Trying to do better. C&C please

[BNHPhotography]

1.

2.

Canon XTI, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 non is

 

[o hey tyler]

Image number 2 is much sharper than image 1. I'd reccomend shooting smaller than f/2.8. At f/8, these images would really pop. At f/2.8, they're too universally soft.

 

[BNHPhotography]

Image number 2 is much sharper than image 1. I'd reccomend shooting smaller than f/2.8. At f/8, these images would really pop. At f/2.8, they're too universally soft.

Thanks for the advice. These were my first shots with the 70-200L f/2.8, UPS brought it to me today, any tips for using the lens? Other than not shooting at f/2.8 all the time? haha

 

[o hey tyler]

Long telephoto lenses can give some really neat compression of planes. They're much more versatile in terms of composition. It's a particularly good lens for portraiture. Images can definitely be sharp at f/2.8, it's just not as easy when focusing to infinity. I think you'll really enjoy the lens. If not, you can always sell it to me.

If there's one other thing I'd recommend, it would be getting an off camera flash and an umbrella and using it for portraiture. It would be a simple setup, but you could learn on it. I'm not saying you should start selling your services, but with a long lens like a 70-200mm WITHOUT IS would be greatly benefiitted by off camera flash. Another reason that OCF would be a good way to go is because your current body (XTi) does not handle noise particularly well at moderate-high ISOs.

 

[KmH]

The vintage, yellowed post processing, like in #1, is really getting tired to those of us that have been looking at it for about 20 years now.

I agree that f.2.8 was inapprpriate for a long landscape shot, in so far that the wide aperture badly hurt the sharpness of the photo.

Who can tell us why a wide aperture makes focus soft.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

The vintage, yellowed post processing, like in #1, is really getting tired to those of us that have been looking at it for about 20 years now.

I agree that f.2.8 was inapprpriate for a long landscape shot, in so far that the wide aperture badly hurt the sharpness of the photo.

Who can tell us why a wide aperture makes focus soft.

Less depth of field and such? However if we get greedy and stop down way too far, diffraction might affect sharpness and overall image quality.

 

[BNHPhotography]

The vintage, yellowed post processing, like in #1, is really getting tired to those of us that have been looking at it for about 20 years now.

I agree that f.2.8 was inapprpriate for a long landscape shot, in so far that the wide aperture badly hurt the sharpness of the photo.

Who can tell us why a wide aperture makes focus soft.

My DoF was too shallow

This is the unedited version. I always try to over edit my photos...

 

[Forkie]

I prefer the over-edited one..!

 

[BNHPhotography]

That's SOOC, it's looking a little too blue to me

 

[Joel_W]

The softness issue has already been covered. Picture #1 to me would have been much better if you didn't cut off the the left side of the barn, and I prefer version #2 as you got rid of the yellowish cast. Picture #2 seems sharper but doesn't nearly have the interest to me as the 1st picture does. Perhaps increase the size of the barn as it's the main subject of the photograph.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

I don't like the vignette... Especially on blown highlights.

 

[Tee]

Image #2 has some appeal. On the first, I feel there is too much dead space at the bottom and could be cropped up. May I ask why you thought f/2.8 was the best option for you?

 

[BNHPhotography]

The ups man brought it to me about 2 hours before this shot and I was experimenting with it. I have an array of shots at different apertures, but I didn't think they were as interesting as these were.

 

[gsgary]

I would not have guessed that those images came from a top lens, F2.8 for landscape :er:

 

[BNHPhotography]

Well, tell me how to make them better! This was literally my 3rd shot with the lens. I know not to shoot at f2.8 all the time I was just trying it out. Help me...don't just say they're bad, please