p.29 #3 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
Andrew Welsh wrote:
lovely bird Petkal, great colors and well composed.
I did have a question as to why you went through your old posts and removed your images-- seems oddly peculiar, since the photos aren't of people.
Thank you, Andrew.
My image posts are intended for those fellow FM members who have an immediate interest in the topic. After 1-2 days I delete them as a means of copyright protection. Alas, some people feel that anything on the internet is free for the taking, including other people's photographs, therefore I am trying to discourage such behaviour in the case of my pictures such as they are.
The Zebra Dove Geopelia striata, also known as Barred Ground Dove, is a bird of the dove family Columbidae, native to South-east Asia. It is closely related to the Peaceful Dove of Australia and New Guinea and the Barred Dove of eastern Indonesia. These two were classified as subspecies of the Zebra Dove until recently and the names Peaceful Dove and Barred Dove were often applied to the whole species.
p.29 #7 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
Nice little dove, pare Paolo.
Incidentally, have you ever seen Inca doves ? Cute, small and very fast flyers.
However, all those doves and pijuns need to get their arses kicked before they'd decide to fly.
I am still milking the remnants of colourful autumn backgrounds for all they are worth.
p.29 #10 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
PetKal wrote:
Here is an ordinary bird everybody loves to photograph when there is nothing better around.........an albino Peregrine falcon
Wow, what a shot. Great colours.
p.29 #15 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
Thanks Alain.
Andrew Welsh wrote:
Paolo, why shoot JPEG only if you normally shoot RAW, and at a wedding no less?
Andrew, I had no intention to do post processing for the wedding and the football matches other than simple cropping. I was told by a photographer who covered the World Cup and another photographer who does motorsports like Formula 1 for decades that they shoot Large, Fine JPEG unless they intend to do further post work.
It appears I did fine. Now if I were shooting wildlife like birds I'd shoot in RAW.
p.29 #16 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
absolutely, I use it at every wedding
If you weren't doing PP then it makes sense to go with JPEG. Typically wedding photographers do a lot of PP It's a long standing debate in the wed shooter community- raw vs jpeg- and a main argument for RAW is "Weddings are a one-time, no do-over event" I am biased in that discussion however.
p.29 #17 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
Ah the age old argument of RAW vs JPEG.
My stance is simple: if I plan to do post then RAW if not JPEG. We spent so much on these 1D, 5D and 7D bodies that not taking advantage of the features we've bought is just bad investment. These cameras were meant to make our lives easier and
A Filipino photographer that is a very known fixture on PBase (not liquidstone) shoots exclusively in-camera JPEG though he has tweaked his custom settings to such an extent that almost all the post processing done on computer is done on his Nikon.
Another way to look at it is if the client specifies RAW then give them RAW. If the client wants RAW + post processed export to JPEG then they better pay me more than a pittance.
I do not think that JPEG shooting results in bad photography and by the sheer volume of shots made (in the thousands I hear) and the number of photogs covering the event would make any mistake, minimal at most.
Unless of course you end up cropping to say 1-2MP from a 21MP, 18MP or 16MP original.
Maybe JPEG+RAW makes sense considering 16GB UDMA cards and 2TB hard drives are so cheap these days.
Now f/5.6 isnt hat bad. I made the mistake of not checking my LiveView settings in the photo below. Via viewfinder it was set at f/2 but using Live view it was at f/16.
But the fella below appears to not share my concern.
p.29 #20 · Post your Canon 200mm f/2 (200/2) shots!
abdul10000 wrote:
very beautiful, did you try taking any of those shots @ 2.8? I am asking because I am curious to know if F2 is worth all the extra money over the 2.8 lens.
Thanks
Oh, It IS NOT worth the extra cost. The only time I kinda needed the f2 speed was during a runway fashion show with poor lighting. But must times I just bump the iso because since I am at a fixed position during those events I need to be able to zoom back and forth.
The 200 f2 (or older f1.8) is not a widely used lens (even for people that have it!) for that reason.
(note I committed blasphemy by shooting at f/5.6 here. I was using a 1.4x TC)
