A Picture I Took 2014 - Contains NSFW Images

Empty_Quarter, I really like how you capture and put emphasis on the different colors of more "exaggerated" light in your photos of cities. It makes the city look so alive.You and Daggah capture some of my favorite types of photos,and the contrast between the two is evident.

Daggah, you have a great eye for alignment. I think that your lighting is awesome. Your pics look so calm and relaxed.

I feel like I should travel more all of a sudden.
 
Not sure when I last posted in here, so here's a little of what I've been up over the past couple of months.

IMG_8283_zps498cac17.jpg



IMG_8753_zps7d8339cd.jpg



IMG_8841_zpse8ddfd84.jpg



IMG_1202_zps3b555d1c.jpg



IMG_1367-3_zps367aed5c.jpg



IMG_1796_zps0fd71191.jpg



IMG_2348_zpsa4ffb0c7.jpg



IMG_0213_zpsc24d6932.jpg



IMG_7251_zps3ffbf5c9.jpg
 
In the search for a better camera to take while mountain biking, traveling, and backpacking I picked up a used Sony a6000 with a 50mm 1.8 lens last friday. I wanted to test it before I go to Hawaii at the end of the month. I was very hesitant with this mirrorless movement but figured I'd give it a shot. Spent the last 5 days coaching at a couple race/test events so I brought the camera along to test. Its tempting me to unload the 7d and canon lenses though it certainly is at a disadvantage in panning and sports shooting.

First Test shots with the A6000 by ZJChaser, on Flickr

First Test shots with the A6000 by ZJChaser, on Flickr

First Test shots with the A6000 by ZJChaser, on Flickr

Race Test Day by ZJChaser, on Flickr

Race Test Day by ZJChaser, on Flickr

Race Test Day by ZJChaser, on Flickr

Race Test Day by ZJChaser, on Flickr
 
RaRaMe said:
Empty_Quarter, I really like how you capture and put emphasis on the different colors of more "exaggerated" light in your photos of cities. It makes the city look so alive.You and Daggah capture some of my favorite types of photos,and the contrast between the two is evident.

Daggah, you have a great eye for alignment. I think that your lighting is awesome. Your pics look so calm and relaxed.

I feel like I should travel more all of a sudden.
Click to expand...

Thank you!

I picked up photography to give myself an extra reason to travel more as I spend my time on overseas assignments. I doubt anyone is ever going to look back on their life and say "you know, I wish I had seen less places in the world."
 
RaRaMe said:
Empty_Quarter, I really like how you capture and put emphasis on the different colors of more "exaggerated" light in your photos of cities. It makes the city look so alive.You and Daggah capture some of my favorite types of photos,and the contrast between the two is evident.

Daggah, you have a great eye for alignment. I think that your lighting is awesome. Your pics look so calm and relaxed.

I feel like I should travel more all of a sudden.
Click to expand...

Ty :), photography alone is an exuse to travel

Border by Empty Quarter, on Flickr

Detroit by Empty Quarter, on Flickr

Toronto by Empty Quarter, on Flickr

Almost by Empty Quarter, on Flickr
 
Wow - so everything on this page so far is amazing - good goin' guys! Daggah & Patric, love the landscapes & model shots!

My new 20mm/1.8 lens came in today! I couldn't resist taking it out hiking today even though it was about to rain and the lighting was horrible. Here's a few sample shots - most of 'em aren't great, but you can see how the new lens handles at least. Can't wait to get this thing on a full-frame! And I also need to get a good polarizer for it asap.

First, couple last shots from the 24mm/2.8 several weeks ago, same hiking trails near my house, little better lighting. Found these while processing the ones from today.
hiking-river-1.jpg


Wish I'd had the macro on hand for this bug/flower combo, but the 24mm was nice and sharp at least, cropped down it doesn't' look too bad.
hiking-river-2.jpg


Ok, here's the 20mm/1.8. It's impossible to resist shooting tons of macro with this thing! It focuses right up to the edge of the lens hood. Definitely tack sharp - I'd show you some 1:1 but I got lazy and ended up with slight motion-blur in most of these. Oh, and the bokeh's not bad either!

hiking-river-3.jpg


Some decent fall colors out today - I am really liking the perspective this lens gives, but still didn't get many compositions I was happy with on the trail today...
hiking-river-4.jpg


hiking-river-5.jpg


hiking-river-6.jpg


hiking-river-7.jpg


hiking-river-8.jpg


Almost no distortion - looks like it'll be a fairly decent portrait lens too. (pic of my dad on hike)
hiking-river-9.jpg
 
Looking really good there, more than impressive results. Something tells me this lens will get a price bump next year. Keep up, and I look forward to your future shots once you tame the beast on a full frame! Makes me want to pick up a new lens, too, thought the one I'm after is a bit more $$ :(
 
Wow - great night shots! I've been checking light-polution maps of my area - need to find a good star-viewing area near here to try this.
 
Anh, great first photo you have there. The opening in the clouds which frame the stars, the large plant leading the eye up there. The color balance works well also.
 
madFive said:
Wow - great night shots! I've been checking light-polution maps of my area - need to find a good star-viewing area near here to try this.
Click to expand...

MN Scout said:
Anh, great first photo you have there. The opening in the clouds which frame the stars, the large plant leading the eye up there. The color balance works well also.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the kind words!
 
Took the new 20mm back down to the river for sunrise today. It definitely has some interesting behavior when aimed directly into the sun!

