The Official Photography Thread - Vol. 3

[whatscomplex]

@JoDeVa89 I love those. I browsed through your Flickr real quick and I really like your style. I'm trying to get better at framing; your pics are great examples to learn from, saved some of them.

I invested in a 70D and Sigma 35mm Lens a long time ago but I'm just now finally using it regularly. These past few weeks I've been going out and shooting things and it's mad fun. Learning new things every time I shoot.

 

[ddh1122]

Can I send a photo(s) to someone to edit for me? Want to see how it turns out with yours vs. mine and it's also going to be used for something.

 

[mjbetch]

@JoDeVa89 Thanks, homie. I'm diggin' your latest work! Do you live in/near a big city?

Honestly, I don't even feel like I've found or determined what my style is yet. Keep shooting and eventually you'll find yours.

 

[djyoung08]

Can I send a photo(s) to someone to edit for me? Want to see how it turns out with yours vs. mine and it's also going to be used for something.

Been thinking we should do something like this.

someone post a RAW file to download and see what everyone comes up with in the edit.

 

[nrg1604]

That's actually a cool idea. Good way to learn other edit technique if they list what they did, etc.

 

[HankHill]

Is this for portraits or general photos? If you go on ModelMayhem forums, a bunch of people post raw images from shoots for people to retouch. You can just grab one from there.

Did we use to have a photo contest back in the day? Or maybe that was another forum.

 

[bigslim773]

tokes99 DOPE PICS! WHATS YOUR IG?

 

[blueribbon23]

Spontaneous trip to Big Bear C.A this weekend....

 

[doxen5703]

I love that last photo. Have a rep.

 

[Fozz]

What do you guys focus on when working in lightroom?

Is it based on how you want your photo to turn out or are you adjusting to make the photo pop out and be vibrant?

sorry for the noob question, I'm slowly getting back into using Lightroom and am pushing myself not to use a preset by default.

 

[7th Chamber]

What do you guys focus on when working in lightroom?

Is it based on how you want your photo to turn out or are you adjusting to make the photo pop out and be vibrant?

sorry for the noob question, I'm slowly getting back into using Lightroom and am pushing myself not to use a preset by default.

I'm looking for color correction, white balance and exposure. Depending on the image, I might try to add a little pop, but I've gone away from trying to be too vibrant. Canon's 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II both render colors pretty well in my opinion.

I do notice that when I shoot with Canon's 50L, I might have to add some vibrancy as that lens renders images flatter than the two zooms I mentioned.

 

[djyoung08]

What do you guys focus on when working in lightroom?

Is it based on how you want your photo to turn out or are you adjusting to make the photo pop out and be vibrant?

sorry for the noob question, I'm slowly getting back into using Lightroom and am pushing myself not to use a preset by default.

I'm looking for color correction, white balance and exposure. Depending on the image, I might try to add a little pop, but I've gone away from trying to be too vibrant. Canon's 24-70 2.8 II and 70-200 2.8 II both render colors pretty well in my opinion.

I do notice that when I shoot with Canon's 50L, I might have to add some vibrancy as that lens renders images flatter than the two zooms I mentioned.

all of this.

Its an interesting day in age where top tier zooms perform just as well and in various edge cases better than primes.

 

[7th Chamber]

Have y'all already discussed Sigma's 85 Art lens? I want an 85 and my first choice has always been the 85L. I did see where Canon will drop a 85 1.4 though

 

[djyoung08]

Have y'all already discussed Sigma's 85 Art lens? I want an 85 and my first choice has always been the 85L. I did see where Canon will drop a 85 1.4 though

Sigma 85 art looks real good but is pretty over priced IMO

I don't personally really see a reason to get it over the canon 85 1.2L or the nikon 85 1.4G, especially when it comes to portraiture which is more than likely what this lens would be used for.

 

[djyoung08]

Nikon 70-200 f/2.8E Review: Portrait Game Changer! (vs f/2.8G & Canon)



so expensive

 

[Fong$tarr]

Sigma 85 art looks real good but is pretty over priced IMO

I don't personally really see a reason to get it over the canon 85 1.2L or the nikon 85 1.4G, especially when it comes to portraiture which is more than likely what this lens would be used for.

