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 Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner 
Thread started 18 Mar 2014 (Tuesday) 18:14
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

A Stones Throw

 
Woodworker
Goldmember
2,176 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: East Midlands, England
     
Mar 19, 2014 05:28 |  #16

One or two people here are guilty of being very pedantic! The OP himself has confirmed that he has the 24-105L which is a more than decent lens, so why not concentrate on his image instead of trying to belittle his equipment?

Let's keep this thread encouraging and friendly :)


David

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
jshendel
Member
Avatar
94 posts
Joined May 2011
Location: Ankeny, Iowa
     
Mar 19, 2014 12:59 |  #17

The image is slanted to the right. Would have been a great shot had the subject been looking at the camera.


www.shendelmanphotogra​phy.com (external link) Ankeny and Des Moines Portrait Photographer
www.facebook.com/shend​elmanphotography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Meercat007
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
52 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Exeter - UK
     
Mar 19, 2014 14:01 |  #18

Thanks for all the advice, Only had the camera a week so far, still learning the focus system. The subject is very stubborn most of the time. I do like the camera though.


Andy - Editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Woodworker
Goldmember
2,176 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: East Midlands, England
     
Mar 19, 2014 15:06 |  #19

I hope you won't mind me suggesting that in this forum you place more emphasis on your technique than your gear. There are many gearheads on this site and you've already fallen into the trap of having your lens rubbished.

If you do feel a need to discuss the merits or demerits of your kit, there are forums to do so.

I hope this will help :)


David

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Mar 20, 2014 02:00 |  #20

theantiquetiger wrote in post #16768655 (external link)
I'm pretty lenient about levels except horizons that are water. It needs to be dead level or it shows. This water level is a good few degrees off.

I don't know that kit lens, but if it is a "lens kit", it is sub-par for this camera. This is the reason I went with the 60D and a 70-200 2.8, I didn't want a $3500 camera with a $300 lens on it.



This horizon didn't particularly bother me, but I agree: level it. It's not a few degrees off, it's MAYBE one degree off. But that's sort of my point...it's off by such a small amount that actually making it level is unlikely to have any significant detrimental impact. If it's already that close to being level, then go all the way and just make it level.

And even though it's not a problem for me, I still say fix it. I wasn't bothered by it, but SOMEONE was. So it's undeniable that it's a "flaw" that people actually notice. So unless there's a reason for it being that way, just fix it.

Don't get me wrong, I still love the image. I'm just saying that some "flaws" exist because they actually contribute to the image, and some "flaws" are just things that most people don't notice. If this image fits into the former category, then don't level the horizon. If this fits into the latter category and you're banking on "meh, close enough for people not to notice", then you're wrong. People DID notice, so change it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Martin ­ Dixon
Slit-scan project master
Avatar
1,864 posts
Gallery: 59 photos
Likes: 274
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Ealing
     
Mar 20, 2014 05:12 |  #21

My kind of photo :) - I took something similar a week ago with my 5d3 - it even looks British!

It shows a boy having fun on the beach. I like the stones frozen in the air. Getting eye contact and a big smile would be nice, but the guy is busy doing his thing so this is more genuine, Just like my boys look. The horizon is very close to level (easy to correct) and is pretty well burred so not so bad intersecting the head.


flickr (external link) Editing OK (external link) www.slitcam.com (free slit-scan utility) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Unregistered.Coward
Senior Member
Avatar
884 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Looking thru the viewfinder
     
Mar 20, 2014 12:04 |  #22

theantiquetiger wrote in post #16768712 (external link)
I was referring to the 5D (the OP has). I assume most lens kits are fairly inexpensive. I know the lit lens for my 60D is about $200. I figure the kit lens for the 5D would be $300-$500.

Your just bang-full of erronous assumptions today.


....the best camera is the one you have on you at the time.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HappySnapper90
Cream of the Crop
5,145 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Mar 21, 2014 22:03 |  #23

theantiquetiger wrote in post #16768712 (external link)
I was referring to the 5D (the OP has). I assume most lens kits are fairly inexpensive. I know the lit lens for my 60D is about $200. I figure the kit lens for the 5D would be $300-$500.

