mikepalo

<p>I know this is getting away from the 5x7 crop i prefer to use but, how about a crop like this?Do you all still feel the "goal post" branches in the back are too distracting?</p>

<p>Once again tho this is not edited in any other way there is no contrast or shadows adjustments or anything im just trying to figure out a cropping that works incorperating as much of the trees as possible</p><div></div>

<p>I appreciate all the comments and critiques from everyone who has looked so far, except those who took one look at the small frame version and deemed it to be the butt of the bird and disregarded it completely. As for how he flew through those 2 vertical branches...he didn't hehe, he took off from the pointed tip under the left wing. <br>

And as far as the bird being too small in frame, I work with what I have my longest lens is a 300mm and I don't have anywhere near the cash to buy a decent longer lens so I need to work with what I have, it wont be printing any 20x30 posters but for a 8x10 print or for Online viewing there shouldn't be any issues with a heavier crop.<br>

I was personally leaning more towards a vertical crop with bird in the upper third o the frame.. cropped in so his wings were most the way across from but im not sure if that sill makes the bird too small, and ive been told the bottom curving branches are too distracting.<br>

Thanks again all<br>

-Michael Palozzola</p>

<p>I wasnt sure what catagory to put this under to i put it under equip sorry if its in the wrong place. I posted this as a critique but never got an answer so im posting it here. How would you crop this image in a 5x7 proportion? Tall? Wide? How would you position the bird and where in the frame? would you rotate at all? Please let me know what you all think. Thank you<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9364796">http://www.photo.net/photo/9364796</a></p>

<p>-Michael Palozzola</p>

<p>Thats what i thought but what about the odd white "tentacles" and the strange segmentation is that natural?</p>

<p>Hmm the picture is a little misleading on size i guess its too large to by any nudibranch ive ever seen ummm i would say the main "body" is 3-4in long the tentacles trailed off for at least 8-10in ummm but the individual partitioning of the tentacles was not visible to the naked eye from a ..."safe distance away" from it...(aka a ft or 2 away)</p>

<p>Different Angle</p><div></div>

<p>On a recent dive off ft. lauderdale beach in South florida I came across this, and am wondering what it is. I first thought it was a portugese man-o-war which something may have been feeding on but when I look at the pictures closely now im not sure. Lemme know what you think.</p>

<p>-Mike</p><div></div>

<p>ok maybe i miscommunicated what I was asking. Im not asking what constitutes a macro lens i know that already. Im asking what makes a macro photograph. Im asking can u take a macro photograph with a telephoto lens if ur photographing something small....for instance....this picture...would this be considered a macro photograph even though it was shot with 70-300 at 270mm<br /></p>

<p>edit: ??? the link didnt post.... here its a pic in my gallery here on photo.net<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/6603602</p>

<p><strong>Espen</strong><br>

I know what Wikipedia says and i do understand that definition but one thing I have learned being in college is a Wiki is never something to whole heatedly trust...hence ...I'm asking for photographers answers.</p>

<p><strong>Ronald</strong> <br /> You know as a biology major that is one thing that has always irked me. lol As u said Macro is BIG stuff ....<br /> Macro Fauna....Blue whale...<br /> Micro Fauna...Zooplankton...</p>

<p>BUT...namesakes aside....is it just that its close up work that makes it macro(micro) or can it be done with a telephoto from 10ft at a small subject?</p>

<p>edit: wow....not to go off topic but i just realized how much that sounds like a game of clue "with a telephoto from 10ft" vs "in the library with a wrench" ...LOL :P</p>

<p>Ok I'm not entirely a beginner I prefer to consider myself simply an armature but I do have a beginner's question.</p>

<p>What constitutes Macro?</p>

<p>I know a macro <strong>lens</strong> shoots up close...it shoots at or around 1:1...it shoots withe a very shallow depth of field...but does all that make up a macro picture? Or can you shoot macro with a telephoto if you are shooting a small subject? Is the concept of macro the actual specs of the picture/lens? or is it the size of your subject? or is there something else I'm completely missing?</p>

<p>Just a question on a technicality. :)<br>

-Mike</p>

<p>I dono I shoot Raw + JPEG on my D200 and I love it. Yes its work after the fact, yes there is post process, but you know what, there is Some Post no matter what. So i shoot RAW + Basic JPEG, that way I have the JPEG to be able to go through em on any viewing program and delete junk, but anything worth "framing" i go into the Raw file in PS CS3 do my post then save into a JPEG in a separate folder as "processed" or "the good stuff" :P then if u don't want to waste the space...delete the raw's and jpegs of all the other files... personally I keep em..but thats just me I prefer to have all original files on a seperate dump drive unless something was to happen.</p>

