Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!

jfirneno · 12-03-2009, 10:35 AM

Just to get it out of the way, the tree branch was not something that could be avoided (short of risking arrest for vegetable mutilation).

Damn Brit · 12-03-2009, 12:50 PM

Doesn't do anything for me, you're not taking advantage of the FE perspective. There's no sense of composition and it's under exposed.

**Ash** · 12-03-2009, 12:55 PM

Did you really take this image at f/2.8?
Seems quite sharp all around for this to be the case.
I agree with Gary, but I suppose you didn't have much choice with a prime FE lens (I'm assuming you used the Zenitar).

The shadows casted by the trees onto the building does spoil the look, and the composition isn't right. There is a lot of space above the building whist the bottom of the building has been cropped off.
Keep at it and be mindful of your framing.

Damn Brit · 12-03-2009, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Ash

Did you really take this image at f/2.8?

DOF on FE's is usually pretty deep Ash, don't forget MFD is usually so close you can almost touch the subject.

jfirneno · 12-03-2009, 04:24 PM

Gary, I'd be interested to see a fish-eye photo to use as an example of what you mean. Would you happen to have a link to one?

Ash, I went back and checked the aperture and you were correct. It was 1/1000 sec at F5.6. The lens is a Sigma 16mm F2.8.

Regards
John

Damn Brit · 12-03-2009, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by jfirneno

Gary, I'd be interested to see a fish-eye photo to use as an example of what you mean. Would you happen to have a link to one?

Ash, I went back and checked the aperture and you were correct. It was 1/1000 sec at F5.6. The lens is a Sigma 16mm F2.8.

Regards
John

Sure, the further you get from a level plane (pointing the camera up or down from the horizon) the greater the curvature. This one was at 10mm so the curvature will be more pronounced than 16mm. A fisheye is not an everyday lens, you need to learn what it can do and how to apply it. Generally speaking, with a shot like yours, you get as close as you can while keeping the subject in the frame and usually get straight on as well.

My shot is obviously FE (whether you like it or not is subjective) yours could be mistaken for weird perspective distortion which could be considered less subjective.

jfirneno · 12-03-2009, 05:56 PM

So if I understand you correctly, I should get up as close to the building as I can and point up almost vertically in order to fill the lens with just the building? In that case should I turn the camera on its side to stetch the building even more?

Damn Brit · 12-03-2009, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by jfirneno

So if I understand you correctly, I should get up as close to the building as I can and point up almost vertically in order to fill the lens with just the building? In that case should I turn the camera on its side to stetch the building even more?

Getting closer should create the curvature naturally, pointing the camera up or down will exaggerate it. I've never shot a FE portrait style so I'm not sure what results you will get, the curve may be on the vertical plane. Like I said earlier, a fisheye isn't an everyday lens, it's used for it's effect so practicing to see what it can do should be your first priority then you can start applying it. They are fun to use so keep persevering.
And don't forget John, mine was at 10mm, yours is 16mm so results may not be as drastic.

**Ash** · 12-03-2009, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Damn Brit

DOF on FE's is usually pretty deep Ash, don't forget MFD is usually so close you can almost touch the subject.

Right on Gary. Forgot about that. I still wouldn't shoot at f/2.8, esp. in this situation!

12-03-2009, 10:35 AM	#1
jfirneno Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: New England Photos: Gallery Posts: 47	How about this one? Lens: 16mm Camera: K20D ISO: 100 Aperture: F2.8 Just to get it out of the way, the tree branch was not something that could be avoided (short of risking arrest for vegetable mutilation).

12-03-2009, 05:06 PM	#6
Damn Brit Guest	Originally posted by jfirneno Gary, I'd be interested to see a fish-eye photo to use as an example of what you mean. Would you happen to have a link to one? Ash, I went back and checked the aperture and you were correct. It was 1/1000 sec at F5.6. The lens is a Sigma 16mm F2.8. Regards John Sure, the further you get from a level plane (pointing the camera up or down from the horizon) the greater the curvature. This one was at 10mm so the curvature will be more pronounced than 16mm. A fisheye is not an everyday lens, you need to learn what it can do and how to apply it. Generally speaking, with a shot like yours, you get as close as you can while keeping the subject in the frame and usually get straight on as well. My shot is obviously FE (whether you like it or not is subjective) yours could be mistaken for weird perspective distortion which could be considered less subjective. Last edited by Damn Brit; 12-27-2009 at 12:13 AM.

12-03-2009, 06:48 PM	#8
Damn Brit Guest	Originally posted by jfirneno So if I understand you correctly, I should get up as close to the building as I can and point up almost vertically in order to fill the lens with just the building? In that case should I turn the camera on its side to stetch the building even more? Getting closer should create the curvature naturally, pointing the camera up or down will exaggerate it. I've never shot a FE portrait style so I'm not sure what results you will get, the curve may be on the vertical plane. Like I said earlier, a fisheye isn't an everyday lens, it's used for it's effect so practicing to see what it can do should be your first priority then you can start applying it. They are fun to use so keep persevering. And don't forget John, mine was at 10mm, yours is 16mm so results may not be as drastic. Last edited by Damn Brit; 12-03-2009 at 10:20 PM.

12-03-2009, 12:50 PM	#2
Damn Brit Guest	Doesn't do anything for me, you're not taking advantage of the FE perspective. There's no sense of composition and it's under exposed.

12-03-2009, 12:55 PM	#3
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Did you really take this image at f/2.8? Seems quite sharp all around for this to be the case. I agree with Gary, but I suppose you didn't have much choice with a prime FE lens (I'm assuming you used the Zenitar). The shadows casted by the trees onto the building does spoil the look, and the composition isn't right. There is a lot of space above the building whist the bottom of the building has been cropped off. Keep at it and be mindful of your framing.

12-03-2009, 02:23 PM	#4
Damn Brit Guest	Originally posted by Ash Did you really take this image at f/2.8? DOF on FE's is usually pretty deep Ash, don't forget MFD is usually so close you can almost touch the subject.

12-03-2009, 04:24 PM	#5
jfirneno Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: New England Photos: Gallery Posts: 47 Original Poster	Gary, I'd be interested to see a fish-eye photo to use as an example of what you mean. Would you happen to have a link to one? Ash, I went back and checked the aperture and you were correct. It was 1/1000 sec at F5.6. The lens is a Sigma 16mm F2.8. Regards John

12-03-2009, 05:56 PM	#7
jfirneno Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: New England Photos: Gallery Posts: 47 Original Poster	So if I understand you correctly, I should get up as close to the building as I can and point up almost vertically in order to fill the lens with just the building? In that case should I turn the camera on its side to stetch the building even more?

12-03-2009, 08:09 PM	#9
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Originally posted by Damn Brit DOF on FE's is usually pretty deep Ash, don't forget MFD is usually so close you can almost touch the subject. Right on Gary. Forgot about that. I still wouldn't shoot at f/2.8, esp. in this situation!

Architecture How about this one?

Win a Pentax Limited Lens: Raffle Now Live!