mtmixon

<p>If memory serves, this site used to have a rating system that required commentary for any extreme rating (good or bad). Seeing as I post images for the purpose of improving my craft, I would be in favor of a policy that required raters to explain any non-median rating (i.e. less than 4, greater than 5), but especially on the low ratings as I would be interested to know what it was about the image that didn't work for the viewer. I realize that some people don't take criticism well, and may be inclined to flame anyone who gave their images a poor rating, but perhaps the required commentary policy could be accompanied by an option to post your commentary anonymously. That way you, as the rater, can post why you think the image only deserves a 3 (or lower) rating without fearing an egging of your online house.<br>

Just my 2 cents. It bugs me when I receive low ratings on my photos (I am human, after all), but what bugs me more is not knowing why the viewer was inclined to rate it that way. Are they just a disgruntled wretch (as some would assume), is it simply a matter of taste (i.e. some people just don't respond well to pretty landscapes), or is there something in the photo that could be improved upon? </p>

<p>We welcomed our beautiful baby boy into the world last week. Something tells me that he will become my new favorite photographic subject. :-)</p><div></div>

<p>I haven't been able to photograph much lately, but I did manage to sneak in a quick shot yesterday. We're expecting the birth of our son in 3 weeks, and so we've been spending quite a bit of time getting the nursery ready. I liked the notion of the stuffed animals (Kermit in this particular instance) awaiting the arrival of their new playmate. :-)</p><div></div>

<p>Lots of great pictures so far. Some of my favorites:</p>

<ul>

<li>Keith Obye - touching portrait. The high-key aspect adds a nice touch.</li>

<li>Lil Judd - great macro. Seeing shots like yours inspires me to dust off my macro lens and head into my backyard.</li>

<li>Dieter Schaefer - really nice capture. Nice clean background and crisp subject.</li>

<li>Anish Mankuthel - wonderful vista. I love the scope of your shot.</li>

<li>Alpo Syvanen - very moody, almost sinister.</li>

<li>Dave Lee - reminds me of the look my cat gives me. Great colors.</li>

<li>Matthew Brennan - very cool shot. It's such a glorious thing when you catch the good light.</li>

</ul>

<p>For me, I did something I rarely do...got up at dawn and went out to shoot. I headed to one of my favorite beaches and happened to get there on a severe low tide, providing me with some great photo opportunities. This one, weirdly enough, is my favorite. I like the juxtaposition of the seaweed hanging from the rail (showing how high the water can get) and the two surfers casually walking along the beach that, at another time of day, wouldn't even be there.</p><div></div>

<p>I spent a little time down at the beach this weekend. My first time down didn't offer me much - the sky was cloudless, the people weren't being photographically interesting enough. :-) But on my second day I got a few shots that I liked. This is one of them.</p><div></div>

<p>I have the Tamron 90mm 2.8 and have been very pleased with it. It is extremely sharp, and it renders colors beautifully. A high-quality lens for a very reasonable price.</p>

<p>A shot from a recent outing to the butterfly exhibit at the San Diego Wild Animal Park.</p><div></div>

<p>I spent about an hour sitting on the beach taking 100 shots of this same scene, playing with angles and exposure. I chose this one because it had the right blend of color, light and the all-important human element. There were so many instances where I framed the shot only to have the people who were standing on the rock watching the sunset decide to leave one or two seconds too early. :-)</p><div></div>

<p>I just recently picked up the Tokina 12-24, and am using it on a D90. So far I really like it. I, too, was worried about softness (since I had read several posts that complained about that), but I haven't seen very much of it, especially when I'm shooting at f/8 and above (which is generally where it stays when I'm photographing landscapes). I'm enjoying the perspective it gives me.</p>

<p>One of the shots I took with it:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/10749270</p>

<p>Nikon D90, Tamron 90mm Macro, F3.2 ISO 200 1/250 sec</p><div></div>

<p>Eric, I overlooked something obvious in my last response to you. You stated that Tokina has yet to implement anything close to AF-S, but their 12-24 II has a built-in AF drive (and only sells for $100 more than the older version). So, I wonder if it is reasonable to assume that Tokina could put the same built-in AF drive into a Mark II version of the 50-135 and still sell it for only a couple hundred more than the Mark I version (which would put them on par with Sigma's lens).</p>

<p>Thanks for the insight, Eric. It is interesting that Tokina, which is a very well-regarded line, is lagging in this area.</p>

<p>I do agree that if a Mark II of the 50-135 comes out and it's priced > $1000, then it would be competing more with the 70/80-200 lenses than the 50-150.</p>

<p>I'll hold tight for a bit, but unless Tokina comes out with a 50-135 w/ AF-S for approx. $700-800, I'll be going with the Sigma. Since the lens will be used for portraits, landscapes and sports, there would be no other choice in that focal range.</p>

<p><strong>Eric</strong> , thanks for the info. The bokeh on that photo is quite nice. :-) AF speed is definitely going to be a concern. But I'm now wondering if Tokina is about to come out with a Mark II version of their lens, since they've discontinued the Nikon mount of the current version. Adorama, B&H and Amazon all list it as discontinued. I haven't seen any mention that that is indeed their strategy (they may just be handing this market over to Sigma, which would be dumb), but if a faster AF version of the Tokina came out, I'd probably tip in the direction of that over the Sigma. That said, you and countless others say great things about the Sigma, so I guess it would come down to price.</p>

<p><strong>Wouter </strong> -- you're right. When I look through the 18-200 and go from 135 to 200, the difference really isn't that great, and so if I really wanted extra reach it would probably make more sense to get something like the 70-300. Thanks for your suggestion.</p>

<p>Thanks guys. Yeah, my sanity would need to be checked if I was thinking of using a TC on a 12-24 lens. :-)</p>

