The Big Photography Thread

[wjwilcox]

A few views of the Cathedral Basilica in St. Louis, MO.:

 

Nave and apse by Bill Wilcox, on Flickr

 

The Central Dome by Bill Wilcox, on Flickr

 

Main altar and baldacchino by Bill Wilcox, on Flickr

[KenElevenShadows]

 

Thanks. I have no idea. It looks different, and is certainly a view that almost no one ever sees. The whole Vikingsholm place has architecture that I really love, with a sort of Scandinavian inspiration that I thought was amazing. You can't really tell by the architecture in the front so much, but the back really brings it in a big way, a way that I find very appealing.

 

I'm actually not super happy with my light painting here. I think I could have done better, but I thought there was a good chance that I would get kicked out because there are two rangers that sleep at the house every night, so I worked quickly by not only, well, light painting quickly, but setting the camera on a higher ISO so I would only have half the exposure time that I usually prefer. I would only do one or two shots from each angle each time, and quickly move on, thinking any second someone would pull the plug. They never came, so later on, I began taking my time more, and those shots came out better than this first one.

[KenElevenShadows]

I didn't see those basilica shots before, which are awe-inspiring.

[xKnuckles]

Great pics everyone!

Love the miner's dugout Ken - the light painting is perfect.

Your taxi shot somehow looks looks quite festive Mike. Just shows that there are great pics to be found absolutely everywhere.

Nice cathedral shots Bill!

[xKnuckles]

Can I ask.... If you had to recommend one lens for someone to get as their first (and probably only for quite a long while) lens, what size would it be?

[Mike Martin]

Can I ask.... If you had to recommend one lens for someone to get as their first (and probably only for quite a long while) lens, what size would it be?

 

My first reaction is 50mm f/1.8 but it honestly depends on what you want to shoot most of the time. The 50mm is a great all-purpose lens that will help you learn a lot about photography but you shoot a lot of landscapes so you may want something wider. Budget?

[KenElevenShadows]

Yo escribí un artículo que se encuentra en una revista de fotografía española llamada "Fotografo Nocturno" (Número 2). Tengo muchas fotos que acompañan mi artículo. Hay muchos fotógrafos con talento en la revista. iMuchisimas gracias!

 

I wrote an article in a Spanish magazine photograph called "Night Photographer". I have many photos that accompany my article. There are many talented photographers in the magazine. Thank you very much!

 

The article is written in Spanish (but you can look at the pretty photos)/El artículo está escrito en español.

 

http://www.fotografonocturno.com/larevista/

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I also wrote the featured article for a new e-magazine Lightscape Vision Magazine, "a magazine focused solely on sharing the stories behind world renowned photographers." And many of my photos are of course displayed as well! Many of you may find the article interesting, as it discusses some techniques and background. And yeah, this is in English.

 

You may download this here after signing in: http://www.lightscapevision.com/

[KenElevenShadows]

Can I ask.... If you had to recommend one lens for someone to get as their first (and probably only for quite a long while) lens, what size would it be?

 

My first reaction is 50mm f/1.8 but it honestly depends on what you want to shoot most of the time. The 50mm is a great all-purpose lens that will help you learn a lot about photography but you shoot a lot of landscapes so you may want something wider. Budget?

 

Agreed, depends on what they want to shoot. Either a 50mm, but you have to tell them that they will need to move their feet a lot, which is not a bad thing, but you really need to move for your shot. Or failing that, an all-purpose lens such as Nikkor's 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom, which is an excellent lens, albeit one for a full-frame, and one I've used for things even as demanding as light painting as well as all the Dia de los Muertos shots because it's a quality lens with flexibility. It's just not a real fast lens.

 

If they're not shooting Nikon, then possibly a similar lens might be good.

[xKnuckles]

Thanks Ken & Mike. I quite like the idea of a zoom lens, but am willing to consider getting a fixed length one. An I right in thinking that the zoom would do the job of several non-zoom lenses? Would it have any disadvantages?

 

I have had a brief look at the price of them and I don't understand it. For example, presumably a 16-55 is not as good as an 18-135 (i presume that the bigger numbers mean it covers a wider range) and yet the former one is a lot more expensive. Why is this?

 

I would ideally like to be able to take landscapes as well as close up flowers etc. My budget is flexible....am prepared to live on bread and water for the foreseeable future in order to acquire the right lens.....

[wjwilcox]

Are they the same manufacturer? What is their maximum aperture (f-stop)? The 16-55 may have a wider max. aperture (meaning it will let in more light, which is desireable) than the 18-135, thus making it more expensive.

 

[xKnuckles]

Same manufacturer: the 16-55 is f stop 2.8. The 18-135 is f stop 3.5-5.6.

