Discussion in 'Art, Culture, and Literature' started by Molon_UK, Dec 16, 2009.
Sent a request to the 5/8 group.
I'm going to buy a circular polarising filter. The Hoya one is Â£26.99, but I can get Hama or other cheap makes for between Â£4.50 - Â£15. Is there really that much of a difference? I'm a student and don't really have very much money, so am loathe to spend it if I don't really have to.
Budget and purpose? If you can afford the 580EX II go for it, otherwise the 430EX II is a good alternative and will deliver almost as well. Depending on what you intend to do it might make more sense to look into some entry level strobes (such as the Interfit EX150 kit) instead. The difference between what you can do with flash guns and strobes is pretty stunning, generally in favor of strobes. Naturally though that really applies if you want to be doing stuff in a studio type environment. Flash guns are great for on the run, strobes for a controlled environment.
Example of studio strobes, just messing around with a buddy of mine.
Then again, you can do some neat stuff with just a single off camera flash gun.
As squeaky mentioned though, this is on a 5D mark II. Honestly, would you put $300 tires on an Aston Martin?
I'd say go with the Hoya if you can afford it. There absolutely is a noticeable difference between budget filters and good ones.
Incidentally, Hwei... since you seem to be doing a lot of landscape stuff... I know a ton of amazing Canon landscape photographers who pretty much swear by the combo of 5dII + 17-40mm f/4. The 16-35mm f/2.8 seems less liked for some reason... One of the reasons might be the 82mm filter size, as a lot of filters top out at 77mm.
i wouldn't bother tbh, i think that 90% of all photos taken with them look pretty amateurish. i used one for ages, and i don';t like many of the photos i took wih it.
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind if I ever have any money to spend on more glass. I've been shooting landscapes because I've been hanging out in cool places (aka NZ) but once I get back to New England I think it's going to be more along the lines of weddings and bands. We shall see! Thinking about this real world business sucks, maybe I should have stayed in college forever.
Also, thanks Thal, I'll check out your suggestions. Flash gun seems the way to go as I'm definitely an on-the-run photographer for now, but maybe studio work will come in later...always more gear to buy, even for a non gear-nerd like me.
The 16-35 has issues with flare and high contrast edges and is a bit soft in the corners. The 17-40 has very very mild vignetting - such a small amount that you won't even notice it - but you will notice the corner softness of the 16-35. If you need a fast ultra wide angle zoom then the 16-35 is your lens, but for landscape you're usually shooting f/9-16. Since the 17-40 outperforms the 16-35 optically, it's the go to lens for landscapes. Plus, it's cheaper.
It's a tool in photography just like anything else. In this case, it blocks reflected light. It's particularly useful when you want water to look very dark, preserve contrast between blue sky and clouds, or when you want to enrich foliage color during the fall season. I'm sure Karan decided he wants one because he likes how it works in certain situations he has in mind.
i suppose so, i'm just speaking from my relatiely limited experience using one.
Yeah, the reason I want one is that I am going to be hopefully doing a lot of landscape shots in the next 6 months or so as I'm going traveling next summer and want to be somewhat proficient at it then. My main reason would be for those deep blue skies, and water shots to a lesser extent.
Just be careful using a polarizer on the sky if the lens is really wide... You'll get weird gradations sometimes. The polarizer has an effect that is local to specific angles relative to the sun, and with a wide angle lens you will get enough difference in that angle between the two edges of the frame that the polarizer will handle the two areas differently.
Hmmm... the lens I am going to be using it with isn't that wide. 30mm f/1.8 on a DX sensor, but the best one I have for landscape stuff (my other being the kit lens 18-135mm). Hopefully it should be ok.
