The Photo Snob Thread
- Thread starter brisneyland
- Start date
wrongie
Likes Dirt
try and submit a cloned photo mate. photo ed's won't touch your stuff when they find out...
Last edited:
leitch
Feelin' a bit rrranty
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a photo with lurkers growing out of the rider's head/shoulder will similarly be discarded. Cloning something like that is so minor and if done well difficult to detect that I find it hard to agree with you.
Sure, big obvious things that leave obvious artifacts are not going to be received well, but I think to say that "photo eds won't touch your stuff" is a bit of a sweeping generalisation.
wombat
Lives in a hole
Totally unrelated, but I was just checking out your site: was that giant backie on the cover of 2020 your shot?
If so: dude! fucking sick!
That building made the best background, and the shot made me smile.
(What happened to the thumbs up emoticon?)
AngoXC
Wheel size expert
Trist,
I'm still chasing a 24-70mm (Sig or Nikkor...finances don't permit either at present) and I'll might just add a few things about it.
First, if you are seriously looking at the Sig, make sure you play with the HSM model. I am yet to do this but I can't say I'd pass judgement before trying the HSM. I agree that the focus was great on the non-HSM lens but I have to say that sharpness definatly fell off when extended out (and lets face it, if you're paying for an f/2.8 lens, you want it to work good across all focal lengths). I've read that some people find it soft at the wide end but I couldn't see that for myself to be honest.
Another thing is the filter size. The Sigma is an 82mm taker...so be prepared for more expensive filters.
I played with the non-HSM Sigma and the Nikkor 24-70mm in the same sitting and I have to say there is a huge difference between the two. If you have the money, get the real deal Nikkor stuff. It truely eclipses the Sig in terms of its focal range...but again, finances will strangle you here.
I've never been overly impressed with Tamron
My $0.02
Oh, and photos...
Bali Memorial, Swanston St Melbourne
Tristan23
Farkin guerilla
If I had the money i'd definitely be taking the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8, but at $2.5k it's just not that feasible for the moment.
I might do some more research via photography forums to get some image samples.
Cheers for the thoughts though dude!
Tristan23
Farkin guerilla
Actually, that'd be awesome. Un-processed JPG's would be sweet, if that's easiest.
tristan.cardew@hotmail.com
Cheers mate!
Tobe25
Likes Bikes
I'm going to be shooting a lot of dirt jumping on the weekend and was wanting to know whether a tripod would be really necessary? I'm using a 50D with 24-70mm lens...I know it probably seems like a stupid question but it's a longway to travel to find out I would've been better to just buy one.
If I do need one, what would you recommend thats fairly cheap? I'm on a super tight budget at the moment.
If I do need one, what would you recommend thats fairly cheap? I'm on a super tight budget at the moment.
Should be right without one, pretty unnecessary for dirt jumping, especially with a not so long lens.
Tristan23
Farkin guerilla
Ah ha! Glad it's getting use! Looking forward to seeing your shots!
Unless you're planning on shooting sequences and stitching them together in Photoshop, you won't need it. As Callan said, without a long, heavy lens, it's pointless. Also, because you'll be boosting the shutter speed to stop the action, it'll freeze any shake you get from your hands.
wrongie
Likes Dirt
You're right... rider's heads with an arm or another head won't be looked at anyway. But you're wrong with the "minor cloning".
Imagine this...
You send your sick ass shot into Mag 'A' and have it totally schmick with no imperfections whatsoever. You'd done a little bit of cloning here and there to clean up some empty beers cans, a little bit of flash flare etc. Mag'A' says, SICK. Send me the RAW file so we can run this thing double page. You say, "can't I send you the retouched version?" They say, "nah man, our art director wants to change the colouring on this and they want to get a darker colder feel out of it." So you suck it up and send said art director the shot, and get an email explaining you may have sent the wrong one to them and that it doesn't look like the one they saw in low res. You say "sorry man, i retouched it a little and took out some bits I didn't like before I sent it in." They say nothing, because they didn't email you back.
Hillenbrand will back me up on this one.
If you want shit run, leave a photo in it's original state. If you want to shoot commercial and rely on retouching and layering - that's a different ball game.
Tristan23
Farkin guerilla
Haha, I was pretty much posting that up just for you, Alan!
Watch his behind-the-scenes videos. They're pretty cool to get an insiders view of how he lights his stuff.
leitch
Feelin' a bit rrranty
This is not the scenario I imagined in my head last night
I completely agree with you in that regard.