Why didn't you do a quick search before you assumed? The 24-105 is a $1150 lens when bought alone! Canon really doesn't make a 35mm "kit" lens like a 28-90 for cheap film SLRs anymore. There's the 28-135 which is a bit more than a "kit" lens which goes for $480 but it's never been a kit lens for a 5D.

And that's the thing. Canon knows that if someone has $3500 to spend on a 5D-series camera, offering a $300 "kit" lens such as a 28-90 ala film SLR days would be a joke since it wouldn't resolve the resolution well. Canon has filed patents for a 24-105 f/3.5-f/5.6 that may be a kit lens for the 6D-series. That's why many of the "cheap" zooms have been discontinued over the past few years such as 24-85, 28-105 and some wide primes (which have been recently replaced with a new model with IS). But I have no idea why Canon still makes the 75-300 III and III USM which are god awful poor quality zooms that are mush beyond 200mm since the 55-250 IS is its replacement - where no one in their right mind would mount the 75-300 III on a 35mm dSLR.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Woodworker
Goldmember
2,176 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: East Midlands, England
     
Mar 22, 2014 05:48 |  #24

Why on Earth are still debating gear in this thread? For goodness sake, the OP has long-since confirmed that he has the 24-105 so I can't understand your issue and why it should matter what equipment he used.

There are forums for discussing cameras gear on this site, so why not take your issues there?

I'm not a gearfreak and come on to this forum to view images and read critiques as well as making comments myself.


David

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigLobowski
Goldmember
Avatar
2,394 posts
Gallery: 188 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 1299
Joined Sep 2012
Location: BC, Canada
     
Mar 22, 2014 10:05 |  #25

Woodworker wrote in post #16770859 (external link)
I hope you won't mind me suggesting that in this forum you place more emphasis on your technique than your gear. There are many gearheads on this site and you've already fallen into the trap of having your lens rubbished.

If you do feel a need to discuss the merits or demerits of your kit, there are forums to do so.

I hope this will help :)

Woodworker wrote in post #16776955 (external link)
Why on Earth are still debating gear in this thread? For goodness sake, the OP has long-since confirmed that he has the 24-105 so I can't understand your issue and why it should matter what equipment he used.

There are forums for discussing cameras gear on this site, so why not take your issues there?

I'm not a gearfreak and come on to this forum to view images and read critiques as well as making comments myself.

I believe because it's not so much issues about the OP's gear, it's issues about erroneous assumptions about the OP's gear and some advice/opinion based on those assumptions another member posted. The OP was simply confirming the gear used as requested. I think some members feel if there's anything worse than erroneous assumptions, it's advice/opinion given based on those assumptions. Many novice users come here looking for guidance and help in making decisions on equipment based on the comments and associated photos posted by other knowledgeable members that reply to their queries. The least we can do is offer correct information, and many feel the need to point out inaccuracies when incorrect information is posted as fact, as imho was the case here. The admonishment has possibly gone on long enough, but it serves to show the passion some have for their equipment and the posting of correct information about it.


- Ken
Gear List | Facebookexternal link | Flickrexternal link | 500pxexternal link | FeedBack |
GreyStoke Photographyexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Woodworker
Goldmember
2,176 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: East Midlands, England
     
Mar 22, 2014 10:39 |  #26

BigLobowski wrote in post #16777266 (external link)
it serves to show the passion some have for their equipment and the posting of correct information about it.

Precisely! There are those on the site who are only interested in the acquisition of gear and others of us who are interested in photography.

There are forums for gearheads but this is the one I come to avoid the gear envy and to evaluate pictures.

Can I now suggest that the pointless and boring debacle is put to bed - It's gone too far and is beginning to aggravate me and I won't visit this thread again!


David

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Titus213
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
19,402 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 34
Joined Feb 2005
Location: Kalama, WA USA
     
Mar 22, 2014 18:20 |  #27

Cute image but it looks cold.

The water doesn't bother me and it is off but one degree at most I would think.

Lighting is OK and the focus look acceptable. I would check on the original that the focus isn't on the flying rocks rather than the boy.

And my only wish would be that the rocks flying would have a bit of blur on them.


Dave
Perspiring photographer.
Visit NorwoodPhotos.comexternal link

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

3,473 views & 0 likes for this thread
A Stones Throw
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Critique Corner 
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 dsk26894
793 guests, 357 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.