Photo-A-Day III

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by Mwezzi

That's the first time since the re-vamp that the pond has appeared to be interesting. Well done.

I do try.

[Mwezzi]

One of my many messed-about-with attempts at self portraiture. Unfortunately my digital camera isn't great for close-ups when you can't use a tripod and can only see what you're doing with a mirror, but this was the best focus I could get.

[Potatojunkie]

Some creature lurking under the Botanics:

EOS 400D, ~30mm
1/25sec @ f/3.5 ISO 400


And some creature-eaters lurking above:

EOS 400D, ~30mm
1/160sec @ f/4.5 ISO 100

[Woolies]

Posting my own pic so feel I should attempt some comments as is the way of the thread - but I fear I have nothing interesting to say today (what's new, lol~!)

Originally Posted by Jesus On A Bike

think that's my fav of those and a fair old first crack at studio lighting.
Which I have never taken to, I tend to fel under lots of pressure even though technically I'm in a lot more control with more time to think that using that supid hide & seek sunlight or stage lighting stuff!

Originally Posted by Potatojunkie

It's a laugh me saying this but I think that one is too contrasty. One day I am going to take a ladder and get a shot of that skull from their own level.

Originally Posted by 2plus2isfive

and one day I shall steal that location for my own traffic trail shot

Originally Posted by Shannow

I don't like that much at all for some reason No one else agrees with me though so you win even if I think you can do MUCH better.

Originally Posted by Mwezzi

as you say, sharper focus needed on the eye - and without the stray strands across your eye it'd have folks trying to out stare you!

Originally Posted by Potatojunkie

The top half of that is very Brian Shannowesque colours I think. They make me more interested than in the interesting pitcher plant thingies pic anyways.





that all sounds quite negative critical from me all lumped together but there isn't a bad shot posted so niggly details are the only things left & can be the most useful things to comment on to help us all get better...?

[Woolies]

First shot shared from a new lens & it's not really that great.

For starters despite wanting skewed perspective, the viewfinder image and astigmatism threw me totally and I ended up rotating it by a whopping 9 degrees in PS...
Also removed an entire lampost which then left a very obvious doggy pee trail (Which has also got the chop now.)
And as final insult & injury; it was taken a couple of days ago with a beautiful clear blue sky, I decided to desaturate that as I tweaked the stone work, I don't really know why...

EOS 5D, 12mm on 12-24mm
1/500 @ f/8.0 ISO 100

In fact, to hells with it, have a peek at the from-camera jpeg while we're here.

[Mwezzi]

Originally Posted by Woolies

First shot shared from a new lens & it's not really that great.

For starters despite wanting skewed perspective, the viewfinder image and astigmatism threw me totally and I ended up rotating it by a whopping 9 degrees in PS...
Also removed an entire lampost which then left a very obvious doggy pee trail (Which has also got the chop now.)
And as final insult & injury; it was taken a couple of days ago with a beautiful clear blue sky, I decided to desaturate that as I tweaked the stone work, I don't really know why...

EOS 5D, 12mm on 12-24mm
1/500 @ f/8.0 ISO 100

In fact, to hells with it, have a peek at the from-camera jpeg while we're here.

Hee, I remember you telling me about your new lens and how you wanted everyone to tell you that it was stupid, or something. Those pictures put my Bambaddled brain in a lot of pain. Has quite a bit of potential for fun, though. Shame about the speckliness in the sky of the edited version, I quite like it apart from that.

[Jesus On A Bike]

Fish ftw.

[2plus2isfive]

Originally Posted by Woolies

First shot shared from a new lens & it's not really that great.

For starters despite wanting skewed perspective, the viewfinder image and astigmatism threw me totally and I ended up rotating it by a whopping 9 degrees in PS...
Also removed an entire lampost which then left a very obvious doggy pee trail (Which has also got the chop now.)
And as final insult & injury; it was taken a couple of days ago with a beautiful clear blue sky, I decided to desaturate that as I tweaked the stone work, I don't really know why...

EOS 5D, 12mm on 12-24mm
1/500 @ f/8.0 ISO 100

In fact, to hells with it, have a peek at the from-camera jpeg while we're here.

Was it the Tokina or the Sigma 12-24mm you picked up? (...or neither). A super wide zoom is next on my lens wish list. Though I've got my eyes firmly set on the Sigma 10-20 (well really the canon 10-22 but i don't have that kind of cash) due to shooting an APS-C sensor camera.

