NLxAROSA's gallery: two new shots

[NLxAROSA]

Recently, I have taken up on photography again. I know how to use most of the settings on my rig, but as far as composition is concerned, I'm usually lost. Since I've seen many pro shots from you guys here, I'm very interested in your feedback! 👍

The rig I use (unless specified otherwise):

- Canon EOS 450D
- Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5
- Canon 70-200mm F/4L
- Sigma 50mm f/1.4
- Sigma 30mm f/1.4

I'll start off with a compilation of shots from the 'single photo thread' as well as some new ones thrown in. Large versions of the shots can be seen by clicking on the pictures. The flickr page also shows the settings I used to take the shot and the stuff I did in Photoshop CS 3.3.

As always I'm very interested in feedback on composition, subject, post-processing, etc., good or bad.

[1: Spider liquifying a fly]



[2: HDR shot of a ship passing through the Lek river]

=

[3: A lone fire hydrant]



[4: The fly]



[5: A hot air balloon]



[6: At the theme park]

 

[Scaff]

Nice start, I like the HDR shot as its been used in the manner I prefer, which gives a full tonal range to the shot rather than the normal garish pop that a lot of HDr ends up with.

The fire hydrant shot has quite a bit of potential, if you could crop it so its the the lower right hand third of the frame and up the contrast and saturation a little (its a tad flat at the moment) it could well end up looking stunning.

The ballon shots are well metered as well, I know from my film days that they can be tricky to get right.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Syntax error]

I have to agree with Scaff, it's nice to see a properly done HDR shot as the technology was originally intended to be used.

The fire hydrant and hot air balloon shots are my two favorites of the set 👍

 

[NLxAROSA]

Thanks for the feedback. 👍 I'm not a fan of over-processed HDR either, I prefer the effects to be more subtle. I find it a great way of bringing back detail in an over- or underexposed areas (usually when shooting dark subjects on sunny days).

I'll get cracking on the fire hydrant tonight.

 

[boiltheocean]

I like [4. The Fly], very nice colours and composition. My favourites would be the last two shots, the tone is spot on. 👍

 

[NLxAROSA]

Thanks! Nrs 1, 3 and 4 were shot with the Canon 70-200, the rest with the Sigma 17-70.

The fun thing about those last two: these are straight JPG converts from the RAWs, I did no post-processing of any kind. The only thing attached to the lens was a UV filter. The Sigma 17-70 is a brilliant lens, very sharp and the colours are excellent. But it has one drawback that prevents it from being perfect: the bokeh is horrible if your background has high contrast areas. So no portraits or macro unless there is an even background.

Also, here's another 'subtle' HDR from my archive, shot last year. I know the composition leaves to be desired, but hey, I shot it from a moving boat.

[7: Notre Dame HDR]

 

[Syntax error]

Again the subtle HDR use is fantastic. That is a nice shot that doesn't seem over processed. 👍

 

[NLxAROSA]

It's been a while since I did some shooting, but today I went to the zoo and came back with these:

[8: Crocodile]

[9: Tattoo dude chilling with a nice cup of coffee]

[10: Butterfly, a bit grainy, but the best I could do at F/4 and ISO 1600]

[11: Prairiedogs enjoying lunch]

[12: Marine lifeform]

As always, feedback (good or bad) is welcome!

 

[Nicknamealguem]

I like all of them; they all seem so good and perfect. 👍

 

[NLxAROSA]

I like all of them; they all seem so good and perfect. 👍

Now you're making me blush.

There must be something that could be better. Personally, I'm not too happy with the butterfly picture; to be able to use F/4 and a decent shutter speed I had to up the ISO to 1600. Flash was not an option since that would limit the shutter speed to 1/200, and I needed at least 1/320 for that shot (probably 1/500 because I had a few cups of coffee ). So I figured this was the best I could do with the 70-200 F/4L. Anybody have any thoughts on this?

Just to add a little quiz: which picture or pictures of this last series was/were shot through a window?

EDIT: Lol, just noticed I took the butterfly shot at 1/100 and 200mm. So much for my explanation. Must be a lucky shot.

 

[Nicknamealguem]

Now you're making me blush.

There must be something that could be better. Personally, I'm not too happy with the butterfly picture; to be able to use F/4 and a decent shutter speed I had to up the ISO to 1600. Flash was not an option since that would limit the shutter speed to 1/200, and I needed at least 1/320 for that shot (probably 1/500 because I had a few cups of coffee ). So I figured this was the best I could do with the 70-200 F/4L. Anybody have any thoughts on this?

