View Full Version : micro GKPE Church at night
weka2000
15th of March 2006 (Wed), 23:07
Scott and I went out to Howick to shoot the moon. Spent a bit of time around this church. I used my Sigma 24-70 be interesting to see Scott's with the 10-20
Moppie
15th of March 2006 (Wed), 23:40
Oooh, I like the 2nd one a lot!
AlexK
15th of March 2006 (Wed), 23:43
Wonderful pictures!
#2 remindes me a book cover with old fairytales from my childhood.
Thanks for sharing!
weka2000
15th of March 2006 (Wed), 23:46
Didnt even notice the tree trunk when I took photo. I see somethings but not others, strange.
FlyingPete
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 00:02
Nice! Man I gotta get my life back to I can get along to these things again...
scotttnz
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 00:28
Nice one Tony! That second would look good framed on the wall!
I hope to get a change to PP and post some of mine tonight, but have got a guy coming to pick up the subaru, so have to make sure we have got everything out.
I test drove the new Sigma 17-70 today. I liked it. I am leaning towards this over the 10-20 for my next lens if I get a good price for the macro.
sesnel amgis yub!!!
saravrose
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 00:44
I like them.. the moon is great and the church is nice.. I also really like the tree in the foreground...
sari.
weka2000
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 00:58
Nice one Tony! That second would look good framed on the wall!
I test drove the new Sigma 17-70 today. I liked it. I am leaning towards this over the 10-20 for my next lens if I get a good price for the macro.
Im looking foward to seeing what you did with the 10-20.
Will look at that as a print.
17-70 dosnt have a gold ring, not a good sign. What was price?
Wazza
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 01:05
We were at the Barrel Inn pub, doing the local pub quiz. How bizarre. :)
Nice shots
Mills
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 01:06
The second one is great! Cool shots.
weka2000
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 01:13
Nice shots
wazza you are my meter as to how well im doing, but boy what do I have to produce to get a WOW :rolleyes:
It will happen trust me.
Wazza
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 01:18
:p
Ok honestly, these shots are more than just a nice.
It was just a add on that I related to the shots. My bad
I was actully GREATLY impressed by the sharpenss on the tree and the moon.
They truly have wow, and as I typed my previous message, I was a bit distracted with Kirst. :o
weka2000
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 01:25
More luck than skill. Skill is been able to do it again and get the same result.
Yes I know that feeling of been distractd by a HOT woman:lol:
tim
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 01:27
Oooh, that second one's brilliant! I'd make the frame smaller and darker though, there's too much white around it for me.
weka2000
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 02:26
Tim with comments like that you will become my new best freind :)
Thank you. I just use a standard frame, I havnt played around with Mike script to much to get different ideas
scotttnz
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 02:39
Im looking foward to seeing what you did with the 10-20.
I'm not to happy with my church shots, there are a couple that might be OK with some more work, but for now I'll post this one from our next stop after the church:
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a310/scotttnz/IMG_8344.jpg
17-70 dosnt have a gold ring, not a good sign. What was price?
I know it does not have a gold ring, but it seems nice to use. Early reviews suggest that it is optically pretty good, and it is being compared favourably with the EFS 17-85. It is much better than the kit lens, and a zoom range I would use all the time. There are only a few reviews around at the moment though. The sticker price at Photo Warehouse in Queen St is $685, but they said they can do it for $575. (They know I shop around for the best price, and have mised out on selling to me before because they wouldn't match Auckland Camera)
I have found that when I force myself to use the 10-20 because it is there and has novelty value, my pictures generally turn out crap!
weka2000
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 02:48
So it looks like we have both saved ourselves some money by the swap :)
Your "fence/moon" came out way better than mine. What was the exif on that shot
forsaken
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 03:28
nice shots.
love your 2nd church shot Tony.
weka2000
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 03:57
Maybe Im finally starting to get it right :)
Steve Merrick
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 04:35
Great images, number 2 is fantastic. Well done
Steve
cwescapexlt4x4
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 09:26
Both are nice, but prefer #2
iKirst
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 13:49
Yes I know that feeling of been distractd by a HOT woman:lol: I dont :lol:
Fabulous shots, Tony. I know the church well and have shots of it myself.
The 2nd is almost Harry Potterish to me. Great capture :)
Wazza
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 14:08
Feeling hot hot hot...
