The Official Photography Thread - Vol. 3

[iamdef]

Looks like if you want a more flattering portrait wider could be better?

 

[yanky]

Got a shoot with an R8 today....here's to hoping the car is washed

 

[picasso swerve]

50mm takes some nice *** pics but goddamn you gotta be far as hell to take a full body picture thats NOT sideways. Should I even be using a DSLR sideways for a picture or is that a no no?


35mm would be "better"?

 

[danyosahn]

 

[Y4BBZY]

50mm takes some nice *** pics but goddamn you gotta be far as hell to take a full body picture thats NOT sideways. Should I even be using a DSLR sideways for a picture or is that a no no?


35mm would be "better"?

The 50mm is like a 80mm on a crop DSLR. Check out the Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 for $300 via Slickdeals, has a fast aperture, image stabilization, and gives you a variety of focal lengths like the 35mm you wanted.

 

[Fong$tarr]

50mm takes some nice *** pics but goddamn you gotta be far as hell to take a full body picture thats NOT sideways. Should I even be using a DSLR sideways for a picture or is that a no no?


35mm would be "better"?

The 85mm is a punk of a lens if you aren't shooting portraits. For the walk around, you need to be in the 35mm range or wider.

If you want a budget 35mm just to shoot it, get the Yongnuo. It's less than a $100. Not super sharp but it's cheap.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1158443-REG/yongnuo_yn35mm_f2_yn_35mm_f_2_lens.html



Canon has a new budget 35mm too but budget meaning it's less than the expensive one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/898726-USA/Canon_5178b002_EF_35mm_f_2_0_IS.html










I shot this today since summers in SF suck and are cold. Did some focusing stacking to get everything in focus. Kind of looks photoshopped with just a blue background but man, this took hours to shoot and composite.

 

[romcadoo]

I love those sneaker shots like that I need to learn how to take them Fong$tarr

 

[yanky]

Nice work on the V's Fong. I don't have the patience to do something like that but it does come out crystal clear.

A few shots from today. Like a dummy I set my iso at 2500 for a few of them and they turned out to be extra noisy Now I have to mess with photoshop to get rid of as much as I can.

Edit: This noise is really pissing me off. If anyone has some tips on reducing it lmk please. I tried the reduce noise option in PS but didn't get anywhere with it. SMH at myself

 

[Fong$tarr]

Nice work on the V's Fong. I don't have the patience to do something like that but it does come out crystal clear.

Edit: This noise is really pissing me off. If anyone has some tips on reducing it lmk please. I tried the reduce noise option in PS but didn't get anywhere with it. SMH at myself

What is more dumb is if I had a longer lens, I'd get the whole shoe in focus but because I only have a 50mm, I have to do the focus stacking thing. It's still a rather lack luster photo but i am happy it's clean looking. I guess it'd be worth an investment to get a mirror to add a reflection. I also need one more flash too. I am using two flashes but one is to color the background. I need one to shoot on the right side of the shoe too.


Check out this composite. Would be cool to try this but looks like a lot of work and mess:

http://www.diyphotography.net/shoes-splash-tutorial/

I love those sneaker shots like that I need to learn how to take them Fong$tarr

Check this blog post. Sort of similar to what i am doing but lighting things way different and out of whack. This person seems to have some control on his lighting.

http://www.diyphotography.net/lighting-tutorial-photograph-shoes/

 

[romcadoo]

What is more dumb is if I had a longer lens, I'd get the whole shoe in focus but because I only have a 50mm, I have to do the focus stacking thing. It's still a rather lack luster photo but i am happy it's clean looking. I guess it'd be worth an investment to get a mirror to add a reflection. I also need one more flash too. I am using two flashes but one is to color the background. I need one to shoot on the right side of the shoe too.


Check out this composite. Would be cool to try this but looks like a lot of work and mess:

http://www.diyphotography.net/shoes-splash-tutorial/

Check this blog post. Sort of similar to what i am doing but lighting things way different and out of whack. This person seems to have some control on his lighting.

http://www.diyphotography.net/lighting-tutorial-photograph-shoes/

Right on, definitely gonna peep this

 

[picasso swerve]

So if I grab a 35mm then my 50mm purchase is basically...well wasted?

 

[dunksrnice]

This past weekend, FAME San Jose.



--

Vlog edition.



