Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Weddings & Other Family Events 
Thread started 22 Nov 2012 (Thursday) 14:55
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

<3 LOVE <3

 
aaron_400d
Senior Member
Avatar
429 posts
Likes: 42
Joined Feb 2011
     
Nov 22, 2012 14:55 |  #1

We really couldn't get enough of this tree canopy just loved it !
to see more of the set please visit www.theofficialphotogr​aphers.co.nz (external link)

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8487/8208598683_595b5733ea_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …ron_canon400d/8​208598683/  (external link)
<3 LOVE <3 (external link) by AARON RADFORD (external link), on Flickr

l Website (external link) l Instagram (external link) l Flickr (external link) l Facebook (external link) l Twitter (external link) l
Canon 5D MKIII // Gripped l Canon 70-200 ƒ2.8 L USM l Canon 100mm ƒ2.8 L IS USM Macro l Canon 16-35mm ƒ2.8 L USM l Sigma 35mm ƒ1.4 DG HSM Art l Canon 85mm ƒ1.8 USM l Canon 50mm ƒ1.8 II l Canon 580ex II l Jinbei 400w

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
rick_reno
Cream of the Crop
44,642 posts
Likes: 132
Joined Dec 2010
     
Nov 22, 2012 18:14 |  #2

really nice, was there something near the ground you had to remove?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gtrag94
Senior Member
273 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2011
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
     
Nov 22, 2012 21:11 |  #3

I agree with Rick. Just seems like you should see them full length, even if barely. A lot of people don't like this kind of shot. I do. Just wish you had a 16-35 instead of a 17-40 (for instance). I'm assuming you shot this with the 17-40.


Fort Wayne, IN Portrait & Wedding Photographer
http://www.craigagapie​photography.com (external link)
http://www.facebook.co​m/CraigAgapiePhotograp​hy (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Christopher ­ Steven ­ b
Goldmember
Avatar
3,547 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
     
Nov 23, 2012 11:24 |  #4

^ Why would using the 16-35 make the photo better ?

I have to concur with the above--the trees are nice, but why does the couple have to be so small in the frame. Cropping at their waist indeed makes it seem like you were avoiding shooting a toxic sludge pool below.

Would you not have had a similar effect shooting as-is, but having the couple move way closer to you thus filling the frame a little more ?

Bah--this is moot, you inevitably have a variety of shots.



christopher steven b. - Ottawa Wedding Photographer

www.christopherstevenb​.com (external link)| Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cbknight
Goldmember
Avatar
1,767 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Aug 2009
Location: East Texas
     
Nov 23, 2012 14:18 |  #5

Christopher Steven b wrote in post #15279662 (external link)
^ Why would using the 16-35 make the photo better ?

I have to concur with the above--the trees are nice, but why does the couple have to be so small in the frame. Cropping at their waist indeed makes it seem like you were avoiding shooting a toxic sludge pool below.

Would you not have had a similar effect shooting as-is, but having the couple move way closer to you thus filling the frame a little more ?

Bah--this is moot, you inevitably have a variety of shots.

Agree. I was sitting there in a trance waiting for the picture to finish loading. Great location. Just agree with the above advice.


Craig
4K Photography Studio
[/URL]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SethWilliams
Member
Avatar
128 posts
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Cookeville, TN
     
Nov 23, 2012 22:28 |  #6

Agree with the above posters - the canopy looks great, but we want to see the subject of the picture, and they are hardly visible.


5D MK II x2 | 35L f1.4 | 85 f1.8 | 135L f2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gtrag94
Senior Member
273 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2011
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
     
Nov 25, 2012 08:09 |  #7

What I meant by 16-35 would be better is that he could have had more of the tree canopy that he liked and more of the subject (which we all seem to like). Or at the least, the same amount of canopy and much more of the subject (full length). all that to say that 16mm is wider than 17mm of course.


Fort Wayne, IN Portrait & Wedding Photographer
http://www.craigagapie​photography.com (external link)
http://www.facebook.co​m/CraigAgapiePhotograp​hy (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,729 posts
Likes: 47
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
Nov 25, 2012 12:10 |  #8

gtrag94 wrote in post #15286297 (external link)
What I meant by 16-35 would be better is that he could have had more of the tree canopy that he liked and more of the subject (which we all seem to like). Or at the least, the same amount of canopy and much more of the subject (full length). all that to say that 16mm is wider than 17mm of course.

Just going to venture a guess and say that 1mm wouldn't not have been a difference maker in this particular photo.

Agree with the others. The couple just fells chopped off for no good reason.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,625 views & 0 likes for this thread
<3 LOVE <3
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Weddings & Other Family Events 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

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!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Dharmadme
887 guests, 297 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.