New Lens- new direction

[weepete]

Most any rank amateur knows that. It also ought to be obvious that the more of a scene that is included in a particular image size, the smaller each component of the scene must be. Do you agree?

If I misunderstood your post, I apologise. I thought by the way you phrased your reply, you were suggesting that a change in focal length alone would change that relationship.

 

[weepete]

??? Well sorry to disagree but the focal length of a lens also determines whether the same object in the background looks closer to the foreground objects (telephoto) or further away (wide angle lens). Just try it.

That's ok mate, It's commonly talked about that way in photography circles, but it's actually a function of perspective, not focal length.

If you shoot without changing your position, the relationship between foreground and background objects will be maintained.

If you put a finger close to your eye, and look at the size relationship between an object in the background, then put your finger at arms length and do the same. The background object will appear larger, in comparison, when your finger is at arms length.

 

[weepete]

Thank you Pete- I will try to take on board your advice- I really appreciate the time you take answering these posts

Les

No bother Les, I'm happy to.

I've been lucky enough to have had a very good art teacher, and being an engineer by trade, I like to get a good handle on the technical aspects of photography too. As it's a subject I care about, I do like to think, and discuss thoughts about it. I've also had a lot of help along my journey, in photography terms a lot of that has been through kind people on this forum taking the time to give me feedback, tips, discuss concepts etc. So, yeah, happy to pitch in if there is something you'd like to know or gt feedback on!

 

[Lez325]

No bother Les, I'm happy to.

I've been lucky enough to have had a very good art teacher, and being an engineer by trade, I like to get a good handle on the technical aspects of photography too. As it's a subject I care about, I do like to think, and discuss thoughts about it. I've also had a lot of help along my journey, in photography terms a lot of that has been through kind people on this forum taking the time to give me feedback, tips, discuss concepts etc. So, yeah, happy to pitch in if there is something you'd like to know or gt feedback on!

Thank you Pete- I'll be certain to access your knowledge

Les

 

[RAZKY]

If I misunderstood your post, I apologise. I thought by the way you phrased your reply, you were suggesting that a change in focal length alone would change that relationship.

And my reply could have been clearer, for which I must apologise.

 

[RacePhoto]

I like the shot, and the way the water was and the colors, it almost looks as if it's moving, in the still image.

Personally, and I know you asked and people are being helpful and honest, crop it the way YOU see it, not the way I'd see it.

I like the human element, a person standing on the gravel, but you could clone them out and keep the nice reflections and composition. The colors are outstanding without being artificial looking.

 

[BobMc]

I am a Wildlife Photographer and shoot little else- I have been gifted a new lens ( from the wife)

Sigma 24mm f1.4 ART lens ( Sony FE mount)

It was a bright yet cold morning yesterday I took it out to see how it performed

Here's a shot of a small fishing village some 20 miles from my home - am still finding my way around this genre - so be kind

Sony a9 + Sigma 24mm f1.4 ART lens- f10- 1/250th sec ISO 100

@weepete

Les

Read some of the other comments, I like your shot! Bob.

 

[Lez325]

It's my personal opinion, of course, but the building and trees in the background look abnormally small. Panorama stitching with a longer lens would look more natural.

I'll re-vistit and take my 600mm f4 would that be long enough ????

Everyone focusing on the image itself, and I take away something completely different lol. I see a long time shooter about to rediscover the love.
This is the beauty of photography. Taking yourself outside the comfort zone and (re)discovering something in yourself that gives you that feeling and excitement when you first got the bug.

Agreed and thank you for pointing that out - As I say I am a Wildlife Photographer and my 600mm lens is never off my camea- to switch to a 24mm is some learning curve I can tell you

I like the shot, and the way the water was and the colors, it almost looks as if it's moving, in the still image.

Personally, and I know you asked and people are being helpful and honest, crop it the way YOU see it, not the way I'd see it.

