Sony Lounge Thread MKIII (All Sony cameras welcome)

digital_AM wrote in post #18410862
David, I agree with Robert. It's increasingly difficult finding dark skies is most of the US. Then you have to have the right conditions (ie clear night, new moon, etc). On top of that, you then have to find a great location with an interesting foreground and then time it right so that the MW is positioned right to make a compelling image. Ever since I took my first MW shot at the top of Haleakala in Maui, I so I eagerly want to recreate that experience and search out my next MW image.

Not to mention other negative factors like aircraft trails. If you shoot the MW in Yosemite before midnight, you're almost certain to have multiple aircraft light trails from aircraft going in and out of the SF Bay area.

digital_AM wrote in post #18410862
David, I agree with Robert. It's increasingly difficult finding dark skies is most of the US. Then you have to have the right conditions (ie clear night, new moon, etc). On top of that, you then have to find a great location with an interesting foreground and then time it right so that the MW is positioned right to make a compelling image. Ever since I took my first MW shot at the top of Haleakala in Maui, I so I eagerly want to recreate that experience and search out my next MW image.

^this...just this past weekend I finally got an image that I have been planning and trying to take for nearly two years...it is not easy...there are so few times a year when its visible and then to have all weather conditions line up...it makes it so much harder...I don't take any good MW shot lightly, they are a real challenge.

Nearly two years ago I go the idea for this image...after being bitten by the MW bug...finally pulled it off this past weekend...despite crappy weather forecasts, I made the 4+ hour trip to try to get this shot...2 image blend, taken right after each other, one for the sky, one for the foreground.

Image hosted by forum (867102) © TRhoads THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

digital_AM wrote in post #18410862
On top of that, you then have to find a great location with an interesting foreground and then time it right so that the MW is positioned right to make a compelling image.

This is right to my point. So many MW shots are just mere MW shots...they don't have interesting foregrounds at all. I feel the same about sunsets or any otherwise interesting sky features: they can be great so long as there is a landscape or interesting manmade structure as prominent elements in the photograph.

Is MW photography a sport or an art? If it's just about overcoming technical challenges, then it's a mere sport. Like climbing a mountain. If it's doing all those things you reference, then it can be amazing art.

David Arbogast wrote in post #18410898
This is right to my point. So many MW shots are just mere MW shots...they don't have interesting foregrounds at all. I feel the same about sunsets or any otherwise interesting sky features: they can be great so long as there is a landscape or interesting manmade structure as prominent elements in the photograph.

Is MW photography a sport or an art? If it's just about overcoming technical challenges, then it's a mere sport. Like climbing Everest. If it's doing all those things you reference, then it can be amazing art.

Sometimes I, personally, like to just see the MW...it is so cool to be able to see it in person, and I fear that with the way development is going these days...it will be harder and harder to find dark skies where it can be seen...

Yep for me MW is a challenge due to the right conditions being few and far between in this country. A great Milky Way shot with otherwise boring foreground is a result for me. A Milky Way shot with some interesting foreground is the ultimate goal and very rewarding once achieved. I enjoy the hunt though regardless of outcome

This is the only MW shot I've done. From a buddy's house in north eastern Arizona, about a 10 hour drive from where I live. This was taken from his back yard. I had no idea what I was doing, this was just a lucky shot.

Oops, I forgot, this wasn't taken with a Sony but rather my Canon 5D3.

IMAGE LINK: https://genelewis.smug​mug.com …graphy/Scenic/i​-pFRKGXP/A

There are some sea caves in the Malibu area that would make for some epic MW photography in combination with killer foreground. Unfortunately, it's best if explored with 2+ folks for safety sake, slip and fall alone in that area would be very bad!

the multiple hour drive without guaranteed great conditions has kept me from a lot of MW photography, wish we had less city lights, we do use a ton of street lighting compared to other countries. I know that guys in AUS can simply shoot from their backyard and get dark skies.... and a minimal drive would match my multi hour drive.....

seeing the MW is so great though, it's really inspiring to shoot like a nice sunset. Nice sunsets are just so much easier to come by

sunrise at the Korean Bell, 16-35 f4, A7r classic

Nice one Charlie, great use of the UWA.

I think for me the 35mm is better than the 15mm for landscape. For 15mm everything are push back really far. The 15mm is best on interiors. It shines when we visited the ISS IOWA BB-61 in San Pedro, Ca and the Queen Mary haunted ship at Long Beach. With aperture 5.6 set to infinity, you just keep firing.

TRhoads wrote in post #18411012
Nice one Charlie, great use of the UWA.

thanks

vinmunoz wrote in post #18411028
I think for me the 35mm is better than the 15mm for landscape. For 15mm everything are push back really far. The 15mm is best on interiors. It shines when we visited the ISS IOWA BB-61 in San Pedro, Ca and the Queen Mary haunted ship at Long Beach. With aperture 5.6 set to infinity, you just keep firing.

it's a matter of getting use to the FOV, 15 can draw out the foreground in a dramatic fashion, where the 35 cannot as well. I'm sure you've read plenty of times when people mention the usability of the laowa 12 or CV 12 for certain scenes. These are even more extreme lenses, and you got to be careful how you use them.

A 24-70 is generally much more friendly for beachscapes, while a 16-35 a better fit for urban cities or landscapes with a foreground element.

At the queen mary a week or so back, using 16mm, drawing in the foreground, it's kind of annoying that they blocked off the fence section, so much easier to tresspass without the fence

Another case of camera gear robbery+murder at Twin Peaks, San Francisco. This time a 71-year old photographer.

that's it my RII will be for paid gigs locally only. For family trips will be my LX100

https://petapixel.com …k.com&utm_campa​ign=buffer

and this one is another at Oakland.

http://www.eastbaytime​s.com …oint-in-downtown-oakland/

Charlie wrote in post #18411035
thanks

it's a matter of getting use to the FOV, 15 can draw out the foreground in a dramatic fashion, where the 35 cannot as well. I'm sure you've read plenty of times when people mention the usability of the laowa 12 or CV 12 for certain scenes. These are even more extreme lenses, and you got to be careful how you use them.

yah i need to learn how and when to use it. i agree for landscape i think the 16-35 is the best. i might return this CV15 and save for a 16-35F4

I've had this Navajo Silver belt buckle inlaid with turquoise and copper for 32 years and it shows the wear. Maybe I should use my buffing and polishing wheels I have for my bench grinder to see if I can't lessen the scratches some.