tony_santella

<p>Thanks for the input so far<br>

I should have clarified<br>

I dont print my own photos<br>

Adorama does them all and I always specify not to adjust them<br>

Im not a fan of post processing at least not now maybe once im comfortable with my Camera skills that will change but as of now<br>

its a little crop , tweek the fill , the highs and shadows and off to the "Lab"<br>

I will look into monitor calibration but from the tone of this thread it may never match up 100%<br>

so i will need to get used to judging what im going to get back from what I see on the monitor or<br>

make a BS print at home before sending it out for final processing</p>

<p>I was looking to post this in a different forum but thought it might go better here<br>

The photos i am referencing are all posted here on Pn<br>

So I will not reload them here. I would apriciate any insight on the following photos<br>

IMG 2864<br>

Img 2856<br>

gull on stone<br>

img 2863<br>

but its not limited to these 4 it is most if not all of my down loaded photos</p>

<p>Im not looking for critique right now allthough it is always welcome.<br>

Just this, all of these look much much better on paper thatn on the monitor<br>

I am working on a sony flat panel 21 inch a few years old and onborad grafix on the pc<br>

the little post processing I do is in either<br>

the cannon provided software<br>

or<br>

Picasa<br>

I have light room but am not using it yet.<br>

Some were shot RAW and some jpeg bit it doesnt really matter most of my photos look much sharper to the eye in print<br>

For the most part am concentrating on sharpness and color as my composition leaves much to be desired<br>

Problem is its very hard to decide which prints to print. I guess as time goes by I will be able to grade the monitor versions and tell how much better they may look but right now its tough and processing isnt free</p>

<p>Thanks to all in advance</p>

<div></div>

<p> I can relate<br>

im very new to digital<br>

before I purcahsed the last camera I had was das mamya sekor (sic) back in H.S and im 48<br>

I have been doing waht the others suggested<br>

go out and shoot its digital theres no cost to bad pics other that lost pics</p>

<p>I purchsed my 50d becuase it has a very wide range of easy to use features and modes that make it a very functional high end point and shot for times when you "just want the picture "<br>

or for handing the camera to a freind or co worker put it in ____ mode and they almost cant make an error</p>

<p>The other side of it it gives me most if not all of the features of a good pro model DSLR ad a great way to learn a little about Digital photography<br>

I know that all cameras have some form of auto mode what im partial to is the range and abilities of auto modes provided by the 50 d combined with the full function manual mode</p>

<p>im not pussing cannon Im sure every brand has a similar unit<br>

but as a newbi I find that the d50 gives me plenty of chance to both take pictures on the fly and learn the camera</p>

<p>easing the learning curve<br>

my issue much as your is that the camera sees everthing me not so much no cameras going to fix that</p>

<p> </p>

<p> Any one know of any groups or clubs in my local area Down Town Brooklyn or NYC</p>

<p> I am/ was thinking about taking a course thought something a little less formal might be more enjoyable</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have no problem with your post Mike and I agree with it in theory.</p>

<p>I will say that as a practical matter according to almost things I have read here and in other publications a 200mm lens practically functions as a 320mm lens when placed on a small sensor camera. Provided that the lens was not made specificaly for a small sensor camera.<br>

Maybe thats a simplistic view but this is the beginners forum.</p>

<p>I look at things from a very new perspective as and answered the question from that vantage point.<br>

</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I believe his question has more to to with focal length and effective focal length<br>

to get the effective focal lenght or a lens on a small sensor camera multiply the focal lenght by the sensor ie<br>

1.6 X 200 = 320 your 200 mm lenson a 1.6 body would have an effective max focal lenght of 320mm<br>

making it a slight bit longer than the 300mm lens on a FF camera</p>

<p>Anthony Santella</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I believe his question has more to to with focal length and effective focal length<br>

to get the effective focal lenght or a lens on a small sensor camera multiply the focal lenght by the sensor ie<br>

1.6 X 200 = 320 your 200 mm lenson a 1.6 body would have an effective max focal lenght of 320mm<br>

making it a slight bit longer than the 300mm lens on a FF camera</p>

<p>Anthony Santella</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>i realize that while I am new here , I am a web regular on other boards that are more in line with my field</p>

<p>I was being slighlt sarcastic (hard to get it across in print)<br>

My actual point is conversations like this one can tend to turn new people off<br>

I know they are great to blow off a little steam but in the end produce litle of value.<br>

Thanks Tony</p>

<p>Im almost sorry I signed up</p>

<p>I was hoping to get some honest opinions and real critiques on the site </p>

<p>im not an artist or an aspiring pro just a guy with a camera looking to take better photos</p>

<p>so far the answers I have gotten in the other forums have been great , after reading this thread im wondring if asking for honest critique is worth while</p>

<p>I will be going to coney island once I get all shoveled out<br>

Thanks</p>

<p ><a name="00Y6dj"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1665456">Harry Joseph</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub6.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 26, 2011; 09:43 p.m.</p>

<p>The grey market products comes with NO warranty. It's like buying a car without insurance.</p>

<p>Thats not entirely true at B n H<br>

The non USA items come with a 6 mth or 1 year warranty from B n H<br>

while the U.S.A items come with 1 yr from the MFG.<br>

the cost savings is between the USA and Foreign items is not very large</p>

<p>Im sure of this as i was in the store a few days ago and asked the question i took the USA lens as the savings was minimal</p>

<p>So from the response I will assume that macro in the aquarium is not a great idea<br>

and wider may be better?<br>

so the 50mm 1.4 and the 16 to 35 2.8 would be better choices shooting off hand and while the polarizer may be ok on the faster 1.4 the 2.8 will most likely suffer from the reduced light?</p>

<p>right now they are calling for 10 inchs of snow here by morning so shoveling may come first</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses they are all helpfull in there own way<br>

no need to feel bad for trying to help its all appriciated, everyones time is valuable<br>

thanks for giving some of your to me</p>

<p>Its was nice to meet you as well<br>

I look foward to your opionions and ideas in the future<br>

Anthony Santella</p>

<p>Well the weather here looks pretty crappy the next few days and the Aquarium is not to far from my home</p>

<p>Im going to take my cannon 100 2.8 Is out for a walk and figured that might be a nice place to go</p>

<p>ive never shoot through glass and have only used the lens once as of today</p>

<p>Any helpfull hints or tips to save me and the poor fish agrivation<br>

Im shooting<br>

a connon 50d<br>

the above lens or the 50mm 1.4 with 25mm ext tube<br>

cannon 580 II flash with the little difuser cover<br>

Im thinking take the polarized filter and the 50mm with tube because its faster..<br>

I only have hard plastic hoods for the 100 and 50 mm lens i have read that rubber hoods work best for these shots amybe I will tape a small hood of rubber around the hard plastic</p>

<p>I will not be taking the tripod</p>

<p>Thanks in advance</p>

<p>No charters next month<br>

maybe in march but its still pretty cold</p>

<p>Not garden spiders ,friend has some larger hairy spider that should make willing subjects on the kitchen table</p>

<p>Took a few shots yeasteday Gonna put on up in the critique forum hopefull it post here</p>

<p>I Think my 1st macro shot is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>></p><div></div>

<p>Well the shoping spree is done<br>

went to b n h and as always they were helpful<br>

bought 1 filter and a few adapter rings<br>

the 28 to 105 is f4<br>

and the 100 2.8 is macro<br>

a few lens hoods<br>

and the 25 mm extender for the 50 mm</p>

<p>going to go over to a friends and take a few shots of his spiders on wednesday<br>

hopefully they are willing subjects<br>

wemt over budget by a few bucks oh well</p>

<p>Good to hear</p>

<p>Never got into sailing , the boats are beautiful but I guess once a power boater.....<br>

Im going to add folder of boat pics most are just snap shots but some have some fair lighting<br>

but little in the way of composition</p>

<p>the ones named Marilyn Jean or Pink lady are or have been mine in the past</p>

<p>You have been most helpfull<br>

I glad I could make you smile</p>

<p>Just realized yesterday that you are form Australia</p>

<p>I hope all is well for you and your family and that you are out of harms way. Best of Luck</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think my list of things for the macro lens will include<br>

set of tubes for my 50 mm 1.4 and a lens hood, a filter or 2<br>

the cannon 100 2.8 macro , one or the other ,most likely the IS as I am not big on carrying the tri pod<br>

my cannon 580 exII with the little light difusing cover do for now<br>

hope full the extra lenght of the 100mm will off set the need for rails as thats just another thing to carry and set up <br>

looks like a trip to B n H is coming this week</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Your information and help is priceless to me<br>

up to this point I have made all of my purchases after reading web reviews and visiting local camera stores luckily Im only minutes from several large ones.<br>

I was looking at the 24 to 105 4.0 but I am stuck on the 2.8 as im learning and listing and shooting more im starting to fell that ITS JUST A NUMBER and many things come into play not just proper exposure due to a low f stop number<br>

last night coming home there was some great light glowing on an iced over tree<br>

I snapped a few shots at 2.8 /100 / and 3200 with my 80 to 200<br>

hand held</p>

<p>after looking at the shots I realized that they would have been much much better had I taken out the tri pod and shot the same shots at 4.0 or higher 1/30 or 1/ 15 and a lower iso<br>

problem is its 10 degrees and im not willing to suffer that much for art so I snapped a few off hand and hoped maybe tonight I will ttry again</p>

<div></div>

<p>yes it does now Thank you</p>

<p>I hope I described my feeling on the short commings of the 16 to 35 well enough<br>

while I understand that my logic or use of the lens maybe flawed . I feel that the focal lenght is a little to wide for what I use it for at the wide end and a little to short at the long side<br>

The lens I gave away to a friends daughter was pretty good 28 to 135 3.5 to 5.6 but i was forced into a flash more than I liked</p>

<p>I re read your response got a glimpse of some of my slight confusion<br>

the part about keeping the 50d<br>

while its a nice camera I am only a hobbiest and a new one at that<br>

I dont forsee keeping 2 cameras ,once I move to full frame , if I move to full frame I will unless the camera is worthless trade it in if it has no value at all I will more than likely put an inexpensive zoom on it and leave it on the boat for snap shots of customers and their catch on the fishing boat</p>

<p>My real profession is party charter boat owner operator<br>

and lots of my shooting revolves around that the dock boats and boating with a good deal of distance or no distance between me and the object ith a boat load of people backing away isnt always an option and under way getting closer is also no always an option<br>

on the boat the 80 to 200 is a bit long<br>

great for shooting passing boats and the shore, but tough inside<br>

the 16 to 35 is great inside unless your up close shooting a "portrait" then features distort some<br>

I think the 24 to 70 on the aps-c body will act as more of a 35 to 100 now<br>

and to my limited knowledge still fill a gap latter on a FF 16 to 35, 24 to 70, 50mm 1.4, 80 to 200 Please correct me if im wrong in my thinking</p>

<p> while I do try and be artistic (im only partly successful) many of my shots are on the fly<br>

the shots in my profile were all take from the bridge of my boat all were taken either drifting or running in the case of the light house and atlantis moving at 10 knots each<br>

I like the idea of macro because I like the idea of not shooting on the fly all the time</p>

<p>All the advise given is greatly appriciated any more info or different perspectives will be greatly appriciated as well<br>

I have a tripod but its fairly large<br>

</p>

<p>Im sorry I made an error<br>

my lens is the 80 to 200 2.8</p>