Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Collective Shoot' started by MontyDog, May 3, 2007.
#1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
This is a local river with a nice hair-pin turn. I shot it with my Nikon 12-24mm at several focal lengths, and then the 35mm "normal" view.
Here's 20mm. I know many people feel that the 18-200mm zoom is the "perfect vacation lens." However, in my opinion, it's just not wide enough for cities and areas with a vast view. Looking at the difference between 20 and 12mm, I feel that only being able to go out to 18mm, you do miss a few things.
View attachment 93577
24mm - amazing how much of the scene has disappeared
View attachment 93578
And at 35mm, "normal", you have a very boring picture of nothing.
View attachment 93579
I did another series in "extremes" that I'll put in a second thread.
A series of extremes.....my shortest to my longest. :smile:
This is an abandoned airport near me, used to fly smaller planes here. I believe this landing strip is 2700 feet long. I stood at one end of it and photographed at 12mm, 35mm (for a "normal" view) and 430mm (300mm + 1.4TC). I may not have been standing in the *exact*same spot b/c I had to keep going to the bag and switching lenses. My assistant was not very patient with me. :tongue:
12mm, from end of runway
View attachment 93581
430mm - that tree is "the end"
View attachment 93582
My assistant, taking off with my gear......or, Flight E taxiing for take off! :tongue:
View attachment 93583
Hmmm.... Improper headgear, no safety belt, luggage not tucked under seat or stowed in overhead compartment, assistant does not appear to meet FAA minimum height requirements.....:biggrin: [might be a terrorist:biggrin: :biggrin: ]
O yes, definitely a terrorist.....terrorizes balls, camera gear, plastic chairs and squirrels on a regular and frequent basis. :tongue:
The rain washed away my initial plan, so here's plan B. I also wanted to go to the extremes.
My shortest non-fisheye prime - 15/3.5
And my longest - 500/4.5
I will try to shoot something more interesting this afternoon or tomorrow if weather permits.
Nikon 35-70 "Down the Canal" ....Venice in Indianapolis
Nikon 35-70 "Waterfall at the end of the line"
View attachment 93588
I only see you post that says "holder." I checked to make sure you weren't using stealth white text again.....nope. :tongue:
I think the quality of my shots is quite poor in comparison to the second two posters. Not sure how you could get lower than the airport shots. :wink:
Perhaps you could've said "The subject of the shot below has a high-quality (but wet) nose"
Nice job of coming up with nicely composed shots at each focal length. I especially like the close up of Monty; the reflections in his eyes are pretty cool. If the Internet had a scent protocol (as Rob jokingly suggested a few days ago), this shot would be all about doggy breath.:smile:
Focal length and perspective?
We sometimes see the claim that long focal lengths compress, or exaggerate, the geometry of a scene. I have previously used this scene, shot under more interesting conditions, as a part of a greeting card, and I received comments to the effect that the humps and curves were exaggerated. Today, I went out before the rain and shot down our road with 18, 65, and 300mm focal lengths. There weren’t enough pixels to work with for the 18mm shot, but I cropped the 65mm image to contain approximately the same content as the 300mm image, and then resampled, with sharpening, to the same size. I carried both images through the same sharpening and down sampling steps to get results shown below. The exposures were slightly different:redface: , but the only physical difference that I can see is that the 65mm shot is quite soft.
P.S. This is what I see with just my old eyes too.
Ha! If people think those are exaggerated, they oughta see some of the roads over in SE Pennsylvania, i.e. Douglassville, Phoneixville, Lancaster, etc.
Sydney Harbour - Australia
Shot at 70mm (70-200 f2.8 VR)
And shot at 200 mm
Ooooo!! Very cool Matthew! :smile:
Hey Paul -
My intent was similar to yours, I think, but it was far too windy to realize it. Monty is an awesome subject for any shoot!
I went to the zoo instead and got a handful of keepers, and also tried to do a couple for the group shoot (not keepers - LOL!).
In this pair, I tried to have about the same frame fill and elements with a 300 mm lens at f/4 (from farther away) and from a 90 mm lens at f/4 as I moved closer to the subject:
View attachment 93593
I didn't try to maintain the angle of view accurately since it was so windy in any case - these are more of a free will offering, rather than a contribution.