The Photography Thread
- Thread starter INS-ANI
- Start date
@pranav0091, CyberKID, sujoyp - Thanks for the feedback.
I'm thinking may be trees/plants are not good subjects for long exposure,even a little wind might be causing a blurry effect & not got a sharp pic.
Probably sunlight, If you are asking about the 2nd one.
I wanted to get the smooth water look (no ripples). That's why the 2 sec shutter speed & ND filter.
I'm thinking may be trees/plants are not good subjects for long exposure,even a little wind might be causing a blurry effect & not got a sharp pic.
sujoyp
Grand Master
no gen I am talking about the 1st pic the left side tree branches are all red...that i can see from this pic....then I open that in flickr and to my horror what happened to that pic ???
those are all strange details of tree top even right side tree is looking strange....water is great but tree produced some strange details.
maybe as u said due to movement of leaves while long exposure it happened.
those are all strange details of tree top even right side tree is looking strange....water is great but tree produced some strange details.
maybe as u said due to movement of leaves while long exposure it happened.
lm2k
Journeyman
@Stuge : Awesome startrails.
@CyberKID : Nice flower, but i also see many leaves and one pot in the background.
some of mine. didnt get chance to click any this month
*farm4.staticflickr.com/3707/9716253704_98620a259a_z.jpg
Sx150is
Settings: 1/640 ƒ/3.4 ISO 80 Fl:28mm(35 mm Eq)
*farm8.staticflickr.com/7346/9713019953_3ce351ec38_z.jpg
Sx150is
Settings: 1/125 ƒ/4 ISO 200 Fl:65mm(35 mm Eq)
*farm8.staticflickr.com/7411/9523925420_5a8b5dc179_z.jpg
Sx150is
Settings: 1/500 ƒ/5 ISO 80 Fl:124mm(35 mm Eq)
@CyberKID : Nice flower, but i also see many leaves and one pot in the background.
some of mine. didnt get chance to click any this month
*farm4.staticflickr.com/3707/9716253704_98620a259a_z.jpg
Sx150is
Settings: 1/640 ƒ/3.4 ISO 80 Fl:28mm(35 mm Eq)
*farm8.staticflickr.com/7346/9713019953_3ce351ec38_z.jpg
Sx150is
Settings: 1/125 ƒ/4 ISO 200 Fl:65mm(35 mm Eq)
*farm8.staticflickr.com/7411/9523925420_5a8b5dc179_z.jpg
Sx150is
Settings: 1/500 ƒ/5 ISO 80 Fl:124mm(35 mm Eq)
Maybe, next time, I'll try secluding the subjects away from such distractions.
izzikio_rage
Technomancer
@Abhinav: that is an amazing startrails pic .... as are all the others you've put up. You really do need to give us a tutorial of these sometime
BTW, was reading up a bit about lenses ever since I heard that Sujoy got that huge bazooka of a lens, and found this really great video about how a lens affects portraits (which we'll all end up shooting for our friends, family, SO etc.)
so check this out, gist is that you should shoot with something like a 135mm for best effects
[youtube]*www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRoqNx9rlVA#t=339[/youtube]
How Lens Focal Length Shapes the Face & Controls Perspective: A Lighting Tutorial - YouTube
BTW, was reading up a bit about lenses ever since I heard that Sujoy got that huge bazooka of a lens, and found this really great video about how a lens affects portraits (which we'll all end up shooting for our friends, family, SO etc.)
so check this out, gist is that you should shoot with something like a 135mm for best effects
[youtube]*www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRoqNx9rlVA#t=339[/youtube]
How Lens Focal Length Shapes the Face & Controls Perspective: A Lighting Tutorial - YouTube
lm2k
Journeyman
here is another comparison
Untitled Document
i find not much difference beyond 100mm except increase inpincushion distortion.
but even for point and shoots, anything beyond 150mm(35mm eq) produces acceptable results, while wide angle like 28mm distorts or produces near-far effect where the object near to the lens appears large and that object located even a little far appears too small.
what about others which focal length do you guys use for portrature?