So it sounds like you are spot on Bill (I just read an article about f stops....).

I can see that this subject is far more complicated than. I had suspected though. The article left me thinking that that ability to have a very wide aperture is one of the most important considerations. Is this correct?

[wjwilcox]

Same manufacturer: the 16-55 is f stop 2.8. The 18-135 is f stop 3.5-5.6.

So it sounds like you are spot on Bill (I just read an article about f stops....).

I can see that this subject is far more complicated than. I had suspected though. The article left me thinking that that ability to have a very wide aperture is one of the most important considerations. Is this correct?

It is an important consideration, but not necessarily the most important. If you are shooting in low light most of the time, it's very important. However, there is a tradeoff. The wider the aperture setting you use, the less depth-of-field (the range of distance in which items will be if focus) you will have available to you. This is not an issue with subjects such as landscapes, larger buildings, etc. But with subjects close up, this is an issue. The difference between 2.8 and 3.5 is not that big. 2.8 to 5.6 is big, two full stops.

 

You have three variables available to you that affect your exposure: aperture, shutter speed and ISO ("film speed" or sensativity to light). Wide aperture=lots of light, less depth-of-field. Small aperture=not so much light, more depth of field. Shutter speed is obvious. Low ISO=less sensitive to light but less grain, more details and generally better sharpness. Higher ISO=the opposite, although you can get decent quality even with high ISO. My cathedral photos above were taken with ISO of 5000 and 6400.

 

I use two lenses, an 18-55 f3.5-5.6 and a 55-200 f4.0-5.6. They do the job for me just fine, although there are times that 400mm or 500mm would be nice. But that's a big lens to heave around and mine are compact and light which suits my shooting fine. And you thought you were confused before.....

[KenElevenShadows]

Thanks Ken & Mike. I quite like the idea of a zoom lens, but am willing to consider getting a fixed length one. An I right in thinking that the zoom would do the job of several non-zoom lenses? Would it have any disadvantages?

 

I have had a brief look at the price of them and I don't understand it. For example, presumably a 16-55 is not as good as an 18-135 (i presume that the bigger numbers mean it covers a wider range) and yet the former one is a lot more expensive. Why is this?

 

I would ideally like to be able to take landscapes as well as close up flowers etc. My budget is flexible....am prepared to live on bread and water for the foreseeable future in order to acquire the right lens.....

 

Often, although not always, zoom lens are not quite as sharp. But you're right, it'll often take the place of several primes (fixed lens).

 

Also, if this matters to you, a zoom (unless it is more of a professional lens) has variable aperture, which means you might have to reset your camera settings when zooming out, so have a look at that. But having the same aperture throughout the range will cost you....

 

And often, a zoom lens will have a smaller aperture, therefore letting in less light. And that may not be such a great thing because you might need to bump up your ISO to achieve the same shutter speed in your camera.

 

Professional photographers often like short zooms or primes (fixed) for these reasons.

 

When you do get a zoom that has the same aperture throughout AND are super sharp, such as the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 that I use, they're often very expensive.

 

A very popular zoom among Nikon users and I think Canon users is the 24-70mm f/2.8, a very useful range. But it's expensive. This is it: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/520637-USA/Nikon_2164_AF_S_Nikkor_24_70mm_f_2_8G.html You'll notice that it's fast (f/2.8) and sharp. Making lens is not an easy thing, and keeping the aperture in the same range is no easy task. You'll pay for it.

 

This is what I use for an all-purpose zoom:

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-28-300mm-3-5-5-6G-Vibration-Reduction/dp/B003ZSHNEA

 

It's sharp, but you'll notice it's a slower lens and has that variable aperture. Not the best. But if you use it in fairly bright light OR you use it for night photography on a tripod and and you are not taking low-light stuff like wedding or concert photography, you're probably fine.

 

The following two photos below were taken with the 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 lens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[KenElevenShadows]

A shallow depth of field is often desirable for portraits, an important consideration, so a fast lens (big aperture) might be what you want.

 

On the other hand, if you want everything to be sharp and in focus and have a larger depth of field, then maybe not.

[Joe Muscara]

Higher ISO=the opposite, although you can get decent quality even with high ISO. My cathedral photos above were taken with ISO of 5000 and 6400.

Do you guys think that with advancing technology in DSLRs, ISO is becoming close to a non-issue? My Canon Digital Rebel XT is years old now, and even though the highest ISO isn't as high as that (3000 I think), I've taken high ISO shots with it that looked great to me. I'm sure there's noise in the details of mine as well as the cathedral shots, but it seems to be nowhere near where it used to be with older cameras and especially film.

