Jump to content
BurgaFlippinMan

The Photography Thread

Recommended Posts

I aim for at least 1000/1 in ideal conditions but if light is poor I’ll drop to 800/1. 

 

At that point I’ll start to open the aperture or bump the iso rather than reduce the shutter speed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KK said:

Long layover in DC...made the most of it!

 

IMG_0242.JPG

 

 

 

IMG_0244.JPG

 

 

 

Really like these two. Nice use of framing and leading lines. That triangle is brilliant .

 

in the first one though. I really which you had stepped one pace to your right and evened up the edges 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bilbo said:

 

Really like these two. Nice use of framing and leading lines. That triangle is brilliant .

 

in the first one though. I really which you had stepped one pace to your right and evened up the edges 😄

 

You and me both! It took me long enough to get this shot without people intruding my view!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Went on a little trip to the Schneeberg in Austria. 

Find the gliders on these:

20190815_114020.jpg

20190815_112913.jpg

 

Sissi's chapel and the salamander-train that takes you up:

20190815_114013.jpg

 

From down below, the chapel is the little nub on the left of the mount:20190815_093205.jpg

 

And to join in with the Flower Power:

20190815_114202.jpg

 

Near private property by the Steinwand-ravine which was unfortunately all dried up: (#nopolitics, just thought it was funny)

20190815_142320.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else find some of these extremely wide apertures resulting in paper-thin depth of field to be comically unnecessary? It seems to be a popular feature of photography that signifies "professionalism" and "artistry", which is fine in moderation I guess, but online it's like watching the "bokeh wars" unfold, where photographers are all out trying to out-blur one-another. I'm even starting to see it creeping into movies now and then. Images were seldom shot this way a few decades ago, so is it something about digital photographic technology that's led to this sort of visual excess of attention-hogging blur and murk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Photographers love a narrow DOF because of the way it separates the subject from the fore- and background. That's why you buy a fast portrait lens. Nikon has just released their best lens ever, the Nikkor Noct 58mm 0.95. This manual lens will cost you $8000. Apparently, the demand is far greater than they expected.

 

 

Nikon-Nikkor-Noct-6.jpg

 

 

Nikon-Nikkor-Z-58mm-f0.95-S-Noct-lens-4.

 

Luckily, you get the dedicated case for free!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong. A relatively narrow depth of field is aesthetically pleasing in portraiture. But some photographers take it wayyyyyy too far by setting the f-stop to 1.2 or 1.4 and the subject's nearest eye is in focus, but their nose is out of focus. I prefer to play it safe and stop it to 2.8, a nice compromise aperture that gets you satisfying bokeh and your subject doesn't look like they're submerged inside a gas plume. I can't even begin to imagine the practical uses of f/1.0, let alone 0.95!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, it's not always appropriate. I recently saw a movie where they used it too much and in an unnecessary manner. Maybe they didn't have enough light sources? Anyway, another reason to use a narrow DOF is, when your backgrounds are ugly, you can make them go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use fast apertures for sports alright but in that case you want the subject to be in focus and the background blurred as much as possible because you don’t want background distraction saying that though, because of the gear I have, I tend to only really go to f4-5.6 anyway. 
 

This photo got me second in my camera club’s novice mono comp for this month! 

DE0EEE58-3CCE-40E9-809B-86E9C2AA5845.jpeg

Came 3rd in the novice colour with this:

F9C23119-A9DB-412B-8DB7-64CEDB71AD87.jpeg

The previous month I came first is the colour with this:

 

AB52439A-4449-48FC-9FF8-1E3BF1C0CBE6.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2019 at 12:14 PM, Bilbo said:

 

AB52439A-4449-48FC-9FF8-1E3BF1C0CBE6.jpeg

 

This is a very rich composition Marty. Beautiful photo!

 

57 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Desolation!

 

They should have filmed The Hobbit there!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

@KK, I like the black and white photo, but why does the road in the one below it, look like the poster for STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE?

 

It's the rainbow road. It's the path gay Vikings walk to Valhalla. It's fabulous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Naïve Old Fart said:

@KK, I like the black and white photo, but why does the road in the one below it, look like the poster for STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE?

 

Those are the Pride colours Richard, which I assume were painted on to celebrate the LGBT community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...