The photography thread

jellyroll

Success!!!

stickyfiddle

I need to catch up. 

Singapore first. The zoo mostly...

stickyfiddle

Budgie

I've just come back from a week in the Scottish Highlands and took this of the Cuillin hills along with others I haven't processed yet. Quite pleased with this one.

Lodious

Good lightroom deal here... 

https://amzn.to/2zfTX2G

I'm not sure if you can extend exiting subscription, but Victoria Brampton thought you might be able to.

RaymondLin

Lodious said:

Good lightroom deal here... 

https://amzn.to/2zfTX2G

I'm not sure if you can extend exiting subscription, but Victoria Brampton thought you might be able to.

Yes you can, as I just done it.

zepp76

I'll be visiting Italy in the spring and was wondering what would be the best lenses to take with me? I'll be taking a mix of landscape, architecture and people shots. I have a 50mm, 28mm wide angle, 100mm macro, 18-55mm and 75-300mm. Obviously I don't want to take all those lenses so what would you take out of that choice, I'm thinking of only taking two to keep things light.

stickyfiddle

zepp76 said:

I'll be visiting Italy in the spring and was wondering what would be the best lenses to take with me? I'll be taking a mix of landscape, architecture and people shots. I have a 50mm, 28mm wide angle, 100mm macro, 18-55mm and 75-300mm. Obviously I don't want to take all those lenses so what would you take out of that choice, I'm thinking of only taking two to keep things light.

I did Rome a couple of years ago, with a 35mm and a 10-24 (on Fuji, so 50 and 16-35 equivalent).  

boogieman

zepp76 said:

I'll be visiting Italy in the spring and was wondering what would be the best lenses to take with me? I'll be taking a mix of landscape, architecture and people shots. I have a 50mm, 28mm wide angle, 100mm macro, 18-55mm and 75-300mm. Obviously I don't want to take all those lenses so what would you take out of that choice, I'm thinking of only taking two to keep things light.

The 18-55 and 75-300 will cover most options. I like primes but inevitably I’ve never got the right one with me, personally I think zooms are ideal for travel photography. 

ThePrettyDamned

stickyfiddle said:

zepp76 said:

I'll be visiting Italy in the spring and was wondering what would be the best lenses to take with me? I'll be taking a mix of landscape, architecture and people shots. I have a 50mm, 28mm wide angle, 100mm macro, 18-55mm and 75-300mm. Obviously I don't want to take all those lenses so what would you take out of that choice, I'm thinking of only taking two to keep things light.

I did Rome a couple of years ago, with a 35mm and a 10-24 (on Fuji, so 50 and 16-35 equivalent).  

I'd go with something like this. I prefer primes to zooms, but if your 18-55 is a good one it'll be enough. The fuji one is great quality. 

zepp76

zepp76 said:

I'll be visiting Italy in the spring and was wondering what would be the best lenses to take with me? I'll be taking a mix of landscape, architecture and people shots. I have a 50mm, 28mm wide angle, 100mm macro, 18-55mm and 75-300mm. Obviously I don't want to take all those lenses so what would you take out of that choice, I'm thinking of only taking two to keep things light.

My mistake, I don't have a 28mm wide angle but a 10-18mm wide angle, is that going to be of any use? I'm guessing for landscapes it'll work?

boogieman

zepp76 said:

zepp76 said:

I'll be visiting Italy in the spring and was wondering what would be the best lenses to take with me? I'll be taking a mix of landscape, architecture and people shots. I have a 50mm, 28mm wide angle, 100mm macro, 18-55mm and 75-300mm. Obviously I don't want to take all those lenses so what would you take out of that choice, I'm thinking of only taking two to keep things light.

My mistake, I don't have a 28mm wide angle but a 10-18mm wide angle, is that going to be of any use? I'm guessing for landscapes it'll work?

Depends what you’re going to be shooting. The 10mm end is great for landscapes and might help at the city tourist spots if you want to get everything in the shot but you can’t get far enough away. The problem will be the shot will be slightly distorted, similar to a fisheye effect, although not as extreme. Some people actually like the effect. You can rectify it to some extent in post if you’ve got decent processing software, but I’ve always found it tricky to get to look right. (That might be just me being a klutz though). 

zepp76

Hello all, a bit of a thread resurrection! As I will be in Pitigliano in may I was hoping to get a classic shot of the city lit up at night like the below picture.

https://i.imgur.com/t8g643D.jpg

As it will be lit up at night and there won't be any flash involved am I right in assuming that I would have to bump the ISO up to compensate please? Any tips on night photography without a flash would be much appreciated, thank you.

boogieman

zepp76 said:

Hello all, a bit of a thread resurrection! As I will be in Pitigliano in may I was hoping to get a classic shot of the city lit up at night like the below picture.

https://i.imgur.com/t8g643D.jpg

As it will be lit up at night and there won't be any flash involved am I right in assuming that I would have to bump the ISO up to compensate please? Any tips on night photography without a flash would be much appreciated, thank you.