[KenElevenShadows]

It's becoming less of an issue with each generation of digital cameras, but if you're not sure if it's still an issue, try taking a photo of the Milky Way.

 

Don't have time to describe this right now, but if you are really interested in ISO, Google the phrase "ISO invariance". Gotta run...

[Mike Martin]

It is still an issue - certainly in lower priced cameras. I can go up to ISO6400 on my Canon T2i but I avoid shooting that ISO6400 as much as possible. Newer (more expensive) cameras have far better ISO performance. Nikon in particular is better than Canon in this regard.

[KenElevenShadows]

...and just about all the time, a modern full frame camera is going to handle noise and high ISO settings better than a modern APS-C (cropped) sensor camera.

[wjwilcox]

ISO is, indeed, less of an issue, but I'd prefer low ISO and high sharpness anytime. My cathedral photos were hand-held, so it was high ISO or nothing.

[xKnuckles]

Thanks for the info Ken. I think I would like the lowest possible f stop...I want to explore narrow depth of field and also all the things which cannot be done on an iPhone - zooming etc. But I also want the sharpest possible pics..... Suspect I shall have to make compromises....

 

Just out of interest, do you guys all have a zoom lens and do you tend to use it in preference to your prime lens? Or do you mostly use a prime one (presumably because it is smaller and sharper? ) Or do you just swap them when appropriate?

[xKnuckles]

BTW Mike, I love your Christmas avatar. Did you film that yourself?

[Mike Martin]

Just out of interest, do you guys all have a zoom lens and do you tend to use it in preference to your prime lens? Or do you mostly use a prime one (presumably because it is smaller and sharper? ) Or do you just swap them when appropriate?

 

I have the kit 18-55mm lens that came with my camera. That is my widest lens. Unless I need something in that 18-24mm range, I don't use it. I have a 70-300mm lens that I use for getting pictures of birds and capturing my son on stage when he's performing at school. For everything else I use prime lenses. I have:

 

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens - my landscape lens and video lens

Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens - Used often for Casio product photos

Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens - my portrait lens

 

 

I also have a variety of "vintage" manual focus prime lenses which can be found dirt cheap and adapted to a modern camera. Not something you want to use every day due to the difficulty of focus but for some situations they can provide some great results.

 

If I had the money I'd get a serious 24-70mm lens and do less lens swapping. I'll take donations towards this:

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-24-70mm-f-28l-ii-usm

[Joe Muscara]

So the answer to my ISO question seems to be a qualified yes. It's advancing as we speak. I think that's pretty cool. Of course, I keep the ISO down when I can, but it's great that we can turn it up when we need to and not worry so much about it.

 

I have three lenses for my Canon, the kit 18-55mm, the 50mm (which is a bargain at like $100) and a zoom I don't use much because when I want to use it, I shouldn't as the subject is too far away and I'm not getting enough light. I switch between the first two all the time, though.

[KenElevenShadows]

Thanks for the info Ken. I think I would like the lowest possible f stop...I want to explore narrow depth of field and also all the things which cannot be done on an iPhone - zooming etc. But I also want the sharpest possible pics..... Suspect I shall have to make compromises....

 

Just out of interest, do you guys all have a zoom lens and do you tend to use it in preference to your prime lens? Or do you mostly use a prime one (presumably because it is smaller and sharper? ) Or do you just swap them when appropriate?

 

I use both (bear in mind that I use Nikon here when reading my comments, but that this could apply to other manufacturers).

 

I use larger, slow "walkabout" zoom lens (i.e., 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6) when they are high quality and sharp and I have plenty of light or the camera is on a tripod and I am taking a night photo and stopping down, in which case it doesn't matter that the lens is not fast. I think Canon has high-quality lens that are roughly equivalent. These are usually somewhat heavy, although usually not tanks, and usually accept screw-on filters.

 

I use a 50mm f/1.4 for portraits, detail, and anything where I want to open the lens up and have lots of "bokeh" in the composition. I would recommend the f/1.8 instead of the 50mm, and you could also use an 85mm instead of a 50mm for portraits, but it's a matter of preference. Canon has a good lens for these lengths as well, from what I understand. As a bonus, this is often a relatively cheap lens, and small and lightweight, if this is a consideration.

 

And I use a short wide zoom lens, the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8, because it quite frankly completely rules. It's sharp even wide open, and is wide enough for night photography, which is what I primarily do, so this is my workhorse lens, the one I shoot with most of the time. There is a Nikkor 20mm prime that is good for this as well, but I wanted a wider lens. I don't know what Canon makes in this area, but if they didn't have something high quality in this realm, which I doubt, Canon users could go for Zeiss prime lens or the Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8, which is supposed to be stunning. The Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 is a giant, heavy tank and does not accept screw-on filters, and ditto the Tamron.

