both shot with 70-200
#1. 1/3200s
F5.6
ISO 320
#2. 1/2000
F6.3
ISO 320
Sun Peaks, BC, Canada
christisdale Member 199 posts Likes: 11 Joined Sep 2009 Location: Kamloops BC Canada More info | Jan 09, 2010 17:53 | #1 |
christisdale THREAD STARTER Member 199 posts Likes: 11 Joined Sep 2009 Location: Kamloops BC Canada More info | Jan 09, 2010 17:54 | #2 C&C welcome. actually hoped for.. lol ChristianTisdale.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
CWJones Senior Member 737 posts Joined Jul 2009 Location: Connecticut More info | Jan 09, 2010 18:06 | #3 Tough to really see them to be honest haha I wish I could see them, being an avid boarder myself. Looks like its time for a longer zoom or a longer walk! -Collin
LOG IN TO REPLY |
christisdale THREAD STARTER Member 199 posts Likes: 11 Joined Sep 2009 Location: Kamloops BC Canada More info | Jan 09, 2010 18:06 | #4 |
christisdale THREAD STARTER Member 199 posts Likes: 11 Joined Sep 2009 Location: Kamloops BC Canada More info | Jan 09, 2010 18:09 | #5 CW Jones wrote in post #9360700 Tough to really see them to be honest haha I wish I could see them, being an avid boarder myself. Looks like its time for a longer zoom or a longer walk! You could probably turn your ISO down to 100 because a 1/2000 second shutter speed probably isn't needed outside especially when you have white snow as a natural light reflector haha I see you have a 70-200L so maybe a 1.4TC to get you a little closer? Just a thought of course. They look good from what I can see tho!
ChristianTisdale.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
christisdale THREAD STARTER Member 199 posts Likes: 11 Joined Sep 2009 Location: Kamloops BC Canada More info | Jan 09, 2010 18:16 | #6 Whoa that was a little unclear... lol what i meant is almost all of them are shot at much less than the 200mm the lens is capable of ChristianTisdale.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
CWJones Senior Member 737 posts Joined Jul 2009 Location: Connecticut More info | Jan 09, 2010 18:18 | #7 Ah see makes more sense now! I didn't realize you were shooting them for anyone but yourself! haha Nice work then, they defiantly get a lot of the surroundings -Collin
LOG IN TO REPLY |
amyandmark3 Goldmember More info | Jan 09, 2010 18:19 | #8 Honest CC here: Mark
LOG IN TO REPLY |
christisdale THREAD STARTER Member 199 posts Likes: 11 Joined Sep 2009 Location: Kamloops BC Canada More info | Jan 09, 2010 19:27 | #9 the reason they were shot from where they were, or at least the first and second one, is because I was shooting the jump beside me then shooting the rider when they hit the second jump as well, you can see a little bit of the landing in the bottom left corner of the first frame, and its not the best park setup ( in a photographic aspect ) because when youre shooting from the downhill side, the rider seems to end up right at the top of the trees in the frame every time, thanks though I'll have to give it another try tommorow and post a few more. ChristianTisdale.com
LOG IN TO REPLY |
amyandmark3 Goldmember More info | I see. Were the pics when they were hitting the jump beside you any better composition wise? If so, maybe post them for some CC. Mark
LOG IN TO REPLY |
wtr3554 Member 48 posts Joined Oct 2009 More info | second set looks better than first
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 was a spammer, and banned as such! 2875 guests, 163 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||