Just a little confused. The Sigma is overpriced and you don't see any reason to get it over the Canon or Nikon because they produce better quality photos?

I have only see a couple of reviews on the Sigma and the only downsides so far are the size, weight and no weather sealing. Other than that, it is either out performing their competitors or are equal to it with a cheaper price tag.


And if I know Canon, that new 85mm coming out in 2017 will be well over $2K.

 

[djyoung08]

Sigma 85 art looks real good but is pretty over priced IMO

I don't personally really see a reason to get it over the canon 85 1.2L or the nikon 85 1.4G, especially when it comes to portraiture which is more than likely what this lens would be used for.

Just a little confused. The Sigma is overpriced and you don't see any reason to get it over the Canon or Nikon because they produce better quality photos?

I have only see a couple of reviews on the Sigma and the only downsides so far are the size, weight and no weather sealing. Other than that, it is either out performing their competitors or are equal to it with a cheaper price tag.


And if I know Canon, that new 85mm coming out in 2017 will be well over $2K.

this is my personal preference but after shooting and being pretty disappointed with tamron and sigma lenses in the past, i choose to stay the camera manufacturer for my lenses.

To me, saving $300 on a sigma 1.4 doesn't make sense when im spending $1500+ on glass. I'd rather buy an 85mm 1.2L used or just save the extra $300 and get what i know will satisfy me.

Sigma should price this at like $1,000 or $1,100 and it would be a lot harder to ignore this lens.

Even if the Sigma 85mm 1.4 produces an image quality that mimics what you get on canon or nikon, they still have that reputation of "well if you get a good copy". That will NEVER be acceptable for professional gear or gear that costs thousands of dollars.

Also, its like $50 cheaper than the nikon 85mm 1.4. crazy to me.

Also, if canon drops a 85mm in 2017 and its well over 2k it better be as sharp as the 35mm 1.4 L 2.

But to charge the same amount as a 3rd party as the OEM guys is pretty wild to me, and to me not worth it.

some people will be happy to save $50 on a $1,000+ purchase though. just not me.

 

[7th Chamber]

Even if the Sigma 85mm 1.4 produces an image quality that mimics what you get on canon or nikon, they still have that reputation of "well if you get a good copy".

I tried to bring this up when asking about the 85 Art elsewhere and got pretty much got bashed. I was told that Nikon users aren't having any issues with Art lenses and they don't care if the low dynamic range Canon shooters are having problems with our cameras

The only reason I brought it up was because the 35 Art was known to have focusing issues even with calibration via the Sigma dock.

I'm with you as far as the savings go even though everyone was saying that they 35 Art and 50 Art lenses set a new standard and blew the Canons away as far as sharpness goes. I haven't had one problem with any Canon glass that I own and I can't be out at an event and worrying about whether or not my lens is going to back focus on me. I'm fine spending a few extra hundred for OEM glass as it will give me peace of mind.

 

[djyoung08]

Even if the Sigma 85mm 1.4 produces an image quality that mimics what you get on canon or nikon, they still have that reputation of "well if you get a good copy".

I tried to bring this up when asking about the 85 Art elsewhere and got pretty much got bashed. I was told that Nikon users aren't having any issues with Art lenses and they don't care if the low dynamic range Canon shooters are having problems with our cameras

The only reason I brought it up was because the 35 Art was known to have focusing issues even with calibration via the Sigma dock.

I'm with you as far as the savings go even though everyone was saying that they 35 Art and 50 Art lenses set a new standard and blew the Canons away as far as sharpness goes. I haven't had one problem with any Canon glass that I own and I can't be out at an event and worrying about whether or not my lens is going to back focus on me. I'm fine spending a few extra hundred for OEM glass as it will give me peace of mind.

all of this .

this is also why i use a canon speedlight and transmitter.

that cheap stuff is all fun and games until you're 4 hours deep into event coverage and it stops working

and all this talk about "well if you get a good copy" and "buy this extra piece to make it focus right". LOL NO

i dont buy a thousand dollar lens to be told i need to buy another piece to make it work correctly

I only own 2 primes right now (85 1.8 and 100 2.8 macro) because i get basically everything i need out of the 24-70 & 70-200 combo but i'm looking to add the 50, 85, and 135 L primes to the arsenal one day.

