Go read this book. It will change the way you see photography.
http://www.amazon.com …s=light+science+and+magic
TooManyShots Cream of the Crop 10,203 posts Likes: 525 Joined Jan 2008 Location: NYC More info | Aug 13, 2012 15:32 | #16 ![]() Go read this book. It will change the way you see photography. One Imaging Photography
LOG IN TO REPLY |
TooManyShots Cream of the Crop 10,203 posts Likes: 525 Joined Jan 2008 Location: NYC More info | ![]() BTW, those church shots? Flash was not used or wasn't allowed. The photographer was using some fast wide angle prime. Using f2.8 or faster. Look at the shot with the groom and his best men, you begin to notice certain blur when the men was lining up. The blur was from the shallow DOF. One Imaging Photography
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Aug 13, 2012 15:59 | #18 onona wrote in post #14852090 ![]() Errr, I don't wish to be argumentative, but at the end of the day, it is about the lens. Sharpness is primarily determined by the quality of the optics; onona wrote in post #14852128 ![]() At no point did I say you NEED any specific lenses.. Oh, really? onona wrote in post #14852202 ![]() Wow, it's like you're actually just looking for an argument. I mean, you're clearly not even reading my posts properly, and now you have the audacity to tell me about what I need to know to improve my photography? Complete with passive aggressive smilies and all. Wow, I had no idea I was talking to Photography Jesus. Is there an ignore list option on this site? If there is, you'll be having the ignoble honour of being the first on it. I have no time for people like you. You're the one being closed minded. You seem to think your opinion is right and are getting defensive because someone doesn't agree with you. Grow up. You think a great lens alone is going to automatically take a great picture? It's not.. It's not even the most important thing. I'd chose light, composition, and design over a lens. Feedback
LOG IN TO REPLY |
onona Senior Member ![]() 511 posts Likes: 1 Joined Aug 2012 Location: Hertfordshire, UK More info | Aug 13, 2012 15:59 | #19 gonzogolf wrote in post #14853346 ![]() I would rather use bad lenses in good light, than great lenses in bad light. Thank god I dont have to make that choice. You can't be serious. Look, I'm not one for gear discussions because gear wankery is tedious, boring and largely pointless, but honestly I'd say the exact opposite to you. I regularly shoot gigs in poor lighting and manage to get shots despite the poor light. Poor lighting is not necessarily going to destroy your photography, it simply forces you to be more careful. But that's going a little off the point. Leigh
LOG IN TO REPLY |
onona Senior Member ![]() 511 posts Likes: 1 Joined Aug 2012 Location: Hertfordshire, UK More info | Aug 13, 2012 16:02 | #20 Triple A wrote in post #14853519 ![]() You're the one being closed minded. You seem to think your opinion is right and are getting defensive because someone doesn't agree with you. Grow up. You think a great lens alone is going to automatically take a great picture? It's not.. It's not even the most important thing. I'd chose light, composition, and design over a lens. Please point out exactly where I said or even so much as insinuated that. Otherwise, take your own advice and grow up instead of intentionally misreading posts and quoting remarks out of context so you can act superior. Composition? Did you even read the first post? He's specifically asking about sharpness. Leigh
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Aug 13, 2012 16:03 | #21 onona wrote in post #14853521 ![]() You can't be serious. Look, I'm not one for gear discussions because gear wankery is tedious, boring and largely pointless, but honestly I'd say the exact opposite to you. I regularly shoot gigs in poor lighting and manage to get shots despite the poor light. Poor lighting is not necessarily going to destroy your photography, it simply forces you to be more careful. But that's going a little off the point. In my particular field of work (my day job, not my photography adventures, so I am not talking about gigs now), we shoot a lot of high res reference photography, which needs to be pin sharp, for reasons I can't really be bothered to explain right now. Because colour fidelity is also of the utmost importance, we can't shoot with flash or excessive artificial lighting, so instead we use very neutral lighting (similar to an overcast day), combined with Macbeth charts to ensure accuracy. Anyway, the point is that despite the relatively low lighting conditions in which we shoot (and they're very low compared to the examples posted in this thread), we still get super sharp photos, and the reason