I like the human element, a person standing on the gravel, but you could clone them out and keep the nice reflections and composition. The colors are outstanding without being artificial looking.

Thank you- Your comments are appreciated

Les

 

[RacePhoto]

I hope this isn't inappropriate for the discussion? There was a guy fishing on the rock bar in this image, before I finished editing the path and cloning him out.

I'm not going to say, someone would sue for seeing himself fishing, even if it was his side and back, but sometimes, that has happened. Without a release, depending on the final use, if anything is going to be marketed, you might want to eliminate a person.

My favorite is a guy who insisted he was in a shot of a driving range, and he actually went to a layer and tried to get money. (what makes someone that nuts?) After some back and forth, it was the wrong year and a different state. But honest, who does that kind of thing?

 

[jeffashman]

I hope this isn't inappropriate for the discussion? There was a guy fishing on the rock bar in this image, before I finished editing the path and cloning him out.

Not inappropriate. Sometimes it's worth removing objects from a photo. As for people doing crazy things to get money, that's the world we live in. It's one reason I keep my raw images safe, and only post jpeg copies.

 

[Lez325]

I hope this isn't inappropriate for the discussion? There was a guy fishing on the rock bar in this image, before I finished editing the path and cloning him out.

I'm not going to say, someone would sue for seeing himself fishing, even if it was his side and back, but sometimes, that has happened. Without a release, depending on the final use, if anything is going to be marketed, you might want to eliminate a person.

My favorite is a guy who insisted he was in a shot of a driving range, and he actually went to a layer and tried to get money. (what makes someone that nuts?) After some back and forth, it was the wrong year and a different state. But honest, who does that kind of thing?

Here in the UK we do not need to remove people from images - if photographed in a public place

 

[petrochemist]

Ok Thanks all - I'll try to answer some points


Its actually a cottage and left of that is a processing plant- not very attractive

What? a 50mm would make the image smaller - I don't understand your logic- I do have a Sony 50mm f1.4 G lens - but not good on full frame for images like this

Thank you - Me too gives the image some scale

I'll give that a go Kirk, Time permitting

Thank you- the item you mention is a mooring buoy- with a pole to attach a flag- should I remove it?

Ok - thank you

Correct it's a Mooring Buoy with a small ple on top of it

Tell me about it- I don't get this many comments on my wildlife images


Me too Jeff- that's why I left it in shot

Thank you all for the comments

Here's an edit with some of your suggestions

I will persevere


Les

I think I prefer it with the shore & person on the right, but with the 'mooring bouy' (I think actually a Withy with something caught up on it - Withys (sp?) are branches used to mark the channel, four can just be seen beyond the boats ) removed or at least not reaching the shore. (Changing your position slightly to the right might have been enough.

 

[RAZKY]

I'll re-vistit and take my 600mm f4 would that be long enough ????

Les

Well, that's an ignorant response to constructive criticism!.

 

[Lez325]

Well, that's an ignorant response to constructive criticism!.

Not really - your comment was not constructive - I merely asked you a question hence the ??? at the end of my comment

I do apologise if I offended you- that was not my intention

Les

 

[mathbias]

Not really - your comment was not constructive - I merely asked you a question hence the ??? at the end of my comment

In context "would 600mm be long enough" felt like more of a joke than a question. The relevant question might have been "would 600mm be too long". (but I wasn't assuming you even needed to ask any question).

I'd like to learn something here myself, relevant to the original suggestion:

"the building and trees in the background look abnormally small. Panorama stitching with a longer lens would look more natural."

Standing further away with a longer lens would increase the relative size of background objects (ignoring for the moment the fact that I don't see them as "abnormally small" in the original).
Panorama stitching with a longer lens, so far as I understand (and do quite a bit myself) gives you the same image but with more pixels. So the size of background objects would be unchanged from the original. I like to look at photos on a big computer display and then be able to zoom in on details. That takes a lot of extra pixels that most people wouldn't notice.

Did the original suggestion imply both of those, or what?