The Photography Thread

[PeteJ]

Ish - they are absolutely stunning. The first is perfect.

[Alastair]

My niece who is eight. She is great to snap as she's so photogenic.

Handheld and unsharpened @
1/200
f/3.2
ISO 320

Canon 85mm f/1.8

Didn't know you had that lens Peanuts, isn't it mega expensive? Gives lovely results though. Nice DOF there.

[Alastair]

Swapped the lens, no problem. Definitely the plus point of buying on the high street. Let hope this one is better or it'll be obvious it's just me being crap (or a crap lens) and I guess it'll be going back if that's the case.

Also, popped into the second hand camera shop and picked up a Cokin adapter ring and holder for my other lenses for 4 quid!! They didn't have any grad' grey ND filters but jessops did for 11.99 new. I was expecting them to cost so much more for some reason, would have bought one ages ago had I known. Why are polarisers so much more expensive?

Expect lots of sky/landscape shots and some attempts at running water soon!!

[Richard.John]

Alastair,

Cheers for the comments.The pricey one is the 85 f/1.2 L. Mine is just the plain old 'peasants' version, still not cheap though at about 230 GBP. The L comes in at about 940 GBP! Ouch.

[PeteJ]

I'm really tempted to buy this.

?700 is a lot of money though, particularly for something SO restricted. I love macro shooting and that's where most of my effort goes, but I don't know if I want to limit myself so much. It goes to 5x life sized (my 100mm canon does 1x life-sized, and with the extension tubes I have I can get to 2x), but at the maximum focal point the depth of field is one twentieth of a millimeter
It sounds completely crazy, yet appealing all the same.

[MartyG]

I think you'd have to be truly dedicated to macro work to get your money's worth out of that lens, but some of the gallery photos from it are pretty awesome.

http://www.pbase.com/jm_martins/image/52457692

[briareos_kerensky]

I'm really tempted to buy this.

Ah, the MP-E. Sweet, sweet lens, but you'll need other equipment to use it...like this, the MT-24EX, which is an other expensive piece of equipment but it's basically needed to work with such a lens. Normal flashes will be obstructed by the lens own body creating unwanted shadows or they won't be powerful enough to correctly expose the scene. Not to mention that you won't be able to create any lighting effects that are so easy to create with the MT-24EX.
Personally, I'd go with the flash before the MP-E. I constantly use it with a standard 100mm macro and right now it's more than enough to suppress any real urge to buy Canon's ubermacro.

[Alastair]

I've been to London today!


Maybe too much like a normal pic for a panography?

[Spatial]

Dave Gorman's Flickr account - not only is he funny, he's also a really good photographer

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dgbalancesrocks/

[Alastair]

See them all here.

[Ish]

Nice pics Alastair. I particularly like the third one.

I'd lined up a trip to the woods today to take some decent Autumn shots but I've been struck down with a nasty virus. Gah.

[PeteJ]

I'm hoping to get out today too, need to get an Autumn shot before I miss the chance

Very nice shots Alastair, really like the second and third.

[Alastair]

Thanks guys, did you make it out today? Weather was lovely down here.

Some more:

[Spagoli]

That map pic is great Alastair! the combination of depth of field and angle add to making the sense of scale really interesting.

[Ish]

If you go down to the woods today.... went to the nearest woodland on my lunch break hunting for shrooms. Unlike in my schooldays hunting for the the photogenic rather than the magical.

I have to admit I found it quite hard capturing the mushrooms. I had half an idea what I wanted to achieve but didn't really manage it.

Its certainly very different capturing the browns of autumn rather than the vibrant colours of last weekends butterflies. Anyway here are some of my efforts.