[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Kidninja

here is my wip photography site: www.brianw0ng.com

check it out when you get a chance =)

Nice overall. I'd add descriptions to the few images that only have file names. When I see camera generated file numbers I think, "lazy", which is not good.

I was about to comment on correcting parallax on your architectural images, but then I saw that you like uncorrected fisheye images and realized that you like leaning buildings. For those that have just a little distortion, because the sensor plain wasn't parallel to the buildings, I'd consider correcting those to keep the outer buildings from leaning in. When there's just a little leaning, your viewers don't know if you meant it or not. Generally, most of us viewers either expect straight buildings or huge distortion, not in between.

Dave

[Kidninja]

Thanks for the feedback! which sucks is that i had descriptions on all my files until the server crashed and i didn't have any backup!!!! -_- so basically had to start from scratch so yea, still a work in progress

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Billup

I wish I could upgrade my body. All I use is a Rebel XS, and it leaves a lot to be desired. Although, I have to admit, for not being very fancy, it does the job pretty well. Only have a few lenses, and would like to get a good fisheye, but don't really know where to start. I'm more of a hobbyist than anything so I'd ideally like something well priced for the product, but nothing too extravagant.

All the latest generation of Rebels and xxD models have greatly improved sensors from your model. Look at body-only prices to see what you can afford. Consider used, up to one generation old, or reconditioned.

I love my Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX DG diagonal fisheye, but it's $609 new. It's been around for several years, so you might can find a used Canon mount on Ebay, hopefully for under $500. I'd suggest that you focus on upgrading your lenses as you can and replace your body every five-years or so.

Here's a fisheye shot, defished:


Storm warning... by dcstep, on Flickr

[BrokenVert]

Originally Posted by Kidninja

here is my wip photography site: www.brianw0ng.com

check it out when you get a chance =)

I like the site a lot! Just one thing. Why not promote yourself on your pages? Make the side runners and background images your pictures?

[Kidninja]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

I like the site a lot! Just one thing. Why not promote yourself on your pages? Make the side runners and background images your pictures?

yep, working on that lol... as i mentioned above, my server/hosting service crashed and i lost everything and then i had to rebuild it from scratch. its hard to keep messing with the site when i have a full time job and always want to clean the car... LoL

[Billup]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

I got my first job with a Rebel T1i. A lot of people that I know got noticed with Rebels. I shoot with a 7D now.

Theyre not the best, but you can do some really nice things with them.

It's been real hit & miss. I've noticed good shooting conditions really make or break the quality I can get out of the camera, even in RAW. The difference in glass obviously has made its own huge impact, but I just feel like I am missing out on a lot.

[Billup]

Originally Posted by dcstep

All the latest generation of Rebels and xxD models have greatly improved sensors from your model. Look at body-only prices to see what you can afford. Consider used, up to one generation old, or reconditioned.

I love my Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX DG diagonal fisheye, but it's $609 new. It's been around for several years, so you might can find a used Canon mount on Ebay, hopefully for under $500. I'd suggest that you focus on upgrading your lenses as you can and replace your body every five-years or so.

Here's a fisheye shot, defished:

That shot looks awesome, and that's what I would like to acquire as I like to do a lot out outside scenic shots. I have a Tamron 70-300MM W/ VC Telephoto that I am in love with, but its just that..., a telephoto.

[BrokenVert]

Originally Posted by Kidninja

yep, working on that lol... as i mentioned above, my server/hosting service crashed and i lost everything and then i had to rebuild it from scratch. its hard to keep messing with the site when i have a full time job and always want to clean the car... LoL

Ohh yeah, I didnt read that before I posted. Well hopefully it comes back up soon. Im digging the shots.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Billup

That shot looks awesome, and that's what I would like to acquire as I like to do a lot out outside scenic shots. I have a Tamron 70-300MM W/ VC Telephoto that I am in love with, but its just that..., a telephoto.

Yeah, on a crop sensor, the short end of your zoom will be ok for certain scenic shots, but not overall. It's good for portraits and a few situations.

You may want to start with a 17-something zoom to start. Learn to shoot wide-angle before diving into ultra-wide. The zoom will be way more versatile overall.

Dave

[BrokenVert]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Yeah, on a crop sensor, the short end of your zoom will be ok for certain scenic shots, but not overall. It's good for portraits and a few situations.

You may want to start with a 17-something zoom to start. Learn to shoot wide-angle before diving into ultra-wide. The zoom will be way more versatile overall.

Dave

My walkaround short lens is a 17-40. I use it to shoot the paddocks on my 7D. Though, a full frame camera would make life a little less difficult. Ive done good stuff with it, but its a bit limiting on the 7D.

Heres an example of what im talking about:


IMG_0228

This shot doesnt work as is, but with a 35mm equivalent camera I wouldve had the entire car in frame.

[Billup]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Yeah, on a crop sensor, the short end of your zoom will be ok for certain scenic shots, but not overall. It's good for portraits and a few situations.

You may want to start with a 17-something zoom to start. Learn to shoot wide-angle before diving into ultra-wide. The zoom will be way more versatile overall.

Dave

Might be a noob question, but, what kind of obstacles am I going to encounter that I haven't with a standard lens with a wide-angle? A wide angle lens has almost been on my wish list, and I really would like to get back into it now that I have an abundance amount of spare time.