The lens you're talking about is 35mm, and is not anywhere near wide enough to have a problem with polarizer inconsistency. Go nuts with it. By the way, you can do landscape shots with any lens. It doesn't have to be wide angle. Ansel Adams mainly used a lens that was the equivalent of around 135mm on a DX sensor. You just have to change how you look at the scene. Wide angle is when you want the foreground to be a big part of the whole scene. A longer lens is for when you are shooting stuff far away (like a mountain across a valley) and you want to keep the subject big and impressive. Wide angle makes far away things look tiny.
As an example, here's a great landscape shot, and although she doesn't list the technical information, I'm pretty sure this was shot at at least 100mm.
That's a really nice shot. What makes you think that was shot with a long focal length as opposed to shorter, but that she was just really close to it? Also, this is a really amateur question, but how do you tell when someone's used a wide angle lens as compared to a non wide angle lens? I guess it's just experience at looking at photographs, but I always used to think that photos shot with a wide angle lens had different dimensions (ie. photo was wider), but obviously this isn't the case and I do get confused...lol
And I don't know why I said 30mm 1.8 (which is what made you think I meant 35mm as there probably isn't a 30mm 1.8), my lens is actually a Sigma 30mm f/1.4.
the perspecitve is different, if a wide lens is used, the dpeth in the photo will seem deeper, whereas a longer lens compresses the scene. for example, if you take a photo of a tree with a mountain in the background, with a wide lens, the tree will seem really far away from the mountain, and with a long lens, even if the tree is the same size in the frame, it will seem closer to the mountain.
I did get some work done recently... I'm not as fond of this time of the year because I'm more into color work, and there is a lack of color in general right now. But the snow does seem to lend itself well to black and white, so here are some black and white shots for a change.
have u got the colour versions still? i think landscapes like that look great with their really muted colours, although obviously a bit different from your normal style.
@freespiritz - absolutely stunning shots, really like those!
Not posted for a while, purely because I've taken pretty much no photos since starting full time work - up at 6am and home at 6:30pm almost every day...I've been so tired in the evenings that I've not felt like doing anything. Really need to rectify that. Anyway, here a few from the last couple of days (courtesy of the snow preventing me from actually getting in to work )
Those are really nice, I especially like the first two. You picked some good subjects.
Wow Uber! Those shots are really really nice!
Tech, I really like the first one.
So I had a chance to shoot something more private a couple of days ago..
Would be cool to hear what you guys think about this:
uber, those are amazing, that's exactly what i mean by the subdued colours snowy landscapes have, especially the 2nd one. just the hint of colour is what makes it i think.
xander, those are pretty cool, i like the crop in the first two.
really like the last one xander, the texture on her feet in the first one are a bit unflattering (is that a word in english?).
Yea, I was wondering if it's me, or if it does make her feet look like granny feet
and I think unflattering is a word.. "not flattering" is definitely one
i think unflattering is a word. at least i hope it is, becuase i 'm pretty sure i've used it a few times...
also, some more photos of Into The Dust, a local band ive shot before http://loz-clark.blogspot.com/2010/01/into-dust-2.html
those are pretty sick squeaky!
i love the emotion display on those
oh, and I totally forgot about these pics:
Met a friend I know back from Russia on my trip to Finland (he got together with the best friend of my girlfriend ^^)
Went for a Holga look on these:
nice. love the diffferent colours in all of them becuase of the diffferent lights.
Took a couple of photos while playing with my Canon 1000D:
i was going to ask why the first one was reversed. then i realised how you took the photo....... i like the composition in the second one, the empty space at the top works well.
I got a new camera for Christmas and updated my flickr. Mostly just testing it out... it's not extremely fancy because I'm not a hardcore photographer.
there are some nicely composed pics in there, thats for sure
liked these ones:
Thanks. That second one is one of my favorites. I hate the first one though because my shadow is in it.
yeah, you've definitely got a good eye for composition.
here are some more band photos from that same gig. completely different style of music though, which meant i could get in really close with a 10mm lens without getting battered. i think i also managed to annoy the entire band by flashing them in the face from about 3cm away.
click on the photos to enlarge.