for that is because we shoot using high grade glass. Because at the end of the day, leaving aside environmental/lighting conditions, it's the glass mounted on your camera that ultimately has final say over the sharpness of the captured image. Put a bog standard kit lens on your camera and no amount of perfect lighting is going to give you pin sharp images. Yes, of course environmental factors play a role, as does the camera itself, to a small extent. So do factors like shutter speed, filters on the lens, etc. Considering photography is the capturing of light, it's a complex combination of factors that influence the final image. But sharpness, specifically, will always be limited by the quality of the lens itself. Having said all that, and looking now at the OP's example image, I'm not really sure anymore now whether sharpness is really what he's asking about though. It's a little hard for me to really examine the example shown as I'm currently on a 3G connection which is only loading a very compressed version of the image. But looking at the earlier examples posted, I'd say the sharpness of those images is a combination of lens quality, good environmental conditions and PP. Post sharpening is particularly important if you shoot raw, as raw images, as their name suggests, do not get any sharpening from the camera. Yes, I'm serious. Obviously each job has its own requirements but I'll take good light over good lenses if I had to make a choice.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
TooManyShots Cream of the Crop 10,203 posts Likes: 525 Joined Jan 2008 Location: NYC More info | Aug 13, 2012 16:12 | #22 ![]() onona wrote in post #14853521 ![]() You can't be serious. Look, I'm not one for gear discussions because gear wankery is tedious, boring and largely pointless, but honestly I'd say the exact opposite to you. I regularly shoot gigs in poor lighting and manage to get shots despite the poor light. Poor lighting is not necessarily going to destroy your photography, it simply forces you to be more careful. But that's going a little off the point. In my particular field of work (my day job, not my photography adventures, so I am not talking about gigs now), we shoot a lot of high res reference photography, which needs to be pin sharp, for reasons I can't really be bothered to explain right now. Because colour fidelity is also of the utmost importance, we can't shoot with flash or excessive artificial lighting, so instead we use very neutral lighting (similar to an overcast day), combined with Macbeth charts to ensure accuracy. Anyway, the point is that despite the relatively low lighting conditions in which we shoot (and they're very low compared to the examples posted in this thread), we still get super sharp photos, and the reason for that is because we shoot using high grade glass. Because at the end of the day, leaving aside environmental/lighting conditions, it's the glass mounted on your camera that ultimately has final say over the sharpness of the captured image. Put a bog standard kit lens on your camera and no amount of perfect lighting is going to give you pin sharp images. Yes, of course environmental factors play a role, as does the camera itself, to a small extent. So do factors like shutter speed, filters on the lens, etc. Considering photography is the capturing of light, it's a complex combination of factors that influence the final image. But sharpness, specifically, will always be limited by the quality of the lens itself. Having said all that, and looking now at the OP's example image, I'm not really sure anymore now whether sharpness is really what he's asking about though. It's a little hard for me to really examine the example shown as I'm currently on a 3G connection which is only loading a very compressed version of the image. But looking at the earlier examples posted, I'd say the sharpness of those images is a combination of lens quality, good environmental conditions and PP. Post sharpening is particularly important if you shoot raw, as raw images, as their name suggests, do not get any sharpening from the camera. I am going to bring my pop corn out and seeing this newbie being chewed up pretty well. FYI, I love your "BW" photos. It really captured the wonderful "ambient colors and lighting well....." One Imaging Photography
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Aug 13, 2012 16:48 | #23 onona wrote in post #14853527 ![]() Please point out exactly where I said or even so much as insinuated that. Otherwise, take your own advice and grow up instead of intentionally misreading posts and quoting remarks out of context so you can act superior. Composition? Did you even read the first post? He's specifically asking about sharpness. Facepalm. You're right about having a good lens, I'm not taking that from you, but that alone will not produce a perfectly sharp image. Like you said, PP sharpening will help, but light is the key. Feedback
