Author Topic: the photography thread. (Read 717229 times)

Hercules Rockefeller · « **Reply #2760 on:** February 14, 2012, 04:50:01 AM »

i?ve got the 35mm 2.8 as well, its basically glued to my camera.

just put your 50mm of your k1000 on the dslr, then you?ll see. for me, 50mm on apsc isnt really something. its neither wide enough for street stuff nor long enough for stranger portraits.

finknoos · « **Reply #2761 on:** February 14, 2012, 05:05:12 AM »

that 30mm 1.4 looks tempting, but from various reviews i still cant tell if with an aps-c sensor it would have a 30mm field of view or 50(ish)mm

And i understand why the 35mm has been permattached to your camera, mines been the same since i got it

Hercules Rockefeller · « **Reply #2762 on:** February 14, 2012, 05:10:35 AM »

if you mount it on a apsc-sensor, it will have the same field of view as a lens with 1.5times the focal length on a FF-camera.

finknoos · « **Reply #2763 on:** February 14, 2012, 07:24:04 AM »

i was simply confused because on a review i saw it said "designed for aps-c" so i thought they might have taken the crop factor into account.

Do you think theres enough of a difference between the sigma 30 1.4 and the pentax 35 2.8 to make it worth getting?

Random Matt · « **Reply #2764 on:** February 14, 2012, 07:47:24 AM »

The bigger difference is that the 30mm has a max aperture 2 stops bigger than your 35mm (1.4 versus 2.

, it will give you an extreme shallow depth of field and better for lower light exposures. The 5mm difference of focal length seems minor.

finknoos · « **Reply #2765 on:** February 14, 2012, 07:53:05 AM »

Quote from: Random Matt on February 14, 2012, 07:47:24 AM

The bigger difference is that the 30mm has a max aperture 2 stops bigger than your 35mm (1.4 versus 2., it will give you an extreme shallow depth of field and better for lower light exposures. The 5mm difference of focal length seems minor.

seems about right, gonna have to think about this one, dunno if its worth 400 just to get f1.4 and better low light performance, trying to find an affordable zeiss instead.

Thanks to both of you anyways.

Random Matt · « **Reply #2766 on:** February 14, 2012, 09:02:37 AM »

It's worth getting if you think you'll actually utilize the shallow depth of field, if not you should pass. If I recall your pics have a normal DOF, so if you are looking to change things up a bit...

Contemplating new gear purchases can be a headache with limited funds; I want to buy some strobes and then I start thinking about how I want a new camera body and better lenses, and how I don't have $3000 to spare.

finknoos · « **Reply #2767 on:** February 14, 2012, 09:33:12 AM »

photography... y u so expensive???

I ended up going with the 50mm 1.4 to change things up a bit, more

Brandon · « **Reply #2768 on:** February 14, 2012, 09:41:06 AM »

Quote from: BraveUlysses on February 13, 2012, 07:10:13 PM

Quote from: finknoos on February 07, 2012, 08:17:14 AM
Expand Quote
Some street shots from today

[close]
Do you guys ever feel uncomfortable taking pictures of random civilians while they just give you that weird ass look? I would feel uncomfortable as shit.

this approach used to be one of my biggest fears. i'd go out, telling myself "you're going to shoot photos of strangers today," and end up coming home with a roll full of deadpan shots of suburban homes or storefronts, which isn't bad, just not what i wanted. it bummed me out that i couldn't produce the sort of work i most loved to look at.

to get more comfortable around people, i started asking if i could shoot their portrait. after a few months of this i started getting pretty confident on the street with my camera -- it helped me learn to deal with people being bummed on my request, let me explain why the fuck i was taking pictures of random people in the first place. nowadays i just shoot first, smile after and keep moving. if you're quick and polite, most people will not even realize you've taken their photo. i still have issues with getting in super close with a wide angle, but it's something to work toward.

finknoos · « **Reply #2769 on:** February 14, 2012, 09:45:28 AM »

that just made me think of another thing, its much easier if youre shooting on a 35mm flim or compact as you dont draw attention to yourself, if youre walking arround with a canon 1d with a huge lens etc. people are gonna notice you and not only that, but also think youre some kind of journalist which tends to make them shy.

ooh if youve got a swivelly screen you can just shoot from the hip, just looks like youre playing arround

Cadillac Ranch Dressing · « **Reply #2770 on:** February 14, 2012, 11:08:24 AM »

To build off what finknoos said, the camera you use is definitely a big part of it, at least for me. I usually take stranger portraits with a TLR because it's much less threatening than a huge digital camera pointed in their face. Most of the time people are curious about the camera and let loose a bit. I've gotten into 10 minute conversations with strangers just about the camera I'm using so it's definitely a plus.