<p>I shot over 4000 pictures in teh Galapagos islands on L-JPEG alone, and did it work out? Yeah. Did I get Great shots? Yeah. Are there some shots which coulda been saved through raw edits that I cant adjust thro just JPEG work in PS CS 3?.... Yeah. So would I do it JPEG alone again?....Probally Not.<br>

<br /> Oh also...Raw produces a larger Pixel image to start with...lets say a Large Jpeg is 10,000px by 7000px (I know its not but i dont remember the exacts....so...lets just say..) When u open a Raw File ....it will be like 12,000px by 8000px .....Larger pictures generally mean more information to work with, and better enlargment capabilities.</p>

<p>LOL i think that is the most well put argument i have ever seen on a lens.... that picture is great..... I think u may have jsut sold me :P .... Thank u for all your assistance in these past few days Matt... lol well actually and not even jsut these few days i was looking back thro my previous posts and questions and I think u have answered in question and post ive ever posted lol. So thank you very much for your time and patience.</p>

<p>And thank you to everyone else who contributed to this discussion/argument/teeth pulling session.</p>

<p>Actually i just realized this post is 22 days old ...which in that case...what ever damage if any ...is already done....SOOO i guess I should be asking...How did it turn out??</p>

<p>OK for starters Id say rince it off.......i know this sounds kinda crazy but here is what i do know. I am a diver and a photographer. The number one issue with diving and salt water....is the Salt Water. Salt water will corrode ANYTHING even stainless steel. So i would say on the very outside....CAREFULLY and cautiously take a damp rag and make sure u remove ANY excess salt which may be left in nooks and crannies. persoanlly I would say take the lens to a different repair company and have them clean it. If there is any liquid inside the camera yes u might get fogging but the worse case scinario is going to be the fact that its <em>salt water</em> . If salt water hits anything electronic consider it fried...it will corrode it in minutes litereally...ive flooded a camera and strobe in the past. And ANY flood issues the first thing they tell u to do is remove all souces of power (batteries) and rince it with fresh water to remove the salt......many people who are more ballsy to repair their own stuff use a combo of fresh water and rubbing alcohol. freshwater removes the salt then rubbing alcohol removes teh water, but thats kinda advanced stuff to try on a 24-7/2.8 ....so again if ur unsure take it in somewhere...dust can be removed from the inside later...but corrosion is permenant. GOOD LUCK</p>

<p><strong>Steve:</strong><br>

That shot above appears to be cropped since its perfectly square...can i see the full frame shot? and how far were u from her? and it looks like the sky was overcast, yes, no?</p>

<p>---------------------------------------------------</p>

<p>OK well since we have kind of ruled out the 50mm in a round-a-bout way, due to the fact that I have a 60mm f/2.8 lens already, I guess this brings the discussion to the:<br /> Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM<br /> Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2 D</p>

<p>Never having owned a low-light lens such as these i need to ask ... f/1.4 - f/2 ....is it THAT big of a difference?...I mean granted I know f/2.8-f/3.5 I saw a tremendous difference. But does that difference continue or does it kind of level off?</p>

<p>I know the 35mm is a older lens and its not an HSM or or ED ...so its no special glass or anything....but how does the lens hold up at f/2? strong lens? weak lens? Pros? Cons?<br /> _______________________________________________<br /> And dont think im just kinda going in circles folks I am slowly emliminating things and simply examining all my (limited) options from every possible angle :P So thank you for your patiencience and time.</p>

<p>I jsut wish Nikon would put out another lens in the 28-35mm range it would solve this whole issue.. but then again knowing Nikon it will be similar to the discontinued 28/1.4 and it will be $2000..but at least there is no guess work with any of Nikon's "pro" lenses lol</p>

<p>And i do understand that 60-50mm is not a far difference, the 2.8-1.8 would be the main difference between those lenses, well and also because of the crop factor yes the 50mm is a 75mm equivalent but the 60mm is a 90mm equivalent, so it is a bit more, and i know from experience with the 60mm, i definitely always end up in a corner or on a wall.</p>

<p><strong>Phineas:</strong><br>

by informal portraiture i mean a lil bit of both of what u mentioned. The fact that I do not have a studio set up or lighting, and also just shooting candid, which i do tend to prefer over posed shots.</p>

 

<p>Its nice to talk to someone who can make heads or tails of all the ranting and raving on all these reviews. I tend to use the negative reviews about a product more then the pos just because I feel its the issues people have with a product that really determines the quality of the product itself. I read the good reviews as well because some people putting up negs are just clueless, but looking into the Nikon 50/1.4 for instance i see many less reviews about this focus and/or overexposing issue and if what your saying is completely true that it is <strong>all </strong> user error wouldn't there be an = number of negatives coming from the nikon lens as well?<br>