[M_Six]

Distortion and lens flare are the two bugaboos of wide angle lenses. When shooting landscapes it can be difficult to keep the sun out of frame. Some lenses, like the Canon EF-S 10-22 handle the sun well. Others exhibit flaring. And then there's distortion, which is dependent on the focal length. The wider the lens, the more distortion. My 10-22 is pretty good, but my 8mm FE will really show bendy horizons if it isn't held level. The distortion can contribute to the image as well, though.

[Itsed65]

Nice ones Mark! As you said, sometimes the distortion works in your favor.

[M_Six]

Thanks, Ed. My Z4 hates that pic. Says it makes her ass look big.

[Weebl]

Billup, get the Rokinon/Bower/whatever 8mm lens if you want the UWA for less. I like longer more than wider so my 18-55 was bought for ~$40 until I get a nicer lens.

Mark,
Yes the ass looks big but the tires look wider. ;-) Nice sprayer thingy shot with the sun

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Billup

Might be a noob question, but, what kind of obstacles am I going to encounter that I haven't with a standard lens with a wide-angle? A wide angle lens has almost been on my wish list, and I really would like to get back into it now that I have an abundance amount of spare time.

Barrel distortion is the classic problem as you go wide. Two images below demonstrate the problem. The first is taken with my Sigma 15mm f/2.8, uncorrected. The second is the same image, but corrected for distortion in post processing:


Fisheye Shot by dcstep, on Flickr
De-fished Image by dcstep, on Flickr

That's a "fisheye" lens, with a 180-degree field of view, so it's as extreme as barrel distortion gets, but you get the idea.

You minimize the distortion by keeping the camera's sensor parallel with the subject, but even when parallel a fisheye has lots of barrel distortion.

Dave

[druu]

On the topic of UWAS. I find I like taking a wide zoom (e.g. 17-40) and putting to somewhere around 35mm or a moderately wide prime (35L), and stitching photos together for a wide angle shot. I've always felt like I got a better wide image (for stills and landscapes of course)that way. I could just be crazy though heh. When i leave the wide lenses at their widest angles, I like to keep the distortion there for dramatic effect when I can.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by druu

On the topic of UWAS. I find I like taking a wide zoom (e.g. 17-40) and putting to somewhere around 35mm or a moderately wide prime (35L), and stitching photos together for a wide angle shot. I've always felt like I got a better wide image (for stills and landscapes of course)that way. I could just be crazy though heh. When i leave the wide lenses at their widest angles, I like to keep the distortion there for dramatic effect when I can.

Your approach is great, I use it a lot, but it totally changes the perspective. Sometimes you want a really broad, all-inclusive look and then sometimes you want a more detailed look.

Here's an extreme demonstration of the perspective change. The first image is a 7-shot, stitched pano, taken at 700mm and the second shot is taken from the same spot with a 15mm fisheye and then defished:


Morning Mt. Evans Panorama by dcstep, on Flickr


Storm warning... by dcstep, on Flickr

They tell totally different stories, don't they?

For those that haven't stitched panoramas yet, be sure to overlap your images so that you leave out any vignetting or distorted edges. I use PS to stitch mine, but there are several programs that'll do it. You can hand hold these if you're careful. I have a grid pattern in my VF and try to find a reference to keep the consecutive shots roughly even with each other. Oh, shoot in manual mode so that the meter isn't changing the exposure from panel to panel.

For grins, here's a multi-image panorama taken with my zoom at 98mm, from the same spot as the other two:


Morning mountain panorama from Cherry Creek State Park by dcstep, on Flickr

Yet another story. What's "best" will depend on what you're trying to say at the moment.

Dave

[druu]

Originally Posted by dcstep

Your approach is great, I use it a lot, but it totally changes the perspective. Sometimes you want a really broad, all-inclusive look and then sometimes you want a more detailed look.

Here's an extreme demonstration of the perspective change. The first image is a 7-shot, stitched pano, taken at 700mm and the second shot is taken from the same spot with a 15mm fisheye and then defished:


Morning Mt. Evans Panorama by dcstep, on Flickr


Storm warning... by dcstep, on Flickr

They tell totally different stories, don't they?

For those that haven't stitched panoramas yet, be sure to overlap your images so that you leave out any vignetting or distorted edges. I use PS to stitch mine, but there are several programs that'll do it. You can hand hold these if you're careful. I have a grid pattern in my VF and try to find a reference to keep the consecutive shots roughly even with each other. Oh, shoot in manual mode so that the meter isn't changing the exposure from panel to panel.

For grins, here's a multi-image panorama taken with my zoom at 98mm, from the same spot as the other two:


Morning mountain panorama from Cherry Creek State Park by dcstep, on Flickr

Yet another story. What's "best" will depend on what you're trying to say at the moment.

Dave

QFT. Dave, you ever the breziner effect? I think that got me hooked on stitching actually.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by druu

QFT. Dave, you ever the breziner effect? I think that got me hooked on stitching actually.

I've been thinking about focus stacking, but most of my subjects won't stand still.

Using 1,000mm, I could get something to stand out like crazy, like it's floating in bokeh-space. A flower with no wind might be a good first subject.

You got me thinking...

Dave

[druu]

Come to think of it, I've only ever used that style on people, now you got me thinking.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by druu

Come to think of it, I've only ever used that style on people, now you got me thinking.

I think that macro photographers invented the technique.