A few black and white

cleanbluesky · 1 Apr 2008 at 22:35

C&C welcome

DarkShadow · 1 Apr 2008 at 22:43

The first one doesn't do much for me. However the second one has potential, the crop is too refined imo. the substance is there, just need the right amount of crop.

mrk · 1 Apr 2008 at 22:56

Depth of field or scene, either of these e 2in the 2nd would make it an awesome shot! - even a small bit of dof would make have more impact but including more of the scene using rule of thirds for example would equally give more impact I reckon!

cleanbluesky · 1 Apr 2008 at 22:58

mrk · 1 Apr 2008 at 23:00

That's a much better one mate! now if only that dam woman wasn't in view!

I like the choice of colour too, my fave

Oxygen · 2 Apr 2008 at 13:56

I like that 3rd one as it sums up London daily life very well.
Got to agree with mrk on the woman, although I think the bunched figures at the base of the steps are more of a problem for me.

Respect your Candids as I really would like to try some but I am little hesitant in taking the camera out in case of a negative reaction. I did it once at a car boot sale and got a hostile reaction from a few punters... not tried it since.

Ahhh, I see that was at 200mm, perhaps i'll need to go longer instead of using the 18-55mm in future.

cleanbluesky · 2 Apr 2008 at 15:53

mrk said:
Depth of field or scene, either of these e 2in the 2nd would make it an awesome shot! - even a small bit of dof would make have more impact but including more of the scene using rule of thirds for example would equally give more impact I reckon!

I'm wondering about the merit of what you've said - I've checked out your site and you're one of the photogs who post on here whose work I generally respect.

I've tried using the rule of thirds for this, but the rest is a little crappy courtyard that I think adds nothing - hence I included the bare minimum. I'll try a ro3rds tonight

syke · 2 Apr 2008 at 15:58

The 2nd one would have been nice if there was a bit more in the image, like said rule of thirds.

The latest one posted is nice though.

What were they taken on mate?

cleanbluesky · 2 Apr 2008 at 16:08

syke said:
What were they taken on mate?

The ground.

If you meant gear - a 350D with a Sigma 18-200mm OS DC. The 200mm came in handy not to disturb my subjects, although the beggar realised after the 7th shot. I've got another of him looking at the camera.

Don't buy the gear hype though, I've got lots of shots with my kit lens I am happy with.

syke · 2 Apr 2008 at 16:14

cleanbluesky said:
The ground.

If you meant gear - a 350D with a Sigma 18-200mm OS DC. The 200mm came in handy not to disturb my subjects, although the beggar realised after the 7th shot. I've got another of him looking at the camera.

Don't buy the gear hype though, I've got lots of shots with my kit lens I am happy with.

Thought they may have been 35mm scanned and touched up a bit, nice shots still though

.

I too have many shots with my kit lens i am happy with too, reason for asking was the above, possible 35mm etc

.

robmiller · 2 Apr 2008 at 17:43

The second's alright compositionally but I'm not a big fan of the conversion personally. I'd like to see it with everything brought up and then the blacks crunched... it's pretty easy to go overboard with "punchiness" but I still think it needs a bit more.

cleanbluesky said:
Don't buy the gear hype though, I've got lots of shots with my kit lens I am happy with.

Which is a largely unqualified statement because as far as I know you've never used anything else :confused:

Being happy with your current kit does not mean that upgrades are "hype".

Compare your third shot (200mm on the Sigma 18-200 and ISO1600 on the 350D) to something a bit further up the spectrum (say 200mm on a Canon 70-200mm f/4 and ISO1600 on the 40D) and I bet it's night and day--infinitely sharper and far less noisier. You might be happier with the former, but it's nonsense to claim that that means to buy the latter is to buy into "hype".

cleanbluesky · 2 Apr 2008 at 19:30

robmiller said:
Which is a largely unqualified statement because as far as I know you've never used anything else Being happy with your current kit does not mean that upgrades are "hype".

Compare your third shot (200mm on the Sigma 18-200

These two statements don't resolve

You might be happier with the former, but it's nonsense to claim that that means to buy the latter is to buy into "hype".

In order to test my comment, you'd have to know what I was referring to as 'hype' - shot 3 is a poor example as it was also massively underexposed

robmiller · 2 Apr 2008 at 19:37

cleanbluesky said:
These two statements don't resolve

The Sigma 18-200 is at or below kit lens quality. Change my "you've never used anything else" to "you've never used anything above that" if it would make you happier.

cleanbluesky · 2 Apr 2008 at 19:43

robmiller said:
The Sigma 18-200 is at or below kit lens quality. Change my "you've never used anything else" to "you've never used anything above that" if it would make you happier.

I think you'll find you're mistaken.

robmiller · 2 Apr 2008 at 20:00

cleanbluesky said:
I think you'll find you're mistaken.

You've used pro gear and consider its improvements vs. kit-standard stuff to be hype :confused:

cleanbluesky · 2 Apr 2008 at 20:08

robmiller said:
You've used pro gear and consider its improvements vs. kit-standard stuff to be hype

No, I think you'll find that the Sigma 18-200mm OS DC is a considerable upgrade over the kit lens. Given the price difference I'd hope so.

Also, I haven't defined 'hype' - I have no doubt that more expensive kit is of a higher quality and versatility than lesser-priced items but I also hold that they are by no means necessary for good photography and that often basic kit can produce sufficient results for most situations and that many of the people who are so enthusiastic about buying extremely expensive gear take little benefit from its use.

cleanbluesky · 2 Apr 2008 at 20:11

Okay, I've tried to incorporate the rule of thirds - opinions?

robmiller · 2 Apr 2008 at 21:10

cleanbluesky said:
No, I think you'll find that the Sigma 18-200mm OS DC is a considerable upgrade over the kit lens. Given the price difference I'd hope so.

Not particularly, no. In versatility, sure, but not in image quality--compare any MTF graph of the two. That's the price you pay for a 11x zoom, and a cheap one at that.

cleanbluesky · 2 Apr 2008 at 21:39

robmiller said:
Not particularly, no. In versatility, sure, but not in image quality--compare any MTF graph of the two. That's the price you pay for a 11x zoom, and a cheap one at that.

I disagree. The general opinion of the Sigma seems to be that it is significantly better than the kit lens although the compromise of the zoom is that it is inconsistent throughout the range.

robmiller · 2 Apr 2008 at 21:46

cleanbluesky said:
I disagree. The general opinion of the Sigma seems to be that it is significantly better than the kit lens although the compromise of the zoom is that it is inconsistent throughout the range.

Going by MTF it's slightly better (in the centre, and only at some points in its range), but it's certainly within the kit ballpark and nowhere near a decent lens.