Sorry Zane but the only one here I'd give creedence is the last , you know what it is but it has elegant anonimity as well.
The only one that works for me.
Photos don't need to be sharp to be good. These kind of photos are good to have in a stock library. They can be used as background images, book covers, etc.
The last weekend with this car.... so I'd though I'd christen it with some dirt, rocks, mud and a LOT of clutch wear... but not one scrap despite me having some hairy times going up solid rock slabs.
Location: Mount White on top of one of the mountains there.
Edited by SmellyTofu on Apr 10, 2005 at 09:09 PM GMT
I agree some of them are too OOF, especially the shopping lady, the Merc. I know that these blurred shots are quite controversial, some of you will love it, some hate it. To me, I enjoyed the process of taking something new and different and having them in my collection.
(I checked the responses I received from the City Abstract Still Life forum here, people's reaction are similar to yours)
BTW, my personal favourite are the harbour bridge and the bus stop.
Thanks for taking your time to give me feedback.
Edited by Zane Yau on Apr 10, 2005 at 03:00 PM GMT
Of course! It's a mess at the moment. Lots of mud underneath the car.... I was hoping it'd be more dirtier having driven through some water crossings and mud patches.
Should have got myself a darker colour.. hahahahahaha!
Edited by SmellyTofu on Apr 10, 2005 at 09:09 PM GMT
Ed W wrote:
Photos don't need to be sharp to be good. These kind of photos are good to have in a stock library. They can be used as background images, book covers, etc.
I agree with Ed, some photos look much better if you have them in the right context.
Zane Yau wrote:
NO Smelly, it's the other way around, I think shooting RAW requires too much post-processing work. I am just happy with large jpeg and too lazy to shoot in RAW (and learn a new workflow)
Do you guys shoot in RAW only?
Likewise i only shoot in raw only now, a lot more post processing time spent, i can't seem to consistently predict the exposure with the evaluative metering in Av mode on the 300D, so shooting in raw helps alot. Now i do most shooting in manual mode as it's more consistent.
I'm just having a read about the 16-35 f2,8 and the 17-40 f4. Apart from the image quality differences, how important is that 1 stop? There's very little noise between ISO 100 and 200 so why the hype? Also how much of a difference is focusing speed going to make between f2,8 and f4?
Not sure about the 17-40, some review says it's sharper than the 16-35 at the same f stop. I'm very happy with the 16-35, so much sharper than the 17-85!! I find i use the f/2.8 a fair bit, mainly to get more bokeh.
The only thing i'm not happy with the 16-35 fitted on the 300D is it's too long!! With the 300D built in flash, it doesn't extend high enough to not cast a flash shadow. (even with the hood off) Hence the 550ex purchase.
Zane, does the 20D built in flash extend high enough for the 16-35?
You don't use the built in flash anyway. I don't think I've used it with any meaningful purpose on my 10D yet. There's nothing like the external flash.
rwwlee wrote:
Not sure about the 17-40, some review says it's sharper than the 16-35 at the same f stop. I'm very happy with the 16-35, so much sharper than the 17-85!! I find i use the f/2.8 a fair bit, mainly to get more bokeh.
The only thing i'm not happy with the 16-35 fitted on the 300D is it's too long!! With the 300D built in flash, it doesn't extend high enough to not cast a flash shadow. (even with the hood off) Hence the 550ex purchase.
Zane, does the 20D built in flash extend high enough for the 16-35?
I think it depends on the subject to camera distance, but YES, it clears the 16-35 without hood!!
The built-in is pretty handy for fill-in sometimes if you don't have the external flash with you.
I lost the EXIF, but I am pretty sure it's 20D + 16-35 + built in:
rwwlee wrote:
Likewise i only shoot in raw only now, a lot more post processing time spent, i can't seem to consistently predict the exposure with the evaluative metering in Av mode on the 300D, so shooting in raw helps alot. Now i do most shooting in manual mode as it's more consistent.
I am just too lazy to learn a total new way of thinking. I may have got used to shooting heaps of slides prior to my any DSLRs and I've been trained, by those expensive sildes, to try to get things (exposure, compo etc) right or acceptable at the picture taking stage, then I just drop off my slides on my way to work and pick up my the results afterwork - never had to do so much homework like now.
When I shoot jpeg, I also try hard to get things right at the start and minimise those valuable homework time. I am not against shooting RAW at all, just got to get myself started somehow...
? Give me a 1D2 thanks! 