I can see that you create a good connection with your subjects and are able to capture some great moment.
Here are my thoughts.
#1 -- I like it but it would be a stronger image if your angle was from the right with her centered in the opening. As it is, she has a tree coming out of her head.
#2. -- Looks like you really pushed the iso, the blacks look muddy.
Welcome to the forum. I like your avatar. What's the deal with these guys who use birds instead of people?
#1. Good DOF choice for the scenery. But yes, that tree is a minor problem.
#2 Looks good, even though the subject is in the bottom right corner, facing right.
#3 Good expressions and composition. I'm not a fan of the flair, but that doesn't mean others won't like it.
#4 Nice pose and comp. I looked at where her knee was aimed and that turned me off a bit. Other may not think of that at all.
#5 Nice expression and composition. Usually the arm leading out of the frame is not best. Here you have it blurred up quite a bit, so less of an issue.
Jim Rickards wrote:
Welcome to the forum. I like your avatar. What's the deal with these guys who use birds instead of people?
#1. Good DOF choice for the scenery. But yes, that tree is a minor problem.
#2 Looks good, even though the subject is in the bottom right corner, facing right.
#3 Good expressions and composition. I'm not a fan of the flair, but that doesn't mean others won't like it.
#4 Nice pose and comp. I looked at where her knee was aimed and that turned me off a bit. Other may not think of that at all.
#5 Nice expression and composition. Usually the arm leading out of the frame is not best. Here you have it blurred up quite a bit, so less of an issue.
Random question, what lens do you think I used for #1 and #2. I'm trying to recreate the feel of a large aperture wide angle lens. Unfortunately, I'm a broke college kid that only has a 50 1.8 and a 100-400 that I own, but bought mainly because I need it for my job as my college athletics photographer. #1 and #2 are actually shot at 400mm on a 7d...so around 640mm at f/5.6 then stitched together to get a smaller dof. Just wondering what lens it actually "looks" like to you...and if it was immediately apparent that I even did the stitching.
Gizmaldo wrote:
Random question, what lens do you think I used for #1 and #2. I'm trying to recreate the feel of a large aperture wide angle lens. Unfortunately, I'm a broke college kid that only has a 50 1.8 and a 100-400 that I own, but bought mainly because I need it for my job as my college athletics photographer. #1 and #2 are actually shot at 400mm on a 7d...so around 640mm at f/5.6 then stitched together to get a smaller dof. Just wondering what lens it actually "looks" like to you...and if it was immediately apparent that I even did the stitching. ...Show more →
Stitching was not apparent to me. The DOF comment was because you didn't choose a narrow DOF and chose to include detail in the surroundings. If you needed more than one frame to do that, recognized that and then did it with your long lens, a narrow DOF lens, then my hat is off to you. Looks like you understand a lot more about photography than many others. Must be limiting to have your shortest lens a 50mm when your body is a cropped one. I started with a 50mm on a cropped body and forced myself to stay with that as my only lens for a long month of steady shooting. The objective was to understand what I needed next. ( I went for a 17-40mm f4L). That might not be in your budget (if college kids have a budget) but you might consider the 35mm f2. Not that expensive but wider and good in low light. I've used the 100-400mm on a full frame camera for different subjects and liked the range. With the cropped camera the 160mm equivalent would be limiting.
I've rented the 50mm 1.2 and fell in love with it. I really enjoy the 50mm focal length and although I wish it was a tiny bit wider, I think the bokeh from something like a 35 L would be a lot less pronounced than from a 50 1.2. I can't really decide though. I've also looked at the 85 1.4 rokinon lens which I have heard very good things about. I know its manual focus, but for portraits that shouldn't be too much of an issue. I think the bokeh and dof would be similar to a 50 1.2 if I'm not mistaken?
Gizmaldo wrote:
I've rented the 50mm 1.2 and fell in love with it. I really enjoy the 50mm focal length and although I wish it was a tiny bit wider, I think the bokeh from something like a 35 L would be a lot less pronounced than from a 50 1.2. I can't really decide though. I've also looked at the 85 1.4 rokinon lens which I have heard very good things about. I know its manual focus, but for portraits that shouldn't be too much of an issue. I think the bokeh and dof would be similar to a 50 1.2 if I'm not mistaken? ...Show more →
Not sure myself. Maybe someone else can provide some insight?
Gizmaldo wrote:
. Unfortunately, I'm a broke college kid that only has a 50 1.8 and a 100-400 that I own, but bought mainly because I need it for my job as my college athletics photographer. #1 and #2 are actually shot at 400mm on a 7d...so around 640mm at f/5.6 then stitched together to get a smaller dof. Just wondering what lens it actually "looks" like to you...and if it was immediately apparent that I even did the stitching.
Well, FWIW, I applaud your willingness to post up here and solicit input from those folks here who know a whole bunch about your photographic interests. Keep posting
