amateur photo thread.

  • Thread starter Conbon14
  • 1,913 comments
  • 127,705 views
IMG_1654.JPG

IMG_1835.JPG
 
@Crs_D - First thing is many shots are a touch under exposed, leading to loss of detail on the shadowed parts of the cars while not really getting anything extra in the highlights. This means you need to check your exposure settings and maybe switch to manual exposure after getting an idea on the light. Or at least at +1/3 to a +1 stops in the auto exposure program.

For your post production, don't add vignetting as it just looks a bit gimmicky to me. You also seemed to have upped the contrast a bit too much and are losing more detail in the shadowed areas while not getting much out of the highlights.
 
Andrew R
Do you guys think buying a 50mm 1.8 lens would be a good idea for someone as inexperienced as me? At the moment my camera just has the 18-55mm lens it came with. There's a 50mm for sale locally for $50, was just wondering if this would be beneficial for my Japan trip? I would more than likely take both lenses as I imagine there will be a fair bit of landscape photography going on, but as I'm also going to a few car workshops and a big car/bike show in an exhibition centre, would the 50mm be a useful purchase? I don't know why I'm even looking as money is pretty tight before the trip so I couldn't afford a brand new lens but $50 second hand and just down the road seems affordable.
Click to expand...

I've found it's a great lens on its own, providing greater sharpness and slightly more realistic colors than the kit lens. The 50mm/1.8 has also been an excellent substitute for the kit lens, because the ability to autofocus has become mysteriously erratic after 45,000-50,000 shots.
 
Since this seems to be the place to ask questions about lenses as of recently, here goes.

I'm in a similar situation as Andrew. Going on a trip (tomorrow!) and I need help deciding on what lenses to bring. Definitely bringing the 50mm 1.4, but as I'm going to a track and hopefully shooting some cars I want something that can zoom. I have an 18-55 kit lens from 2013, as well as a 35-80 kit lens from my dad's 1991 Canon Rebel. I would just take the 35-80 but I'm worried that it lacks sharpness, being an old kit lens. My polarizer doesn't fit it either. I could probably just crop the images taken with the 18-55, and end up with a similar, sharper result. Or should I just use the 50mm as the extra 5mm won't make a huge difference? I really wish I had the money at the moment to spend on a 2.8 200mm.

So photography experts of GTP, what's my best bet?
 
@Ferraridude308

You should have told me sooner, I'd have sent you one of my two identical 70-300 lenses. Actually I don't know how good they are because I've barely used them.

Can you not just bring all of them and switch between them or do you not want to bring all your stuff? I'd probably just use the 50mm and crop if you could only use one and are worried about sharpness.
 
lol, definitely not experts (you posted in the amateur thread you know?)..

Anyways, it depends where you will be located at. @Crs_D was at a rally event so he was able to get really close (one of them too close it seems) to get some good shots. If you're gonna be in the stands, and about 10-15 yards away, I still don't see what is wrong with bringing the 18-55... Also, lenses generally never go bad, but cropped goes first, not sure if it is because of cheap materials or something else??

And unless you live with the pl, as in shoot everything with it on, then the 18-55 is probably what you want...

Just went on your Flickr (followed too) and saw some of your last race photos... If you are going to be at a location this far away, then you might want to bring the old zoom, as you were maxed out and could of had a bit more emphasis on the cars with more zoom..

But if you are this distance... then the new kit lens would be great.

Try some long exposure too to get the motion in the background. It's really up to you on what to bring though. Me, I'd bring the 18-55 for ultra-wide long exposure shots.

EDIT:

If you are only bringing one, I agree with @Turtle to just bring the 50..
 
The thing is that I'm trying to cram everything I own into an international carry on bag for the Ferrari World Finals in Abu Dhabi. The little camera bag I have only has enough room for 2 lenses when packed in with the rest of my crap. :lol: Not sure on the distance, hence I was leaning towards the bigger zoom. Plus I'd really like a versatile lens for taking pictures of the sights of Abu Dhabi.

The reason I asked about the the sharpness of the lenses is that I've heard kit lenses are usually mediocre in terms of sharpness, and since the 35-80 feels awfully cheap I thought it might not be amazing.

My photos on my flickr were done without a tripod (which I'm bringing this time!) so hopefully I can do some panning on this trip.

I think I've settled on the 18-55 as a secondary lens, possibly for any museum exhibits where I can't stand far back to take advantage of the 50. (and the 35-80 is missing one of its caps!)

I would really like to use the filter all the time as I love the effect they give to automotive photography.

Thank you both very much.
1417495744938-1885741081.jpg
 
Swagger897
lol, definitely not experts (you posted in the amateur thread you know?)..
Click to expand...
Well even if it is called the Amateur photo thread (Without capitalized letters, which bugs me so much) there are people knowledgeable enough to help popping in and out all the time. And pretty much everyone who frequents this thread can help with a lot of questions, and anyone who can't is probably the one asking the question.
 
