Essential The Official Photography Thread

[Crakface]

Yeah, I was in a car going east across the bridge, I thought it was going to be fuzzy/blurry because the window was really dirty have some sap shyt or something on it, so I opened the lens up some and prayed that it wouldn't be in the pic lol


Lighting is really important too, bump a cheap lens to f/8 with some good lighting and you can get some good pics, no matter what lens you get, get some lights, and if you have some already read up on it and play around with it to try to understand how it can bring some things to life depending on the placement and intensity of the lights.

What shutter speed were you doin that shyt at, and what kinda fukkin Lense was that

 

[Raiders]

What shutter speed were you doin that shyt at, and what kinda fukkin Lense was that

I was using a sigma 50mm f/1.4 my camera goes up to 1/8000 as the fastest, but you only need around 1/1000 to get that shot I would think as long as you have a good auto-focus or can manually do it. I manually took that one tho. Even tho I rarely shoot manual.

 

[Crakface]

I was using a sigma 50mm f/1.4 my camera goes up to 1/8000 as the fastest, but you only need around 1/1000 to get that shot I would think as long as you have a good auto-focus or can manually do it. I manually took that one tho. Even tho I rarely shoot manual.

So short exposures can still capture alot of detail huh?

 

[Raiders]

I personally like focusing myself, but i haven't figured out how to make it not attempt to autofocus while I'm messing with the lens. The camera also has the annoying effect of not taking the pic until it gets perfect focus, which really fukks me up at night

Im sure you have a setting that will tell the camera to have focus or shutter priority for the pic. look in your setting. Also, see if you have a option to change what button focuses. I have mine set as a back button focus and the shutter only takes the pic

 

[Raiders]

So short exposures can still capture alot of detail huh?

Yes a short exposure with low ISO would give the best result I would think as long as its properly exposed, because even if you arent steady, or if the person is moving it freezes the moment. Thats what flash is good too, it freezes things.

Also a small aperture usually between f/8 and f/11 will be where a lens is sharpest, but it varies by lens. Most lens arent that sharp wide open, some are and they are usually expensive >$900 but most lens will get good once you stop them down 1 stop, most cameras are set for 1/3 so if the lens is f/1.4 one click will take it to 1.6 two would be 1.8 and the 3rd is 2.0 its letting in one less stop of light, but you will usually get shapper photos, but you have to make the choice of what kind of pic you want a sharp one or one with shallow depth of field.

So if you have a lens that is f/1.8 at the lowest then it should start getting good around 2.5 or 2.8 or if the lowest aperture is something like f/4 then f/5.6 is what you might want to shoot at, but it varies by lens. Like I said tho the pic should get sharper but more thing will be in focus, if you dont want that you have to create some space between your subject and the background.

 

[Crakface]

Yes a short exposure with low ISO would give the best result I would think as long as its properly exposed, because even if you arent steady, or if the person is moving it freezes the moment. Thats what flash is good too, it freezes things.

Also a small aperture usually between f/8 and f/11 will be where a lens is sharpest, but it varies by lens. Most lens arent that sharp wide open, some are and they are usually expensive >$900 but most lens will get good once you stop them down 1 stop, most cameras are set for 1/3 so if the lens is f/1.4 one click will take it to 1.6 two would be 1.8 and the 3rd is 2.0 its letting in one less stop of light, but you will usually get shapper photos, but you have to make the choice of what kind of pic you want a sharp one or one with shallow depth of field.

So if you have a lens that is f/1.8 at the lowest then it should start getting good around 2.5 or 2.8 or if the lowest aperture is something like f/4 then f/5.6 is what you might want to shoot at, but it varies by lens. Like I said tho the pic should get sharper but more thing will be in focus, if you dont want that you have to create some space between your subject and the background.

I have a nex7 and a
Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA

That should work.

 

[el_oh_el]

Say @GoldenGlove ..care to share any of your techniques? Such as the silhouette against the night sky...or the type of lens you use

 

[Raiders]

More pics I guess, I started a Photo challenge for myself to only use a prime, because I love my zooms, but I only went out one to take pics, so the ones I posted earlier and these are from the same day its been like two weeks, I wish I was more motivated to take pics.

