[dexmus]

[IIGQ4U]

[noons]

Nicely bracketed, IIGQ4U. Love the colours

[TOUGEFC]

Great shots Simon!

Here are photos from my sisters prom earlier this week: (Canon 5DmkII + Canon 35/1.4 and Canon 5D + Canon 85/1.8)

[], on Flickr

Thanks mate! Great prom shots you got there!

Really great shots Simon!

Thanks!

Incredible IQ, especially this one. How are you liking that 180?

Cheers Jay that shot was ISO 1000 too!
Oh man, Im absolutely loving the 180mm, its a real gem for outdoors, close-ups/mid shots/ far shots/ bokeh shots this lens excels at just about everything.


Another from it wide open

[IIGQ4U]

Nicely bracketed, IIGQ4U. Love the colours

Thanks Noons!

[itshimitis]

Not a dig in any way but why do so many of you guys shoot wide open? Don't get me wrong, they are great shots, but usually lenses perform better stopped down a bit. On some forums it seems to be a badge of honour to shoot wide open even if the conditions don't merit it. I can understand wanting to throw the background out of focus to demonstrate the bokeh but wide open on a f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens looks like overkill to me. At f/4 you'd have a sharper shot without sacrificing that lovely bokeh. Or am I barking up completely the wrong tree?

My shooting strategy when shooting landscapes is to shoot at f/11 to f/16 when the foreground matters and f/8 when it doesn't. I used to have a tendency to always shoot with small apertures but am learning that its not always necessary, especially when the subject's foreground is rippling water for example.

[eddie1960]

Not a dig in any way but why do so many of you guys shoot wide open? Don't get me wrong, they are great shots, but usually lenses perform better stopped down a bit. On some forums it seems to be a badge of honour to shoot wide open even if the conditions don't merit it. I can understand wanting to throw the background out of focus to demonstrate the bokeh but wide open on a f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens looks like overkill to me. At f/4 you'd have a sharper shot without sacrificing that lovely bokeh. Or am I barking up completely the wrong tree?

My shooting strategy when shooting landscapes is to shoot at f/11 to f/16 when the foreground matters and f/8 when it doesn't. I used to have a tendency to always shoot with small apertures but am learning that its not always necessary, especially when the subject's foreground is rippling water for example.

Grasshopper you have advanced to the next level

[Pentikonian]

Not a dig in any way but why do so many of you guys shoot wide open? Don't get me wrong, they are great shots, but usually lenses perform better stopped down a bit. On some forums it seems to be a badge of honour to shoot wide open even if the conditions don't merit it. I can understand wanting to throw the background out of focus to demonstrate the bokeh but wide open on a f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens looks like overkill to me. At f/4 you'd have a sharper shot without sacrificing that lovely bokeh. Or am I barking up completely the wrong tree?

My shooting strategy when shooting landscapes is to shoot at f/11 to f/16 when the foreground matters and f/8 when it doesn't. I used to have a tendency to always shoot with small apertures but am learning that its not always necessary, especially when the subject's foreground is rippling water for example.

There are some lenses that are sharp wide open, and either do not improve/ minimally improve (or actually degrade slightly) as you stop down. Nikon's 200/2 lenses are like this. The AF-S VRI and VRII are sharp wide open and have minimal improvement from what I understand. The Ai-S 200/2 I have inbound is supposed to be sharp at f/2, as sharp at f/2.8 but with better contrast, about the same at f/4, and then starts to loose sharpness again at f/5.6 - I'll have to see how that works on my lens after I do some testing. These lenses seem to be made for shooting wide open. Then there's the whole artistic expression thing...

Still... I try to use the correct aperture for the correct DOF for the subject matter.

I still have lots to learn.

[IIGQ4U]

Not a dig in any way but why do so many of you guys shoot wide open? Don't get me wrong, they are great shots, but usually lenses perform better stopped down a bit. On some forums it seems to be a badge of honour to shoot wide open even if the conditions don't merit it. I can understand wanting to throw the background out of focus to demonstrate the bokeh but wide open on a f/1.4 or f/1.8 lens looks like overkill to me. At f/4 you'd have a sharper shot without sacrificing that lovely bokeh. Or am I barking up completely the wrong tree?

My shooting strategy when shooting landscapes is to shoot at f/11 to f/16 when the foreground matters and f/8 when it doesn't. I used to have a tendency to always shoot with small apertures but am learning that its not always necessary, especially when the subject's foreground is rippling water for example.

The shot I posted above was at F13.

I believe that open apertures are a tool that can be better used to convey a story... Any aperture number for that matter.

For example, If I am photographing a snowboarder carving the backcountry, there is no way I am going to zoom in and use a low f-stop number... I would go wide raise the f-stop number and show the landscape.

I agree with what you are saying in regard to landscapes as well.

It seems that a lot of photographers feel validated by creaming backgrounds, but to me, it doesn't always make for the best shot.

F8 1/640

[itshimitis]

My reason for raising it as on some forums people brag about shooting wide open, and yes, the subject is nicely in focus (great!) but the use of narrow depth of field isn't actually speaking to me. Many people do it simply because they CAN. It still has to make sense in the shot and work with the composition. Some still have the attitude that if its showing the bokeh then it must be artistic!

[eddie1960]

. Some still have the attitude that if its showing the bokeh then it must be artistic!

