Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

fritzk3 wrote in post #10287853
Very nice - I am surprised at the amount of depth that looks to be in focus for being shot wide open.

I think this is because I shoot from distance of 5 or 7 meters

Karizmatik wrote in post #10287073
Whoops, not feet, metres.

I think those distances in metres are pretty accurate, but I think they are also "quite a ways back" by most definitions. 12m is about 40 feet. That's the width of my entire back yard!

gnnbtrn wrote in post #10287570
Good stuff. i was surprised to see that you have used 85mm and not 50mm for this shot.

Are they only two lenses (85 and 50) you use for your weddings?!?!?

Nop - also use canons 24-70 f2.8 (borrowed one) and 200mm f2.8 L II.
Bought 85mm more for portraits and will sell 50mm f1.4 or exchange for 28mm f1.8

Shot last weekend. F2

This is Julia
All at 2.8 400D

Soo pretty pictures. I think this lens will make me plunge into the prime market love the fact this lens has true USM as well.

@VLAD what type of post processing did you use? adobe light room? can you please show one un edited photog? thanks alot! i love your pictures these make me proud to own a 85mm!

Y use Photoshop cs4 . This is unedited image from RAW in DPP http://vladislavvasile​v.netau.net/up/DPP.jpg

And only one more thing y don t have any other lens from the past year and a have. And y win the second place in 20th Anniversary Adobe Photoshop contest in Bulgaria with this lens

tkbslc wrote in post #10288294
I think those distances in metres are pretty accurate, but I think they are also "quite a ways back" by most definitions. 12m is about 40 feet. That's the width of my entire back yard!

Yeah, that is true. I'm only guesstimating, though. The one on the rocks / ocean, I was close enough to be talking to my girlfriend while taking the photo. Near traffic, etc, in the background - So it isn't that far, really. Probably closer to 20-30 feet.

vladovg wrote in post #10293391
Y use Photoshop cs4 . This is unedited image from RAW in DPP http://vladislavvasile​v.netau.net/up/DPP.jpg

And only one more thing y don t have any other lens from the past year and a have. And y win the second place in 20th Anniversary Adobe Photoshop contest in Bulgaria with this lens

well congratulations! so if this was in JPEG it wouldnt be as colorful and beautiful right? RAW makes images alot better if compared side by side to JPEG? because i shoot JPEG and i cant get these amazing colors unless i use adobe lightroom to make it all nice and good colors with my "post processing". will RAW make my images "POP" more?

ATXsouljah Photography is all about light that s the key

ah you used strobes? i didnt know that, i thought just natural light...and the only light i have is a 580exii no pocket wizards no stand no tripod no nothing

PS: my statement above ddint include lighting it was a question in general if RAW makes better images then JPEG

WOAH THERE ATX!

To simplify shooting in JPEG wimply means that the processing is all done in camera. You can alter these settings to create different levels of constrast/colour/brigh​tness/sharpness but all this must be done in camera. RAW simply allows you the retain all the preprocess information for alteration after the shoot.

Y use only natural light. Except wen shooting in home have one old 220V Unomat flash

i did not mean for this to come off offensive or attacking in anyway. just wanted to say i understand lighting is key but when i was posting i was just trying to further explain my question...i see where it was taken offensively but that was never my intent.

@alexander...: so if i shoot RAW technically my photos will be better, considering im not a pro? basically im trying to say in RAW you can change everything to perfection if its not perfect while with JPEG it is what it is...?

@VLAD: i love the set man, especially the last image! and the other of her sitting down with her right leg farther stretched to the right!