Two ways you can do it.

Bump the ISO up as you said. That will get enough light into the camera. The downside is the higher the ISO, the noisier the shot will be (eg it’ll be grainy). So it won’t be great quality. You could also use a wide aperture but then you’ll get hardly any depth of field. 

The better way is to leave the ISO at round 100, use a medium aperture but use a long exposure time, something like 10-15 seconds. You’ll definitely need to have the camera on a tripod though as you’ll never be able to hold the camera still enough to avoid getting a blurry shot. 

You might get a reasonable compromise without needing a tripod if you shoot at dusk. There'll still be a enough light around and you’ll only need to bump up the ISO a bit. 

stickyfiddle

boogieman said:

zepp76 said:

Hello all, a bit of a thread resurrection! As I will be in Pitigliano in may I was hoping to get a classic shot of the city lit up at night like the below picture.

https://i.imgur.com/t8g643D.jpg

As it will be lit up at night and there won't be any flash involved am I right in assuming that I would have to bump the ISO up to compensate please? Any tips on night photography without a flash would be much appreciated, thank you.

Two ways you can do it.

Bump the ISO up as you said. That will get enough light into the camera. The downside is the higher the ISO, the noisier the shot will be (eg it’ll be grainy). So it won’t be great quality. You could also use a wide aperture but then you’ll get hardly any depth of field. 

The better way is to leave the ISO at round 100, use a medium aperture but use a long exposure time, something like 10-15 seconds. You’ll definitely need to have the camera on a tripod though as you’ll never be able to hold the camera still enough to avoid getting a blurry shot. 

You might get a reasonable compromise without needing a tripod if you shoot at dusk. There'll still be a enough light around and you’ll only need to bump up the ISO a bit. 

All of this, basically. 

If you have a fast lens (something that can go to f1.8 or f1.4) then sometimes you can get good results keep that wide open (ie at the widest aperture) as that gives you more light and hence lets you get away with 

But the best way will be a tripod or equivalent - that takes shutter speed out of the equation so you can set ISO and aperture to wherever you want them. Worth noting you don't necessarily have to have a tripod, depending on surroundings. I often carry a wooly hat and use that placed on a wall or rock as a makeshift tripod. Alternatively a gorillapod type of thing can be a good option for travel

Set the camera to a 2-second delay to avoid vibration when you press the shutter and you're away.

zepp76

@boogieman  @stickyfiddle  Thank you for your advice, it's very helpful. I will try and take my full size tripod if I have space but I may end up taking my mini one that I can perch on a wall and will fit in my camera bag. I also have a shutter remote so that should eliminate any camera shake.

Wolfetone

Here's one of my dog that I took this afternoon....

stickyfiddle

A recent highlight from me - Jebel Akhdar in Oman. About 3 hours drive south of Muscat, up a huge mountain, and completely wonderful.

ThePrettyDamned

I traded in my fuji 23mm 1.4 today... 

For another fuji 23mm 1.4 with a scratched front element! I very much doubt it'll drastically affect image quality (I've had some really beaten lenses in the past and in a side by side comparison I just found a minor drop in contrast). 

This released some funds, which went to the fuji 50mm f/2 "fujicron". Holy crap that lens is cool - focus is near instant, it's mega sharp, it's absolutely tiny and weather sealed. Will try to share some shots in the next week or two.

It's got me wondering if I would rather have the 23mm f/2 but I love the 1.4 one so much, it's just awesome at any aperture. Next on my list is the upcoming 16mm 2.8 and the 90mm f/2, but 90 percent of my shots on film were at 35mm and 85mm so I'm pretty well covered now.

ionian

I'm a portrait photographer in my spare time - I have done some paid work but these days it is just a hobby and I am very happy for it to stay that way unless a very lucrative commission comes along. I currently shoot with the Sony A7iii and I have a small home studio.

Here's some recent work: