Your photo, critiqued and/or praised. It's about learning and improving.

Ducks in creek2.jpg
Ducks in a creek (if you look closely)

ISO 200
f8
1/400
Probably shot with a Minolta 35-105 lens on a Sony DSLR
 
On the back wall at work - 06:40 this morning - iPhone 6s+
I did crop it down and resized - no other changes.

BrownMoff_2584.JPG
 
Yeah - like a furry nasty brown spider - THAT CAN FLY!!
I figure it will give me bad dreams for a while - so I shared!
 
Probably shot with a Minolta 35-105 lens on a Sony DSLR
That is pretty much my rig--Sony Alpha DSLR with my Minolta lenses. I like the older 28-85/macro I have, but really want something with a wider zoom range. Not sure if I want a 24-105, or a 28-135. The former has a wider angle which is why I may prefer that one. I still have two Maxxum film bodies which I'll no longer be using. Too bad they're almost worthless on the used market. (One is an original Maxxum 7000. AF is sloooowww....)
 
That is pretty much my rig--Sony Alpha DSLR with my Minolta lenses. I like the older 28-85/macro I have, but really want something with a wider zoom range. Not sure if I want a 24-105, or a 28-135. The former has a wider angle which is why I may prefer that one. I still have two Maxxum film bodies which I'll no longer be using. Too bad they're almost worthless on the used market. (One is an original Maxxum 7000. AF is sloooowww....)

Film can still be worth shooting - Portra 400 has 18 stops of dynamic range, which blows digital into the weeds. And digital cameras DO NOT want to get wet (some models are weather-sealed, of course). I'm planning to buy a dedicated 35mm scanner in the not too far future (my Epson V600 is OK for my medium and large format films)

My widest lens is 28mm. Used to have the Nikor 20mm ... it rarely got used. If you're doing architectural or real-estate work you need the wide stuff, but ... and this is one of my pet peeves ... ultra-wide angles have a strong personality, but it feels like a gimmick. 24mm is worth having, though, so I'd vote for that. an 80-200 is probably also worth having. Is yours the older Alpha series that uses Maxxum mount lenses? Because there should be a ton of stuff on eBay for you, and the Minolta glass was of high quality.
 
OK. I haven't shared a photo here in awhile, so get your barbs ready. I was fortunately enough to spend a night in the control tower at NJ Transit's Hoboken station. This was taken as dawn broke. Nikon D600, Nikor 50mm 1.8 D at F5.6, 1.3 seconds at ASA 100.
26600183912_d661671057_k_d[1].jpg
 
That is pretty much my rig--Sony Alpha DSLR with my Minolta lenses. I like the older 28-85/macro I have, but really want something with a wider zoom range. Not sure if I want a 24-105, or a 28-135. The former has a wider angle which is why I may prefer that one. I still have two Maxxum film bodies which I'll no longer be using. Too bad they're almost worthless on the used market. (One is an original Maxxum 7000. AF is sloooowww....)

My vote would be the 24-105, as that's about as wide as you can go before the lens starts dominating with its own personality. If you do interiors or architectural stuff, of course you do need the ultra wide stuff. Is your Alpha one of the ones that uses the old Maxxum mount? Because there should be a TON of good stuff for you on eBay, and that old Minolta glass is usually of excellent quality. I'd get a 70-210, and maybe a 20mm, when good deals present themselves. There are some interesting manual focus ultra-wide angles from Korea at non-insane prices, too. I owned the Nikor 20mm ... after a brief burst of enthusiasm, I hardly ever used it, TBH. 28 or maybe 24mm really is the sweet spot, IMO.
 
I still have two Maxxum film bodies which I'll no longer be using. Too bad they're almost worthless on the used market. (One is an original Maxxum 7000. AF is sloooowww....)

Film still has 2 advantages over digital - more dynamic range (Portra 400 has 18 stops!), and greater tolerance to bad weather - assuming your digital stuff isn't weather sealed. There aren't as many dedicated 35mm scanners as there used to be, but I have one on my shopping list, both because I have TONS of stuff from the 90s, and because shooting in the rain is easier with my Nikon FM than my old Mamiya Press.
 
Is your Alpha one of the ones that uses the old Maxxum mount? Because there should be a TON of good stuff for you on eBay, and that old Minolta glass is usually of excellent quality.
Yep, Maxxum mount. That's the only reason I went with the Alpha--I had five lenses already, and figured lenses will always be plentiful on eBay. The only one that's not all that good is a Tamron 75-300 zoom from the mid 80s--it will not properly interface with the camera. But my other two old Maxxum lenses do, along with the two newer ones (2002-ish).

Yes, I'm leaning more towards the 24-105. The 28-85 has long been a favorite, but I have always wanted that little extra on either end.
 
Yep, Maxxum mount. That's the only reason I went with the Alpha--I had five lenses already, and figured lenses will always be plentiful on eBay. The only one that's not all that good is a Tamron 75-300 zoom from the mid 80s--it will not properly interface with the camera. But my other two old Maxxum lenses do, along with the two newer ones (2002-ish).

Yes, I'm leaning more towards the 24-105. The 28-85 has long been a favorite, but I have always wanted that little extra on either end.

Looking at eBay, I'm seeing prices around a hundred bucks for the 24-105. The 20mm is suprisingly expensive. Maybe looks at the Sanyang/Rokinon ultra wide angles. Manual focus, but not that big a drawback when you're looking at a 20, 18, 16, 14 or 12.
 
That's what I have been seeing over the past several months--$100-ish. Not in a rush, but I'll get one before my next major trip.
 
hjames, love that moth pic. looks pretty mean!

I'd would be great to have these two critiqued. I'm not sure which i prefer. How about you?

index.php

index.php


Shot consecutively, with a Sony A7Sii, Rokinon 24mm Cine lens. 2.5sec shutter, ISO 640, can't recall the aperture (manual lens :/ )
Minor retouching, just in the Photoshop RAW filter.
 
No doubt in my personal opinion - the second one is preferable - makes use of the upper right space, plus the streaks point to the theater without obscuring it. By comparison, the first one does not strongly indicate what the subject is. BTW, I love the small-aperture star effects in both of them.
 
thanks old_tv_nut !!
I tend to agree, but there is some subtlety that I really like about the top one. It's definitely not as "electric" but the streaks feel more organic, like the place is moving.... maybe it's just me.

Good looking out on the star effects. Those were a happy accident that I wouldn't have seen with the Canon L series glass I was shooting with before these Rokinons.
 
there is some subtlety that I really like about the top one. It's definitely not as "electric" but the streaks feel more organic, like the place is moving.... maybe it's just me.

Honestly, I prefer the light streaks in the bottom one - they're stronger and more graphic. But I prefer the exposure of the top one. In the bottom one the highlights are hot, probably burned-out. In the top one they're holding details and saturation.

I LOVE night shots (in fact thy're 90% of what I do; see www.steve-fretz.com for more). If you're not shooting raw, I highly recommend that you do, and also that you turn on the "zebra stripes" overexposure warning, even if that means you're "chimping" after every shot. What software, if any, do you use for post-processing?

If you use Lightroom (or Photoshop) you can correct perspective. I'm not sure if that would "improve" these or not, but it'd be nice to see the difference.

Either way, I like these a lot, and they're they'd be in the top percentile of what I see on Flickr (where I'm also "Steve Fretz").
 
I LOVE night shots (in fact thy're 90% of what I do

Hey Steve! Thanks for the critique and compliments! I really love your meadowlands series. Especially the two with reflections. Overall, really great night photography!!!

For these two shots, the highlights on the face of the building are 100% recoverable. And in the marquee... mostly recoverable. Interestingly enough, that shift in exposure was caused by the bus covering the building for part of the exposure.

I always shoot RAW, even with time lapses, and typically just use the RAW editor and Photoshop. Im sure there is better stuff out there and I'll have to give Lightroom a shot. I'm a commercial director/editor by trade. While photography has always been an element of what I do, I'm usually focusing on story above all.

It's great to chat and discover your work!! Looking forward to seeing more.
 
Pit, I like the top one, because the details aren't washed out and you can read the marque sign. The bottom has the oooh pretty lights, but it's just distracting eye candy. You have to ask yourself, what was the main focus of the image being taken? The theater or the lights.
 
Back
Top Bottom