Yes, I know it is a bit grainy, I noticed when I saw it, but still, I kind of like the grainy on that shot, maybe because the background is mainly green; it looks good. The only thing I notice a bit off were the wings of the butterfly. I don’t know if that is the real color, though it seems to need a bit of a lift, but, as I said, they all still look perfect to me 👍

Just to add a little quiz: which picture or pictures of this last series was/were shot through a window?

The last one?

 

[NLxAROSA]

The last one?

Yes, that is one of the pictures shot through a window.

 

[Syntax error]

that guy sure looks employable.


Cool shots. The crocodile is nice and sharp. I'm also impressed about the level of detail you got in the butterfly 👍

 

[NLxAROSA]

that guy sure looks employable.

Well, it was on a weekday, and he was pretty relaxed, so I guess he doesn't need it. (Or maybe he works in a tattoo parlor).

Cool shots. The crocodile is nice and sharp. I'm also impressed about the level of detail you got in the butterfly 👍

The butterfly is a lucky shot, really. At 200mm and 1/100s, it should be blurred as hell, but (lucky me) it's not.

BTW, the croc, the tattoo dude and the anemone thingy were all shot through glass.

The 70-200mm F/4L is a great lens BTW, it's also the cheapest L available, but it's really worth the money IMO. The only drawback is that it keeps you wanting for more.

 

[Syntax error]

The 70-200mm F/4L is a great lens BTW, it's also the cheapest L available, but it's really worth the money IMO. The only drawback is that it keeps you wanting for more.

I've got one as well. 👍 best value for money lens in the Canon line up in my opinion.

 

[LongbowX]

Wow, your Zoo shots are amazing. Makes me want to go to that zoo. ^^

The Crocodile shot is incredible for shooting though glass. Impressive stuff. Always love their smirk, too.

And the butterfly shot is grainy, but I agree - it works. The texture adds something.

The prairie dogs are shot nice and crisp too.

Oh, and that HDR shot before is also good. I'm normally not a fan of HDR, but subtly it is quite effective.

Keep up the amazing work, I look forward to your future work. 👍

 

[NLxAROSA]

Oh, and that HDR shot before is also good. I'm normally not a fan of HDR, but subtly it is quite effective.

I try to minimalise the 'artistic' effects when using HDR, I just want the extra detail from the RAW to be in the .JPG.

Keep up the amazing work, I look forward to your future work. 👍

Thanks, and I will try.

 

[NLxAROSA]

It's been ages since I held a camera in my hands, but during my weekend at Disneyland Paris, I managed to squeeze the button a few times. Most of the night shots are not too sharp, but the best I could manage with low light, F/2.8 and no tripod. Again, everything is clickable for larger version.

[13: Walt Disney Studios]



[14: Main Street]



[15: The Hollywood Tower Hotel/Twilight Zone Tower Of Terror]



[16: Main Street Parade]



[17: Disneyland Hotel]



[18: Snow white, four dwarfs and the prince]

 

[NLxAROSA]

So I went to the Louis Knie circus yesterday, here are some shots that I took. I also have some questions, view below for those.

[19: Clown introducing the show]



[20: Power acrobates]



[21: Magician and clowns]



[22: Russian bar]



[23: Juggler]



[24: Swinging fire]



[25: Clowns 'repeating' magicians trick ]



Link to full set.


Okay, now for the questions:

Even though I don't think the shots are too bad, I feel they're lacking in the sharpness department and of course the noise department (which doesn't bother me as much as the softness of the pictures). The problem with shots like this is that you're operating at the borders of what's possible (max. ISO, max. aperture, no flash was allowed and fast moving subjects). There's also only so much that you can do with post-processing. So what should I do to improve the quality of these shots (not counting composition). A faster lens maybe? One with IS? Being already at max. ISO and max aperture really limits the options.

Anybody care to give a few tips on low light action shooting? Or are the shots above not that bad?

 

[TB]

First off, that Russian Bar shot is incredible!

That said, there are a few shots that look like they could use a little Noise Ninja-ing (Swinging fire, in particular), but I think they all look pretty damn good. 👍

 

[Syntax error]

First off, the shots are great. Love shooting stuff like this and concerts as they are always well light (not a lot of light, but interesting colours are used) so the shots look interesting.

The lack of sharpness is one thing that is not your problem but more an issue from an equipment stand point. As TB pointed out, you can use Noise Ninja. Some people swear by it (if memory serves me well, Scaff uses it) however I don't have any personal experience with it.

The only other option is the expensive one. You could upgrade the body, as ISO performance improves with higher spec models. Are you still using the 450D?

I think ISO performance is something like this:

450D - 1600 ISO
50D - 3200 ISO
5D MKII - 6400 ISO

As you know already quick glass can help as well.

The other even more expensive option is to go Nikon. With the right settings on a Nikon, you can do some silly things like the equivalent of 25,600 ISO on a D700.

Probably the one photographer I really look up to the most is Mark Rebilas. He shoots a lot of night time sports events like NFL, Baseball, NHRA & NASCAR. He posts his settings under every shot in his blog and some of the ISO settings are astronomical (he uses a Nikon) yet his shots are awesome.

In all honesty though, the shots you took are great. It is generally accepted that low light shots will never be as sharp (with current technology) as the day time stuff.

 

[NLxAROSA]

Thanks for the kind words. I just love to shoot in low light conditions, especially at shows or concerts, the lighting makes it appear almost magical.

I was kind of wondering if I was just not using the equipment I have right or that I am just running into the boundaries of what is possible with the stuff I have now, which is why I wanted to run the shots past you guys. For the shots I did indeed use a 450D, combined with a Sigma 17-70 at f/2.8.

Quick glass is just one option, possibly the cheapest, but not the most flexible, since most (if not all) sub-f/2.8 glass is limited to primes rather than zooms.

I like the option of another body, but let's just say I switch to a 50D (which can go to 3200ISO, or even 12800 using a special function), will that also improve the quality of pictures shot at 1600 ISO? I assume it does, because the sensor is of better quality.

Also, I could combine the two, since I can use my current lenses on a 50D without problems. Of course, that would require some hard cash.

I'll check out the Mark Rebilas blog, the Nascar shots up there are amazing! 👍

 

[Scaff]

I do use Noise Ninja when a shot needs it, and it can make all the difference.

I gave it a quick go on the jugglers shot and it gets rid of a huge amount of noise on it, I would strongly recommend you give the demo a go.....

http://www.picturecode.com/

...it was more than enough to convince me to buy it.

I would also invest in a 50mm f1.8, they may limit you to a degree being a prime, but the extra speed, sharpness and viewfinder brightness more than make up for that.


Regards

Scaff

 

[boiltheocean]

I love the Russian Bar photograph! Brilliant colours and the shutter speed is spot-on. Keep this up because I am seriously impressed 👍, and the more you do the more it makes me want a faster lens

 

[Syntax error]

Also don't get too bumbed out about shots being a tad too grainy and soft at high ISO, probably good to remember the film days and how grainy images used to be with film that was 800 ISO and over. We have come a long way from then when it comes to low light photography.

 

[NLxAROSA]

Thanks for the feedback guys, I'll checkout Noise Ninja. And maybe have a look at a fast prime, the 50mm F/1.8 is very cheap, but would the 50mm F/1.4 be worth the extra cash (with only half a stop extra, and according to reviews, not too sharp below F/2.0)?

EDIT: Whipped out 59 euro for the Pro version of Noise Ninja, what a difference it makes!
EDIT2: I couldn't resist looking for a 50mm prime as well. Best bang for the back appears to be the Sigma 50mm F/1.4, so I decided to go with that one! 👍

 

[NLxAROSA]

Have been experimenting a bit with the new Sigma 50mm f/1.4. The bokeh of this lens is so sweet. A bit coarse at 1.4, but smooth as silk on 2.0. Anyway, here's a little test shot I did in my living room. The shallow DOF is something to take into account though, especially when shooting at short range. Very easy to get the focus slightly off when shooting a portrait at f/1.4.

[26: Candle]

 

[Syntax error]

Congrats on the new lens purchase. Looking forward to seeing some shots with it.

The candle shot is interesting. The Green in the background is a little distracting but the blue light behind the candle is pretty cool 👍

 

[NLxAROSA]

Hardly doing any photographing at the moment, but yesterday featured a clear sky early in the evening, so I decided to see if it was possible to shoot a nice picture of the moon, without a tripod, with my 70-200. It was. I also included a crop at 100%. Not as sharp as I wanted, but acceptable given the circumstances it was taken under.

[27: The Moon]



[28: Moon closeup]

I also went to the zoo last week, baboons are always doing strange stuff.

[29: IR Baboon]



As always, all are clickable for larger (except the 100% moon shot).

 

[NLxAROSA]

Here's a little shot I took with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. It was a snapshot really, but it turned out really nice. I even ordered it on print. Again, click it for larger version.

Oh, I also found out, that even if you protect a photo in Flickr, the static links can still be viewed by anyone. So I ended up taking the protection off, because it's crap anyway. 👎

[30: Closeup of my daughter Alyssa]