Andrew R
Do you guys think buying a 50mm 1.8 lens would be a good idea for someone as inexperienced as me? At the moment my camera just has the 18-55mm lens it came with. There's a 50mm for sale locally for $50, was just wondering if this would be beneficial for my Japan trip? I would more than likely take both lenses as I imagine there will be a fair bit of landscape photography going on, but as I'm also going to a few car workshops and a big car/bike show in an exhibition centre, would the 50mm be a useful purchase? I don't know why I'm even looking as money is pretty tight before the trip so I couldn't afford a brand new lens but $50 second hand and just down the road seems affordable.
Click to expand...

To me, what's appealing about that lens isn't the focal length, it's how fast it can get, and some of the possibilities that it opens.

Ferraridude308
My photos on my flickr were done without a tripod (which I'm bringing this time!) so hopefully I can do some panning on this trip.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't need a tripod to follow a car and do panning shot (assuming that's what you're talking about). You'll have to shoot in burst and it's hard to get right.

Ferraridude308
I think I've settled on the 18-55 as a secondary lens, possibly for any museum exhibits where I can't stand far back to take advantage of the 50. (and the 35-80 is missing one of its caps!)
Click to expand...

I think the 18-55 is a fine choice. 👍
 
I was thinking you were just going somewhere in SLC, not all the way over there. But definitely, the 18-55 I think is a must for that. A lot of landscapes you can do, especially with the Burj Khalifa.
 
I leave tomorrow and I'm so damn excited. I definitely didn't get around to mastering the 50mm but I'll play around with it around Japan and see what I come up with. None the less it should be great for the show in the exhibition centre, I'm just concerned I won't be able to get far enough back.
 
I recently re-tried my old 24-80mm EF kit lens (sorry, don't recall the exact specs) from my old Canon Eos Rebel, and I was rather disappointed with the results. There was far too much chromatic abberation, or bluish/purplish edges, which increased blurriness. Most light colors looked somewhat muddy, and images seemed a bit "flat" when it installed on a Canon Rebel T3. For some still images, such as muted landscapes, it created an interesting effect if you were shooting away from any light source(s), but that seemed to be a unique situation.

Also, after about 7 years of no usage, the autofocus gears were squeaking/grinding, although that's probably unique to my lens.
 
Last edited:
Pupik
Also, after about 7 years of no usage, the autofocus gears were squeaking/grinding, although that's probably unique to my lens.
Click to expand...
The 50mm F2.5 macro that I got had been sitting for even longer than that. I don't know if it's because it was sitting so long or if it's just old but the autofocus is so loud it alerts people in the next state.
 
Mike Rotch

Calm by bg_syd, on Flickr​
Click to expand...
Nice.
What I would do differently is probably increase the shutter length to 15-20 seconds to get more of the detail from the bottom 1/3 (unless it's already overexposed, hard to see on my laptop). That would also help the clouds be a bit more smoother on the edges.
Christmas I have an 82mm Tiffen VND filter on the way (which will look absolutely ridiculous with the 52-82 step up ring) and an cable release, so hopefully I'll be able to get some things like this.
I'm really looking forward to doing more astro/night-photography, with some good star trails and maybe even going up to Atlanta and getting some planes taking off and landing.

I'm also going to Pensacola next week so maybe some things from their air museum....

Edit: Pensacola is not happening.. Plans collapsed miserably...
 
Last edited:
Swagger897
Nice.
What I would do differently is probably increase the shutter length to 15-20 seconds to get more of the detail from the bottom 1/3 (unless it's already overexposed, hard to see on my laptop). That would also help the clouds be a bit more smoother on the edges.
Click to expand...
That was a 483sec exposure, using two stacked Hoya 400NDs ;)

I wanted to see what it looked like with a 'silhouette' look, so purposely dodged the foreground and trees to emphasis the misty water and clouds :).
 
Oh, Flickr said 10sec, guess those were some fast moving clouds if I actually believed that, lol...

It worked out good for that kind of wait then I guess.. I just wanted to see how the water looked on the shore bit..
 
It was shot at F10, so maybe your eye went to that ;).

I am very much seeing now why graduated filters are necessary - on my long exposures during the day, the sky is usually perfectly exposed but the foreground is inevitably too dark - so I need the sky balanced. Problem is that means square filters, which means big bucks, so I'll have to make do for now.
 
In some irrelevant format-based news, I might get a darkroom in my own house. That would be a great way to not spend all of my money on developing film, even though it means having to learn how to do it.

It will probably be put in if I like shooting film, but I don't know if I do yet because I've not had the chance to really use it yet, so we'll have to see.
 
Better than waiting weeks for Bi-mart to do it, or pay a small fortune for some hipster-y analog camera shop to do the work.
 
I went to a nature park today and used the rest of my first roll. It felt great to just relax on my own and take some photos. Reminded me why I love photography so much, at a time when I felt unmotivated.
 
