The Official Photography Thread - Vol. 3

^^^^IMO yes. Can't imagine the Canon one being any better than the Tamron zoom. I even own a 24mm L and since I got the Tamron 15-30mm, I hard ever use it except for when I need the F-stop. I was thinking about selling it but for some reason, I feel like I am going to regret it. The colors on the L though render a lot better than the Tamron.
 
Nawzlew said:
Sooo I own a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

Would buying a 24mm STM 2.8 just be redundant?

A gripe I have with the Tamron is the size .. it can be heavy to lug around and stuff.
Click to expand...

I have that tamron lens also.

I wouldnt get 24mm 2.8 in addition to it... but then again, I dont really see myself needing a 24 prime.

im currently saving for a 70-200 2.8
 
Mr Fongstarr said:
^^^^^^One flash? I am assuming you are shooting in an area with a lot of shade right?


Since my wedding gig failed, I can now focus on my cousin's engagement photos in a couple of weeks. I am renting the 70-200mm for it and buying a reflector finally and going to every spot I know if in SF to shoot stuff. Since this is my first engagement shoot, I am actually going to just go to all the cliche engagement spots in SF just so I know at least the backdrop looks good, let alone the posing of the couple. Thankfully SF is a hot zone for engagement shoots and there is an abundant amount of stuff to use as references.

I think I asked this before but I have yet to master it. How is this photo done below? If the sun is lit in the back of them, I am assuming their bodies should be in total darkness. I know RAW files are used but I am thinking it's still not picking up that much light. Can a reflector pic up that much light if bounced back?

SF-engagement-21.jpg
SF-engagement-22.jpg
SF-engagement-17.jpg
Click to expand...

https://iso.500px.com/backlight-natural-light-portrait-photo-tutorial/
 
DJYoung08 said:
https://iso.500px.com/backlight-natural-light-portrait-photo-tutorial/
Click to expand...

Wow. Thanks dude. I swear sometimes I have no idea how much can go into a photo. I would have never though compositing would be done but now that totally makes sense for certain situations.

This is so sick! I actually really want to try this.

c6b905491074ee8d5c820195ed21f981










I decided to go shoot this today. Trying to practice some shots when the sun goes down. My girl's face was totally blown out but I still liked how the colors came out. I even shot this RAW and masked her to darken her body. Granted her body is super far away but her face got really muddy from being over exposed. I should have done more of a pose rather than her look into the camera. It's practice though so that's fine.

sun-1a.png



Also shot this for fun too. It took some time to get it right with the right background but I thought it came out cool. Kind of a kooky photography thing but I actually think I am going to print it too.

multi-portrait-1a.png



Here is how to do it:

 
Last edited:
Mr Fongstarr said:
I decided to go shoot this today. Trying to practice some shots when the sun goes down. My girl's face was totally blown out but I still liked how the colors came out. I even shot this RAW and masked her to darken her body. Granted her body is super far away but her face got really muddy from being over exposed. I should have done more of a pose rather than her look into the camera. It's practice though so that's fine.

sun-1a.png
Click to expand...

curious, so how is the shooting raw experiment going?

loosies #maskededition:

Untitled by a0, on Flickr

Untitled by a0, on Flickr

Untitled by a0, on Flickr
 
^^^^Like I see the difference with RAW files but I still think considering, I can achieve most of same shots still shooting with JPEGs. But with my astro photos that I am still working on, the RAW files helped a lot and retained way more info on the dark areas. With general lit things, I didn't really see that big of an advantage. Actually all those Yosemite shots I posted were JPEGs since they were HDR composites in my Mark 3 and they don't save as RAW files. I still have a lot to learn. I am still only using PS and wonder if Lightroom has more of an advantage editing RAW files. For the sake of just doing this right from now on, I am going to shoot RAW with JPEGs going forward.
 
Mr Fongstarr said:
^^^^Like I see the difference with RAW files but I still think considering, I can achieve most of same shots still shooting with JPEGs. But with my astro photos that I am still working on, the RAW files helped a lot and retained way more info on the dark areas. With general lit things, I didn't really see that big of an advantage. Actually all those Yosemite shots I posted were JPEGs since they were HDR composites in my Mark 3 and they don't save as RAW files. I still have a lot to learn. I am still only using PS and wonder if Lightroom has more of an advantage editing RAW files. For the sake of just doing this right from now on, I am going to shoot RAW with JPEGs going forward.
Click to expand...

The things you can do with the raw file in lightroom is wizardry :lol

lightroom used to be a part of photoshop back in the day.

I highly recommend copping
 
DJYoung08 said:
The things you can do with the raw file in lightroom is wizardry :lol

lightroom used to be a part of photoshop back in the day.

I highly recommend copping
Click to expand...

I actually have it and just never use it. Haha. I used it once and couldn't even open files properly. I want to start using Lightroom more so for the filters. I literally edit my photos on my phone first and then send the hi res back to my computer to do the rest. I am actually finding that I edit better on my phone than I do on PS sometimes. Crazy.

I'll fiddle with it when I get home today. I just downloaded the RAW plugin for PS and was working with that primarily since I know how to use it but I do want to know how to use Lightroom.
 
DJYoung08 said:
The things you can do with the raw file in lightroom is wizardry :lol
Click to expand...

#this

Mr Fongstarr said:
^^^^Like I see the difference with RAW files but I still think considering, I can achieve most of same shots still shooting with JPEGs. But with my astro photos that I am still working on, the RAW files helped a lot and retained way more info on the dark areas. With general lit things, I didn't really see that big of an advantage. Actually all those Yosemite shots I posted were JPEGs since they were HDR composites in my Mark 3 and they don't save as RAW files. I still have a lot to learn. I am still only using PS and wonder if Lightroom has more of an advantage editing RAW files. For the sake of just doing this right from now on, I am going to shoot RAW with JPEGs going forward.
Click to expand...

all RAW does is give a lot more room for edits, in most cases it won't be necessary but it really helps in the cases when you have a scene with extremes of highlights & shadows or want to push values. the engine that lightroom uses is the same as adobe camera raw in photoshop; just organized i bit differently, so the results should be the same i think; the real advantage to using lightroom is organization & how it works with PS...
 
i shoot raw and use lightroom almost exclusively, only heading into photoshop if i want to brush or mask more areas specifically. but lightroom handles 99% of the workflow.
 
a few shots i took these past two weeks. Still fiddling with LR

great stuff as always fellas.


 
^^^^^^^^Damn.....nice Rolo. That is a dope set. I definitely like the stills of the hotel. I think it adds to the feel of where they are at.





Some star photos in Yosemite that I finally got around to editing. These things are sort of a catch 22. It's like the one time you can go crazy in photoshop or lightroom with the colors and what not. This of course is totally not what I saw with the naked eye but this is how you shoot this stuff apparently.



yo-7.png
yo-4.png
yo-6c.png
 
^^^^^^^^Thanks dude. This literally is the first time getting the stars clear. My attempts have always been pretty bad but I looked at some Youtube clips to get some tips. I shoot with a Mark 3 and shot all those with the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8, Shot those at 4000 ISO I believe and at 30 second exposure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest News

View All News

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

| Xenforo Add-ons © by ©XenTR | Media embeds via s9e/MediaSites
Back
Top Bottom