The canon versions

 

[Fong$tarr]

Oh....I actually thought the Sigma was $1100 but I guess since it is $1200, you do have a point.

I am still waiting on the reviews. I am not sold on it yet but it's hopeful anyways. It is odd how all lenses render color and things differently which actually adds to buying a specific lens or not. I only have one 3rd party lens but with the Tamron 15-30mm, the contrast is really really dark when comparing to Canon. So when you are doing say long exposures at night, you don't get a lot of bright areas like you would with the Canon. I guess it depends on the image since sometimes contrast is good but that lens still renders things really dark which can be frustrating at times.

I haven't shot in a couple of weeks which feels like an eternity. Hope to get some stuff this weekend.

 

[djyoung08]

Oh....I actually thought the Sigma was $1100 but I guess since it is $1200, you do have a point.

I am still waiting on the reviews. I am not sold on it yet but it's hopeful anyways. It is odd how all lenses render color and things differently which actually adds to buying a specific lens or not. I only have one 3rd party lens but with the Tamron 15-30mm, the contrast is really really dark when comparing to Canon. So when you are doing say long exposures at night, you don't get a lot of bright areas like you would with the Canon. I guess it depends on the image since sometimes contrast is good but that lens still renders things really dark which can be frustrating at times.

I haven't shot in a couple of weeks which feels like an eternity. Hope to get some stuff this weekend.

yeah and on amazon right now for some reason its $1,450...

Tamron 15-30 is probably my favorite 3rd party lens.

I also like the 17-50 2.8 crop lens, and the 50-100 1.8 crop lens.

and this is exactly what 3rd party lens makers should be doing.

lenses that OEM companies aren't doing and/or do them BETTER.

Just my personal opinion but second place cheaper versions of lenses don't appeal to me.

 

[tokes99]

the question with 3rd party lenses, is not so much the being cheaper, but the value proposition...if you can get a lens that is on par with or exceeds in quality of that of an oem, for less cash, why not? it isn't as though oems don't sometimes have similar issues with q.a. as well (that previous nikon 70-200mm above, for example), and modern lens making seems to be really leveling the out the extreme differences...

i think there is an effort by 3rd party lens makers, like sigma, tamron, zeiss, etc., are trying to fill the gaps in between the popular focal lengths but i would guess there is quite a bit of money to be made at those common focal lengths; i can understand why some may not want to take the time to explore 3rd party maker options based on past experiences or preference, but it definitely seems like whatever the gap is between the glass that canon/nikon are making and that of sigma/tamron etc. is increasingly getting smaller...

 

[wavy daddy]

I know theres houston cats on here.


I want to get some good shots downtown.

Im talmbout rooftop ****.

Where are some buildings that i can have easy access to thw roof and shoot from above, or at least be able to get a flick or two of the view??

 

[timelessflight]

I know theres houston cats on here.


I want to get some good shots downtown.

Im talmbout rooftop ****.

Where are some buildings that i can have easy access to thw roof and shoot from above, or at least be able to get a flick or two of the view??

the only "rooftop" downtown shots I took was at the Hobby Center Parking Garage (upper floor). Too bad the Sky Lobby at the Chase tower closed. You would have gotten some great shots of downtown Houston. Other than that, i haven't tried to take any rooftop type shots.

My guess would be if you know someone that lives in some apartments downtown who wouldn't mind taking you to their rooftop patio to get some shots

 

[dragicon]

Nikon 70-200 f/2.8E Review: Portrait Game Changer! (vs f/2.8G & Canon)



so expensive

That title is enough to stay away from that video for me. A 70-200 redesign should never be called a game changer d700, d3, and d300 were game changers. Heck, even the d90 was a game changer as it was the first dslr with video.