What lenses do I need?

[thiscityizdead]

I zoom in and manually focus on my subjects. This is when I loose the sky because it's over exposed. Not to mention, I have to be a a great distance from my subjects. I am assuming I'm using a spot metering method. What are the differences.

When you expose the subject, the sky is too bright, when you expose the sky, the subject is too dark. It is simply because the dynamic range of the environment you shot at was just too wide for the camera to handle. Since we cannot dim the sky, so people usually find a way to light the subject to a point that the highest and the lowest point of the dynamic range are within the range of your camera can handle.

Some people may bracket the shots and combine them in POST. Some newer camera can do that in the camera (HDR).

As for the lens, the 50mm and the 85mm are quit good optically, (unless you have a bad copies) and it should be able to produce sharp image. Do you have an example of the problem photo?

Okay, that makes sense. So should I have used my flash for this and just had an underexposed background?

That's one of the images. I had to combine 2 images to create this one. In one image the main subjects were under exposed while the background/ sky and water/ were just about right. Second image, the subjects were exposed perfectly but the background was over exposed.

I'm trying to look for another photo where the subjects were on rocks/cliff and I was about 100ft away from them. It will show that they are not as sharp and the sky is just white.

 

[thiscityizdead]

I don't have an issue with portraiture. Maybe it's because it is my comfort zone and I don't over think?

This photo I shot and I was only about 30 steps away from the subject. Also, the brick wall helped block out the sun. This range I don't feel like I struggle with much because for one, it's only one person and lastly it's not a wide shot.

This shot, I used similar settings as above, only I was a bit further away. I used a tripod. The setting was earlier in the day. About 5Pm where the previous image was at around sunset (7pm). It was difficult because the background was overexposed. Subject wasn't as sharp as I could get her, so I had to boost the sharpness in LR.
All of these photos I shot with the 85mm

 

[thiscityizdead]

Neither is right or wrong and could be used in multiple situations. Watching videos and reading the manual will help you to understand the options and let you make YOUR creative decision to get the look that you are wanting.

The video gave examples on the zone and mentioned how it was the best setting for landscaping photography etc. while the spot is best used for portraiture, macro or close ups. They did have other examples of different effects you can get with different settings. Like you said, it depended on the look and effect you were trying to achieve.

 

[astroNikon]

That last shot will NOT be sharp, as the person is moving in it (and/or the camera).
You have to learn more about how shutter speed is important in each and every shot that you take and set it appropriately.
In this case, learn more about Manual mode and setting your Shutter, Aperture for the effect that you want then compensating it with the ISO.
here's something to read ==> Using Camera Shutter Speed Creatively

but when shooting portraits try to stay above 1/125 generally. if not faster. up to 1/200 (excluding bright days and open apertures which require faster shutter speeds). The more things moving faster, the faster the shutter unless you are after some type of blur effect.

 

[ronlane]

That first one is a tough situation because of the lighting. I watched a kelbyone.com video with Erik Valind where he demonstrates shooting outdoors with no extra lighting.

 

[thiscityizdead]

That last shot will NOT be sharp, as the person is moving in it (and/or the camera).
You have to learn more about how shutter speed is important in each and every shot that you take and set it appropriately.
In this case, learn more about Manual mode and setting your Shutter, Aperture for the effect that you want then compensating it with the ISO.
here's something to read ==> Using Camera Shutter Speed Creatively

but when shooting portraits try to stay above 1/125 generally. if not faster. up to 1/200. THe more things moving faster, the faster the shutter unless you are after some type of blur effect.

Well, for the last image I was going for a motion blur. I only used it in this example because of the background exposure. Although, I have seen images where the subjects are in motion and they are crisp sharp. In my case for this image, I had to manually blur the subject's motions (legs, hand bag) since I was unable to capture it on camera. I think I had my shutter speed at 1/125. What shutter speed do you think would've worked for this without making the entire subject blurry?

Another example is, if I wanted to get a shot where the head is blurred out, by having the subject move their head in all directions and keeping the rest of their body still, would I use a 1/55 shutter speed?

 

[thiscityizdead]

That first one is a tough situation because of the lighting. I watched a kelbyone.com video with Erik Valind where he demonstrates shooting outdoors with no extra lighting.

Ah! I haven't seen their videos in a long time. I rember I was obsessed with the photoshop guys' podcast. Back when I first had a point and shoot. Lol. I have no idea why I stopped watching them. I think it was because most of the settings and vocabulary didn't apply to my camera, so I felt lost. This was 9years ago. :|

I'll have to look for that video!

