I don't really shoot babies...

Raymond Lin said:
I would love to argue but thought I just show you some evidence instead.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to argue, either, arguing on the internet and all that...

There's nothing in shot 2 couldn't reproduced with gaussian blur in photoshop.

Most people would just think it's OOF.

Photographers might reasonably argue that those are not good examples of what that lens can achieve.

Shooting a subject using available light with a lens which on paper should handle it doesn't mean that it will do
so hand held and that you shouldn't use a tripod and a reflector and select the right focus point or take your time.

And the chroma ?
 
All good points

phartars said:
I'm not going to argue, either, arguing on the internet and all that...

There's nothing in shot 2 couldn't reproduced with gaussian blur in photoshop.

Most people would just think it's OOF.

Photographers might reasonably argue that those are not good examples of what that lens can achieve.

Shooting a subject using available light with a lens which on paper should handle it doesn't mean that it will do
so hand held and that you shouldn't use a tripod and a reflector and select the right focus point or take your time.

And the chroma ?
Click to expand...
 
phartars said:
I'm not going to argue, either, arguing on the internet and all that...

There's nothing in shot 2 couldn't reproduced with gaussian blur in photoshop.

Most people would just think it's OOF.

Photographers might reasonably argue that those are not good examples of what that lens can achieve.

Shooting a subject using available light with a lens which on paper should handle it doesn't mean that it will do
so hand held and that you shouldn't use a tripod and a reflector and select the right focus point or take your time.

And the chroma ?
Click to expand...

I dunno where to start with all that.

1 - "Most people would think its OOF" - then why don't we all go home right now, sell our primes, sell our 2.8 lenses and all shoot with Kit lens.

2 - "Photographers might reasonably argue that those are not good examples of what that lens can achieve." - I don't really know what photographers you are referring to, but if that isn't a sample from a 35L then YOU show me some samples of what the lens can achieve then...action speak louder than words and all that.

3 - "Shooting a subject using available light with a lens which on paper should handle it doesn't mean that it will do
so hand held and that you shouldn't use a tripod and a reflector and select the right focus point or take your time." - What are you saying? That it isn't sharp at 1/40th? Or that I should have pulled out a tripod to take a photo? What does a tripod got to to with anything about my lens needing calibration? Seriously, what are you on about? The babies shots are all taken 1/80th at 400ISO and above and they are now not as sharp as when i got it...I can tell the difference, hence needing calibration.

4 - CA - see the fire behind it? That doesn't help, and the 35L is known for some CA, it could be my filter too.

But seriously, we are not talking about CA, we are not talking about Tripods, we are not talking about fake gaussian blur (that makes me laugh, and really doesn't help your credibility).............What are you talking about? I am talking about my lens needs calibrating, you are talking about how I should shoot with a kit lens stop down a few, fake the bokeh in Photoshop....

Sure, I am not going to argue on the internet, it is pointless. Clearly.

phartars said:
There's nothing in shot 2 couldn't reproduced with gaussian blur in photoshop.
Click to expand...

Sorry, had to quote that again. :D
 
Last edited:
AtticusFinch said:
With a lens that good its madness to bung a filter on it though - a hood or nothing surely.
Click to expand...

Well, it had it from day 1. and it is not madness. Have you tried to take photos amongst 100+ people holding alcohol, smoke machine, dancing, rain, wind, etc etc?

It was sharp with the plants, with the fire.

It is not as sharp now.

The filter hasn't changed, so its not the variable. Are you saying I should take it off and magically it will be sharp? or just give up on it and shoot with a 50/1.8 and fake all my bokeh in PS and avoid shooting in situations where there are lights in the background because it won't look as good compare to my 1.4?

Noo......get the lens calibrated would be easier....I don't really know what you 2 are trying to say...
 
Raymond, next wedding I think you should shoot at the smallest aperture possible and then just use gaussian to mimic a shallow depth of field. Shouldn't take too long to do that to 400+ photos should it?
 
Raymond Lin said:
I dunno where to start with all that.

1 - "Most people would think its OOF" - then why don't we all go home right now, sell our primes, sell our 2.8 lenses and all shoot with Kit lens.
Click to expand...

Most people would think it's just OOF. Any attempt to explain dof and primes to parents usually fail by about word 6.

Raymond Lin said:
4 - CA - see the fire behind it? That doesn't help
Click to expand...

Best to see that before you pull the trigger and post the results on the web for critique.

