and opened it to find .......... a travel alarm clock! Didn't sleep well at all that night!!