The Official Photography Thread - Vol. 3

^^^^IMO yes. Can't imagine the Canon one being any better than the Tamron zoom. I even own a 24mm L and since I got the Tamron 15-30mm, I hard ever use it except for when I need the F-stop. I was thinking about selling it but for some reason, I feel like I am going to regret it. The colors on the L though render a lot better than the Tamron.
 
Sooo I own a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

Would buying a 24mm STM 2.8 just be redundant?

A gripe I have with the Tamron is the size .. it can be heavy to lug around and stuff.

I have that tamron lens also.

I wouldnt get 24mm 2.8 in addition to it... but then again, I dont really see myself needing a 24 prime.

im currently saving for a 70-200 2.8
 
^^^^^^One flash? I am assuming you are shooting in an area with a lot of shade right?


Since my wedding gig failed, I can now focus on my cousin's engagement photos in a couple of weeks. I am renting the 70-200mm for it and buying a reflector finally and going to every spot I know if in SF to shoot stuff. Since this is my first engagement shoot, I am actually going to just go to all the cliche engagement spots in SF just so I know at least the backdrop looks good, let alone the posing of the couple. Thankfully SF is a hot zone for engagement shoots and there is an abundant amount of stuff to use as references.

I think I asked this before but I have yet to master it. How is this photo done below? If the sun is lit in the back of them, I am assuming their bodies should be in total darkness. I know RAW files are used but I am thinking it's still not picking up that much light. Can a reflector pic up that much light if bounced back?

SF-engagement-21.jpg
SF-engagement-22.jpg
SF-engagement-17.jpg

https://iso.500px.com/backlight-natural-light-portrait-photo-tutorial/
 

Wow. Thanks dude. I swear sometimes I have no idea how much can go into a photo. I would have never though compositing would be done but now that totally makes sense for certain situations.

This is so sick! I actually really want to try this.

c6b905491074ee8d5c820195ed21f981










I decided to go shoot this today. Trying to practice some shots when the sun goes down. My girl's face was totally blown out but I still liked how the colors came out. I even shot this RAW and masked her to darken her body. Granted her body is super far away but her face got really muddy from being over exposed. I should have done more of a pose rather than her look into the camera. It's practice though so that's fine.

sun-1a.png



Also shot this for fun too. It took some time to get it right with the right background but I thought it came out cool. Kind of a kooky photography thing but I actually think I am going to print it too.

multi-portrait-1a.png



Here is how to do it:

 
Last edited:
I decided to go shoot this today. Trying to practice some shots when the sun goes down. My girl's face was totally blown out but I still liked how the colors came out. I even shot this RAW and masked her to darken her body. Granted her body is super far away but her face got really muddy from being over exposed. I should have done more of a pose rather than her look into the camera. It's practice though so that's fine.

sun-1a.png

curious, so how is the shooting raw experiment going?

loosies #maskededition:

Untitled by a0, on Flickr

Untitled by a0, on Flickr

Untitled by a0, on Flickr
 
^^^^Like I see the difference with RAW files but I still think considering, I can achieve most of same shots still shooting with JPEGs. But with my astro photos that I am still working on, the RAW files helped a lot and retained way more info on the dark areas. With general lit things, I didn't really see that big of an advantage. Actually all those Yosemite shots I posted were JPEGs since they were HDR composites in my Mark 3 and they don't save as RAW files. I still have a lot to learn. I am still only using PS and wonder if Lightroom has more of an advantage editing RAW files. For the sake of just doing this right from now on, I am going to shoot RAW with JPEGs going forward.
 
^^^^Like I see the difference with RAW files but I still think considering, I can achieve most of same shots still shooting with JPEGs. But with my astro photos that I am still working on, the RAW files helped a lot and retained way more info on the dark areas. With general lit things, I didn't really see that big of an advantage. Actually all those Yosemite shots I posted were JPEGs since they were HDR composites in my Mark 3 and they don't save as RAW files. I still have a lot to learn. I am still only using PS and wonder if Lightroom has more of an advantage editing RAW files. For the sake of just doing this right from now on, I am going to shoot RAW with JPEGs going forward.

The things you can do with the raw file in lightroom is wizardry :lol:

lightroom used to be a part of photoshop back in the day.

I highly recommend copping
 
The things you can do with the raw file in lightroom is wizardry :lol:

lightroom used to be a part of photoshop back in the day.

I highly recommend copping

I actually have it and just never use it. Haha. I used it once and couldn't even open files properly. I want to start using Lightroom more so for the filters. I literally edit my photos on my phone first and then send the hi res back to my computer to do the rest. I am actually finding that I edit better on my phone than I do on PS sometimes. Crazy.

I'll fiddle with it when I get home today. I just downloaded the RAW plugin for PS and was working with that primarily since I know how to use it but I do want to know how to use Lightroom.
 
The things you can do with the raw file in lightroom is wizardry :lol:

#this

^^^^Like I see the difference with RAW files but I still think considering, I can achieve most of same shots still shooting with JPEGs. But with my astro photos that I am still working on, the RAW files helped a lot and retained way more info on the dark areas. With general lit things, I didn't really see that big of an advantage. Actually all those Yosemite shots I posted were JPEGs since they were HDR composites in my Mark 3 and they don't save as RAW files. I still have a lot to learn. I am still only using PS and wonder if Lightroom has more of an advantage editing RAW files. For the sake of just doing this right from now on, I am going to shoot RAW with JPEGs going forward.

all RAW does is give a lot more room for edits, in most cases it won't be necessary but it really helps in the cases when you have a scene with extremes of highlights & shadows or want to push values. the engine that lightroom uses is the same as adobe camera raw in photoshop; just organized i bit differently, so the results should be the same i think; the real advantage to using lightroom is organization & how it works with PS...
 
i shoot raw and use lightroom almost exclusively, only heading into photoshop if i want to brush or mask more areas specifically. but lightroom handles 99% of the workflow.
 
^^^^^^^^Damn.....nice Rolo. That is a dope set. I definitely like the stills of the hotel. I think it adds to the feel of where they are at.





Some star photos in Yosemite that I finally got around to editing. These things are sort of a catch 22. It's like the one time you can go crazy in photoshop or lightroom with the colors and what not. This of course is totally not what I saw with the naked eye but this is how you shoot this stuff apparently.



yo-7.png
yo-4.png
yo-6c.png
 
^^^^^^^^Thanks dude. This literally is the first time getting the stars clear. My attempts have always been pretty bad but I looked at some Youtube clips to get some tips. I shoot with a Mark 3 and shot all those with the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8, Shot those at 4000 ISO I believe and at 30 second exposure.
 
Back
Top Bottom