As always, more on my blog.

IG - @dunksrnice
Youtube - @dunksrnice
http://www.dunksrnice.net/2016/08/fame-san-jose-2016-recap.html

 

[djyoung08]

Shots from a wedding on Friday.

 

[Fong$tarr]

So if I grab a 35mm then my 50mm purchase is basically...well wasted?

Your essentially starting your library of lenses. Most of us on here (if not all) have more than one lens and you just switch lenses on the fly whenever you need either or focal length. Unfortunately there is not one almighty lens that does everything which is why this hobby is just brutal on your pockets. No different than tattooing really.

There is a reference in photography though with lenses called the holy trinity where it consists of 3 fixed lenses with one being wide, one being mid range and one being telephoto. Everyone's holy trinity is different though. I shoot on the wide side so I have a 24mm and a 50mm and I'd probably get a 16mm if I didn't get the Tamron 15-30mm. Some people's trios are on the long side where you can get a 50mm, 85mm and say a 135mm. So in essence since you will get the 35mm and already have the 50mm, you have a decent range covered considering on the long side. All you need is a wide angle, and you should be good.

 

[7th Chamber]

If there was one "end all, be all" lens, that'd be great. But there isn't and if it did exist, it would probably cost a fortune. Maybe a 15-200 f/2.0

But to echo what Fong said, you'll need multiple lenses depending on what you shoot. I know a lot of event photographers will use just a 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 because you have focal lengths 24-200 covered with a constant f/2.8 aperture all the way through. Others prefer to shoot only primes will have 35, 50, and 85mm lenses. For some, 35 isn't wide enough and they'll have a 24. I've even read some wedding photographers using only a 35 or only a 50 for the entire day.

With that being said, the one lens I couldn't be without is the 70-200 2.8 IS II. That lens does just about everything and performs like a champ every time.

 

[djyoung08]

If there was one "end all, be all" lens, that'd be great. But there isn't and if it did exist, it would probably cost a fortune. Maybe a 15-200 f/2.0

But to echo what Fong said, you'll need multiple lenses depending on what you shoot. I know a lot of event photographers will use just a 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 because you have focal lengths 24-200 covered with a constant f/2.8 aperture all the way through. Others prefer to shoot only primes will have 35, 50, and 85mm lenses. For some, 35 isn't wide enough and they'll have a 24. I've even read some wedding photographers using only a 35 or only a 50 for the entire day.

With that being said, the one lens I couldn't be without is the 70-200 2.8 IS II. That lens does just about everything and performs like a champ every time.

ALL...OF....THIS....

My wedding on Friday was all shot on 24-70 & 70-200 2.8.

I would love to shoot primes more often but in weddings, so frequently I simply do not have the time to switch lenses that frequently.

I've also seen wedding photographers that almost exclusively shoot 35L, 50L for weddings and throw in 85L for coverage and 135L for portraits.

Must be nice....

 

[bjamez20]

Couple of snapshots from the backyard. Still getting the hang of getting the exposure right with film. Shot on Tri X and developed at home

 

[ksteezy]

I shoot mainly with the 24L on one body and the 50L on the other....occasionally I pop in the 35L and play around with the 24-70 but I always keep at least one prime on....I barely touch my 70-200L hate the size and weight of that thing...lol

 

[djyoung08]

I shoot mainly with the 24L on one body and the 50L on the other....occasionally I pop in the 35L and play around with the 24-70 but I always keep at least one prime on....I barely touch my 70-200L hate the size and weight of that thing...lol

da gawd

 

[picasso swerve]

So 35mm would compliment the 50 quite nicely?


Or just try to grab something wider? Woudnt a 70-200 mean you would have to stand pretty far back to get any kind of shot though? I was messing with my 50 heavy yesterday and it was kinda tough.





Full manual mode, forgot the settings to be honest but slightly edited and cropped on Enlight. 35mm I woudve been able to shoot it from closer plus slightly wider?


@slimcargos btw for anyone who has IG. Would love to follow some of you guys and see your pics.

 

[mjbetch]

So 35mm would compliment the 50 quite nicely?


Or just try to grab something wider? Woudnt a 70-200 mean you would have to stand pretty far back to get any kind of shot though? I was messing with my 50 heavy yesterday and it was kinda tough.