Untitled Document
i find not much difference beyond 100mm except increase inpincushion distortion.
but even for point and shoots, anything beyond 150mm(35mm eq) produces acceptable results, while wide angle like 28mm distorts or produces near-far effect where the object near to the lens appears large and that object located even a little far appears too small.
what about others which focal length do you guys use for portrature?
izzikio_rage
Technomancer
Till now i was shooting at the highest focal length, but for a different reason. I wanted the shallow depth of feild that came with a long focal length. Didn't know that shape also changes 
My kit lens is 50mm at the top, ie 75mm in 35 equvi, so i guess its good enough. Will be hard to use a bounce flash at this distance though
My kit lens is 50mm at the top, ie 75mm in 35 equvi, so i guess its good enough. Will be hard to use a bounce flash at this distance though
lm2k
Journeyman
Same with me too. But not necessary to stick to the rule, for taking environmental portraits sometimes it wide angle is also useful.Till now i was shooting at the highest focal length, but for a different reason. I wanted the shallow depth of feild that came with a long focal length. Didn't know that shape also changes
@sujoyp: I had read somewhere that 80/85 mm(prime with wide aperture) lens is ideal, by using zoom lens somehow we dont get that much aperture . there should be some increase in zoom lens with reduction in aperture.
izzikio_rage
Technomancer
Actually the 50mm is closest to what your eye actually sees, with an aperture of roughly f/2.8 (need to check this). This is for a full frame sensor, a sensor like mine is an APSC that means it has a crop factor of round 1.5. So for me 50mm at full frame equivalent is 50/1.5 or 32 odd mm. Means that if i want a click similar to what a full frame 50mm will shoot i need to shoot at 32mm
There are telephotos that have a very fast (large opening) aperture but they are usually more expensive. Also since aperture is shown as f/some no where f is focal length so a 200mm at f/5.6 is way larger than a 50 mm at even /2.8. So, many people just look at the fstop value and feel the aperture is smaller in telephoto lenses
lm2k
Journeyman
Regarding the crop factor , i knew it; but the second point about aperture was something i never thought about. If this is also true with point and shoots then at 336mm[35mm eq](in case of sx150is) the lens must ofer aperture wide enough to try something like this
*www.diyphotography.net/files/images/bokeh_heart.jpg
*www.diyphotography.net/files/images/353392636_30c215ff3d.jpg
May be a test.
pranav0091
I am not an Owl
f stop depends on the focal length, and its for a good reason that they are great indicators of the light grabbing ability of a lens - the size opening of the diaphragm is useful for comparison only with respect to the angle of view of the lens (ie, the focal length)
"a 200mm at f/5.6 is way larger than a 50 mm at even /2.8" - while this is physically true, AFAIK, the smaller f numbered lens will be letting in more light (thus faster) IRRESPECTIVE of focal length (because its already taken care of inside the ratio)
Think of it as the circular cross section of a cone. While the area of the circle can vary depending on where you bisect it, the equations that describe the bounds of the cone dont - ie, the cone remains the same for a given f number - and therefore the light capturing ability too.
In short lower the f number, faster the lens, irrespective of focal length.
The 50mm f/2.8 is easily a few times faster than the 200mm f/5.6.
Thats what I know, if I am wrong I'll be glad to be corrected
"a 200mm at f/5.6 is way larger than a 50 mm at even /2.8" - while this is physically true, AFAIK, the smaller f numbered lens will be letting in more light (thus faster) IRRESPECTIVE of focal length (because its already taken care of inside the ratio)
Think of it as the circular cross section of a cone. While the area of the circle can vary depending on where you bisect it, the equations that describe the bounds of the cone dont - ie, the cone remains the same for a given f number - and therefore the light capturing ability too.
In short lower the f number, faster the lens, irrespective of focal length.
The 50mm f/2.8 is easily a few times faster than the 200mm f/5.6.
Thats what I know, if I am wrong I'll be glad to be corrected
sujoyp
Grand Master
guys what I have studied about portrait photography is almost for full frame...
The thumb rule for just portrait thats head shots is 85mm @f5.6 this will create enough DOF to keep focus on everything on the model and 85mm will be enough for background blurring.
if u convert this to DX it may look like 50mm@f4 ....
in zoom lens with fixed aperture I dont think aperture changes much ...its the advantage...but its tru that zoom lens have more distortion in images...u need to check that.
The thumb rule for just portrait thats head shots is 85mm @f5.6 this will create enough DOF to keep focus on everything on the model and 85mm will be enough for background blurring.
if u convert this to DX it may look like 50mm@f4 ....
in zoom lens with fixed aperture I dont think aperture changes much ...its the advantage...but its tru that zoom lens have more distortion in images...u need to check that.
lm2k
Journeyman
@pranav0091 : yes, with decrease in f number like going from f2.8 to f5.6 with increase in focal length, the light intensity(amount of light) does decrease since it is a collective effect of lens and the aperture available.I was just talking about the opening of the the diaphragm alone.