My new-to-me Yashica Electro, subject of my first "stock" photo!

5DManiac

TPF Noob!
Joined
Aug 18, 2009
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I just got this Yashica today, it's absolutely MINT MINT MINT MINT. I can't say it enough. Anyway here is my first attempt at a stock photo. I used a 17-40@ 40mm, f/16, 8 second or so exposure (check exif --i forget) and multiple fires of my wireless 430ex. This was done with an opteka remote trigger. How is it?? I know i could of done better with a macro lens.. but give me a break :p

gsn35-800.jpg

camflash.jpg
 
Last edited:
It'll do fine, but ,excuse moi, I see your room in the lens reflection! :D
I was in an antic once. I saw some real old cameras. They were literally leather boxes with a magnifying glass in front! They cost about 100$ but they were to dirty to go anywhere.
 
Yeah I know the room is there :greenpbl: but it was a fairly quick shot:confused:
 
The camera'a top plate is not level, and the front ring of the lens is out of focus. Your camera is positioned so closely to the subject that the final picture is suffering from apparent perspective distortion, which is causing the lens to have the infamous "Jimmy Durante nose" look.

Moving the camera taking the picture a bit farther away from the subject,and using a correspondingly longer focal length lens to compensate for the increased distance, would have eliminated the exaggerated size effect of the lens on the Yashica being rendered larger than it is in reality. Having such a prominent part of the picture out of focus makes this stock photo submission a tough sell, I think. I think maybe yo should have tried adjusting the depth of field a little it farther toward the front of the subject, to see if you couldn't bring the lens front and the front of the body into the depth of field zone.

The camera itself--WOW! That does look like a mint condition example.
 
Thanks Derrel. I understood all your points before you even made them. I wished no one would of noticed the distortion of the top plate. But on the other hand, I don't have a 200mm lens. The only other lens I have is a 50 1.4 (as evident in my sig) but it's minimum focusing distance is far worse (.45m) than my 17-40. As I said I did the best with what I had. I could of plugged in +1 of distortion correction with PS's lens distortion correction tool, but I got lazy and just wanted to show off the camera and play with it. But thanks for the tips, all valid.

And by the way, I got as much in focus as I could at f/16, manually focused on the camera body. Perhaps I could of brought focus more up front, but at the distance I was working at, I was cutting it close. Perhaps a 100mm 2.8 macro or a f/2.8 IS 70-200 would of been a better choice. But I'm not buying a lens for photos I rarely take :p
 
Last edited:
The edges are a little fuzzy and the center of the camera is a little dark, meaning the lighting is off. As for stock images this could only be used as an editorial sense the names are all copyrighted.
 
Right the edges are fuzzy I already acknowledged that. But this is as good as an attempt I'll try with a 40mm lens. Max depth of field at f/16 and the distance at which I was at. I could of backed off some but I was trying to capture detail. And I agree exposure is a tad low. And I don't plan to use this for an actual "stock photo" I was simply referring to the style. But thanks for your legal advice anyway :greenpbl:

If I ever get a longer-FL lens I'll try again and report back. This time I'll set up my lighting gear.
 
OK I made an edit based on feedback. It's obviously still not perfect. I'll see if you can find the obvious imperfection. Hahaha . better??
gsn35edit800.jpg
 

Most reactions

Back
Top