<br /> Soo, I understand what you are saying and it all makes sence but I am still slightly skeptical about this lens just cause some people are saying that there are good/bad copies out there so its kinda hit or miss as to whether u get a good copy or bad, maybe you just have a good copy... :P .... I am still leaning towards the Sigma 30/1.4 honestly because of a lack of options at this focal length ...im also thinking that if i go for this 30/1.4 im gonna grab up the nikon 50/1.8 just because its so cheap and having both would probally be beneficial at some pt...</p>

<p>Another thing I am looking at. I have been reading the reviews around on amazon and across the web on the Sigma 30/1.4 and I consistently see the same argument ....that while yes at high light f/6 f/8 f/11 the lens performs spectacularly. But That down in low light situations, at /1.4 /2.8 and even sometimes at /3.5 that there are major issues with the lens with focusing forcing many people to have to manually focus at the faster stops...<br /> <br /> Also there was reference a few times to an over exposure issue.... something with "uneven blades" causeing the image to over expose...?<br /> Do you have any personal experience with either of this</p>

<p>thats what i was kinda thinking...but ....well call me a newbie....but...cnat u control that sort of thing through the manipulation of ur f/ and shutterspeeds?</p>

<p>no complex is good I am a bit of a knowledge freak when it comes to decisions....I prefer to have all the information before i go in and buy something that I end up not likeing or using because of something i didnt know. ... basically what your saying...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If Nikon's latest 50/1.4 is an indication (especially compared to Sigma's new 50/1.4 HSM) of how the bokeh would look on a new Nikon 30/1.4,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>....is ur not a fan of the the Bokeh that the 50/1.4 produces?....</p>

<p>CAN ANYONE POST A PIC.. of a shot from the 50/1.4 with this harsh bokeh. Because I unsdersatnd the concept but I have not seen it yet in what is considered Harsh, I know it very subjective.</p>

<p>Now personally matt the 35mm Nikon or the 30mm sigma in ur eyes? All my previous lenses are Nikons but i do know that their are some lenses out there by other brands which are of = or better craft quality and that Nikon would be glad to brand as their own. You have mentioned this Sigma lens a few times now...y are u SO partial to it?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>35 is wide enough to make a face un-flattering.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is only when shooting up close like if i was using a 30mm to shoot upperbody/headshot correct??</p>

<p>Thank you all for your opinions and feelings. It seems in this area the more information I have the simply more confused I get as to which lens would be best. That may be because I do not have a specific use in mind that this is occuring. I am jsut looking for a lens which i can use to play with. I have rather limited experience shooting people and would like to gain some experience and experiment.</p>

<p>I know I want a fast lens because shooting people most of my opportunities will be indoors and I don't like the flares that pop up flashes tend to create in tight settings (and no I do not have the money to buy a speed flash. I would love to but its kinda, a Lens or a Flash, scenario).</p>

<p>I know I would like a prime lens in this scinario because I have a prime 60mm macro and fell in love with the sharpness I get from the lens being a prime...also zooms indoors personally are kinda a lazy man's out in my eyes... unless u do live in an 8000sq ft mansion....move ur feet a lil bit to get ur shot framed as ud like, it will be one or two steps for crying out loud lol.</p>

<p>Also I am not to interested in just headshot portraiture so thats y im leaning away from the 50mm. I would like to work more with the full body, and possibly some environmental portraits more then jsut with stoic upper body shots.</p>

<p>OK Im jumping this conversation to a new thread looking for a comparison between the 50mm vs 35mm to get more peoples input as well as to keep those who complain about off topic happy :P ....so feel free to follow me over.....</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00SCCN</p>

<p>OK based on my last fourm post I answered some Q's I had and others arose, thus is the path of knowledge... Now im looking at these 2 lenses:</p>

<p>AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D<br /> AF NIKKOR 35mm f/2D</p>

<p>Which lens do you feel is better for indoor informal Portraiture, AVAILABLE lighting only, no light boxes or studio set-ups. Pros/Cons for each lens against the other?? I am looking for a worth its cost portrait lens to use informally for some individual portraiture as well as family gatherings and the such.... (more for the informal portraiture tho...I can use my 24-85 for the family stuff :p )</p>

<p>Since I always forget to add this info:<br /> I shoot the Nikon D200 and will not be changing to FX any time soon.</p>

<p>(anyone who followed me over from the other 50mm f/1.8 thread .....i referenced the /1.4 here instead of the /1.8 ive been looking at just to see about which lens would be preffered more excluding the money issue the /1.8 would present in comparison)</p>