*singing along*
Better get ready for work.
Well guys, we're off to Te Puke for the weekend. May head down to Mount Maunganui for a sunrise... Have a good weekend all
hemuni
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 14:21
Very nice, #2 is excellent!
Stav_98
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 14:27
#2 is cracking
dgcorner
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 15:35
Tony great pics! I like the 2nd one. And you say that you do not have an eye for composition... looks like you are doing it subliminally and well, may I add.
I shouldn't go out too often so that I can tag along with you guys and take pics like above. Having been out 2 nights in a row... Tina wanted her "quality time" with me...
dgcorner
16th of March 2006 (Thu), 15:39
Scott, nice pic!!! I love the way the moon shines on the water. What was your exif on this?
scotttnz
17th of March 2006 (Fri), 01:03
Scott, nice pic!!! I love the way the moon shines on the water. What was your exif on this?
Thanks John. Manual Mode 30sec shutter f14 ISO 400. I’ve done a bit of work to try and darken up the foreground without effecting the background. The foreground was lit by a street light. I'm not 100% happy with the result.
I have to say I am really struggling with RAW. I played around with the RAW file for ages before dumping it and PPing the jpg. I was much happier with the result from jpg. I just feel so incompetent when using RAW. Help, I need lessons!
IainB
17th of March 2006 (Fri), 02:15
Very good Scott. This type of shot really appeals to me and this one is very effective.
Tony, I'll add my 'thumbs up' for the 2nd shot. Well done.
dgcorner
17th of March 2006 (Fri), 02:45
Thanks John. Manual Mode 30sec shutter f14 ISO 400. I’ve done a bit of work to try and darken up the foreground without effecting the background. The foreground was lit by a street light. I'm not 100% happy with the result.
I have to say I am really struggling with RAW. I played around with the RAW file for ages before dumping it and PPing the jpg. I was much happier with the result from jpg. I just feel so incompetent when using RAW. Help, I need lessons!
Looks like we will have to make a mini-GKPE - Learn to Use RAW day:D . Matt has put his hand up... we need to organise this because I'm just seeing more people saying that they are getting the best out of their RAW shots...:confused:
scotttnz
17th of March 2006 (Fri), 03:56
Your "fence/moon" came out way better than mine.
It's amazing what you can get out of the kit lens!
So it looks like we have both saved ourselves some money by the swap
Dunno about saving money...I would still like a WA sometime, I was just saying that if you feel like you have to use it, it doesn't result in good shots. But if you have it in your bag and get it out for the ocasional shot that it works for, then it will result in great shots.
Same can be said for any lens. Like the geni roof top trip. I had just got the 70-200 and TC, so naturally I was using them. I would have got better shots if I used the kit lens probably.
I am confused about my lens selection, I liked the Sigma 17-70, but would I get better shots out of it than the kit lens? and will I just end up wishing for an EFS 17-55 f2.8 IS?
I think I will hold off untill the 17-55 is released - canon nz website lists it as being available mid April which is not far away. No RRP, but is likely to be $1.5-2K, which I am not sure if I can justify! (See what I mean about not saving money! Arrrggghh this is starting to drive me nuts, maybe I should have bought a fixed lens camera!)
Moppie
17th of March 2006 (Fri), 05:52
Ill gladly swap you my A80 :)
weka2000
17th of March 2006 (Fri), 20:05
Dunno about saving money...I would still like a WA sometime, I was just saying that if you feel like you have to use it, it doesn't result in good shots.
I think it comes back to waht I said that night. Take 1 lens with you and you will soon learn to use it. Thats what Im going to do with MY 10-20 when it comes back.
Its not worth selling but I need to understand its uses where it shines and where it bums out. The falls I go to often require WA 24 is not enough 18 on the kit is ok. The 16 on the 16-35 was great but often I wished for a bit wider
so now I have 10-20mm which is what I wanted after all.
Warrens 120-300 is looking good. Its heavy, F2,8 and its Black with a gold ring
but when would I use it. the 24-70 is my main glass.
The foward thinking issues is the 5D and FF everything will change 24mm will be 24mm not 38.4mm as is the case now
BottomBracket
17th of March 2006 (Fri), 22:10
I think these are nicely made shots. Great exposure, details and texture.
vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.