Raymond Lin said:
But seriously, we are not talking about CA, we are not talking about Tripods, we are not talking about fake gaussian blur.............What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Selecting the right lens for the job, making sure that the background isn't too busy so that it detracts from the subject, cropping the shot so that it's more flattering to the subjects ... The subject on the right would immediately focus on her neck, for example.

ellakim2crop.jpg


Anyway, no offence, all photographers are.. well .. photographers, me included :)
 
Last edited:
phartars said:
Selecting the right lens for the job, making sure that the background isn't too busy so that it detracts from the subject, cropping the shot so that it's more flattering to the subjects ... The subject on the right would immediately focus on her neck, for example.
Click to expand...

Thread makes me laugh... Phar, I don't think Raymond needs any photography lessons.

Awesome photos as per usual Raymond. Your processing is always so lovely and vibrant! (inb4 cos he has an action file etc, I realise this :p)
 
phartars said:
Most people would think it's just OOF. Any attempt to explain would fail by about word 6.
Click to expand...

No they wouldn't :confused:

The subject is perfectly in focus you muppet, the focus of it is drawing your eyes to it, the bokeh around it is lovely.

Gawd, some people.
 
I will give you more samples from OTHER lenses shooting wide open AND Sharp.

135L
IMG_0884.jpg




85/1.8
IMG_9834.jpg




24-70L
IMG_4896.jpg




Need any more proof that you can shoot wide open and still get sharp images?

Or should I start gaussian blur them all?

Or start shooting with disposables so everything will be in focus?
 
Last edited:
Camelpaw said:
Thread makes me laugh... Phar, I don't think Raymond needs any photography lessons.
Click to expand...

No lesson intended or offered, just a freely invited opinion freely given :)

Every time I present an image to a client I'm bricking it that they spot the same flaws I did the instant I saw it, long after I shot it.

Thankfully, my critical eye is more self punishing and critical than the client's.

Raymond understands exactly what I mean by that :)
 
phartars said:
Most people would think it's just OOF. Any attempt to explain dof and primes to parents usually fail by about word 6.
Click to expand...

Is that what you think when you watch a movie? I am pretty sure 99% of the time it is only the actors that are in focus, the background are always blur. do you immediately think the movies is shot entirely out of focus?

You should bring people up to your level of understanding, not lower it to theirs.

Educate, not lower your standard.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Need any more proof that you can shoot wide open and still get sharp images?

Or should I start gaussian blur them all?

Or start shooting with disposables so everything will be in focus?
Click to expand...

Knock yerself out, kidda ..

1 needs to lose the brown blob bottom left and the yellow orb centre

which is

2 sweet image but needs a tighter crop to lose the distraction left and right

3 lovely

4 NOSE

5 focus in on the wrinkles of the knuckles, Women hate wrinkles. I would have tried to put the focal point on the bride's ring (and probably failed)

6 ditto, highlights blown, no definition in the diamond, overall ? wrinkles.

Just an opinion mind :)
 
phartars said:
Knock yerself out, kidda ..

1 needs to lose the brown blob bottom left and the yellow orb centre

which is

2 sweet image but needs a tighter crop to lose the distraction left and right

3 lovely

4 NOSE

5 focus in on the wrinkles of the knuckles, Women hate wrinkles. I would have tried to put the focal point on the bride's ring (and probably failed)

6 ditto, highlights blown, no definition in the diamond, overall ? wrinkles.

Just an opinion mind :)
Click to expand...

LOL, are you serious?

2, 4 & 6 are not photos per se, they are 100% cropped of 1, 3 & 5 respectively. I am showing you they are sharp at 100%...and you are commenting on how I should crop the nose out and remove wrinkles from the hand? lol

Okay, time for bed, but you have given me some laughs tonight !
 
phartars said:
No need for name calling, I just disagree that it's a good example of that sort of subject using that lens.

Yeah, some people earn a living doing this ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I think you have a very misguided way of seeing things. Or you are just being a massive troll.

I'm going to walk away from this now, you are not going to get a further reaction out of me, you need to do some more studying on photography imo :)
 
ScarySquirrel said:
Raymond, next wedding I think you should shoot at the smallest aperture possible and then just use gaussian to mimic a shallow depth of field. Shouldn't take too long to do that to 400+ photos should it?
Click to expand...

LOL, and tell them they can have the photos by their Silver Anniversary ? :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom