Sequoia and Kings Canyon are pretty damn cool. I was just there in October.

any of you ever try selling your photos on stock sites?

I heard you can get like 10¢ or something.

Quest for Inspirado: New York edition

I'm going to visit a friend in New York next week and considering using it as an excuse to pick up a new (to me) lens. I currently have a D700, 24-120 f4, 50mm f1.8 AF-D and 85mm f1.8 G ( and my old Dx kit which will not make the journey).

I've been thinking of picking up either a used 16-35mm f4 or a refurb 24mm f1.8. I've looked a bit at the Sigma 24mm Art as well. If I pick up either of these, the 24-120 will be benched for this trip.

I'm leaning towards the 24 prime because I've found that I generally don't end up loving
any of the shots I take with zooms (though I don't own any pro-class zooms). I tend to chalk this up more to zoom induced laziness than the technical rendering characteristics of the lens itself. Thoughts or alternate suggestions on how to scratch the Nikon wide angle itch for sub $1k?

Any LA locals - Palos Verdes (Portuguese Bend Preserve) is going bananas right now. I counted 12 different kinds of things blooming and the rest looks like Ireland. Also the views to Catalina have been really clear and the sunsets amazing. I'm headed back out there and try not to forget my polarizer this time (at 2pm there were some cool shots that could have used it).





This is the most advanced thing I've ever tried to do in Photoshop (paint in a non-blown-out sky behind a bunch of flowers sticking up). I was selecting by color channel and all kinds of crazy things. Still needs a lot of work obviously. It looked a lot better in PSD form. The halos only appeared when converting to JPG.

The rest are iPhone photos.

Wtf FB.

I just got back from Patagonia - on another photo tour with Marc Adamus. Amazing trip. I plan to go back next year for a longer tour to some fiords in Chile where no one ever goes. Maybe even drive down my FJ there lol.

Here are the first 2 pics I've worked on. The guy in the mountain pick is Jack Curran - who apparently does pretty well selling B&W prints.

Some recent highlights from Patagonia, Canadian Rockies, and a trip to the Pacific NW for the eclipse.

Love the first one and the deer. Definitely some of your best work as a whole.

Thanks! FYI - that's a guanaco - related to llamas and alpacas. They're everywhere in patagonia.

ETA: Just realized I replied to a very old post. It's been a while since I was here. The facts are as true as they ever were, even if the info is too late to help, so I'll let it stand.

That's probably the right lens to get her. It is a "normal lens", which means it has a focal length similar to the diagonal dimension of the sensor of the camera on which it will be used. This gives it an angle of view that seems natural. Most people think they need a 50mm lens because it was what nearly all cameras came with for about 50 years. But those cameras were 35mm film cameras, and on them, 50mm was a normal lens. The other choice would be the AF-S 28mm f/1.8G. It is even closer to true normal, but that lens is larger, more expensive and not as sharp.

They call it a 35mm lens because that's what it is. The focal length of a lens is the distance between the optical centre of the lens and the image plane when the lens is focused at infinity.

Mounted on a Nikon 'DX' camera (which is a camera with an F-mount for its lens but a sensor that measures about 24mm x 16mm instead of the the 36mm x 24 mm 'FX' full frame sensor the same size as 35mm film for which F-moint was originally made), the 35mm f/1.8 lens gives about the same angle of view as a 53mm lens would on an FX camera.

It is an f/1.8 lens but on DX it gives the same Depth of Field and diffraction blur as an f/2.7 lens would give on FX.

As a result, we could say that a 35mm f/1.8 lens mounted on a DX camera is equivalent to a 53mm f/2.7 lens mounted on FX.

Generally companies that make full frame cameras are not in the game of passing off their lenses as something they're not. Companies that make mostly cameras with small sensors like to report the focal lengths of their lenses only in Full Frame equivalent terms, because it makes them sound bigger. But they don't like to report the equivalent aperture because it makes them sound slower.

The AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.8G ED is a very nice wide angle lens.

The Sigma Art lenses are very good. The 50mm and 35mm are better than the corresponding Nikkors and Canons, but in 24mm the Nikkor is better (and less expensive).

The AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.8G ED is also better IMO than the 28mm and in many ways better even than the older AF-S Nikkor 24mm f/1.4
It's the wide angle lens I'd pick for FX. 24/50/85 makes a nice trio of primes.

ETA: also missed the posting date for this. Maybe I read an earlier post in Canadian date format instead of American.

Glad to see you are still making great pictures worldwide.

Thanks dude, and thanks for the lens advice. I don't even remember if I got her the lens lol. Also we broke up a year ago. Again lol.

Btw I'm planning to drive to Patagonia - leaving LA sometime around the end of this year. Hope to get a ton more great pics. https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/9...-year-1664900/

I ended up picking up the Sigma 24 ART. It's a nice lens, but I really need to put some more work in to better wide angle shot composition.

One of the reasons I resisted instagram for so long is I didn't want to go through the pain of cropping my pics to square (yeah I know you can do non-square now, but if everyone's still looking at square what's the point - and I want to at least control the crop). Anyway I actually think this pic works a lot better square. Heh.

just found this thread. Those are great pictures suzzer, very nice

Agreed

Some help please,

Buying a xmas gift for my mother, she has a canon rebel ti6 and I'd like to get her a tripod for it. I know so little about cameras and so far my internet research attempts haven't been very helpful, and I'm scared of buying the wrong one, so any help would be appreciated. Anything in the $100ish category or less is what I'm looking to spend.

Can this Photo by Peter Lik Possibly be Real?

This article is lame. It should be answering questions like this, not asking them. DTM, any thoughts?

Since the moon appears to be in front of some clouds, I'll go ahead and say it is a composite image.

Check this exmaple also


Next

Credit buzzcnn.com

Next

Credit ExpertPhotography

Put the photo in iPhoto or Lightroom and mess with the exposure, contrast, saturation, highlights, and shadows sliders. Use the raw when possible.

wow... 12-2019.

to long, TTT...