Harry Potter geeks will understand this

Uhh..idk just took the pic lol I think I was messing around with the f/1.4 shyt can be challenging to shoot with such a shallow depth of field

As a matter of fact, I think all of these are f/1.4 I guess I was just snapping random shyt

 

[Raiders]

I have a nex7 and a
Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* E 24mm F1.8 ZA

That should work.

Yeah most cams shoot at at least 1/4000 of a sec so you should be good, and the f1.8 will help if you want to speed your shutter up. If your shutter isnt fast enough bump your iso some to get a faster one and you can do it..do you shoot manual? if not I think your cam should have a mode called TV or S idk something, but its for shutter priority that way you can set your shutter and let the camera figure out the rest

 

[GoldenGlove]

YOu took that street pic in motion?

What shutter speed were you doin that shyt at, and what kinda fukkin Lense was that

I was using a sigma 50mm f/1.4 my camera goes up to 1/8000 as the fastest, but you only need around 1/1000 to get that shot I would think as long as you have a good auto-focus or can manually do it. I manually took that one tho. Even tho I rarely shoot manual.

@Crakface

You can get comparable results with the NEX7. That highway pic that @Raiders posted reminded me of a similar shot that I took on the expressway out here last year with the NEX-5N (which is a beast in low light btw)

259/365 by K e N, on Flickr

Settings were f3.2, ISO 100 and shutter was only at 1/125. Lens was the 50mm f1.8.... I just had a real steady hand when I took the shot. You already have some very expensive glass for your camera, and the NEX7 takes great photos. If you're not satisfied with your results, you need to get a better handle on what settings you need to use for various situations. If you're picking up the camera, leaving it in auto mode and just snapping away, you're not going to get the best results IMO.

My boy just got a NEX-3N (same sensor that's in the 5N) a few months back and I've had to tell him that he needs to stop relying on auto mode because it'll pick some shytty settings for you and it might look decent when you review it on your camera, but when you put it on a PC it'll be grainy or overexposed.

EDIT: And I forgot, post processing your photos as well. Shooting in RAW gives you way more options to tweaking your pics opposed to just shooting JPEGs

 

[GoldenGlove]

Say @GoldenGlove ..care to share any of your techniques? Such as the silhouette against the night sky...or the type of lens you use

Sure...

I'm using the Sony A6000 right now. Graduated from the NEX-5N back in May of this year.

I have the 35mm f1.8, 30mm f2.8 (this just stays on the 5N now) 50mm f1.8, kit lens which is 18-55mm and a zoom lense that's 55-210mm.

For the 1st year of shooting with the 5N I really only used the 30mm and the 50mm... I went along and got the 35mm this year to pair with my A6000 because I realized that's the sweet spot for the pics I typically take... and the f2.8 on the Sigma 30mm wasn't cutting it for me anymore in low light. The 35mm f1.8 is perfect for me because it gives me the low light performance that the 50mm does, but it gives me more leeway and versatility for my shots, because the 50 could be a bit too tight to shoot with all the time.

I typically leave my camera in zone mode for focusing, so it's in auto, but if I adjust the lens on what's highlighted, it goes to manual focus when I want to get even more precise with a still object or something like that.

For the shots you're talking about, I was initially trying to get a portrait of my wife with the sky as the backdrop, but the scene was just too backlit. Another thing that was messing up that shot were the trees that are past the pond that's in my backyard... with the settings I had, the trees and the subject blended in as black so it just wasn't a good look as far as the kind of contrast I was going for. The aperture was at f4 so I could get the detail of the sky color, but at that f stop it made the subject too dark to make out a face... so I just had her look out in the sky and took it that way. So I ended up having her stand on a chair so I could frame her to where there weren't any trees in the background in the shot.

ISO was at 400, shutter was at 1/100.

 

[shutterguy]

A few shots of the Blue Angels doing their practice show before the actual air show this weekend...........

 

[Kritic]

the IQ is better than my 24-105 L lens. bruh I cant recommend that lens enough.

what body do you use with the 24-105
i got a chance to cop one for $350 used but reading up on it it said it doesn't do it justice on a crop lens. i have a bud who uses it on a crop.

as for using the 100mm outside, i read that the 85mm (1.8) is best for portraits.

and internets say the 70-200 IS II pawns anything in that range. but they also say the 100 is the best macro lens. for years i''d wanted the 70-200isii so kept my 55-200 kit around but hardly use the long range since i don't shoot outside much. over the last few years i've broken down my niche to indoor macro.
outside i'm a zoom kinda person. and the 17-85 USM (crop only) appeals to me.

if the full frames had a swivel screen i'd have been owning one the moment they were released and just not fuq with the cropped lenses. t2i to t3i was game-changer to me and changed my style of photography. my style is ninja-munkie type.
the t4i touch screen was nice but i got them for so low brand new that i just had to flip them. i had one used that i owned for a few days but kept the 18-135 STM which is what i used mostly with the 60D and now 70D. i got the 70d with a 18-55 STM but sold it already.
they say the 18-55 has better image quality than the 18-135 but i'm not sure i can give up the zoom. image quality over everything else, but for kit lenses i can't give up the zoom.
i've also flipped some 60Ds and had one come with a 28-135 but it couldn't compete with the wider and quieter 18-135 stm.

 

[Crakface]

@Crakface

You can get comparable results with the NEX7. That highway pic that @Raiders posted reminded me of a similar shot that I took on the expressway out here last year with the NEX-5N (which is a beast in low light btw)

259/365 by K e N, on Flickr

Settings were f3.2, ISO 100 and shutter was only at 1/125. Lens was the 50mm f1.8.... I just had a real steady hand when I took the shot. You already have some very expensive glass for your camera, and the NEX7 takes great photos. If you're not satisfied with your results, you need to get a better handle on what settings you need to use for various situations. If you're picking up the camera, leaving it in auto mode and just snapping away, you're not going to get the best results IMO.

My boy just got a NEX-3N (same sensor that's in the 5N) a few months back and I've had to tell him that he needs to stop relying on auto mode because it'll pick some shytty settings for you and it might look decent when you review it on your camera, but when you put it on a PC it'll be grainy or overexposed.

EDIT: And I forgot, post processing your photos as well. Shooting in RAW gives you way more options to tweaking your pics opposed to just shooting JPEGs

Manual mode?

 

[Crakface]

Sure...

I'm using the Sony A6000 right now. Graduated from the NEX-5N back in May of this year.

I have the 35mm f1.8, 30mm f2.8 (this just stays on the 5N now) 50mm f1.8, kit lens which is 18-55mm and a zoom lense that's 55-210mm.

For the 1st year of shooting with the 5N I really only used the 30mm and the 50mm... I went along and got the 35mm this year to pair with my A6000 because I realized that's the sweet spot for the pics I typically take... and the f2.8 on the Sigma 30mm wasn't cutting it for me anymore in low light. The 35mm f1.8 is perfect for me because it gives me the low light performance that the 50mm does, but it gives me more leeway and versatility for my shots, because the 50 could be a bit too tight to shoot with all the time.

I typically leave my camera in zone mode for focusing, so it's in auto, but if I adjust the lens on what's highlighted, it goes to manual focus when I want to get even more precise with a still object or something like that.

For the shots you're talking about, I was initially trying to get a portrait of my wife with the sky as the backdrop, but the scene was just too backlit. Another thing that was messing up that shot were the trees that are past the pond that's in my backyard... with the settings I had, the trees and the subject blended in as black so it just wasn't a good look as far as the kind of contrast I was going for. The aperture was at f4 so I could get the detail of the sky color, but at that f stop it made the subject too dark to make out a face... so I just had her look out in the sky and took it that way. So I ended up having her stand on a chair so I could frame her to where there weren't any trees in the background in the shot.

ISO was at 400, shutter was at 1/100.

What about natural light indoor photos on manual mode?