February 01, 2015, 05:42:52 AM

Show Posts

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 - jdramirez

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 180
Lenses / Re: Image comparison for fisheye lens options?
« on: Today at 12:19:20 AM »
I should specify - I mean for full frame sensors like the 6D.

The Rokinon/Samyang 8mm is designed for crop sensors - I have one for my Pentax and I see that theyve recently made a 12mm to suit full frame sensors.

The sigma 8-16 is a great lens but its rectilinear so not a fisheye (as well as being for the APS-C sensors)

I guess you are going to learn something new today.  Rokinon 8mm works just fine and attaches just fine to full frame cameras.  But it isn't 8... it is more like 8.5, so the complete circle image isn't, rather it is semi-circular on the body.  I prefered how it looked on my crop sensor 60D, but it does work on a full frame.

As for the sigma 8-16... turns out you are right.  I just started... and I could have sworn someone I had a conversation with raved about their sigma fisheye... maybe it was a prime they were talking about.

Lenses / Re: Image comparison for fisheye lens options?
« on: January 31, 2015, 11:17:19 PM »
For what it is worth, I was looking for a comparison between the sigma 8-16 and the Canon 8-15 and I couldn't find something.  I know I didn't like the rokinon 8mm option.  It was plenty sharp enough, but I didn't like the semi circular look.

the attachment is broken for me. cant access the image you attached.

I see it just fine.  It is just a simple .jpg... I guess I can upload it to dropbox or something.

So long story short... I can do this type of shot outdoors... indoors and I'm spending a few hours matching white balance.

I am confident I can match white balance in lightroom... but then I have to export the raws to photoshop... so I guess I will be spending the weekend watching youtube videos seeing how that is done.

Sports / Re: Motion Blur (on purpose) in Sports Photos
« on: January 29, 2015, 11:05:42 PM »
I kinda like this one better... kinda...

Sports / Re: Motion Blur (on purpose) in Sports Photos
« on: January 29, 2015, 10:59:43 PM »
Still nothing special... but alot of what I did last night falls under that category.

Photography Technique / Re: Why Photography is Precious
« on: January 29, 2015, 09:31:14 PM »
I'm bad with drawing. Photography helps me to capture moment likes this:

We were separated at birth.  I'm awful at drawing as well... I tell people I have an artistic soul, but no artistic talent... so this is my outlet.

First of all... I know it's bad... but I'm just trying to knock down one pin at a time to get this thing right.

2nd - Technique...

Monopod mounted (which I know isn't as secure as a tripod, but it was in a walkway... so this is the best option without potentially killing people... But the monopod was reasonably stable... used a wireless shutter release... and hit the shutter here and there in order to get a progression of still movement.  Then I placed the different images into photoshop using muliple layers... deleted the portion that didn't have the player, and then left the section with the player in the respective layers.  Then flattened the image.  The image settings for the series was manual, iso 3200, f/6.3 (and I realize that is high and i didn't fix the grain, but that is the least of my concerns), and 1/200 of a second. 

So it is pretty obvious that when there are no players on the ice, the camera meters the image differently.  I dont' think the variance in exposure is related to light/white balance flicker.  So... to correct this... instead of using (.) I should probably opt for ( )... or I can just brighten it in lightroom and then export it to photoshop (elements 12) so it matches the others or at least comes close.

So... if I do this outside under clouds... taking a shot before... then selecting out another image to lay over the background layer... will I experience this same sort of variance?  I feel as though i will.  So if it is metering... how do I get that to stick.  With the lock toggle on the back of the 5d mkiii work... or is that just wishful thinking. 

Sorry for sounding so naive... I usually try to hide my naivate' and simply edit single images... but this combing of images is killing me slowly.

Photography Technique / Re: Keeper rates and sports?
« on: January 29, 2015, 07:20:29 AM »
This is where I need my 1DX... and why you have to own one if you do this for a living. There is a guy here who is asking if he should buy a another 1DX and if you look at his port, I'd say no... he needs a 5D3. If he were asking about this and shooting tons of sport or fast moving wildlife then the 1DX is your camera. Portraits, kids in the backyard, family, weddings... 5D3.

I'm less concerned about my gear and have more of an issue with the sport as a whole.  It is a really fast game that looks really slow on "film"  Shooting at 6 fps v. 9 fps isn't going to make the images more interesting.

Photography Technique / Keeper rates and sports?
« on: January 28, 2015, 11:54:54 PM »
I went out tonight and I shot another hockey game for practice... and I came to the conclusion... I get a ton more wow keepers when I shoot football and basketball, and I'm sure part of that is not having to shoot through glass, the other part is that I have some experience in those sports... So maybe it is just having the experience to know what is coming and where to focus the camera. 

Then there is hockey... shooting at 1/500 of a second... it looks like people are standing around not doing much... The puck in the air is not quite frozen, but it doesn't look like it is telling much of a story either... not the way a football in the air does... maybe a basketball after release and it is hanging in the air as is the shooter...

So I thought it would discuss keeper rates of really good photos... as always... it is subject dependant with sports... but I think my personal ranking is as follows:

Track (maybe shooting at an Olympic level would be awe-inspiring... but not so much at the junior high level)

I haven't shot... nor do i want to shoot soccer... I haven't shot wrestling... though that might be interesting, and I haven't shot volleyball, though I think that would actually be fun to shoot... and if I were to throw them into the rankings... they all three would be above track, but below baseball. 

Oh... and to continue my rant about hockey... the smudged glass doesn't help... the panning with your subject only to find "spokes" between the glass love to obscure you view... shooting from above the glass doesn't seem to help, shooting @ eye level isn't that great... When someone has the puck... inevitably there is someone between the camera and the shooter... ugh. 

Am I overly frustrated with ice hockey legitimately... or maybe it is just me (which I'm prefectly accepting of... because that means I can get better.)

Honestly, I like my path... which is described in my signature.  Sure some people would have jumped feet first into full frame, but no... I sold practically everything I bought for about the same price I originally paid for it save for the 60d. 

It also afforded me the opportunity to understand which are good lenses, where their strong points are, and their limitations.  I'm more than happy with the struggle before bliss.

Lenses / Re: Canon prime rumors? 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8 and 100mm f2
« on: January 28, 2015, 10:27:52 AM »
Unless something is eminent, buy now, preferably used.  You won't lose much value on resale, the images you can take now is vastly superior to the photos you CAN'T take now. 

Photography Technique / Re: Which eye do you use?
« on: January 27, 2015, 12:03:07 PM »
I've tried, with mixed results... sometimes it works really well and I can find my subject without issue, then there are times where I'm totally lost and take no shots. 

Right eye.  And if I'm shooting sports, sometimes I'll leave the left one open to watch the play at the same time.  Kind of like a shotgun.

Photography Technique / Re: Which eye do you use?
« on: January 27, 2015, 10:00:53 AM »
I think I opt for comfort... using the left eye... Because the right is blocked by the camera so I can ignore the information coming from that eye without shutting it tight.

Also, I had lasic a few years ago and I have 20/20 in both, but the left eye looks long while the right hands back and focuses on the near field.  It is messed up, but I've always been able to split my vision as needed.  I'm really good at those stupid 3d posters.

Animal Kingdom / Re: Photographs taken in my yard
« on: January 27, 2015, 09:52:15 AM »
I wonder if I'm allergic to bobcats. Do you feed him sometimes?  We bought some cat food for a stray, but he never came back.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 180