|
Post by Br3nd4N on Aug 9, 2008 0:07:41 GMT 2
|
|
|
Post by andycole on Aug 11, 2008 11:02:44 GMT 2
Brendan, may I be the first to congratulate you on creating a great website. The photos are excellent and the design is also, did you design it yourself or is it an 'out of the box' design? I particularly like the rainforest photo, mayfield sunrise and Fossil Rock, although I think you've overdone the HDR in this last one.
Are you using Photomatix for the HDR or something else?
Your star trails one is not bad, although the stars look a little soft. You shouldn't even attempt this type of shot without a cable release! I just tried my first star trail last week with a 30 minute exposure and I was well pleased with it, maybe I'll post it here.
Tasmania looks like a great place to be a photographer!
p.s. you've spelled minute wrong on 'just 2 good'
edit: one a shot on your website and one from Flickr, you've mentioned the word 'purple' when using your Cokin grad. Have you noticed that the top half of the photo has a magenta cast? This isn't supposed to happen. The term ND (neutral density) means that there should be no change in the colour of the subject, just brightness. I recently replaced a scratched ND grad and the new one has a magenta cast. Probably nice for sunsets but not very useful the rest of the time. I'm having to correct the cast with 2 different RAW conversions!
another edit: I notice you have the 16-35. Mark II? How is it? I want to replace my 17-40 with it. Have you used both of these? If so, is it worth the extra money?!
Andy
|
|
|
Post by sAner on Aug 11, 2008 21:40:12 GMT 2
Great site and great photos Brendan! You never told us you are a photographer! How come!? Like Andy I would really like to know how you like that 16-35 lens. How sharp is it when compared to the 17-40? Regards, sAner
|
|
|
Post by andycole on Aug 12, 2008 10:43:51 GMT 2
Pieter, what planet have you been on? Brendan has always joined in when there has been a photography discussion!
Brendan, well done for even doing this, I have been thinking about doing my own photography website for ages. The only thing that has stopped me is the thought that it's highly unlikely to produce any sales. I know of photographers WAY better than me who have professionally designed websites full of astounding photos, who haven't sold a single print. The problem is getting awareness. You're better off getting a few prints done and taking them to a local gallery. This is what I have done very recently. You are in a tourist area, if I'm not mistaken, so you should stand a good chance that way.
Andy
|
|
|
Post by sAner on Aug 12, 2008 21:32:34 GMT 2
Photo discussions?? Where?? Here?? I guess I really donĀ“t spend enough time on this forum! Pieter
|
|
|
Post by Br3nd4N on Aug 29, 2008 8:32:57 GMT 2
Crikies.... you fellas sure ask a lot of questions. I will try to answer them as best as possible. Yes, I've been using photomatix to create HDR's, I'm currently working on a blurb book, more for myself than anything. I'll probably use it to take around to local gallarys and business's etc. I have one store locally that is going to place some prints in there photo centre, so maybe that will help. I've got a cable for the star trails, and I even wrote an article on taking long exposures. The problem with those shots is it was slightly hazzy in the middle of winter and too much ambient light was about. I'm waiting until it warms up a little and gets clearer. The Cokin filter do cast a purple color or magenta, Cokin filters are not neutral, you can read about it all over the place on the web. I've since upgraded to some hi-tech ones but I keep my cokin for special sunsets The 16-35L I have is the mark 1, and I love it, I'd love it better if it was on a 5d. I'm waiting on the 5d Mark 2. I have not used 17-40L, but from what I have read it's not as sharp as the 17-40L wide open. However if you stop it down it's better. The general rule of thumb is if you want better quality don't use your lense at either extreme, so the 17-40L was out because I'd have to shoot at 5.6 or higher to ensure outstanding results. If your shooting landscapes on tripod, then I'd say don't bother, stick with the 17-40. If your a wedding photographer, then it would probably come in handy. My site is built with off the shelf software, with some slight mods. I'll start making sure I re-visit
|
|
|
Post by Br3nd4N on Sept 3, 2008 0:43:39 GMT 2
Also, I think you guys should have a look at: www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspxThis will give you an idea of the difference in lenses. If you compare the 16-35 at f4 to the 17-40 at f4 you can see there's a big difference. It's not until your working at f8 that you start to get some parity. So if you want a lens to "use" at f4, then you should buy a lens that is rated quicker, because wide open any lens is far worse than stopped down. -B (thats a great resource btw)
|
|
|
Post by andycole on Sept 3, 2008 13:40:22 GMT 2
That is a great link, thanks. As I said to Pieter the other day, because I use my 17-40 mostly in the middle of the aperture range, usually F/8-F/16, then I wouldn't expect to see much of a difference in the 2 lenses. Those comparisons confirm my thoughts. The 16-35's are indeed noticeably sharper at F/4 but at F/8 onwards there's hardly a difference, certainly not one I'd pay 500+quid for. If the comparisons are to be believed, the 16-35's are softer as you zoom in. Example 1 Example 2Maybe when I get into wedding photography seriously, I'll buy one, but for now, I'll spend the money on the 5D or 5D II once I've seen the price of the new camera. Thanks again for the link. p.s. I've got some of my prints in a local gallery. I don't expect to sell any but it's still nice. Brendan, you should try it, you've got nothing to lose, and neither has the gallery if you supply prints on a sale or return basis. You should be able to provide A3 mounted prints for a cost of around AU$10-15 each. As you're in a touristy area, you never know. Andy
|
|
|
Post by Br3nd4N on Sept 4, 2008 1:52:20 GMT 2
yer, the 17-40 gets better the more you stop it down. I shoot a lot of landscapes, so it was a really hard decision to make but I decided to go the little extra. I could probably live with a 17-40 for the type of work I do, but it is nice knowing you can go wider like f4 and not have issues.
-B
|
|
|
Post by andycole on Sept 4, 2008 10:08:43 GMT 2
Not long to wait for the 5D II now, I read a report yesterday that review samples are already in the hands of reviewers. After the surprise 50D launch, I think we might be looking at 21mp! And probably about GBP2000 Andy
|
|
|
Post by Br3nd4N on Sept 4, 2008 13:01:10 GMT 2
I think it's going to come down to how aggressive canon want to get with Nikon. If there serious about taking back some sales then I think they will price accordingly. I'm really hoping the 5dm2 is going to be cheap, so I can afford one -B
|
|
|
Post by andycole on Sept 5, 2008 12:34:50 GMT 2
Well, when the 5D came out I'm sure it was about GBP1700-1800 and now it's GBP1200 or thereabouts. Frequently, Canon's replacement cameras have been slightly cheaper than the unit they are replacing, but more recently, they've been releaseing new models as a 'sister' to the existing one instead of a replacement. They did that with the 450D and now the 50D. If they do the same thing again, I expect the price to be more than 1300 but probably less than 1800GBP. That would be great, but when you actually sit down and think about it, what a frigging lot of money for a camera!! I wonder how the prices compare with those of the semi-pro models back in the film days....An old film EOS1 or EOS3 probably has all the same features but is just not digital, and you could probably pick one of those up for a couple of hundred now!!
Andy
|
|
|
Post by Br3nd4N on Sept 7, 2008 6:09:06 GMT 2
A friend of Mine just got a D700, he said he can take pictures in the dark at 6400ISO and it's like the middle of the day, with no noise. nice. I hope the wait is worth it....
-B
|
|
|
Post by andycole on Sept 8, 2008 10:42:43 GMT 2
Yeah, I know someone who has a D300 and he's always going on about the low noise capability. He's never actually shown me any photos, though. It's funny that Nikon users talk the talk but don't have anything to show Andy
|
|