<p>Regarding the 25-49 range, I do already have a 35mm/1.8 to cover it. Yes, it means putting on another lens, but in my shooting experience, the times when I use that range the most is indoors, and for that the 1.8 is unbeatable.</p>

<p>Eric, do you find the AF speed of the Tokina to be good? That's the only negative I ever hear about that lens. I only worry about that because I will be using it, in part, to chase around a young son and photograph outdoor soccer games.</p>

<p>I'm one of those people deliberating between the Tokina 50-135/2.8 and the Sigma 50-150/2.8. Based on the numerous reviews and posts I've read, the following seems to be the consensus:</p>

<ul>

<li>Both lenses have very good image quality. Some favor one slightly more than the other, but both are considered to be pro-level in their build and IQ.</li>

<li>The Sigma has a bit more reach and focuses faster, but tends to have more variation in sample quality, with the "bad" samples exhibiting issues with front and rear focus.</li>

<li>The Tokina tends to have better overall quality control (i.e. less chance of getting a bad copy), but focuses slower.</li>

</ul>

<p>One piece of comparative info that I can't seem to find is whether both work, and work equally well, with tele-converters. I know the Sigma works very well with the Sigma 1.4x EX DG APO converter, but I don't see any information on whether the Tokina will work well with any available tele-converter. I believe the only one that might possibly work with it is one of the Kenkos, but I don't know. I also don't know if, in general, lenses work better with tele-converters made by the same manufacturer that made the lens.<br>

The only reason I am curious about the tele-converter is that I'll be replacing the Nikon 18-200VR with either one of these lenses. If I could keep both, I would, but budget dictates that the only way I can afford the Tokina or Sigma is if I sell the Nikon. I've enjoyed the Nikon, but it really doesn't perform terribly well indoors, and definitely doesn't offer the nice bokeh that a faster lens would. And since I recently picked up the Tokina 12-24, I no longer use the Nikon for wide angle. So, by moving from the Nikon to either the Tokina or Sigma, the only bit I would lose is the long end. Now, I know that I can "sneaker zoom" the difference if space permits, but I know there are times when that won't be possible and so I'd like to see if I can successfully extend the Tokina and Sigma to make up for that missing reach. I know I can with the Sigma, but am still in the dark regarding the Tokina.<br>

Any advice on good tele-converters for the Tokina would be appreciated. <br>

Thanks,<br>

Mike</p>

<p>I also just started playing with HDR using my D90. I've found (so far) that the shots I've wanted to take and process as HDR work well with 3 bracketed shots (-1,0,+1). But I think I'll try the approach Mart explained. Granted, the shot in question should warrant 5 or 6 different shots. Mine haven't yet, but I can imagine situations where 3 shots wouldn't be enough to cover the entire desired range.</p>

<p>I'm getting in just under the wire...it's still Wednesday where I am. :-)<br>

This bracketed shot was taken with my D90 and Tokina 12-24 lens, and then blended together in Photoshop.</p><div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Thanks Starvy!<br>

Most of my photography is of landscapes. I've recently discovered HDR, and so that seems to be a natural area to explore. We're expecting a son in July, and so I also suspect that I will become quite proficient with portraits of babys/kids. :-) One area that I absolutely want to improve in is lighting...I've become fairly confident with natural lighting (although I haven't mastered that by any means), but I still struggle with flash, not to mention any kind of studio lighting. There are a few local classes I may try.</p>

<p>Hi, my name is Mike and I'm a photoholic. I live in San Diego....but wish I lived in the Pacific Northwest.<br>

I've had an on-again, off-again relationship with photography. As my profile says, I've had a photo.net account for 8 years, but I had my share of dry spells during those eight years. I do absolutely love photography, but for too long have felt that I stumbled into my best shots vs. having obtained them by skill and planning. So I've recently decided to re-engage photography and see if I can move from periodically blessed amateur to knowledgeable and confident amateur (forget about pro...at least for a while). I don't know if I'll manage to take better photographs as a result of this (very difficult to consciously re-create the magic of a lighting strike), but I do think I'll put myself in a place where I'm more likely to get the shots I want.<br>

Photo.net has proven to be a great resource of inspiration and technical guidance. I'm glad I found my way back to this site. I enjoy reading the forums (I'm currently changing around my lens collection for some faster glass) and perusing the many photos that people place in the Critique Gallery. It's a great community, and I'm happy to be a part of it.</p>

I just forayed into this space myself -- I did my first nude photo shoot with a paid model last Sunday -- and so can offer my freshly minted two cents:

 

1. I agree with Michael about using experienced models. The model I used has been modeling for about a year, and so was able to give some pointers on what has and hasn't worked for her in the past. And while she didn't have much insight into the lighting, composition areas (at least none that she shared), she did have a great feel for how to pose, which I believe resulted in some great shots. For the lighting and composition we just experimented. Our shoot lasted for 4 hours, and I think I shot 170 pictures.

2. A good resource for finding models is www.onemodelplace.com. It is a very comprehensive and well-organized site, and is where I found my model. And once you have a few good photos, you can create your own profile, which you can then direct models to so they can see examples of your work before they decide to work with you.

3. While I am sure I could have gotten better pictures with a better camera, I feel that using a decent prosumer point and shoot digital camera (I have a Canon Powershot G2), and then fixing specific color/lighting problems in Photoshop worked very well. It afforded me a great learning experience, one that I plan to repeat often here in the near future.

 

Hope some of this has been helpful. I have a lot to learn myself, but I just think it is one of the more enjoyable facets of photography, and don't feel I will have much trouble getting to the classroom on a regular basis. :-)

 

Please share your photos once you take a few.

 

-Mike