Official Photography Thread: Vol. ICan'tFindTheLastOne

[elboricua 6]

fong i believe that the only difference and once again i can be wrong but are the number of spikes on each light star

 

[elboricua 6]

fong i believe that the only difference and once again i can be wrong but are the number of spikes on each light star

 

[mjbetch]

Originally Posted by Mr Fongstarr

Originally Posted by mjbetch

Originally Posted by Mr Fongstarr

Some weak stuff:





First one I didn't have a tripod so I had to sit it on a barrier but other one I didn't a line it straight in my view. I should have been more on that path on the bottom.

whoa.. how did you get the light effect on that pic? i know you didnt have a filter. haha nice shot

What do you mean? The spiked out lights (don't know the photo terminology for it). You just need to shot with a longer aperture. I forget what it was at but I think it was at 12 or 13. Someone can do that photo info thing for me......

Speaking of that, do different lenses do different shapes? On my fisheye, they really get sharp as apposed to my canon kit that I did that with.

oh forreal? damn i didnt know that. how long was your shutter speed? i tried it on mine and nothing happened. haha


edit: you were at f/22. and damn you held it that long for 3 seconds?

 

[luong1209]

^Bro you've been double posting each reply

. Nice pick up btw.

 

[Fong$tarr]

Shutter wasn't too long but it was maybe 2-3 seconds..? I could be way off. If you put it on aperture priority, just set that up to 13 and the shutter willautomatically be set for you. I usually shoot on manual but I was reading a mag that talked about nothing about using aperture priority so I think I used itfor this shot..but again, I could be wrong. I am at work right now so I can't check the stats on the original.

 

[elboricua 6]

long im not meaning to double post its yuku and/or my phone .. u want one? lol

mjbetch just cause u set ur aperture to f22 doesnt mean squad ... im certain it has more to do with exposure .. i get starts all the time with longer exposures... then again im using the 17-55 and canon 10-22 for most of them n sometime the sig 30 1.4 .. also be carefull with such a high aperture .. its probably notgoing to be sharp or should i say as sharp as a bigger aperture ...

 

[airjordanjack]

What type of stuff does Circuit City have for canon? I will have to go check mine out.

I plan on getting the canon 17-40 f/4L in a week or two after I sell some kicks. Does anyone here have it or have anything to say about it? I've read manyreviews, and am getting it to replace my xti kit lens. I never really use the kit lens past 30-40mm anyways, so I think the 17-40 will be good for me.

Here is an old pani i don't remember ever posting.

 

[Fong$tarr]

Hmmmm. now I am really curious how this is done. When I set the shutter longer with a lower aperture, all it does is make the picture super bright. I alwaysthought you needed a high aperture and a lower shutter to achieve this..or maybe a balance of both.

 

[elboricua 6]

fong im not talking about under over exposing a picture .. i mean longer exposure so if that mean stopping down to a f/11 to get 5 to 10 secs ... so itsprobably a balance from both ...

However I dont think you can get these results from being wide open lets say 2.8 and long shutter speed .. so I believe a balance of both .. if you stop downto a f/8 - f/11 which I usually stay at for landscaps and night shoots your exposure is usually 3-15 secs depending on lights and I get these automaticly ..however if you are doing a f/11 at .0"5 you still can get some .. so maybe stopping down is the clue but a slighter longer exposure is needed for a goodeffect .. if that make sense

 

[backtotheknown]

Originally Posted by NIMO007

Picked up an a200 at circuit city. Regular Price 500... got it for 300

nice deal man!

 

[lovefortheair23]

onlineelboricua 6 ...how much homie.

 

[atmosfere]

Originally Posted by Mr Fongstarr

Hmmmm. now I am really curious how this is done. When I set the shutter longer with a lower aperture, all it does is make the picture super bright. I always thought you needed a high aperture and a lower shutter to achieve this..or maybe a balance of both.

SMALLER APERTURE (BIGGER NUMBER i.e. f22 > f11), balance it with a longer shutter to attain the correct exposure as others have stated. The number of"spikes" is dependent on the number of aperture blades the lens contains.

 

[jretro23]

question. i'm about to pull the trigger on the canon 50mm f/1.8 lens, buuuuuuut am i better off dropping a couple more bills to get the f/1.4?

 

[backtotheknown]

Originally Posted by jretro23

question. i'm about to pull the trigger on the canon 50mm f/1.8 lens, buuuuuuut am i better off dropping a couple more bills to get the f/1.4?

i have the 1.8 and i love it but then again a have never used the 1.4

 

[nikeairsncrispytees]

These are the shot's stats:

Camera Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D90
Image Date: 2009:02:08 20:48:37
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 10.5mm (35mm equivalent: 15mm)
Exposure Time: 3.000 s
Aperture: f/22.0
ISO equiv: 1250
White Balance: Manual
Light Source: Incandescent
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual


I usually get shots with the light effect like that from long expsoures. The shots below are from one night when I was just messing around with exposurelengths at night around campus. I believe that both of these were 30 seconds.




Edit: I just noticed that the second one I posted was taken at ISO 800...I feel like a moron.

 

[dl2352]

A couple from the past month or so. Still getting a feel for the Ricoh. Beginning to appreciate the noise at higher ISO's when shooting in B&W (pic 2.)