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Levina de Ruijter I'm a bloody goody two-shoes! ![]() 18,453 posts Gallery: 319 photos Best ofs: 10 Likes: 7653 Joined Sep 2008 Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, EU More info | Aug 13, 2012 16:52 | #24 limmes wrote in post #14851155 ![]() Hello, the photos in links below have interesting crystal clearness and crisp: http://www.dz-foto.lt …varas/AA_VESTUVES_020.JPG ![]() http://www.dz-foto.lt …varas/AA_VESTUVES_022.JPG ![]() http://www.dz-foto.lt …tuves/2012/ausra-aivaras/ ![]() How that is achieved? Is that post processing? Camera? lenses? I just looked at his portfolio. I can see why you like the images so much. Outstanding work. Some of the best wedding photography I've seen. Levina (not Lavina, Lavinia, Levinia, Ludwina and what not, mkay?)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
onona Senior Member ![]() 511 posts Likes: 1 Joined Aug 2012 Location: Hertfordshire, UK More info | Aug 13, 2012 17:18 | #25 Triple A wrote in post #14853773 ![]() You're right about having a good lens, I'm not taking that from you, but that alone will not produce a perfectly sharp image. Like you said, PP sharpening will help, but light is the key. But not once have I even suggested that "all you need is a good lens"; if you go back and read my posts, you'll see that right in my first response, I said that sharpness is primarily due to the quality of the lens, which implies indirectly that it's not the only factor involved, and I've repeatedly stated since then that of course there are other factors that play a role (hell, I even said somewhere that sharpness isn't even the most important thing in photos). I still do maintain that at the end of the day, it's your lens that's going to make or break the sharpness though, if indeed sharpness is of utmost importance to you, and I've repeatedly banged on about this point due to an earlier response from another user who said the lens had nothing to do with it. Of course it does. Leigh
LOG IN TO REPLY |
nicksan Man I Like to Fart ![]() 24,729 posts Likes: 47 Joined Oct 2006 Location: NYC More info | Wow, getting pretty silly in here.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nature Nut Goldmember ![]() 1,366 posts Likes: 2 Joined May 2012 Location: NY More info | Aug 13, 2012 21:20 | #27 On a different note to the OP, you photo info shows you shot with AI Focus. I am not saying it did, but that might cause a slight OOF if there was to be one. Stick with One Shot for portraits IMHO Adam - Upstate NY:
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Snydremark my very own Lightrules moment More info | Aug 13, 2012 21:28 | #28 I would hazard that if the photographer from the first samples were shooting their subject through a bunch of branches that their images wouldn't have turned out too from yours, OP. - Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife
LOG IN TO REPLY |
nicksan Man I Like to Fart ![]() 24,729 posts Likes: 47 Joined Oct 2006 Location: NYC More info | Aug 13, 2012 21:34 | #29 limmes wrote in post #14853316 ![]() here's my photo in a flickr:
Not sure what you were going for here. That branch in the foreground absolutely kills the shot. The lighting is actually pleasant. You shot this at 85mm f4.5. I would have shot this with a longer lens at f2.8 or faster, framed her face with what would be the OOF branches (or if not, I would have her standing further away for DOF purposes) and definitely framed it so that one branch isn't slicing through her face.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Echo Johnson Senior Member ![]() 433 posts Joined Aug 2011 Location: UK More info | Aug 16, 2012 11:22 | #30 onona wrote in post #14853521 ![]() You can't be serious. Look, I'm not one for gear discussions because gear wankery is tedious, boring and largely pointless, but honestly I'd say the exact opposite to you. I regularly shoot gigs in poor lighting and manage to get shots despite the poor light. Poor lighting is not necessarily going to destroy your photography, it simply forces you to be more careful. But that's going a little off the point. "Amateurs worry about gear, professionals worry about money, masters worry about light" Canon 5D3 | 17-40 | 50/1.4 | 135/2
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
y 1600 |
Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting! |
| ||
Latest registered member is marteend 925 guests, 318 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 |