cadman342001 wrote:
The most spectacular sight in Varanasi are the Temple rituals performed every night on the top of the ghats outside the temples. You can watch from the shore (if you get there early enough) or from a boat on the Ganges. It lasts about 45 mins and they go through each item, the feather stick, the burning incense stick, the smoking genie lamp, the towering tiered flame thingy
There are 4 or 5 guys in a line all doing the same thing.
I have an odd question. Having largely moved away from MF glass mainly due to a focus on bird photography i am pretty happy with my Sigma 50-500 as a useful tool. I have seen a TC 14 E ii for sale at a very fair price but it is incompatible with my AF P 70-300 lens. I have also seen a reference where it was implied that the TC 14 Eii mounted on a 300 f4 EDIF does some type of autofocus.
I find this hard to believe but if the camera AF drives the TC that would be a bonus. Does anyone know anything about this?
Peter, I do have a TC16A that sort of does autofocus with manual lenses. It was "sort of" though. Not something dependable. Have never used the 14 E or E ii.
Oosty wrote:
I have an odd question. Having largely moved away from MF glass mainly due to a focus on bird photography i am pretty happy with my Sigma 50-500 as a useful tool. I have seen a TC 14 E ii for sale at a very fair price but it is incompatible with my AF P 70-300 lens. I have also seen a reference where it was implied that the TC 14 Eii mounted on a 300 f4 EDIF does some type of autofocus.
I find this hard to believe but if the camera AF drives the TC that would be a bonus. Does anyone know anything about this?...Show more →
Peter,
Please take a good read from this webpage regarding modifying the TC's for use on "non-compatible" lenses. I have done this modification for using with manual focus lenses. It requires filing a tab off of the TC. I used jewelers files. Some videos out there show doing it with a Dremel tool.
It does indicate by some users that even with the modification that the Sigma 50-500 will not work. I had a Sigma 150-500 zoom years ago and was very happy with the Sigma TC's and were less expensive than the Nikon TC's
Last night my daughter and I went out to Yerba Buena Island in San Fransisco Bay to get some nightscape photos of the city. We spent most of the time at a location different than below, taking multiple images to stitch into panoramas later (50mm and 105mm). Then we went to this spot where I could get the image I wanted with a single exposure with my 50mm F2 H-C Auto. I promised Colin to take these after his great night photos of Hong Kong.
There were some trees below us and there was also quite a lot of traffic which resulted in some light painting of these trees. I can either enhance those a bit to where you can see them, or darken out most of the way. I am undecided as to whether the trees are a distraction or do they add depth/something for the foreground.
Which do you prefer: a) no trees, or b) with trees?
Last night my daughter and I went out to Yerba Buena Island in San Fransisco Bay to get some nightscape photos of the city. We spent most of the time at a location different than below, taking multiple images to stitch into panoramas later (50mm and 105mm). Then we went to this spot where I could get the image I wanted with a single exposure with my 50mm F2 H-C Auto. I promised Colin to take these after his great night photos of Hong Kong.
There were some trees below us and there was also quite a lot of traffic which resulted in some light painting of these trees. I can either enhance those a bit to where you can see them, or darken out most of the way. I am undecided as to whether the trees are a distraction or do they add depth/something for the foreground.
Which do you prefer: a) no trees, or b) with trees?
It's (b) for me, Doug. The issue with a) for me is that, at least on my monitor, the trees are not exactly gone but the visual impact of the large body of water is gone. So, b) it is.
Last night my daughter and I went out to Yerba Buena Island in San Fransisco Bay to get some nightscape photos of the city. We spent most of the time at a location different than below, taking multiple images to stitch into panoramas later (50mm and 105mm). Then we went to this spot where I could get the image I wanted with a single exposure with my 50mm F2 H-C Auto. I promised Colin to take these after his great night photos of Hong Kong.
There were some trees below us and there was also quite a lot of traffic which resulted in some light painting of these trees. I can either enhance those a bit to where you can see them, or darken out most of the way. I am undecided as to whether the trees are a distraction or do they add depth/something for the foreground.
Which do you prefer: a) no trees, or b) with trees?
I agree with Siphiwe that b) brings out the water features as well, but I feel the skyline is now too bright and I prefer a) the best for the city lights and sky. This is an image that needs to be viewed very large so hard to view the details at this resolution. Maybe a graduated filter on the bottom half of the image?
I actually like the large amount of negative space in the first one. Must be Ben's influence. I want to see the cityscape un-distracted by the trees. That's the fifth answer
So here is my list of excuses - I am working on a laptop (not my larger desktop), in the sun with a dirty screen
So I only did so much before I was confused about which way to go with this one. I am back home tomorrow and will reprocess this image, as well as the stitching of the panos.
What I am hearing is keep the sky dark to accentuate the city skyline, keep the water bright for the reflections - *the George approach), that much I get and would have done anyway. I will go for the trees on this one, as the panos will not have the trees and can give Samy the "large amount of negative space". I'll experiment more for a balance on the foreground trees and post the results later in the week, trying to incorporate any other suggestions that come along.
I like the first one best Doug, try and lose the last details of the trees and maybe keep the water detail from the 2nd one ? It might end up looking like a dog's breakfast by then though (is that a term you are familiar with in the States ?)
If not just the top one without any hint of trees.
A mate of mine used to use it when I lived in England (I emigrated to Australia in 2007 aged 40) but I'm from the North of England. Whereabouts did you live when you were there ?
I'm sure you got the gist but here is the definition
Definition 3 -
dog's breakfast
An unappealing mixture of many things... a hodgepodge... a disorganzined mess... but probably still usable (or consumable in the case of food.) From the idea that a dog will eat anything and feeding it a mixture of whatever is on hand.
Similar to "a right pig's ear" as in "you made a right pig's ear of that"
Australian slang is also a wonderful thing, sayings such as "he was a mad as a cut snake" and "he was carrying on like a pork chop" are two that spring to mind
Given the recent discussions re: beer, how about "My mouth's as dry as a dead dingo's donger"
I took an almost identical image from the exact same spot back in 2014 using a 5DMKIII and a 24-105mm zoom on a tripod. Got the same lighting results, had the same issues. Ended up cropping to portrait leaving the bridge just left of center and leaving only the very darkest trees/brush at the bottom right and called it good. That location is a rather sketchy place to set up and shoot from in the dark.
