- Messages
- 7,908
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Thanks. The mesh, and fleeces, can look deceptively like water in certain conditions.Agree about the tower blocks thing.
Shot four is wonderul. The mesh looks like a wave on a beach taken with a slow shutter speed.
For what it's worth I went old school - 50mm only. It was like stepping back forty years to when that and a 28mm was all I had. Part of me wishes I had the bottle to revert to that approach.
My reason for daydreaming about going 'old school' is to stop me taking the kind of pictures I don't want to take. For example, I have an aversion to 24mm as a focal length. It's where the wide angle look starts to appear, but my mid range zooms both start at 24mm, so when I need to go wide the lens gets zoomed right out - if only I could fit a hard stop at 28mm.It may well be a phase that will change when I travel and have to shoot on the run, but I'm tending to shoot with just one or 2 primes at the moment. Usually 55/35 or 85/35, but I also dragged out an old Nikkor 135 f2.8 last week. I do it because I like the rendering of a prime over zoom - the fixed focal length does force one to work a little differently, but I don't see that as an advantage.
I'm the opposite! I've restricted my wide, wide to an old 20mm Nikkor which I only use for tight spots, or very occasionally for effect. It's replaced the 14-24 I had and the 18-35 I'm getting rid of. Both nice lenses in their way but never worked for me. I find the the 20mm does the same job - I'm happier cutting theings in half at the edge of the frame than getting them all in with that stretched look you can get with ultra wides. It's also tiny, which means for the little it gets used I can leave it in my bag all the time without it adding much weight or taking up space.Personally I like 24mm and happily use 18mm or wider where appropriate provided it's well corrected. Curiously I seldom use anything above 105mm - the 135mm was a bit of a novelty.
I'm the opposite! I've restricted my wide, wide to an old 20mm Nikkor which I only use for tight spots, or very occasionally for effect. It's replaced the 14-24 I had and the 18-35 I'm getting rid of. Both nice lenses in their way but never worked for me. I find the the 20mm does the same job - I'm happier cutting theings in half at the edge of the frame than getting them all in with that stretched look you can get with ultra wides. It's also tiny, which means for the little it gets used I can leave it in my bag all the time without it adding much weight or taking up space.
I suppose the reason we have all these focal lengths is that everyone sees pictures differently.
Don't tell Father Dougal!I can use it to make small close things seem big and big distant things small...
For a walkabout zoom I'm happy with my 24-85 most of the time as it's small and light and the zoom range suits me - a lot of pics in this thread have been made with it - but out in the flatlands it curves the horizon too much. For everything else it's fine. But it goes to 24mm!! If my ancient 28-105 wasn't a bit crap at the longer end (even by my undemanding standards) and had stabilisation, I'd probably use that all the time. I've stopped using my 28-300 for two reasons - it curves horizons and it goes to 300mm. I'm trying to stay away from the longer focal lengths. But it is a handy lens.40mm is my favourite if I've got to have a fixed lens on my camera; I find 50mm is often too 'tight' and 35mm is often too wide for a lot of street and documentary stuff. That's where a 24-70, 24-105 or 28-135 walkabout type zoom comes in handy, for those times when 40mm isn't quite right.
My 24-105 L is my usual zoom for (full frame) digital stuff but I use an old 28-135 IS (non L) lens on my EOS 35mm film cameras, and I do find that extra 30mm at the top end can be useful at times, but don't often miss the -4mm at the wide end. However, as a fixed focal length lens, I do like 40mm as I find it has a very natural look to it.For a walkabout zoom I'm happy with my 24-85 most of the time as it's small and light and the zoom range suits me - a lot of pics in this thread have been made with it - but out in the flatlands it curves the horizon too much. For everything else it's fine. But it goes to 24mm!! If my ancient 28-105 wasn't a bit crap at the longer end (even by my undemanding standards) and had stabilisation, I'd probably use that all the time. I've stopped using my 28-300 for two reasons - it curves horizons and it goes to 300mm. I'm trying to stay away from the longer focal lengths. But it is a handy lens.
I've not checked focal lengths for this project, but I've done it in the past. It's raining now so I'll take a look!My 24-105 L is my usual zoom for (full frame) digital stuff but I use an old 28-135 IS (non L) lens on my EOS 35mm film cameras, and I do find that extra 30mm at the top end can be useful at times, but don't often miss the -4mm at the wide end. However, as a fixed focal length lens, I do like 40mm as I find it has a very natural look to it.
Have you ever looked at the XIF data to see what sort of focal length you've taken most of the above shots at? Might be (mildly) interesting to do next time it's raining and you can't go photographing or fishing.
The 35-150 for F mount is more appealing.Maybe you need to buy a Sony A7RIV and the new Tamron 28-200.
Pylons are a frustration. Crop them or shoot wider? I can never decided.
That's the problem. Include all the pylon and get sky that adds nothing to the picture, or crop the pylon so only a part of it shows and the overall balance is improved but the pylon 'stump' looks a bit odd.They're as much a part of the scene as anything else, so I'd say try to include them in a way that doesn't harm the overall image.
That's the problem. Include all the pylon and get sky that adds nothing to the picture, or crop the pylon so only a part of it shows and the overall balance is improved but the pylon 'stump' looks a bit odd.
I don't 'shop' things out other than dust bunnies - unless I'm making 'art' pictures. Just the way I am. If I was to get rid of the stump it would have to be cropped out, either (preferably) in camera or after the fact.That alternative image is fine, but TBH I'd rather 'shop out a pylon than have it half in. I don't see it as being 'dishonest' to remove junk from an image provided it doesn't alter the scene's meaning.
The more I look at the two the more I prefer the second one posted.
It's a quick job pulled almost straight out of LR as I hadn't processed it until just now. I think all I did was bring the clouds in a bit.I do too, though if I may be so bold, I'd probably just lift the foreground a little to bring out the pattern/texture.
Don't start!That last image makes me think of 2 blue buckets.
I’ve seen harvesters loading the trucks on many occasions, but seeing your shot above Is the first time I’ve actually realised that it’s some sort of Archimedes screw that takes the grain up the arm.
i like the rivets at the top too - it gives it an air of some sort of multi-eyed Lovecraftian monster.