Jul 20, 2011 01:32 | #961 thanks, i need all the help i can get, but most of all i just need to experiment! windpig wrote in post #12784701  Shift is a no brainer. Do you need some resources for control using tilt?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
windpig Chopped liver  More info | Jul 20, 2011 08:08 | #962 hypers2k wrote in post #12790200 thanks, i need all the help i can get, but most of all i just need to experiment! I understand the need to experiment. The thing I found, at least for me, was that I need to understand what was happening so that my experimenting was more for dialing in than reinventing the wheel Would you like to buy a vowel?
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Lukich Senior Member  667 posts Likes: 1 Joined Sep 2010 Location: Oregon-California More info | Jul 20, 2011 10:50 | #963 Thank you! I have it with the coast. Two images (shift left-shift right) stitched together 
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Canonswhitelensesrule Goldmember  3,648 posts Likes: 13 Joined Jan 2008 Location: Surrey, B.C. More info | Jul 20, 2011 13:36 | #964 Very nice Lukich. Was this taken with the 5D Mk II? Photographers do it in 1/1,000th of a second...but the memory lasts forever!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Lukich Senior Member 667 posts Likes: 1 Joined Sep 2010 Location: Oregon-California More info | Jul 20, 2011 13:48 | #965 Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #12792983 Very nice Lukich. Was this taken with the 5D Mk II? Thank you! Yes it was taken with the 5D Mk II.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Canonswhitelensesrule Goldmember 3,648 posts Likes: 13 Joined Jan 2008 Location: Surrey, B.C. More info | Jul 20, 2011 13:50 | #966 Lukich wrote in post #12793054 Thank you! Yes it was taken with the 5D Mk II. Aww no prob. Most deserved. Thanks for the info. Photographers do it in 1/1,000th of a second...but the memory lasts forever!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Candersson Goldmember  1,143 posts Likes: 3 Joined Mar 2008 Location: Sweden More info | Jul 20, 2011 15:25 | #967 Great shots Lukich! I like this one! Lukich wrote in post #12789388  Coastal landscape: Bixby Creek Bridge, also known as Bixby Bridge, is located 120 miles (190 km) south of San Francisco in Big Sur, California. 178 sec; f/16; ISO 50 - Lee Big Stopper+Lee CPL - Thomas -
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jdizzle Darth Noink  69,419 posts Likes: 65 Joined Aug 2006 Location: Harvesting Nano crystals More info | Jul 20, 2011 15:41 | #968 Candersson wrote in post #12793613 Great shots Lukich! I like this one! What's with that strange white light behind the hill? ...UFO?  Silly goose!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jdizzle Darth Noink 69,419 posts Likes: 65 Joined Aug 2006 Location: Harvesting Nano crystals More info | Jul 20, 2011 15:41 | #969 Lukich wrote in post #12792013 Thank you! I have it with the coast. Two images (shift left-shift right) stitched together Yes! I want to go back there and use my 17 or 24.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Lukich Senior Member 667 posts Likes: 1 Joined Sep 2010 Location: Oregon-California More info | Jul 20, 2011 15:55 | #970 Candersson wrote in post #12793613 Great shots Lukich! I like this one! What's with that strange white light behind the hill? ...UFO? Thank you! These are just clouds. They were accumulating and hanging out around the top of the hill, sometimes they were higlighted with some sun rays. It was long exposure and these clouds appears slightly overexposed, but original doesn't show overexposure. BTW, almost 3 minutes exposure eliminated all the cars passing by, even if they had headlights on.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Lukich Senior Member 667 posts Likes: 1 Joined Sep 2010 Location: Oregon-California More info | Jul 20, 2011 15:58 | #971 I was thinking about 17, because 24 wasn't wide enough to include entire bridge
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jdizzle Darth Noink 69,419 posts Likes: 65 Joined Aug 2006 Location: Harvesting Nano crystals More info | Jul 21, 2011 00:14 | #972 Lukich wrote in post #12793822 I was thinking about 17, because 24 wasn't wide enough to include entire bridge I was there when I had my 16-35 II and it sucked shooting that bridge with it.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Lukich Senior Member 667 posts Likes: 1 Joined Sep 2010 Location: Oregon-California More info | Jul 21, 2011 00:27 | #973 jdizzle wrote in post #12796347 I was there when I had my 16-35 II and it sucked shooting that bridge with it.  I guess, I understand: I didn't even try to pull out of the bag my 14 mm lens
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Canonswhitelensesrule Goldmember 3,648 posts Likes: 13 Joined Jan 2008 Location: Surrey, B.C. More info | Jul 21, 2011 00:28 | #974 jdizzle wrote in post #12796347 I was there when I had my 16-35 II and it sucked shooting that bridge with it. Does this mean that the 17mm TS-E, or 24mm TS-E lenses are far better than the 16-35 II ? (Obvious prime vs zoom notwithstanding) Photographers do it in 1/1,000th of a second...but the memory lasts forever!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Lukich Senior Member 667 posts Likes: 1 Joined Sep 2010 Location: Oregon-California More info | Jul 21, 2011 00:37 | #975 Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #12796398 Does this mean that the 17mm TS-E, or 24mm TS-E lenses are far better than the 16-35 II ? (Obvious prime vs zoom notwithstanding) Talking for us mere mortals here.  From my point of view, I don't like to use 14 mm, because I don't want to deal with distortion in PP. While fixing distortion you, eventually, end up getting almost the same image size, as if you'd take it with TS-E 24.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in 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!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is Niagara Wedding Photographer 1363 guests, 134 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
