PistonHeads.com Forum

Random Photos : Part 3

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Blukoo

3,790 posts

101 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all
GetCarter said:
A cunning plan to encourage tourists to use passing places on single track roads. Do you think the police will mind? wink

Haha, that's genius! Please do it...

v15ben

12,727 posts

145 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all
One from me with the new 55-250 lens.
Taken in Cambodia.


East Mebon. by v15ben, on Flickr

lloyd h

1,502 posts

77 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all

2slo

1,979 posts

71 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all
Waskerley reservoir:


andrwb

175 posts

48 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all
Reprocessed some old portraits. Maybe they're too contrasty.


D. by Clwn, on Flickr


D. by Clwn, on Flickr


D. by Clwn, on Flickr
Advertisement

Blukoo

3,790 posts

101 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all
I couldn't get the shot I wanted tonight, so I decided to create my own out of a few images...


IMG_0215_composite by Murray 1986, on Flickr

...Mole...

2,756 posts

95 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all

Slioch by ScottAMurray, on Flickr

IWantAVolvo

1,262 posts

63 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all
Caught the northern lights last night just purely by chance whilst out with a friend!




paul911

2,752 posts

137 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all
andrwb said:

D. by Clwn, on Flickr
This one is ace, and could even take some more contrast boosting. Great shot smile

2slo

1,979 posts

71 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all

Smiddy Shaw reservoir

C2james

4,625 posts

69 months

Tuesday 9th October 2012
quotequote all
andrwb said:
Reprocessed some old portraits. Maybe they're too contrasty.


D. by Clwn, on Flickr


D. by Clwn, on Flickr


D. by Clwn, on Flickr
hello!



/jamesmay

RobDickinson

18,309 posts

158 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all

Coru by robjdickinson, on Flickr

Harry Flashman

10,296 posts

146 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all
Rob, would you mind sharing the settings you used for that photo?

I'm having real issues with getting shallow depth of field in camera - and think I might need a ned lens, as the maximum aperture of 3.5 at 15mm on my kit lens doesn't seem to want to isolate. At 42mm zoom, max aperture is 5.6, and similarly depth of field is quite high.

There are two lenses I'm considering to rectify this: a 1.7-20mm, and a 1.8-45mm. IO'd sort of like the latter, but have no idea what the minimum focus distance for the two lenses is (am busy finding out) so that I can attempt the sort of close-up work you managed with those ferns!

Any advice, from anyone posting on this thread, greedily assimilated and used, as always...!

nre

369 posts

174 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all
Harry Flashman said:
Rob, would you mind sharing the settings you used for that photo?

I'm having real issues with getting shallow depth of field in camera - and think I might need a ned lens, as the maximum aperture of 3.5 at 15mm on my kit lens doesn't seem to want to isolate. At 42mm zoom, max aperture is 5.6, and similarly depth of field is quite high.

There are two lenses I'm considering to rectify this: a 1.7-20mm, and a 1.8-45mm. IO'd sort of like the latter, but have no idea what the minimum focus distance for the two lenses is (am busy finding out) so that I can attempt the sort of close-up work you managed with those ferns!

Any advice, from anyone posting on this thread, greedily assimilated and used, as always...!
A longer focal length will give you shallower depth of field, with everything else remaining the same, mess about with this online calculator to see how different paramters change the dof.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

the exif from Robs photo above shows he used a 400mm at f5.6

Harry Flashman

10,296 posts

146 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all
nre said:
Harry Flashman said:
Rob, would you mind sharing the settings you used for that photo?

I'm having real issues with getting shallow depth of field in camera - and think I might need a ned lens, as the maximum aperture of 3.5 at 15mm on my kit lens doesn't seem to want to isolate. At 42mm zoom, max aperture is 5.6, and similarly depth of field is quite high.

There are two lenses I'm considering to rectify this: a 1.7-20mm, and a 1.8-45mm. IO'd sort of like the latter, but have no idea what the minimum focus distance for the two lenses is (am busy finding out) so that I can attempt the sort of close-up work you managed with those ferns!

Any advice, from anyone posting on this thread, greedily assimilated and used, as always...!
A longer focal length will give you shallower depth of field, with everything else remaining the same, mess about with this online calculator to see how different paramters change the dof.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

the exif from Robs photo above shows he used a 400mm at f5.6
That's great help: and it shows me that the PEN telephoto at 150mm/5.6 will give a shallower DOF than the 45mm/1.8. Very useful, and makes the 40-150mm 4.0-5.6 more what I seem to be after than the 45 1.8.

Looks like the 45mm lens will probably be good for portrait photography, as at 6 feet it gives a 0.28 ft DOF: the tel It will probably do better action shots at 45mm than the telephoto, due to the ability to get a faster shutter speed in. But I can get depth of field down to 0.08ft at 6 feet away at 150mm zoom on the telephoto, and I'm more interested in getting photos like Rob's fern one above than sport/action shots. I'm just guessing that light will be more of an issue with the telephoto lens.

In reality, I need to try them both before deciding, I guess...

gingerpaul

2,924 posts

147 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all
Harry Flashman said:
That's great help: and it shows me that the PEN telephoto at 150mm/5.6 will give a shallower DOF than the 45mm/1.8. Very useful, and makes the 40-150mm 4.0-5.6 more what I seem to be after than the 45 1.8.

Looks like the 45mm lens will probably be good for portrait photography, as at 6 feet it gives a 0.28 ft DOF: the tel It will probably do better action shots at 45mm than the telephoto, due to the ability to get a faster shutter speed in. But I can get depth of field down to 0.08ft at 6 feet away at 150mm zoom on the telephoto, and I'm more interested in getting photos like Rob's fern one above than sport/action shots. I'm just guessing that light will be more of an issue with the telephoto lens.

In reality, I need to try them both before deciding, I guess...
Are you using a micro 4/3rds camera? I used to have the 20mm f/1.7 and it takes really nice pictures. I can pop up a few examples if you're interested. smile

PGD5

1,112 posts

87 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all
That DOF calculator is very interesting, thanks for the link

Here's the first shot of my new motor, now I'm pretty much done with the styling mods smile


My Black NC MX5 by PGDesigns.co.uk, on Flickr

GetCarter

21,873 posts

183 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all
/\ nice.

Death of a rowing boat:


Dogsey

3,887 posts

134 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all
PGD5 said:
That DOF calculator is very interesting, thanks for the link

Here's the first shot of my new motor, now I'm pretty much done with the styling mods smile


My Black NC MX5 by PGDesigns.co.uk, on Flickr
Missing the Mk1 yet? wink

AstonZagato

5,786 posts

114 months

Wednesday 10th October 2012
quotequote all
Harry Flashman said:
That's great help: and it shows me that the PEN telephoto at 150mm/5.6 will give a shallower DOF than the 45mm/1.8. Very useful, and makes the 40-150mm 4.0-5.6 more what I seem to be after than the 45 1.8.

Looks like the 45mm lens will probably be good for portrait photography, as at 6 feet it gives a 0.28 ft DOF: the tel It will probably do better action shots at 45mm than the telephoto, due to the ability to get a faster shutter speed in. But I can get depth of field down to 0.08ft at 6 feet away at 150mm zoom on the telephoto, and I'm more interested in getting photos like Rob's fern one above than sport/action shots. I'm just guessing that light will be more of an issue with the telephoto lens.

In reality, I need to try them both before deciding, I guess...
I seem to remember that (with 35mm film) a 125mm lens was normally recommended for portraits. The logic was that 125mm is a reasonable approximation to the perceived focal length of the human eye and so features were rendered in the most natural way.

Is my recollection wrong?


TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED