The Photography Thread

[funkydan]

Pete, I got it secondhand but in very good condition from Ebay, I think I paid about £220 + P&P. Excellent lens though, couldn't recommend it enough if you are looking for a cheaper alternative to the Canon version! They retail new for about £300-£350 I think.

[Malc]

Spags, I'm liking the third one of the planes.

Dan, I really like the first one, great use of lighting.

Here's a couple from me today taken around the back of Secrets Garden Centre:

[EvilBoris]

I quite like that first one, I reckon that would look cool in black and white

[funkydan]

Whose pic Boris, mine or Malc's?

[EvilBoris]

Malc's

I like your 2nd one the best, although I don't think that would look better in black and white

[Magnakai]

Pete, if you think you're going full-frame at some point, and you don't need any faster than F4, the 17-40's pretty good. Though if I were going for that, I'd spend a bit more and get the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS. It's an excellent, excellent lens, and the IS is super-handy. In some ways, it's Canon's best regular zoom, period. It's crop-sensor only, though.

Personally, I'd go for fast primes, but I shoot a lot of low light stuff, so the extra stop or two is really handy to me.

Really, though - in my mind, the best investment for the money, once you've got the basics, is lighting gear and a decent tripod, especially if you want to do portraits. A flashgun, lighting stand with umbrella adaptor and a silver/shoot-through umbrella just transform stuff. An off-camera TTL cable is really handy too.

Gosh, I've just done another gear rant. Sorry!

Here are a couple I took today of my flatmate:





Lighting info is in there if you go to the photo page.

[funkydan]

Love that second shot Mag, super cool bass playing lady!

[Malc]

I had my first attempt at Night photography last night. I went to the Surrey Research Park around midnight, maybe a bit too late but oh well. I was worried about carrying expensive gear around Guildford but the research park is only open to employees late at night, and because it's enclosed the chances of me getting mugged were very slim. Obviously not many people were working, so I was able to take my time and walk around for different vantage points etc.

Here are some of the results:

[funkydan]

Night photography is hard but I think you've done well, some comments below

I like the third pic - is the bank on the other side of the water sloping down to the left? It's a bit disconcerting as the reflection looks wonky - nice idea though!

The fourth pic is great, cool use of the available light, I really like that.

And the fifth.....was this taken in black and white mode? Or have you tried to convert to b+w? I'm guessing it was perhaps the former?!

[Malc]

For the black and white pic I did that after when editing, I'm not really good at post editing (probably because i'm not a fan of it) apart from the basic cropping and stuff.

I think I desaturated it and then messed around with the brightness and contrast, that's were I probably went wrong.

Thanks for taking the time to right some constructive criticism, as I can learn from that. A compliment is always nice as well.

[Magnakai]

The first one's nice, and the fourth one's excellent composed. Night landscape photography is so difficult because our eyes process imagery totally differently to how a camera does, especially in low-light.

Also, next time you go out, try experimenting with the white-balance settings. Setting it to Tungsten or Fluorescent (depending on the light type) would get rid of the hard red colour cast.

[Magnakai]

I don't know what software you're using, but if it's Photoshop, try the Black & White filter or the Channel Mixer instead of desaturating it. Desaturating produces really flat, lifeless results compared to other methods.

[PeteJ]

Pete, if you think you're going full-frame at some point, and you don't need any faster than F4, the 17-40's pretty good. Though if I were going for that, I'd spend a bit more and get the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS. It's an excellent, excellent lens, and the IS is super-handy. In some ways, it's Canon's best regular zoom, period. It's crop-sensor only, though.

Personally, I'd go for fast primes, but I shoot a lot of low light stuff, so the extra stop or two is really handy to me.

Really, though - in my mind, the best investment for the money, once you've got the basics, is lighting gear and a decent tripod, especially if you want to do portraits. A flashgun, lighting stand with umbrella adaptor and a silver/shoot-through umbrella just transform stuff. An off-camera TTL cable is really handy too.

I've only just got a 50d so can't see myself going for a full-frame any time soon (I prefer the 50d to the 5d, and the 5d2 was way out of my price range).

I'm actually wanting to try landscape photography as it's an area I've never really tried, I'm not so interested in lighting rigs for portraits though I might invest in a Speedlight controller whatsit for offshoe lighting.
I hadn't really thought about prime lenses but that actually makes a lot of sense, I've already got the 24-105 f/4 but I wonder if a good quality wide angle prime is what I really need. Hmmmm.

I also I want a telephoto for silverstone next month - any tips on motorsport photography? Sigma do a nice 130-400mm (I think that's the range, they seem to do two at similar lenghts, I mean the higher quality one) but not sure if that is overkill or not.

I could also do with the money to actually pay for this stuff!

Malc - the first is a bit dark on my screen, but the rest look great. Try as mag suggests on the b&w pic (if you don't have photoshop try Picasa), it's a really well composed shot but could do with a bit more punch.

[Malc]

I don't have photoshop, but I was recommended GIMP on this forum as a close alternative. I shot all of these in RAW but GIMP doesn't seem to recognise these files. I have to save them as a JPEG.

I'll see if I can re-do that last one.

EDIT: I used a greyscale option instead, and I haven't changed anything else this time:

[Magnakai]

Malc, much better!

Pete, if you're serious about going wider than 24mm, you haven't got a lot of options. There's the expensive 14mm prime, but I think the 10-22mm would be a nice width for you. I think you'll find the extra space really interesting and liberating. I've also read that the Tokina 11-17mm is very, very good. The fixed 2.8 aperture isn't that useful for landscape stuff, but it's nice to have constant exposure over the zoom range, and it'd be great for any group shots that you might need to do.

As for length... I don't really know! I saved up for months and months (and months and months) to get the 70-200 2.8 IS, which is amazing and is highly recommended. There is a fixed focus 200mm lens for a lot less, which may also be useful. I don't know an awful lot about motorsport photography, but I'd imagine that getting in really tight is a real bonus. Focus speed, as you'll probably want to be on AF Drive, is important. You'll want to be on a really fast shutter speed anyway, so image stabilisation probably isn't that important, though a monopod might be. Apart from that, try checking fredmiranda.com, dpreview.com and other random reviews. I think Alastair took quite a lot of motorsport pics, but he doesn't seem to be around much anymore.