Notice: Undefined index: Bumped in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/functions_2021_i.php on line 1850
Notice: Undefined index: SecondBoardID in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/functions_2021_i.php on line 1851
Notice: Undefined index: LatestPoster in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/functions_2021_i.php on line 1852 People Photography - Photography - FM Forums
I can see that you create a good connection with your subjects and are able to capture some great moment.
Here are my thoughts.
#1 -- I like it but it would be a stronger image if your angle was from the right with her centered in the opening. As it is, she has a tree coming out of her head.
#2. -- Looks like you really pushed the iso, the blacks look muddy.
Welcome to the forum. I like your avatar. What's the deal with these guys who use birds instead of people?
#1. Good DOF choice for the scenery. But yes, that tree is a minor problem.
#2 Looks good, even though the subject is in the bottom right corner, facing right.
#3 Good expressions and composition. I'm not a fan of the flair, but that doesn't mean others won't like it.
#4 Nice pose and comp. I looked at where her knee was aimed and that turned me off a bit. Other may not think of that at all.
#5 Nice expression and composition. Usually the arm leading out of the frame is not best. Here you have it blurred up quite a bit, so less of an issue.
Jim Rickards wrote:
Welcome to the forum. I like your avatar. What's the deal with these guys who use birds instead of people?
#1. Good DOF choice for the scenery. But yes, that tree is a minor problem.
#2 Looks good, even though the subject is in the bottom right corner, facing right.
#3 Good expressions and composition. I'm not a fan of the flair, but that doesn't mean others won't like it.
#4 Nice pose and comp. I looked at where her knee was aimed and that turned me off a bit. Other may not think of that at all.
#5 Nice expression and composition. Usually the arm leading out of the frame is not best. Here you have it blurred up quite a bit, so less of an issue.
Random question, what lens do you think I used for #1 and #2. I'm trying to recreate the feel of a large aperture wide angle lens. Unfortunately, I'm a broke college kid that only has a 50 1.8 and a 100-400 that I own, but bought mainly because I need it for my job as my college athletics photographer. #1 and #2 are actually shot at 400mm on a 7d...so around 640mm at f/5.6 then stitched together to get a smaller dof. Just wondering what lens it actually "looks" like to you...and if it was immediately apparent that I even did the stitching.
Gizmaldo wrote:
Random question, what lens do you think I used for #1 and #2. I'm trying to recreate the feel of a large aperture wide angle lens. Unfortunately, I'm a broke college kid that only has a 50 1.8 and a 100-400 that I own, but bought mainly because I need it for my job as my college athletics photographer. #1 and #2 are actually shot at 400mm on a 7d...so around 640mm at f/5.6 then stitched together to get a smaller dof. Just wondering what lens it actually "looks" like to you...and if it was immediately apparent that I even did the stitching. ...Show more →
Stitching was not apparent to me. The DOF comment was because you didn't choose a narrow DOF and chose to include detail in the surroundings. If you needed more than one frame to do that, recognized that and then did it with your long lens, a narrow DOF lens, then my hat is off to you. Looks like you understand a lot more about photography than many others. Must be limiting to have your shortest lens a 50mm when your body is a cropped one. I started with a 50mm on a cropped body and forced myself to stay with that as my only lens for a long month of steady shooting. The objective was to understand what I needed next. ( I went for a 17-40mm f4L). That might not be in your budget (if college kids have a budget) but you might consider the 35mm f2. Not that expensive but wider and good in low light. I've used the 100-400mm on a full frame camera for different subjects and liked the range. With the cropped camera the 160mm equivalent would be limiting.
Nov 19, 2013 at 01:08 PM
Notice: Undefined index: adsensetopicmiddle in /var/www/vhosts/fredmiranda.com/httpdocs/forum/viewtopic.php on line 1500
I've rented the 50mm 1.2 and fell in love with it. I really enjoy the 50mm focal length and although I wish it was a tiny bit wider, I think the bokeh from something like a 35 L would be a lot less pronounced than from a 50 1.2. I can't really decide though. I've also looked at the 85 1.4 rokinon lens which I have heard very good things about. I know its manual focus, but for portraits that shouldn't be too much of an issue. I think the bokeh and dof would be similar to a 50 1.2 if I'm not mistaken?
Gizmaldo wrote:
I've rented the 50mm 1.2 and fell in love with it. I really enjoy the 50mm focal length and although I wish it was a tiny bit wider, I think the bokeh from something like a 35 L would be a lot less pronounced than from a 50 1.2. I can't really decide though. I've also looked at the 85 1.4 rokinon lens which I have heard very good things about. I know its manual focus, but for portraits that shouldn't be too much of an issue. I think the bokeh and dof would be similar to a 50 1.2 if I'm not mistaken? ...Show more →
Not sure myself. Maybe someone else can provide some insight?
Gizmaldo wrote:
. Unfortunately, I'm a broke college kid that only has a 50 1.8 and a 100-400 that I own, but bought mainly because I need it for my job as my college athletics photographer. #1 and #2 are actually shot at 400mm on a 7d...so around 640mm at f/5.6 then stitched together to get a smaller dof. Just wondering what lens it actually "looks" like to you...and if it was immediately apparent that I even did the stitching.
Well, FWIW, I applaud your willingness to post up here and solicit input from those folks here who know a whole bunch about your photographic interests. Keep posting
