Find's Treasure Forums
Welcome to Find's Treasure Forums, Guests!
You are viewing this forums as a guest which limits you to read only status.
Only registered members may post stories, questions, classifieds, reply to other posts, contact other members using built in messaging and use many other features found on these forums.
Why not register and join us today? It's free! (We don't share your email addresses with anyone.) We keep email addresses of our users to protect them and others from bad people posting things they shouldn't.
Click here to register!
Need Support Help?
Cannot log in?, click here to have new password emailed to you
Changed email? Forgot to update your account with new email address? Need assistance with something else?, click here to go to Find's Support Form and fill out the form.
Tell me what you think of these.
- Thread starter Tom/Cocoa
- Start date
For sharpness, color, and bokeh, the Bigma is vastly better than the 80-200. I assume that the 80-200 is a Nikon, correct? I've owned a couple of Sigma lenses and I know that they are quality lenses. But your Bigma is either a freakishly good copy or I've been under estimating Sigmas.
Gord SW Ont
Member
This is definitely an area where my little P&S falls short. 
Best thing I can say about any photo is that it's almost like being there. The horses sure look real and the helicopter and plane are crisp/sharp. I actually like the faint fencing showing in the second helicopter pic ... sets it in the real world but focuses nicely on the main subject.
I've been meaning to add some comments on your long shots (especially the nature ones) ... they are very nice but some people seem to want to quibble about composition not being perfect, a twig in the way, something a little blurry, etc. That kind of photography is a "lot" harder than it looks because you can only control a few factors and must take your pics quickly and under less than ideal situations. Often getting any shot at all is an accomplishment. Just wanted you to know that I apprciate your efforts.
Nice work Tom ... keep it up.
Best thing I can say about any photo is that it's almost like being there. The horses sure look real and the helicopter and plane are crisp/sharp. I actually like the faint fencing showing in the second helicopter pic ... sets it in the real world but focuses nicely on the main subject.
I've been meaning to add some comments on your long shots (especially the nature ones) ... they are very nice but some people seem to want to quibble about composition not being perfect, a twig in the way, something a little blurry, etc. That kind of photography is a "lot" harder than it looks because you can only control a few factors and must take your pics quickly and under less than ideal situations. Often getting any shot at all is an accomplishment. Just wanted you to know that I apprciate your efforts.
Nice work Tom ... keep it up.
However, the shots with the Nikon lens aren't anything to moan about either. Like you said, you had some pretty tough side lighting and also you were zoomed in on him facing you. I personally like'm all.
Also, it looks like you might have some dust on your sensor. You probably already know this but it can be seen in the first helicopter and the airplace shots. (Just below the front blade on the helicopter and just above/left of the front of the plane). I took some shots the last few days with 3 bits of sensor dust myself. I've never cleaned mine and am planning on doing it tonight. Hope like heck I don't muck it up.
Also, it looks like you might have some dust on your sensor. You probably already know this but it can be seen in the first helicopter and the airplace shots. (Just below the front blade on the helicopter and just above/left of the front of the plane). I took some shots the last few days with 3 bits of sensor dust myself. I've never cleaned mine and am planning on doing it tonight. Hope like heck I don't muck it up.
....since Nim and I were the ones who made the comments.
Let's say you're really into metal detecting Gord, which you probably are. Let's also say that the place you're going to be hunting daily is guaranteed to give up hundreds of new dimes at 4 inches - but is also known to give up some old silver at 9 inches or deeper to people who have taken the time to learn their machine. Sure, dimes are great and there are some who would be content digging them, but there are a few who would like to bypass those dimes and dig only the good stuff so they ask for advice. This is the way some people feel about their images. It's pretty easy to click the "automatic" button on your camera AND metal detector and come up with an okay result. However, the challenge is to find the correct manual settings for optimum payoffs. Some of us have thousands of dollars invested in our photography equipment and it would be a shame to only dig those dimes with something that could yield plenty of old silver.
Now having said all this, I dig a lot more dimes than I do silver - metaphorically speaking of course. I want more silver so I come in here looking for advice. When one tells another what they would do differently they aren't "quibbling". They are only trying to help someone dig the good stuff. Tom posts excellent shots in here almost daily and I would venture to guess that he appreciates the critiques he gets. If he didn't he wouldn't ask for them. I also welcome critiques on any and all of my photos as sometimes it takes an unbiased eye to help you see what you might have missed - no matter how big or small. I say this because the things that I critiqued on that particular set of Tom's photos were pretty small; smaller aperture for wider DOF and clone out a twig. Does that mean that I didn't like those shots? Absolutely not. In fact, I liked them a lot. That's the beauty of photography.