Full manual mode, forgot the settings to be honest but slightly edited and cropped on Enlight. 35mm I woudve been able to shoot it from closer plus slightly wider?


@slimcargos btw for anyone who has IG. Would love to follow some of you guys and see your pics.

Check this graphic out. Pretty much explains the different focal lengths and their field of view. (edot: damnit, forgot to put it in lol)

You would most definitely have to be pretty for back for a 70-200. However, you have to realize what kind of lens that is used for. Mostly portraiture, sports, and wildlife. You'd be crazy to take a 70-200 for street shooting.

woudve been able to shoot it from closer plus slightly wider?

If the photo was taken at the exact same spot where it was taken with the 50, it would be wider.
If you move in closer, it wouldn't necessarily "wider" i think in the sense you're saying.

Check this image. Same filed of view, different lenses. Essentially the photos were taken at different lengths of the studio to keep the face in frame.

24 is really close to the subject and 300 would be pretty far away.

 

[djyoung08]

So 35mm would compliment the 50 quite nicely?


Or just try to grab something wider? Woudnt a 70-200 mean you would have to stand pretty far back to get any kind of shot though? I was messing with my 50 heavy yesterday and it was kinda tough.


Full manual mode, forgot the settings to be honest but slightly edited and cropped on Enlight. 35mm I woudve been able to shoot it from closer plus slightly wider?


@slimcargos btw for anyone who has IG. Would love to follow some of you guys and see your pics.

Check this graphic out. Pretty much explains the different focal lengths and their field of view.

You would most definitely have to be pretty for back for a 70-200. However, you have to realize what kind of lens that is used for. Mostly portraiture, sports, and wildlife. You'd be crazy to take a 70-200 for street shooting.

woudve been able to shoot it from closer plus slightly wider?

If the photo was taken at the exact same spot where it was taken with the 50, it would be wider.
If you move in closer, it wouldn't necessarily "wider" i think in the sense you're saying.

Check this image. Same filed of view, different lenses. Essentially the photos were taken at different lengths of the studio to keep the face in frame.

24 is really close to the subject and 300 would be pretty far away.

ALL OF THIS

Lord I haaaaaate when people use short lenses take close up head shots and/or 3/4 shots

so unflattering and all over IG :x

Yes you have to stand far away to use something like a 70-200 but honestly, if you're out doing street photography you wouldnt want to lug something like that around. a 35mm & a 50mm will be great.

Also, 70-200 is a very expensive piece of equipment. Brand new canon 70-200 2.8L IS II retails for $2,000. I wouldn't recommend that lens to anyone in the process of figuring out what they want to shoot.

If you want to shoot portraits, grab the 85mm f/1.8. If you wanna shoot more street, grab the 35mm f/2. Both are cheap, light, and can teach you a lot.

 

[mjbetch]

Couple of snapshots from the backyard. Still getting the hang of getting the exposure right with film. Shot on Tri X and developed at home

Wow. Awesome shots. Can barely see any grain on Otis! What developer did you use?

 

[Fong$tarr]

So 35mm would compliment the 50 quite nicely?


Or just try to grab something wider? Woudnt a 70-200 mean you would have to stand pretty far back to get any kind of shot though? I was messing with my 50 heavy yesterday and it was kinda tough.





Full manual mode, forgot the settings to be honest but slightly edited and cropped on Enlight. 35mm I woudve been able to shoot it from closer plus slightly wider?


@slimcargos btw for anyone who has IG. Would love to follow some of you guys and see your pics.

Don't get the 70-200. Stick with the 35mm. It seems you are doing mostly street style photography. A 50mm and a 35mm is all you need and if you get into landscapes, get that Canon 10-18mm. Use the 35mm to do your full body shots and use the 50mm as a head/bust shot lens. You'll kind of know when each lens is useful. I hated long lenses but find that I want them more now. When I was at a concert, having a 35mm on a full frame is so damn frustrating unless if you are in the front row. You really need long lenses for all that.

And I just gave you a follow. Surprised I haven't from the past. Didn't know you had that mean of a shoe game. I figured you were like that tattoo slumlord looking type guy. Haha.

 

[picasso swerve]

So in the case of the picture I posted, the 35mm would be "better" than the 50mm I used?


Why would a 70 be ok for portraits and wildlife but not for street

Reps all around when I get a chance.