Posts for: chikid68
Jun 21, 2017 11:26:07 #
LaugherNYC wrote:
There are caveats to shooting RAW. First, you need to have a fast computer with plenty of RAM and a recent-generation chip.
I use raw an am currently using an old athlon dual core and 4 gigabytes of ram so while a faster computer does indeed speed things up it is still possible on older equipment just slower
Jun 17, 2017 16:50:08 #
cjc2 wrote:
As a Nikon guy, I'm assuming the 75-300 Canon is a slow lens with an ever changing aperture. As such, I don't feel it's a very good choice for this type of work indoors and I'll bet it really isn't that sharp to begin with. For this type of work you're going to need something faster -- read heavier and more expensive. Best of luck.
It is a slow lens and I am learning to tighten down the aperture on it to get sharper images
Jun 16, 2017 14:16:19 #
kerry12 wrote:
Don't need stabilization to get a sharp picture. A steady hand and lots of practice. Having said that, wedding photography is some of the most demanding. That's why I stay away from it for the most part. Good luck and keep trying. It will pay off.
why I pointed out the lack of is was due to the increased exposure times needed for the lack of lighting as we all know a longer lens will amplify any shake at longer exposure times especially when handheld .
all these were taken using the canon ef 75/300 at around 1/60th of a second but yes I am working on improving my hand but kinda hard for fast candids
Jun 16, 2017 11:16:41 #
speters wrote:
Although they are all nice photos, they sure could use better lighting and all of them have focus issues (as being out of focus)!
I had to use only available lighting as they were all actually candid shots as for focus candids are also partly responsible for that as well as standard kit lenses without stabilization.
Jun 16, 2017 11:13:24 #
Weddingguy wrote:
I hope you didn't charge them for these. Sharp focus and proper exposure is the very, very, very, very least a customer should expect. One way to be known as a good photographer is to never show your bad shots . . . these all qualify as "no show".
Sorry . . . but not trying to be mean. I am being realistic and I hope you take these comments as good advice.
Sorry . . . but not trying to be mean. I am being realistic and I hope you take these comments as good advice.
I did not charge in fact I only shot the reception as I officiated the wedding its self
Jun 15, 2017 13:58:13 #
I shot a wedding reception for a couple and want some constructive feedback.
Jun 15, 2017 13:39:51 #
Fotoartist wrote:
To refresh memories of what a professional photographer looks like.
I hope she has good image stabilization
Jun 8, 2017 18:10:50 #
Jun 8, 2017 18:08:32 #
Mark Sturtevant wrote:
Ah, the old 'lens hack' to convert this small zoom lens into a macro lens. Well, its a start. The basic method for focusing with this lens is this: Turn off automatic focus (AF does not work reliably for close up photography, so just avoid the aggravation), and focus with the focusing ring manually to get the basic focus. Then, focus more precisely by moving back and forth.
Get the nearest part of the subject in focus, and rely on a smaller aperture to get the rest in focus.
Get the nearest part of the subject in focus, and rely on a smaller aperture to get the rest in focus.
I think aperture was my main issue I had it set at 4 ti try to get more light when I should have went smaller with a higher iso but what the hey I am figuring this all out as I go and on a budget
Jun 8, 2017 18:02:29 #
here are a couple I took of the moon the other night
Jun 7, 2017 11:28:41 #
Jun 7, 2017 11:15:04 #
berchman wrote:
chikidid68: Why are you posting blurry shots?
sadly modifying the lens like that has left an incredibly small field of view which makes it very difficult to get the focus down but I am working on it like I said it was a first attempt at macro and it was handheld
Jun 6, 2017 19:43:37 #
speters wrote:
Front element removed ?? (why) So you ruined your lens just for trying out a close-up?
Not ruined at all the front element screws in on that particular lens so if need be can be reassembled although even so it still leaves me 2 more fully intact since I had 3 of them 2 with image stabilization and the old one I modified for macro use
Jun 6, 2017 13:49:38 #
Basil wrote:
Helpful if you quote who you're replying to so we know what filter you're talking about.
sorry I just assumed it would post to the thread I was referring to the solar lens he used to photograph with.
Jun 6, 2017 13:45:05 #
these were taken with my canon T1i and an old canon 18-55 kit lens with the front element removed