Some humble scrub edits of the Bay Bridge.

cd7fbb83f428b440c2ab6dca66d2bcc6.jpg


2b7b890a1088aeefdd487fbb62eb171f.jpg


fc61b3437870819b3886cdbdef4bdcec.jpg


Some of you may notice the trending usage of my 28mm and fish-eye lens. That's because a. My other lenses have extreme cropping b. I gave my favorite 50mm to a buddy of mine c. My zoom lens broke

So, I'm just bathing in the wide angle goodness of the 28mm. I'll get along and buy another classic 50mm lens and many others. Mainly, the lack of lens variations is the reason why I have slowed down in photography. Things get less interesting when being captured in the usual bokeh-less fashion of the 28mm. I think I need to put camera lenses on my "want" list.

Also, doing edits is a pain in the ass due to the horrific artifacting and warp of the wide angle. If you're wondering why some things are just blurry, that is the reason why. I miss proper lenses :(

Turtle
In some irrelevant format-based news, I might get a darkroom in my own house. That would be a great way to not spend all of my money on developing film, even though it means having to learn how to do it.

It will probably be put in if I like shooting film, but I don't know if I do yet because I've not had the chance to really use it yet, so we'll have to see.
Click to expand...
Well, if you truly don't give a **** about the whole enlarger/developing process, just get yourself a film scanner and save yourself a bit of money and time.

Just get a film development tank

Some chemicals

and a film negative scanner.

I can see why you'd probably like getting the whole darkroom and ****, though. When I was in the few photography classes I was in, I liked experimenting with different chemicals to get different results, also, for some reason, I found manual dodging and burning super fun.
 
Last edited:
@phillkillv2 I was wondering about scanning them. Assuming, I had the resources, I could both scan them and do the whole darkroom thing correct? I haven't looked into the process at all yet, as it wasn't my idea, it just kind of popped up at the dinner table earlier this week, so I don't know how it all works.

That reminds me, places charge insane amounts of money to scan negatives at any decent size, I wonder why that is.
 
Turtle
@phillkillv2 I was wondering about scanning them. Assuming, I had the resources, I could both scan them and do the whole darkroom thing correct? I haven't looked into the process at all yet, as it wasn't my idea, it just kind of popped up at the dinner table earlier this week, so I don't know how it all works.

That reminds me, places charge insane amounts of money to scan negatives at any decent size, I wonder why that is.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you can scan them and do the darkroom process, but with the darkroom, you'll have to do the photo-paper, then bring them over to digital, which honestly sounds tedious.

If I were you, I'd just stick to scanning them. It'll save you time, money, and space in the long run. A little film scanner costs around $100 or so and a film development tank costs about $25+kit.

Developing film can get kind-of tiring. If I remember, first you have to develop the film in the tank, that takes 15-20 minutes or something like that. Then you have to let the negatives dry for a little bit. You have to go to the darkroom, place them under the specific photo you want in the enlarger, then you align it up to the photo paper. You have only a few seconds to expose the photo paper so you have to time it. After that you have to put the photo paper inside chemicals and agitate the photo paper for the photo to finally come out. That process is about 1 1/2 hours.

It'd be cool to do the process sometimes, but it's just a long process that will probably have you making many mistakes to get what you really want. The film development tank part is the easiest, scanning the negatives is even easier.
 
phillkillv2
Yeah, you can scan them and do the darkroom process, but with the darkroom, you'll have to do the photo-paper, then bring them over to digital, which honestly sounds tedious.

If I were you, I'd just stick to scanning them. It'll save you time, money, and space in the long run. A little film scanner costs around $100 or so and a film development tank costs about $25+kit.

Developing film can get kind-of tiring. If I remember, first you have to develop the film in the tank, that takes 15-20 minutes or something like that. Then you have to let the negatives dry for a little bit. You have to go to the darkroom, place them under the specific photo you want in the enlarger, then you align it up to the photo paper. You have only a few seconds to expose the photo paper so you have to time it. After that you have to put the photo paper inside chemicals and agitate the photo paper for the photo to finally come out. That process is about 1 1/2 hours.

It'd be cool to do the process sometimes, but it's just a long process that will probably have you making many mistakes to get what you really want. The film development tank part is the easiest, scanning the negatives is even easier.
Click to expand...
You are doing a good job of convincing me, the only problem is that I'm not sure how well it would go over with my mom's boyfriend, who is the one who came up with the idea. He can be very stubborn about some things and I get the feeling he wouldn't be crazy about it.
 

Similar threads

WrxScooby
Realistic'ish Caddis Fly Pupa (Bug) I Made
Replies
0
Views
2K
WrxScooby
WrxScooby
Def-Infinity
  • Poll
Official Amateur eSports for Gran Turismo 7: Yea or Nay?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Def-Infinity
Def-Infinity
syntex123
Superimposed
Replies
2
Views
662
syntex123
syntex123
GTvon
"photo" tips
Replies
26
Views
8K
evldave333
evldave333
H
Greatest Underdog Performances in Motorsport
Replies
16
Views
2K
FGBraz
FGBraz

Latest Posts

Back