[KenElevenShadows]

So the answer to my ISO question seems to be a qualified yes. It's advancing as we speak. I think that's pretty cool. Of course, I keep the ISO down when I can, but it's great that we can turn it up when we need to and not worry so much about it.

 

Exactly. If you NEED to, crank up that ISO. I'd rather get a slightly noisy shot instead of not getting the shot at all because I couldn't get a high enough shutter speed or whatever. You can always try and clean up some of the noise if you need to, let it go, or....uh, well, sometimes, I convert to B&W, which tends to be aesthetically more forgiving.

[Mike Martin]

Bill, those images above of the cathedral are incredible.

[RichieP_MechE]

Good discussion so far! Here's my two cents:

 

Same manufacturer: the 16-55 is f stop 2.8. The 18-135 is f stop 3.5-5.6.

Based on those zoom ranges, I gather you're getting Fujifilm mirrorless camera? How exciting!

 

General advice when it comes to digital cameras: camera bodies are temporary, lenses are forever. As technology advances, so do imaging sensors. Just look compare present DSLR specs to those from 10 years ago. When you look at lenses, however, there's less difference. Sure, there's been advances in lens technology, like advanced coatings and improved manufacturing techniques, but when you compare optical performance of one version of a lens to a newer version, the differences are often barely noticeable. Consider this: the best lens I own (80mm Zeiss for my Hasselblad) was made in the 1960s!

 

I would ideally like to be able to take landscapes as well as close up flowers etc

Of the two lenses you listed, the 16-55 would be slightly better for landscapes - having wider zoom is advantageous for landscapes. The 18-135 would probably be better for closeup (macro) photography. Even though it has a larger minimum focusing distance (45mm) compared to the 16-55 (30mm), the magnification at 135mm lens zoom would be much greater than the other at 55mm lens zoom. So there are compromises.

 

Also, the 18-135 has image stabilization while the 16-55 does not. This is useful when shooting in situations with slow shutter speeds and no tripod. Of course, some manufacturers are starting to move towards image stabilization by moving the sensor instead of the lens elements. I have a feeling stabilized lenses are going to be far less common 10 years from now.

 

Thanks for the info Ken. I think I would like the lowest possible f stop...I want to explore narrow depth of field and also all the things which cannot be done on an iPhone - zooming etc. But I also want the sharpest possible pics

I think you want the 16-55 f/2.8. It covers a decent range for the APS-C sensors that the Fujis have. The f/2.8 aperture will allow for selective focusing and nice bokeh. This is also Fujifilm's flagship zoom lens, so it should be pretty darn sharp. A prime lens may be sharper and capable of a larger aperture, but you will get far more utility out of a zoom.

 

And if you want to experiment with primes, you can go Mike's route and adapt an old manual focus prime lens to your camera. This is especially easy to do on mirroless cameras as they have short flange focal distances, so old SLR lenses will work well. These lenses and adapters can be had for very cheap and will take great images (remember, lenses are forever!)

 

Just out of interest, do you guys all have a zoom lens and do you tend to use it in preference to your prime lens? Or do you mostly use a prime one (presumably because it is smaller and sharper? ) Or do you just swap them when appropriate?

I use my Canon 24-105mm f/4 most often. It is just a good all-around lens. My Canon 6D has good low-light performance (I've gotten useable shots at ISO 12800 from it) so the f/4 aperture isn't a huge issue.

[RABid]

It is still an issue - certainly in lower priced cameras. I can go up to ISO6400 on my Canon T2i but I avoid shooting that ISO6400 as much as possible. Newer (more expensive) cameras have far better ISO performance. Nikon in particular is better than Canon in this regard.

 

This was my biggest motivation to move from a T2i to a full frame 5d3. I love taking night time and low light shots. It is also why the first good lens I bought was a Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L USM. A nice balance between night shots, landscapes and the ability to shoot indoor family gatherings without a flash. For me it was a good first step beyond the kit zoom lens that came with my camera.

 

Having said that, I am envious of many of the photos I see posted here using a crop frame camera and kit lens. It is obvious that some people don't need high end equipment to take great shots. Unfortunately, I need all the help I can get.

[RABid]

A bit off topic, has anyone here been to Photoshop World? The annual event/training held by KelbyOne. I sighed up for the next conference which is in Vegas, mid-July of 2016. This is mostly for Photoshop. Can anyone suggest a similar event/training for photography?

[Joe Muscara]

Having said that, I am envious of many of the photos I see posted here using a crop frame camera and kit lens. It is obvious that some people don't need high end equipment to take great shots. Unfortunately, I need all the help I can get.

Hmmm. Where have I heard this kind of thing before?