LMAO, well said. and of course with many lenses you still get great bokeh at f4 so no need to be wide open all the time

[jsherman999]

My reason for raising it as on some forums people brag about shooting wide open, and yes, the subject is nicely in focus (great!) but the use of narrow depth of field isn't actually speaking to me. Many people do it simply because they CAN. It still has to make sense in the shot and work with the composition. Some still have the attitude that if its showing the bokeh then it must be artistic!

I don't know if it's supposed to be 'artistic'. In my case, I'm usually going for subject isolation, unless I'm doing a type of environmental portrait in which the foreground/background actually adds to the story of the image, places the 'subject' in a time and place I want to remember. Example:

f/7.1


If the subject has some details that require an attention focus, (or If the background includes some garbage in front of my garage for example ) , I'd probably rather diffuse the background into bokeh.

f/2.8 (max aperture on that zoom)



Another reason is that perhaps the lens performs very well wide-open or at larger apertures, and it's fun to marvel at the sharpness on the focal plane, enjoy the 'pop' it brings. If I'm shooting a soft lens, I'm stopping down,because a soft shot has no 'pop' even if it has subject isolation.

And sometimes it's simply a light issue. If f/1.8 gets me 1/40s, f/4 gets me 1/10s, I'm going with f/1.8.

For landscapes, architecture, etc, I'm almost always at f/8, sometimes f/5,6 and sometimes f/11 - f/16 depending on how much of the foreground I want in the frame.

f/8

[sb in ak]

Here are a few 5DII shots from the last month. I have some mixed feelings about this camera. Delivers good IQ and depth of field is a lot of fun to play with. However, the camera is a beast, especially with the kit 24-105. Not to motivating to bring it on longer hikes or travels. I'm giving the K5 a shot (should arrive tomorrow). If I love it, I may sell the 5DII as I can't really afford to keep two systems going. No B&Ms in my area (southern Alaska) so it's kind of hard to test cameras before hand (I've never seen a Pentax DSLR here, though I don't really look very hard). My first experience was a film class in high school with a K1000. Looking forward to trying Pentax again. Stoked for the weather sealing and ability to use old lenses.

Old car and benches with the 24-105mm, mountains with the 50mm 1.4. I believe the old car was f/4, benches at f/16, and mountains at f/8.

With the old car, I just adjusted exposure and vibrance/sat a little.

With the bench shot, I had to clone out a big section where a water droplet fell on the lens (DOH!) and then I converted it to a sepia tone and added a smidgen of diffuse glow filter. Still a few water droplets, but those are more difficult to remove and not really in key areas.

With the b&w mountains, I processed the RAW twice and then combined them in Photoshop with a gradient mask. Finally, I added a b&w adjustment layer and wayyy underxposed the blues in the final b&w. Happy with it, though it isn't perfect. Wish I had my 17-40mm but I was trying to go light.


C&C is certainly welcome! Hope these files aren't too large.

[itshimitis]

Here are a few 5DII shots from the last month. I have some mixed feelings about this camera. Delivers good IQ and depth of field is a lot of fun to play with. However, the camera is a beast, especially with the kit 24-105. Not to motivating to bring it on longer hikes or travels. I'm giving the K5 a shot (should arrive tomorrow). If I love it, I may sell the 5DII as I can't really afford to keep two systems going. No B&Ms in my area (southern Alaska) so it's kind of hard to test cameras before hand (I've never seen a Pentax DSLR here, though I don't really look very hard). My first experience was a film class in high school with a K1000. Looking forward to trying Pentax again. Stoked for the weather sealing and ability to use old lenses.

Old car and benches with the 24-105mm, mountains with the 50mm 1.4. I believe the old car was f/4, benches at f/16, and mountains at f/8.

With the old car, I just adjusted exposure and vibrance/sat a little.

With the bench shot, I had to clone out a big section where a water droplet fell on the lens (DOH!) and then I converted it to a sepia tone and added a smidgen of diffuse glow filter. Still a few water droplets, but those are more difficult to remove and not really in key areas.

With the b&w mountains, I processed the RAW twice and then combined them in Photoshop with a gradient mask. Finally, I added a b&w adjustment layer and wayyy underxposed the blues in the final b&w. Happy with it, though it isn't perfect. Wish I had my 17-40mm but I was trying to go light.



C&C is certainly welcome! Hope these files aren't too large.

Love the sharpness in these - very crisp.

[itshimitis]

The weather hasn't been fantastic in my part of Wales but we have been spared (touches wood) the severe flooding that other parts of the country have suffered.

I took a stroll down to the beach with my camera and my new CZ 35mm lens to put it through its paces out and about:

Looking towards the harbour across the sand:

Canon 5D mk III Carl Zeiss ZE 35mm f/2 Distagon T* at f/16 and 1/80 ISO 200




Looking over the sea defences into the Bristol Channel:

Canon 5D mk III Carl Zeiss ZE 35mm f/2 Distagon T* at f/9 and 1/160 ISO 100




Along the front there are a few art sculptures funded by local government. I call this one, The Squiggle

Canon 5D mk III Carl Zeiss ZE 35mm f/2 Distagon T* at f/8 and 1/60 ISO 100




On my way back I walked along the sand and caught site of someone's sand drawing of a plane

Canon 5D mk III Carl Zeiss ZE 35mm f/2 Distagon T* at f/16 and 1/30 ISO 800





All converted using Silver Efex pro 2