-=Rebel T1i / 500D Users Stand UP!

paradiddleluke wrote in post #11571417
Dan: I like the edit alot! what'd you do? just mask her out and use blur?

I used Alien Skin Bokeh2 it's a great program and makes the bokeh look very natural, besides I like to create vignette effects with it, as I did with your photo, like a small hint where the sunlight is coming from

I like it!

awesome shots Luke

yea as i grow as a photog the nifty fifty is really starting to show its weakness. Ive almost turned to manually focusing now

Has anyone tried to use old manual lenses on our camera yet? I'm hunting thrift/antique stores for some

I was going to wait till I got a bigger view finder before messing with manual focus lenses, I do often play with it a bit if I want to fine tune it however, which is why USM lenses are so important to me.

and yah the 50 1.8 feels like a toy, its good optically and for the price nothing beats it, but the 50 1.4 is built so much better and has some nicer qualities

paradiddleluke wrote in post #11571417
I used 2 strobes for this shoot. On the shot you quoted, I believe I had a Vivitar 285 camera left and up a bit as fill almost at full power (either 1/1 or 1/2) and then camera right at about head level I had my yongnuo YN460-II firing also around that high but its less powerful so it acted as a fill

Thank you for sharing info. I guess I need to practice more. This one was taken with my two flashes, but I still have to learn.

looks good! nice shoes :P

looks like some light falloff past a bit lower than the hips but otherwise good, if you can play with it in post you can get it to be a bit more original to you. A lot of the time a quick photoshop or LR3 run will make my pictures much more specific to me

What I like about that picture is you have the lights placed in good positions, the lighting is not flat by any means and you have some nice strong shadows (if that is the look you are going for). Keep it up and keep playing around!

paradiddleluke wrote in post #11572236
I was going to wait till I got a bigger view finder before messing with manual focus lenses, I do often play with it a bit if I want to fine tune it however, which is why USM lenses are so important to me.

and yah the 50 1.8 feels like a toy, its good optically and for the price nothing beats it, but the 50 1.4 is built so much better and has some nicer qualities

I just ordered the 50 1.4 it should be here the next week. Sadly it is not for me, I bought it for a friend that doesn't have or doesn't want to have an ebay/paypal account. It cost $378 USD and here in Mexico they sell it for more than $800 usd... it's crazy the prices we have here!
So once it comes I'm gonna keep it for a day to test it and maybe I can decide to buy one for myself. I am very happy with my nifty but I do admit I have missed some good shots and unique moments because of focus hunting.

[QUOTE=DrFingers;11571​910]

Genome wrote in post #11569629
The things that make Full Frame noticable is the smaller DoF more than anything. They give the images a certain something different.

This I don't quite understand. If anything, it's the landscape shots from FF that I aspire to, as the DOF seems to stretch waaayyy back: or is it just that the higher resolution sensor is giving more detail? There just seems to be something 'creamy' about ff pics, they do indeed look 'different', and that's the look I hanker for.

That's not to say that cropped sensors can't deliver great landscapes, in expert hands, it's the photog after all, not the gear, and I'm the first to admit to being nothing more than a hobbyist, with a lot to learn. Cutting my teeth with a 500d is a good grounding, but if I had the bananas I'd be down at my dealers after a 5dII..


Derek

well the shots that seem to go waaaaay back are because of the wider field of view. However you can achieve this with an ultra wide as well on a crop sensor. However you can even wider with certain lenses on full frame if this is what you are after.

Another this to take into account is that people who are very serious about photography and do landscapes often end up with a full frame camera. So a lot of the shots by full frame cameras look amazing but you have to bare in mind that this is often the skill of the photographer. There really isnt anything that should make full frame with massive DoF look any different than crop sensor with same field of view and DoF. Epecially at low ISO's.

Also things look dreamy etc and again they are using very high end glass and wide primes for other stuff. I have yet to see a decent side by side of full frame Vs crop with same field of view showing any obvious difference for landscape shots. I really want to and have looked but i cant find anything. The only thing i have see is one pro showing a shot at normal view size comparing medium format to a G10 (i think) and he said when he showed the prints (decent size as well) people couldnt really tell the difference.

Its very hard to get accurate ideas from people on the net because people process there shots differently and it makes it very unfare test wise. Even just looking through flickr makes it hard. Try and find shots that havnt been processed properly on a 5d for example. They look pretty bland just as they would from a 500D if not processed properly. There are more amatures with a 500D than with a 5D. Thats a fact and that gives biased results. I have see some truly stunning work on crop sensors that i dont know if full frame would change it in anyway.

For example i like this guys work and he uses a sony a700 which is APS-C

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/zooming-in/

and this guy shows of some amazing work as well and uses a 400D

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/ajpye/page2/

The true secret to amazing landscapes is light and composition. Im to lazy to get up at the right time and lug a tri pod about so i just wont get results like these guys.

p.s. I would prob also just go out and grab a 5d MKii or something if i was loaded im just generally not convinced. that for landscapes there is any obvious differences. Id be mroe than happy to see proof saying otherwise of course.

The generic waterfall shot

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/ryanz4/53241751​43/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/ryanz4/53241742​43/

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

oh and i suggest people interested in 50 primes to check out the sigma 50 1.4. Its meant to be amazing. Sigmas primes lately are really starting to show some great results. There 30 is also well thought of and there new 85 is meant to be a beast.

Dankata wrote in post #11571298
I always like shallow DOF Here's a quick edit and I think it still looks great

I honestly prefer the original. It looks like it could be part of an advert. I just feel that shallow DoF can feel a bit gimmiky at times. Dont get me wrong i love it for certain things but sometimes it just looks like a cheat for bad composition. In this shot the location is great and adds to the shot. For this reason blurring it all out takes that away from the shot.

But thats just me

paradiddleluke wrote in post #11572313
looks good! nice shoes :P

looks like some light falloff past a bit lower than the hips but otherwise good, if you can play with it in post you can get it to be a bit more original to you. A lot of the time a quick photoshop or LR3 run will make my pictures much more specific to me

What I like about that picture is you have the lights placed in good positions, the lighting is not flat by any means and you have some nice strong shadows (if that is the look you are going for). Keep it up and keep playing around!

Thank you, I think, I was missing third flash just to highlight “special shoes” made by my daughter.
For now I’m not using anything for PP except Canon DPP and I think I’ll start to use Photoshop as soon as I have at home freshly build PC for it. Right now I don’t have any. DPP give me a lot of adjustments, but I’m missing layers and masks.

good point genome! yah I've heard great things about the sigma primes as well, I actually chose the 50 1.4 canon version because of its lens flare, which was something I was specifically looking for, see JordanVoth's work on here, truly inspiring and the flare he gets out of this lens is amazing.

Dan, $800 for the 50 1.4 there?!?! Holy crap thats ridiculous. I picked it up brand new for $377 with tax (I bought in a store that matched B&H so no shipping costs). Check it out, I haven't really used it for any specific head-shots so I do not know how sharp it is in comparison to the 15-85 which is one of the sharpest lenses i've EVER used, but hopefully soon!

FSUnoles wrote in post #11562127
i started a 365 this year

Excellent start - I like them both

Great pics everyone!