Congratulations to nextelbuddy for winning Feature Thread of the Week with 2 votes - View Previous Winners
Finally got an opportunity to test out the lens this weekend while my son was visiting. I got the lens a week earlier but due to a move was unable to even take it out of the box.
He was thrilled to get in front of the lens but he said only if we took one together so tossing in selfie of us with the 20-35 2.8 at the end since its related
these were all shot @ 1.4 and im very happy with how sharp it is out of the box and the DOF fall off is very smooth. the back ground in each of these pictures wasnt that far since my back yard is very small. with a large open space that back ground will probably just melt away even more.
friscoron wrote:
These are really really nice, Shawn! I'm voting for this as FTOW!
ahhh sweet, thanks Ron! btw how do the images feel in regards to exposure. Do you feel they are a tad under exposed? They do to me but looking for some feedback in that regard.
nextelbuddy wrote:
ahhh sweet, thanks Ron! btw how do the images feel in regards to exposure. Do you feel they are a tad under exposed? They do to me but looking for some feedback in that regard.
Outstanding shots! Maybe just a hair of exposure gain, but I think we're almost picking nits at that point. The detail in the eye is great.
MM30 wrote:
Outstanding shots! Maybe just a hair of exposure gain, but I think we're almost picking nits at that point. The detail in the eye is great.
Cool, i was thinking the back ground maybe just a tad too dark for my tastes
---------------------------------------------
Jonathan Brady wrote:
FANTASTIC images and I think the exposure pairs well with the expression on your son. Don't change a thing. They're PERFECTLY exposed, IMO.
mitchel674 wrote:
Sweet set, Shawn! Your son is really growing up fast! The last two are a tad underexposed for my taste (but I like portraits on the brighter side).
Glad to see you got this lens. l will own one soon. Seems a great compliment to the 58mm.
Thanks Mitch, I remember back on the Cafe few years ago before he was born, I saw pictures of your kids and how they were growing up, even seeing them today is incredible. I don't even want to think about my little guy growing up on me, how do you do it? lol
---------------------------------------------
agelessphotog wrote:
Great photo's, too dark though.
Thanks, i think the back ground is just a tad dark for my tastes as well.
Exposure, like so many other elements of an image, is purely subjective. I don't normally expose like how you did these. I like things bright and contrasty and colorful. But these... are absolutely magnficently exposed. And to me, they're exposed perfectly for the mood of the shot. My favorites here are 1 and 3. Those are just killer. I do think No. 4 is underexposed, totally a different thing going on there. (But that might be the best/most meaningful shot of the bunch as it visually represents your relationship.
I find to many today say that bad technique is subjective. Having said that I like the color shots though I think the vibrance should be pulled back some especially on the skin. The B&W is just to way to dark. There is NO separation in the mans hair, shoulder and the grass and the brightest object in the frame has the word five on it. Where do you think the eye goes? I think it is at least 1 1/2 stops to dark. Pull it up so there is some separation in the areas I discussed and bringing down the white strip with five on it so the focus becomes the faces. Looks like a great lens. Good job I think they just need a little tweaking.
airfrogusmc wrote:
I find to many today say that bad technique is subjective. Having said that I like the color shots though I think the vibrance should be pulled back some especially on the skin. The B&W is just to way to dark. There is NO separation in the mans hair, shoulder and the grass and the brightest object in the frame has the word five on it. Where do you think the eye goes? I think it is at least 1 1/2 stops to dark. Pull it up so there is some separation in the areas I discussed and bringing down the white strip with five on it so the focus becomes the faces. Looks like a great lens. Good job I think they just need a little tweaking. ...Show more →
thanks for the feedback.
the final image was not taken with the 105, it was a quick image taken with the 20-35 since my son wanted a pic with both of us in it. i do agree though that image is under exposed, i guess i just saw through that since i have a deeper connection with it being there. i'm not sure i want to brighten it since this is not the original thought of the image I have in my memory of it now. For the future though i will make sure during editing to keep the exposure up.
nextelbuddy wrote:
Are you trying to apply ansel adams zone system to skin tones/exposure?
Actually, I think he was quoting Ansel from his book "The Negative".
The B&W is a very personal image to you and as you said the treatment you chose reflects to you the emotions you felt. To those of us without the emotional investment, it reads as underexposed. I understand where you're coming from, try to understand where some of us are coming from.
I think as a photographer that it is important to be able to effectively communicate that emotion and in my opinion if the technique is getting in the way of that communication then maybe you as a photographer need to address that. When you look at an image and all you see is the flaw then you are not effectively communicating. Because that white strip is so white and the word five is on that strip my eye goes right there and I then wonder what does five mean? There are ways to still keep that emotion and feel and not keep the technical flaws. The problem with many today, in my opinion, some really don't know what a good B&W photograph is. They look at things on monitors and have really never seen really strong, emotional, B&W prints that have been printed by masters so they really don't understand where the bar is and what should be their standard.
dmacmillan wrote:
Actually, I think he was quoting Ansel from his book "The Negative".
The B&W is a very personal image to you and as you said the treatment you chose reflects to you the emotions you felt. To those of us without the emotional investment, it reads as underexposed. I understand where you're coming from, try to understand where some of us are coming from.
---------------------------------------------
airfrogusmc wrote:
Hey Doug,
I think as a photographer that it is important to be able to effectively communicate that emotion and in my opinion if the technique is getting in the way of that communication then maybe you as a photographer need to address that. When you look at an image and all you see is the flaw then you are not effectively communicating. Because that white strip is so white and the word five is on that strip my eye goes right there and I then wonder what does five mean? There are ways to still keep that emotion and feel and not keep the technical flaws. The problem with many today, in my opinion, some really don't know what a good B&W photograph is. They look at things on monitors and have really never seen really strong, emotional, B&W prints that have been printed by masters so they really don't understand where the bar is and what should be their standard.
Ok guys thanks lol i think there is some miscommuncation.
I am agreeing that the B&W is under exposed but stated I wont be changing it most likely..
but airfrogusmc stated that the color images had incorrectly saturated skin tones and said that the skin tones should be exposed using zone VI so his reference to zone system for skin tones was directed at the color images to me and i was stating that the color images were processed exactly how I wanted them to be processed and that something like this was subjective to each person where i dont feel a zone system needs to be applied.
if he meant for the B&W then ok i will go with that and agree.
Meant the B&W. Really like the others (said so) but on a personal note I would pull out just a touch of vibrance on the skin. I like the density on the color images.
Thanks for clarifying and apologies for the misunderstanding.
airfrogusmc wrote:
Meant the B&W. Really like the others (said so) but on a personal note I would pull out just a touch of vibrance on the skin. I like the density on the color images.