Not saying you can't use whatever camera you want to, but I've had a much better response with a TLR than other cameras.

thepman · « **Reply #2771 on:** February 15, 2012, 04:14:08 PM »

girlfriend got my a Polaroid camera for valentines day, pretty stoked! hopefully picking up some black and white film tomorrow too and dropping off a roll I just finished:

finknoos · « **Reply #2772 on:** February 16, 2012, 04:14:50 AM »

I'm thinking of starting a project, where you choose a subject and shoot as many different variations are styles as possable, i was thinking arches, good idea or cliche?

Hercules Rockefeller · « **Reply #2773 on:** February 16, 2012, 05:04:41 AM »

take "bridges in hamburg"

finknoos · « **Reply #2774 on:** February 16, 2012, 05:16:29 AM »

Quote from: Hercules Rockefeller on February 16, 2012, 05:04:41 AM

take "bridges in hamburg"

i dont be jacking mans stahle

Cadillac Ranch Dressing · « **Reply #2775 on:** February 16, 2012, 10:51:29 AM »

Some more Bronica shots.

thepman · « **Reply #2776 on:** February 16, 2012, 03:01:02 PM »

Fongstarr. · « **Reply #2777 on:** February 16, 2012, 03:33:14 PM »

Sick Cadillac!

Some shots at the SF pillow fight on Valentine's Day:

VictoriousOG · « **Reply #2778 on:** February 16, 2012, 08:55:54 PM »

steve · « **Reply #2779 on:** February 17, 2012, 11:46:34 AM »

these are some shots i took while riding amtrak across the states last summer. i was using a shitty nikon pocket camera. hoping to get at least a cyber shot with the zeiss lens within a few weeks. after i went to cambodia with this same shitty camera i realized what a drag it is to not have a decent camera. this is my first foray into using a digital camera after having shot film for a while, until the AE1 broke...

these shots are from a bike trip my brother and i took around Humbodlt in August. We squatted, got chased by ranchers with shotguns, and hallucinated in the heat.

know what these are?

flooded nebraska

Cadillac Ranch Dressing · « **Reply #2780 on:** February 17, 2012, 12:32:06 PM »

Some other recent stuff I just never posted:

Mooley · « **Reply #2781 on:** February 17, 2012, 12:58:46 PM »

Stoked on that first one, Cadillac.

Cadillac Ranch Dressing · « **Reply #2782 on:** February 17, 2012, 01:26:07 PM »

Thanks Mooley!

RoedGroed · « **Reply #2783 on:** February 18, 2012, 07:55:02 AM »

Just got to try out my new pocket wizards on this Switch Heel. I find them kinda easy to use point and shoot-wise, but when I need to configure them in any way I find it hard as hell. They have this Hyper-sync technology which I have a hard time figuring out.

And a bs noseblunt from a recent Barcelona tour.

thepman · « **Reply #2784 on:** February 19, 2012, 02:19:00 PM »

^So sick Alex and Roedgroed! Just a few extras I wasn't sure on:

DMH · « **Reply #2785 on:** February 19, 2012, 04:58:43 PM »

The sun was out for the first time in a while today, so I went back out to the local lake.

Mooley · « **Reply #2786 on:** February 19, 2012, 08:31:55 PM »

I feel like a wide-angle shot from straight on would be pretty sick with those floodgates, unless there's something distracting behind them.

Cervix Couch · « **Reply #2787 on:** February 20, 2012, 09:04:32 PM »

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

me.

Brandon · « **Reply #2788 on:** February 21, 2012, 09:03:52 AM »

Quote from: Cervix Couch on February 20, 2012, 09:04:32 PM

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

me.

some really, really great stuff on your flickr. this in particular:

med format skate photography always gets me stoked. do you go to UCSC? a lot of your shots made me nostalgic for the campus and the city in general. graduated two years ago and miss it everyday.

baconeggandcheese · « **Reply #2789 on:** February 21, 2012, 10:15:23 AM »

Quote from: Cervix Couch on February 20, 2012, 09:04:32 PM

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

me.

Shit CC your stuff if awesome! The descriptions of your photos are really nice too, since you usually say the camera and film it was shot with. That's helpful shit to guys like me who are trying to learn more. And you shoot with pretty much all film it seems which is rad. Not many skate photos you see are shot with film anymore.

Author Topic: the photography thread. (Read 717229 times)

VictoriousOG