This thing is amazing. Perfectly smooth operation, and when it locks it really is locked. This is basically the best ballhead money can buy, I can't wait to try it out next weekend (if the weather holds up).
How much did you pay for it?
I also am picking up a Gitzo carbon-fiber tripod Saturday for about $600. And that's pretty much gonna be it for my camera gear spending this year.
fuuuuuu that's a lot for a tripod set up...
Yeah, it's my third tripod, and I wanted to make sure I never need to buy another. Basically it went: $30 Quantaray -> $120 Calumet -> $1000 this
i suppose that kind of makes sense, especially seeing as i'm guessing you use a tripod for all of your photographs.
I need to buy a tripod, but can't spend more than Â£100 or Â£150 at the very very most at the moment. However I don't know what to be looking for in tripods/what features are necessary/what features aren't etc. Any tips/links?
just look for one that's pretty solid, you should be able to feel how stable it is. the type of head you get with it isn't that important imo, although i'd probably go for a ball head, i've got one which you have to turn a different lever to move it in different directions which is really time consuming, whereas with a ball head you can just unlock it and move it however you want. manfrotto are pretty good http://www.warehouseexpress.com/brand/?manfrotto i think i've got the older version of the top one, and i've never had any problems with it at all.
I actually prefer the levers for a shot I want to be really spot on, where I can take my time in setting it up.
For that price range, I'd actually say skip the ballhead - they are more expensive than regular heads (I am not sure what the actual name is but I call them tri-axial heads), and even if you get a cheap ballhead that won't leave much for the tripod itself. I would go for a tripod with a built-in head since you can probably get the most bang-for-the-buck in that price range. Honestly, the Calumet one I had wasn't bad for the price. I use a tripod almost all the time, so naturally I ran into dissatisfaction with it pretty quickly. If you are only planning to use it here and there, it should be fine.
Thanks for the advice. Simple question - apart from the ones with the built in heads, do tripods come in two parts? Like, you buy the legs separately and then the "head" (ball head or tri axial thingy)? And are the legs for a tri axial head different to the legs for a ball head? For example, if in the future I know I wanted a ball head, then could I buy a good pair of tripod legs and a tri axial head, knowing that I could just swap it for a good ball head in the future?
Yeah decent ones are made of two parts - the legs/mono-leg and the head (ball, pan etc.). Standard legs support most types of head afaik, unless you get something crazy. Same goes for monopods with the same heads heads.
I actually recently bought this leg (055XB) + pan head (804RC2) combo and really couldn't be happier. The legs are incredibly sturdy for the weight and the head is built like a tank and doesn't shift at all...imo it's a great package and you can pick it up for about Â£130 online.
[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Manfrotto-055XB-804RC2K-Lightweight-Aluminium/dp/B001NICVD2/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1263326438&sr=8-5"]Manfrotto 055XB,804RC2K Lightweight Aluminium Tripod: Amazon.co.uk: Electronics & Photo[/ame]
The head/legs pairing is an industry standard that generally works even across brands. For example, I got the RRS ballhead yesterday, but still haven't received the Gitzo legs I plan to attach it to. So I pulled out my old crappy Calumet, which came as a head/legs unit, managed to unscrew the head from the legs, and put the RRS ballhead onto it. It fit perfectly. And that's on a tripod that even came with it's own head.
EDIT: And Manfrotto is one of the best deals for the money... I know plenty of photographers here in Boston that use Manfrotto. Manfrotto also makes a very popular "pistol-grip" ballhead that is not very expensive.
Hey peoples, I have some shots that I'm happy with, more atmospheric stuff from a very interesting day last month.
Fuck the first one is awesome.
It reminds me of this painting:
but also this one:
Fuck yea, how were those shot?
Any processing other than b&w conversion?
They were shot on a really foggy day, visibility was about 50m or less, and all I've done to them is a b/w conversion in Lightroom. Not the first Beksinski comparison I've had recently...
Separate names with a comma.