Daran wrote:
The food pictures look like textbook examples of when not to shoot wide open. Nice sky though.
I'm sorry, but if I'm being completely honest, I think your "critique" is a little insulting since you're not providing what I could have done different and why. I also find it odd that out of all the photos in this thread, you're going to pick on my wide open shots of some random food for a lens that has an aperture of f/1.2.
I understand that there is very little depth of field with those shots. It was a combination of not that much light and wanting a shallow DoF. I know these shots are not works of art, but I posted them in this specific thread in case there are folks wanting to see the rendering of the lens wide open.
I didn't post the pictures to get a critique; I honestly don't think they're worthy of a critique and I don't think I need to justify my reasons for shooting wide open, as they're just everyday shots of some food my friends and I had ordered.
Most of my photography is done with my family in tow. I get shots when I can and try to post those that might be interesting in specific threads, so yeah, your comment kind of bothers me. As you can see, I've posted several other shots in this thread stopped down.
I'm happy to get real critique on my photos in the appropriate forum or if I specifically ask for it. I'm a professional writer, so a big part of my job is basically people (editors/reviewers) telling me what I've done wrong. I can take a good beating as long as it's constructive and helps me get better.
Your comment didn't help anything except to know that if I had stopped down and raised my ISO, you might have not said a word.
Hodie wrote:
I'm sorry, but if I'm being completely honest, I think your "critique" is a little insulting since you're not providing what I could have done different and why. I also find it odd that out of all the photos in this thread, you're going to pick on my wide open shots of some random food for a lens that has an aperture of f/1.2.
I understand that there is very little depth of field with those shots. It was a combination of not that much light and wanting a shallow DoF. I know these shots are not works of art, but I posted them in this specific thread in case there are folks wanting to see the rendering of the lens wide open.
I didn't post the pictures to get a critique; I honestly don't think they're worthy of a critique and I don't think I need to justify my reasons for shooting wide open, as they're just everyday shots of some food my friends and I had ordered.
Most of my photography is done with my family in tow. I get shots when I can and try to post those that might be interesting in specific threads, so yeah, your comment kind of bothers me. As you can see, I've posted several other shots in this thread stopped down.
I'm happy to get real critique on my photos in the appropriate forum or if I specifically ask for it. I'm a professional writer, so a big part of my job is basically people (editors/reviewers) telling me what I've done wrong. I can take a good beating as long as it's constructive and helps me get better.
Your comment didn't help anything except to know that if I had stopped down and raised my ISO, you might have not said a word....Show more →
Don't listen to him. Sure it's not the "proper" way to shoot food but i still find your pics quite pleasing. It's not like you did it for money so as long as you like it - it's fine.
As far as "how to make it better" for food you just need to use focus stacking, Depending on your aperture and food on the plate you will need to take like 10-20 photos with different focus spot. You want to have most or even all of the food on a plate in focus, all other things can(should) stay blurred. After that you can easily stack it in Photoshop or Capture One, use masks to get the desired effect.
Hodie wrote:
I'm sorry, but if I'm being completely honest, I think your "critique" is a little insulting since you're not providing what I could have done different and why. I also find it odd that out of all the photos in this thread, you're going to pick on my wide open shots of some random food for a lens that has an aperture of f/1.2.
I understand that there is very little depth of field with those shots. It was a combination of not that much light and wanting a shallow DoF. I know these shots are not works of art, but I posted them in this specific thread in case there are folks wanting to see the rendering of the lens wide open.
I didn't post the pictures to get a critique; I honestly don't think they're worthy of a critique and I don't think I need to justify my reasons for shooting wide open, as they're just everyday shots of some food my friends and I had ordered.
Most of my photography is done with my family in tow. I get shots when I can and try to post those that might be interesting in specific threads, so yeah, your comment kind of bothers me. As you can see, I've posted several other shots in this thread stopped down.
I'm happy to get real critique on my photos in the appropriate forum or if I specifically ask for it. I'm a professional writer, so a big part of my job is basically people (editors/reviewers) telling me what I've done wrong. I can take a good beating as long as it's constructive and helps me get better.
Your comment didn't help anything except to know that if I had stopped down and raised my ISO, you might have not said a word....Show more →
Wow. I'm sorry, certainly didn't intend to upset you. Maybe I should have skipped the part about the textbook. I thought it funny, when you could be the master of photography for all I know. Why you think this forum should be free of factual criticism is beyond me, though.
Daran wrote:
Wow. I'm sorry, certainly didn't intend to upset you. Maybe I should have skipped the part about the textbook. I thought it funny, when you could be the master of photography for all I know. Why you think this forum should be free of factual criticism is beyond me, though.
I'm okay with feedback, but I think there is a certain delivery in which feedback should be given. Anyway, I appreciate your response and we're all good here. Onto the next!
I take it you see it as tangible upgrade over 50ZA?
That's my opinion as a well, I find it amazing that the GM is both sharper and smoother at the same time (let alone faster ).
Very nice photos, btw. They definitely have their own feel to them.
j4nu wrote:
I take it you see it as tangible upgrade over 50ZA?
That's my opinion as a well, I find it amazing that the GM is both sharper and smoother at the same time (let alone faster ).
Very nice photos, btw. They definitely have their own feel to them.
Is it faster?
What's the transmission difference between the two?
I'd imagine it's insignificant, probably a quarter stop?
It (the 1.2) does seem to paint better pictures (imo).
Those food photos, I agree, aren't great food photos, but they are great sample images for this lens, really gave me a good feel of the rendering at a distance that's obviously close and both foreground and background blur and transitional characteristics.
Love the VW image, those vibrant colours, the warm contrasty lighting, very nice image.
Just hope there aren't any monkeys in that garage.
I didn't measure it, but I think I have 3 similar shots: @f1.2, @f1.4 and ZA @f1.4 . I'll see if I can find them.
Bob_S wrote:
Is it faster?
What's the transmission difference between the two?
I'd imagine it's insignificant, probably a quarter stop?
It (the 1.2) does seem to paint better pictures (imo).
Those food photos, I agree, aren't great food photos, but they are great sample images for this lens, really gave me a good feel of the rendering at a distance that's obviously close and both foreground and background blur and transitional characteristics.
Love the VW image, those vibrant colours, the warm contrasty lighting, very nice image.
Just hope there aren't any monkeys in that garage.
So, take this with a grain of salt please, as it was outdoors and the light might have simply changed when I was switching the lens / reframing but I got in (Aperture Prio) shutter speed:
* on 1st photo (close-up) : 1/2500s 50ZA @f1.4 vs 1/2000s 50GM @f1.4 (1/2500s @f1.2)
* on 2nd photo (regular) : 1/1000s 50ZA @f1.4 vs 1/1000s 50GM @f1.4 (1/1250s 50GM @f1.2)
* on 3rd photo (regular) : 1/1250s 50ZA @f1.4 vs 1/1000s 50GM @f1.4 (1/1250s 50GM @f1.2)
but histogram on these photos shows ZA is a bit darker (hard to tell exactly).
j4nu wrote:
I didn't measure it, but I think I have 3 similar shots: @f1.2@, @f1.4@ and ZA @f1.4@ . I'll see if I can find them.
).