 

[Kanthaka]

Well, for the last image I was going for a motion blur. I only used it in this example because of the background exposure. Although, I have seen images where the subjects are in motion and they are crisp sharp. In my case for this image, I had to manually blur the subject's motions (legs, hand bag) since I was unable to capture it on camera. I think I had my shutter speed at 1/125. What shutter speed do you think would've worked for this without making the entire subject blurry?

Another example is, if I wanted to get a shot where the head is blurred out, by having the subject move their head in all directions and keeping the rest of their body still, would I use a 1/55 shutter speed?

Just to clarify, you basically wanted the top half to be "crisp sharp" but have the bottom half (legs and handbag) be blurry?

 

[thiscityizdead]

Well, for the last image I was going for a motion blur. I only used it in this example because of the background exposure. Although, I have seen images where the subjects are in motion and they are crisp sharp. In my case for this image, I had to manually blur the subject's motions (legs, hand bag) since I was unable to capture it on camera. I think I had my shutter speed at 1/125. What shutter speed do you think would've worked for this without making the entire subject blurry?

Another example is, if I wanted to get a shot where the head is blurred out, by having the subject move their head in all directions and keeping the rest of their body still, would I use a 1/55 shutter speed?

Just to clarify, you basically wanted the top half to be "crisp sharp" but have the bottom half (legs and handbag) be blurry?

Not really. More like the hand bag, hair and maybe the left leg be blurred because that's what was moving at the time. I just went ahead and blurred both legs to give it more motion. I was going for a motion blur. The concept was catching this girl on the run (somewhat with a distorted pose. Ha!)

 

[ceejtank]

What's your post processing process?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[Dao]

Check out the strobist.com and the strobist.com group in facebook as well as in Flickr. You may notice some of the great photos there does not even looks like artificial light(s) are used.

 

[thiscityizdead]

What's your post processing process?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

It all just depends on the photo, photo effect, theme and environment.

Normally for scenery photos like the beach one, I have to composite two or more images to get the background and foreground/subject looking like it was just one image. I then mess with levels, curves exposure Etc. in Photoshop. If it needs very minimal work, then I just take it into LR and edit the colors, saturation and exposure. Most of the times, it takes me longer to edit if it's a photo with a scene. If it is a portrait, it doesn't take me as long, but I enjoy editing them that I take most of time time doing it.

 

[thiscityizdead]

Check out the strobist.com and the strobist.com group in facebook as well as in Flickr. You may notice some of the great photos there does not even looks like artificial light(s) are used.

I just joined their FB group! It is making my decision on my next lens even that more complicated. Lol

I'm not certain what wide lens I should get.

17-40mm
35mm

Other recommendations?

 

[Derrel]

A wide zoom like the 17-40mm f/4 L offers wonderful focal length choices: pretty much the entire most-used wide-angle lengths are ALL within the 17mm to 40mm range. I grew up with 17mm being considered super-wide-angle; to me, it still is that. It offers creative distortion/spatial distortion options, and 40mm is a nice, longer length. It is the ENTIRE wide-angle range, in one lens...

The 35mm on the other hand, is a different animal, entirely. ONE length, but FAST aperture. If you really need aperture, it has it, whereas the 17-40 is much slower, at only f/4 when wide-open.

 

[weepete]

With that first one at the beach you need to use your flash to balance the foreground exposure of your subjects with the background exposure of the sky. Thats where spot metering comes in. So determine the difference in EV between the two and adjust flash power accordingly.

If you are going to shoot and HDR (one exposure for the background and one for the sky) you'll still need to make sure your shutter speed is adequate for the subjects if there is movement.

Is it possible your zooming in too much in post? Thats also a common error. Other things that can lead to soft images are using a sub standard filter (like UV filters) or smudges on your lens (back or front element) and smears on the sensor.

If you normally manual focus on subjects normally check the autofocus too (modern cameras tend towards AF having more accuracy, manual focus can be more tricky than the old 35mm film cameras) . Tripod, mirror up and AF on a subject making sure you're using timer or remote release to totally eliminate shake, OS off and compare to a manual focus shot in the same way. You could also check that your focus is spot on by shooting a ruler at 45 degrees in the same way with a shallow depth of field. I recently had a 150-600mm that I was convinced wasn't as sharp as it should be but after a tiny focus adjustment at 10ft its pretty spot on now.