 

[pandastyle]

Originally Posted by airjordanjack

I plan on getting the canon 17-40 f/4L in a week or two after I sell some kicks. Does anyone here have it or have anything to say about it? I've read many reviews, and am getting it to replace my xti kit lens. I never really use the kit lens past 30-40mm anyways, so I think the 17-40 will be good for me.

I have the 17-40mm f4L. It's a good, cheap L-series lens. It depends on what you're going to use it for. I primarily do wedding photography, so I findmyself needing to use a 2.8 more often.

 

[jretro23]

Originally Posted by backtotheknown

Originally Posted by jretro23

question. i'm about to pull the trigger on the canon 50mm f/1.8 lens, buuuuuuut am i better off dropping a couple more bills to get the f/1.4?

i have the 1.8 and i love it but then again a have never used the 1.4

how long have you had it for? is it still holding up?

 

[backtotheknown]

Originally Posted by jretro23

Originally Posted by backtotheknown

Originally Posted by jretro23

question. i'm about to pull the trigger on the canon 50mm f/1.8 lens, buuuuuuut am i better off dropping a couple more bills to get the f/1.4?

i have the 1.8 and i love it but then again a have never used the 1.4

how long have you had it for? is it still holding up?

its gotta be about 2 months and its doin fine. but thats not that long haha

 

[kickmatic23]

so i took some shots in RAW instead of jpeg... now what should i be doing once uploaded? (in reference to editing them or w.e you do with RAW)

 

[i just got lucky]

Originally Posted by ATMOSfere

Originally Posted by Mr Fongstarr

Hmmmm. now I am really curious how this is done. When I set the shutter longer with a lower aperture, all it does is make the picture super bright. I always thought you needed a high aperture and a lower shutter to achieve this..or maybe a balance of both.

SMALLER APERTURE (BIGGER NUMBER i.e. f22 > f11), balance it with a longer shutter to attain the correct exposure as others have stated. The number of "spikes" is dependent on the number of aperture blades the lens contains.

Pretty much...it's all about compensation. There isnt really a magic setting to achieve those effects, it all depends on how bright the sceneis and weather can also have an effect (fog). I've taken night shots from 3 secs-8 secs of exposure from f/11-f/22 and get that effect.

I haven't heard or read anywhere about the number of blades determining the number of spikes...but it make sense. I guess the smaller the aperture thelonger the spikes and the actual ball (light bulb) where the light comes from will be smaller?

 

[mjbetch]

Originally Posted by elboricua 6

long im not meaning to double post its yuku and/or my phone .. u want one? lol

mjbetch just cause u set ur aperture to f22 doesnt mean squad ... im certain it has more to do with exposure .. i get starts all the time with longer exposures ... then again im using the 17-55 and canon 10-22 for most of them n sometime the sig 30 1.4 .. also be carefull with such a high aperture .. its probably not going to be sharp or should i say as sharp as a bigger aperture ...

what? what are you talking about? lol

all i'm saying is that damn, that's a pretty clear shot for 3 seconds hand-held at night

 

[ienycepnoyi]

 

[pullupj8]

Originally Posted by Mr Fongstarr

Dude...return the Sony. Take the $300 and put it towards a Canon or a Nikon. Plus more lenses to get from those two brands then Sony stuff.

This is the first entry-level camera we've seen in 2008, so it's quite possible that we'll be back to reevaluate the Sony Alpha DSLR-A200 more favorably in the context of its competition. But for now, there are better, more interesting models from earlier years whose prices are dropping into its territory; the Nikon D40x or Canon EOS Rebel XTi if you're willing to forgo the image stabilization, or the slightly more expensive Pentax K10D if you're not. You can even opt for the similar and still-available two-year-old Alpha DSLR-A100, if you don't shoot a lot at high ISO settings, and put the money you save toward a better lens.

The good: In-body image stabilization; supports wireless flash.

The bad: Loud; Sony doesn't have a stable of inexpensive lenses for consumers; oddly located, proprietary USB connector.

The bottom line: The Sony Alpha DSLR-A200 is a solid entry-level dSLR that doesn't really stand out in its very competitive field

^^^^Taken from CNET review.

All Minolta/Konica-Minolta Maxxum AF lenses will work on the Sony DSLRs. Sony's new to the DSLR game but they inherited Minolta technologies.Sony kept most of the Konica-Minolta DSLR division after the buyout. Give Sony some time. I know Canon and Nikon are the big boys in the DSLR arena, but Sonyis putting out quality products. I had a D60 and returned it to get the A300. Preference I guess. But I just liked the A300 better.

 

[Fong$tarr]

Originally Posted by mjbetch

Originally Posted by elboricua 6

long im not meaning to double post its yuku and/or my phone .. u want one? lol

mjbetch just cause u set ur aperture to f22 doesnt mean squad ... im certain it has more to do with exposure .. i get starts all the time with longer exposures ... then again im using the 17-55 and canon 10-22 for most of them n sometime the sig 30 1.4 .. also be carefull with such a high aperture .. its probably not going to be sharp or should i say as sharp as a bigger aperture ...

what? what are you talking about? lol

all i'm saying is that damn, that's a pretty clear shot for 3 seconds hand-held at night

It wasn't handheld. I had it on a barrier post....and even at that, it wasn't that sharp. i had to use the sharpen tool a bit to make it look a littlebetter.