It does look like there's quite a bit of barrel distortion...unless that fence at the bottom left is actually curved.

Apart from that, it's a fairly decent first attempt with a super wide lens. I think it's maybe a bit over rotated and I'm not too keen on the spotty sky as someone already mentioned.

[Mwezzi]

Originally Posted by 2plus2isfive

Was it the Tokina or the Sigma 12-24mm you picked up? (...or neither).

He told me it was the Sigma.

[Potatojunkie]

Originally Posted by Mwezzi

He told me it was the Sigma.

That's what he tells all the girls.

[Woolies]

Originally Posted by Mwezzi

Hee, I remember you telling me about your new lens and how you wanted everyone to tell you that it was stupid, or something.

It's too late to take it back to the shop now so I am stuck with it! To make it value for money I think I need to use it to get a good snap at least once every 12-18 hours...

Originally Posted by Jesus On A Bike

Fish ftw.

scary
Also a wee note that the 12-24 isn't technically a fisheye, it still attempts to make images rectilinear (fisheyes have an "intended" curved distortion). But at 12mm end it really does have to be flat on & pointing horizontal to avoid the skewed lines - which I thoroughly intend to abuse for architecture when I can...

Originally Posted by 2plus2isfive

Was it the Tokina or the Sigma 12-24mm you picked up? (...or neither). A super wide zoom is next on my lens wish list. Though I've got my eyes firmly set on the Sigma 10-20 (well really the canon 10-22 but i don't have that kind of cash) due to shooting an APS-C sensor camera.

az Mwezzi sez, it's the Sigma. I gave it a good old testing in the shop first as Sigma's quality control can be a bit hit & miss so sometimes their lenses are crap rather than being "perfectly good enough". I'd watch that with any Sigma lens as I do have an utterly blurry 28-135 from them that is unusable. (Which I'm obv not gonna sell on the forum now )
Mines is sharp enough mostly overall from what I expected of super-wide but I have found the chromatic abberation is worse than I thougt in shop - big blue glows

It does look like there's quite a bit of barrel distortion...unless that fence at the bottom left is actually curved.

The distortion changes dramatically from the 12 to 24 ends but I've found that being careful means it can be almost hidden even at 12mm when needed and the only real problems I've had are wanting MORE SKY meaning I tilt upwards & converging verticals go extreme.

Originally Posted by Potatojunkie

That's what he tells all the girls.

I shouldn't really tell any girls about my 12-24mm

[2plus2isfive]

Originally Posted by Woolies

Az Mwezzi sez, it's the Sigma. I gave it a good old testing in the shop first as Sigma's quality control can be a bit hit & miss so sometimes their lenses are crap rather than being "perfectly good enough". I'd watch that with any Sigma lens as I do have an utterly blurry 28-135 from them that is unusable. (Which I'm obv not gonna sell on the forum now )

Heh, I've heard that aye...I've been told to avoid serial numbers on the 10-20mm which start in 101 or 102. Obviously getting to actually try the lens in a shop before you buy is a must with this kind of lens.

I think most of the issues with them being 'crap', certainly with the 10-20mm, are front focusing issues which sigma will actually fix for free (although you have to send off the lens and camera to them in order for them to do this which is not ideal).

Originally Posted by Jesus On A Bike

Fish ftw.

Fisheyes are for the win!...if you're looking for a 'proper' one; i'm going to be firing one on ebay pretty soon i think (Peleng 8mm circular, Canon or Pentax mount). In order to fund aforementioned Sigma 10-20mm.

[bikuki]

How much are you going to be looking for for your fisheye? I was thinking about getting one in Japan cos there are loads of camera and electronics markets, but I might take yours off you if i an afford it

[Jesus On A Bike]

Lol, thats just a wee fisheye camera I picked up from Urban Outfitters for a tenner

It's pure class!

[2plus2isfive]

Originally Posted by bikuki

How much are you going to be looking for for your fisheye? I was thinking about getting one in Japan cos there are loads of camera and electronics markets, but I might take yours off you if i an afford it

Probably looking for about £140. They're going for $400 plus postage from Russia on rugifts.com or £160 plus £20 postage from US on ebay just now. I bought it new and i'd say it's still in pretty much the condition I bought it. The only scratches about the whole lens are on the outside of the (metal) lens cap...which obviously won't affect images (...unless you plan on taking photos of the lens cap).

I'll attach the blurb i wrote and was planning to post on ebay.