The RJ bought a new camera thread

The following warnings occurred:

Warning [2] Undefined property: MyLanguage::$archive_pages - Line: 2 - File: printthread.php(287) : eval()'d code PHP 8.2.30 (Linux)

File	Line	Function
/inc/class_error.php	153	errorHandler->error
/printthread.php(287) : eval()'d code	2	errorHandler->error_callback
/printthread.php	287	eval
/printthread.php	117	printthread_multipage

The RJ bought a new camera thread - Printable Version

+- Madison Motorsports (https://forum.mmsports.org)
+-- Forum: Technical (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Appearance/Cosmetic (https://forum.mmsports.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Thread: The RJ bought a new camera thread (/showthread.php?tid=6261)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

- Evan - 09-04-2007

fail

<hate> the 18-85 IS has the highest level of distortion of any lens ever tested by photozone</hate>
but maybe im just jealous.

- white_2kgt - 09-05-2007

Holy god dude, you paid $500 for that? Send it back and get a sigma or quantaray for less money better quality. Is that really the best focus you could get? Fuck an EFS lens.

- .RJ - 09-05-2007

Did you forget to take your meds today?

I didnt pay anywhere close to $500. The new lens is the pic on top. I'll take a better comparison today.

- Mike - 09-05-2007

white_2kgt Wrote:Holy god dude, you paid $500 for that? Send it back and get a sigma or quantaray for less money better quality. Is that really the best focus you could get? Fuck an EFS lens.

.RJ Wrote:Picked up a new lens tonight - found it on Craigslist for a smokin deal.

- .RJ - 09-05-2007

Evan Wrote:<hate> the 18-85 IS has the highest level of distortion of any lens ever tested by photozone</hate>

Yeah i've found 20 reviews that say 20 different things about every lens. I did quite a bit of research and I think its a solid lens for my purposes.

A better comparo - 50mm on top, 17-85 on bottom.

[Image: 50vs1785-2.jpg]

100%

Shot from great falls the other day (kit lens)

[Image: IMG_3641.jpg]

After trying to take some pictures there I was ready to throw the kit lens in the river. It was just awful with the light and shadows in the park.

- .RJ - 09-06-2007

Took some shots with the new lens - I feel like both of these are missing something.... like "less suck". Help me out here.

[Image: IMG_3822_pp.jpg]

- ScottyB - 09-06-2007

i think the first one has the right idea but the composition is a little weird to me....i keep looking at the sliver of building at the bottom. either have it be entirely the side of the building or really show the bottom portion. left/right it seems OK.

bottom one, seems a little yellowed and washed out. maybe mess with the levels in gimp or p-shop. might even look real nice in b&w?

keep it comin dude.

- .RJ - 09-06-2007

The 1st one is framed all wrong, and when I was taking the shot I was trying to avoid getting the parking lot lights in the frame..... so it didnt work out too well Tongue

Take 2 on the 2nd one -

[Image: IMG_3840_pp2.jpg]

- Apoc - 09-06-2007

I think they both break the rule of thirds on the horizontal.

<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds</a>

The first, I can't quite tell if you're trying to show me the building or the sky. If it's the sky, move the frame to the right a little bit. If it's the building, move the frame to the left a little bit.

The second is somewhat guilty of the same thing but not as much. The question I have about the second is what do you want us to look at? I think the buildings on the right are a distraction. Is it the brick side lit by the street light you're showing off? If so, make that a bit more of the focus. I actually like the color, because you know it's street lights.

I think the second pic is also pretty grainy. Why are you using ISO1600 but stepping the exposure down 0.3? Is F/4 to largest (smallest number) that lens will go? If so there's at least something to be gained by doing ISO800 with a 1/3 stop down. If you're having trouble with the camera pattern metering off the bright window then switch to spot metering (I always use this) and manually pick where you want to meter.

Here's my take on composition. I wouldn't necessarily have shot it this way but I think it's a decent demonstration on how The Rule can impact the photograph.

[Image: IMG_3822.jpg]

- .RJ - 09-06-2007

F/4 is as low as the lens goes - thanks for the tips.

- Evan - 09-07-2007

i actually dont like chris' composition of the brick house. it feels akward, like parts are being cut off. the buildings in the background give it depth but ideally they shouldnt be lit that brightly

i do think his crop of the glass building improves it though

- Apoc - 09-07-2007

Yeah I'm not crazy about it either but given the original, I think it's a compromise. I think the front of the building is already cut off somewhat at the loading dock so I opted to exclude the stairs. The result was less than ideal though because you chop the window.

Were I actually taking the picture, I probably would have walked ~10 steps in a semi circle to my right. The result would be the corner of the building on the left 3rd with the front of it falling away sharply to the left of the frame. Then the rest of the image would the long side of the building falling away slowly to the right edge to give the depth it requires. Depending on the position of the tree, I might even place that on the right 3rd to give a sense of scale.

Either way, I applaud RJ for making an effort. A lot of people don't get out there just to take pictures as much as they should (i.e. me) and that's the only way you get better.

- HAULN-SS - 09-07-2007

my problem with the brick building is that the center line of the corner makes my eyes want to shoot two different ways, and look at two different brightness levels. Dark on the left, bright on the right - it actually kind of hurts my eyes to look at that picture. I would've taken like 4 steps to the left to center that doorway in the frame.

- .RJ - 09-07-2007

HAULN-SS Wrote:it actually kind of hurts my eyes to look at that picture

Good.

:lol:

- .RJ - 09-08-2007

Same as above...... where is the "less suck" ?

[Image: IMG_3855.jpg]

- Apoc - 09-08-2007

Honestly? I think it's the subject. Both are pretty non-specific and I don't think anything techinically would have made them better pictures.

- Mike - 09-08-2007

lol ya... those are just bobo pictures my mom would take Tongue

- Evan - 09-08-2007

i dont think either of them are bad, just not super special. maybe less foreground in the sunset pick?
the road/trees pick would be better if we had more rain and the greens were more vivid.

i think we are spoiled from being bombarded with lots of fantastic photography which really raises the standard and makes it a lot harder not just to take good pics but find special and different things to take pictures of

- Goodspeed - 09-08-2007

That sunset pic isn't the best ever, but the subject is certainly there. Without editing and tweaking (don't know if thats your "thing" or not) its not super special. On the country road pic, I actually think thats pretty decent, but that is a tough subject. In my experience with those pics, the lighting has to be just right...too much of a stark contrast between lighting and shading can really "break up" the pic and make it look like a garbled mess. That pic isn't bad, but I'm sure if it was taken later in the evening it would've been better. I'm really digging your motorsports pics though, great work

- .RJ - 09-18-2007

I think I am moving towards "less suck" here. The class I'm taking started last week too....

[Image: IMG_4154_1.jpg]