Bryan Peterson makes some great points in his book titled "Understanding Exposure". He says that on any image there are usually at least six different ways of coming up with a correct exposure (aperture/shutter speed). However, there is only one way to come up with the <b>creatively</b> correct exposure. I post my images in the hopes that someone might help me find the latter of the two. If you don't like the image the tell me. If you like the image but would change something then tell me. If you think that the image is flawless then tell me (I have yet to post a flawless image so I probably won't be hearing any of that). The first two aren't going to hurt my feelings and the last one isn't going to make my head swell. I just want to learn all I can so I can get the silver.
Let's say you're really into metal detecting Gord, which you probably are. Let's also say that the place you're going to be hunting daily is guaranteed to give up hundreds of new dimes at 4 inches - but is also known to give up some old silver at 9 inches or deeper to people who have taken the time to learn their machine. Sure, dimes are great and there are some who would be content digging them, but there are a few who would like to bypass those dimes and dig only the good stuff so they ask for advice. This is the way some people feel about their images. It's pretty easy to click the "automatic" button on your camera AND metal detector and come up with an okay result. However, the challenge is to find the correct manual settings for optimum payoffs. Some of us have thousands of dollars invested in our photography equipment and it would be a shame to only dig those dimes with something that could yield plenty of old silver.
Now having said all this, I dig a lot more dimes than I do silver - metaphorically speaking of course. I want more silver so I come in here looking for advice. When one tells another what they would do differently they aren't "quibbling". They are only trying to help someone dig the good stuff. Tom posts excellent shots in here almost daily and I would venture to guess that he appreciates the critiques he gets. If he didn't he wouldn't ask for them. I also welcome critiques on any and all of my photos as sometimes it takes an unbiased eye to help you see what you might have missed - no matter how big or small. I say this because the things that I critiqued on that particular set of Tom's photos were pretty small; smaller aperture for wider DOF and clone out a twig. Does that mean that I didn't like those shots? Absolutely not. In fact, I liked them a lot. That's the beauty of photography.
Bryan Peterson makes some great points in his book titled "Understanding Exposure". He says that on any image there are usually at least six different ways of coming up with a correct exposure (aperture/shutter speed). However, there is only one way to come up with the <b>creatively</b> correct exposure. I post my images in the hopes that someone might help me find the latter of the two. If you don't like the image the tell me. If you like the image but would change something then tell me. If you think that the image is flawless then tell me (I have yet to post a flawless image so I probably won't be hearing any of that). The first two aren't going to hurt my feelings and the last one isn't going to make my head swell. I just want to learn all I can so I can get the silver.
Gord SW Ont
Member
... and that was a mighty fine MD analogy. And I am a longtime and hardcore detector user who usually doesn't get excited until the finds are a century, or more, old or silver/gold.
I agree that constructive criticsm is very positive and worthwhile getting. Believe it or not, I didn't really mean my comments to reflect on "anyone" in this forum or any recent posts.
Guess all I was trying to say based on my own experience (despite using a P&S at the moment I've been involved in many facets of photography for a long time) that nature photography whether closeup, or from a distance, is such a challenging part of photography that just being fortunate enough to capture a split second of it can be an outstanding achievement in itself. Even pros can't stage or setup nature to perfection all the time. So I tend to be more forgiving for these types of shots.
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
Happy detecting and image collecting.
And I am a longtime and hardcore detector user who usually doesn't get excited until the finds are a century, or more, old or silver/gold. I agree that constructive criticsm is very positive and worthwhile getting. Believe it or not, I didn't really mean my comments to reflect on "anyone" in this forum or any recent posts.
Guess all I was trying to say based on my own experience (despite using a P&S at the moment I've been involved in many facets of photography for a long time) that nature photography whether closeup, or from a distance, is such a challenging part of photography that just being fortunate enough to capture a split second of it can be an outstanding achievement in itself. Even pros can't stage or setup nature to perfection all the time. So I tend to be more forgiving for these types of shots.
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
Happy detecting and image collecting.
And I know what you mean about being lucky enough to get a good wildlife image whether it's great or not. I have a shot of a deer that I've been debating on whether to post or not. The lighting was horrible and I was hoping to get it with a smaller aperture to put his head AND body in focus. I was shooting with a 70-300 lens and had to settle for f5.6 shutter 1/250 just to be able to get the image without any blur from me shaking handheld with a big zoom. In doing this I also lost a bit of sharpness on his head. Stupid me tried to focus more towards his shoulder thinking that I might get lucky but it didn't work out that way. Ahhhhh. What the heck. I think I'll post it.