Hiking-River-10.jpg


Hiking-River-11.jpg


Hiking-River-12.jpg
 
Anh, what exposure times are these? I'm guessing maybe 4-6 seconds based on the two streaks of aircraft in the frame...
 
jmroberts70 said:
Anh, what exposure times are these? I'm guessing maybe 4-6 seconds based on the two streaks of aircraft in the frame...
Click to expand...
The first shot exif is f4, 24mm, iso 4000, and is a 20 sec exposure
The 2nd shot is f4, 24mm, iso 1600, and 25 sec exposure. (This one was actually taken earlier in the night than the other shot, brighter light pollution in the foreground so lower iso, and the reason for leaving it as 25 sec is that I want a bit of cloud movement, but not longer or get more star trail)

Empty_Quarter said:
Well deserved, both shots are rather epic

I might be in that part of the world over xmas - i only wish i get the chance to replicate :)
Click to expand...

stinger608 said:
Very awesome work!!!!

Man, I saved that second shot for a desktop wallpaper! :D
Click to expand...

Thanks guys!
 
Last edited:
Anh N. said:
The first shot exif is f4, 24mm, iso 4000, and is a 20 sec exposure. The 2nd shot is f4, 24mm, iso 1600, and 25 sec exposure. (This one was actually taken earlier in the night than the other shot, brighter light pollution in the foreground so lower iso, and the reason for leaving it as 25 sec is that I want a bit of cloud movement, but not longer or get more star trail)
Click to expand...

Thanks so much Anh!! I think I actually live near where this was taken. I'm going to have to take a shot at doing this myself...
 
jmroberts70 said:
Thanks so much Anh!! I think I actually live near where this was taken. I'm going to have to take a shot at doing this myself...
Click to expand...

I'm jealous that you live close to that area. So many great national parks nearby. I think the rule of thumb for nightshot without star trail is 500/focal length for max exposure (# of seconds). Some might go down to 400/focal length for pin sharp stars. Hope this help. :)

More focus this time on the Joshua tree than skies :) (Exif: f4, 26mm, iso 4000, 15 sec)

Joshua Tree Nightscape 3 by pyrospawn, on Flickr
 
Anh N. said:
I'm jealous that you live close to that area. So many great national parks nearby. I think the rule of thumb for nightshot without star trail is 500/focal length for max exposure (# of seconds). Some might go down to 400/focal length for pin sharp stars. Hope this help. :)

More focus this time on the Joshua tree than skies :) (Exif: f4, 26mm, iso 4000, 15 sec)

Joshua Tree Nightscape 3 by pyrospawn, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Damn!!!!!!!! You have some amazing images in your Flickr account man!

I would love to learn some of your tricks for macro shots! :D
 
Focus... now that's where I sometimes fail. My stars never look crisp in the dark night photography I do. There's usually a horizon or tree or whatever that I focus on.

Did you use manual focus (i.e., hard infinity stop), or did you actually try to use the autofocus?
 
djstarfox said:
Focus... now that's where I sometimes fail. My stars never look crisp in the dark night photography I do. There's usually a horizon or tree or whatever that I focus on.

Did you use manual focus (i.e., hard infinity stop), or did you actually try to use the autofocus?
Click to expand...
You can manual focus (set it on infinity). You can also use autofocus, the way I do it is to auto-focus at something bright that is in the distance (i.e: moon, bright stars), then recompose. A lot of time your star is not sharp is due to too long of an exposure, which can cause star trail. Hence stars would not be pin sharp.

Gary Hart explains a lot better than I can in his blog here; http://garyhartblog.com/photo-tips/starlight/
 
Empty_Quarter said:
^^ I think the DOF is way too small on that, otherwise get framing/lighting
Click to expand...

I would've done even less if I could've. Limited to f/2.8. If I had the 135L f/2 or even used an 85 f/1.8, I would have had even less. Semi-reminisent of Martin Schoeller's (scroll to the bottom and look at it full screen to see low DOF) work, although that facial shot series that he did, he used flat lighting and medium format to achieve the extremely thin DOF (and all of them were shot dead on, with no angles). I prefer a bit more of a contrasty look, and I definitely have Medium Format envy.

All this to say, it's intentional, and like all art, it isn't for everyone.
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with UnknownSouljer on this one. I really like the affect on a portrait and will have to give that a try myself on my next shoot. Martin Schoeller has an awesome portfolio BTW!!
 
UnknownSouljer said:
I would've done even less if I could've. Limited to f/2.8. If I had the 135L f/2 or even used an 85 f/1.8, I would have had even less. Semi-reminisent of Martin Schoeller's (scroll to the bottom and look at it full screen to see low DOF) work, although that facial shot series that he did, he used flat lighting and medium format to achieve the extremely thin DOF (and all of them were shot dead on, with no angles). I prefer a bit more of a contrasty look, and I definitely have Medium Format envy.

All this to say, it's intentional, and like all art, it isn't for everyone.
Click to expand...

What throws it off for me is that the left eye is not in focus. I think it would look really neat if both eyes were in focus (but alas, only way that will happen is if subject is looking straight ahead).
 
jmroberts70 said:
I have to agree with UnknownSouljer on this one. I really like the affect on a portrait and will have to give that a try myself on my next shoot. Martin Schoeller has an awesome portfolio BTW!!
Click to expand...

Thanks.

It's an artistic choice. I tend to prefer very shallow depths of field. Some other people I work for prefer a lot of depth of field. I tend to shoot from f/1.2-f/4.0, but it's not uncommon to see Dean Bradshaw or Kremer/Johnson shoot portraits at f/8.0-f/16.0

It's definitely a different look. I like shadows, and low DoF, and generally when it's my work I push for a painterly feel.


Empty_Quarter said:
What throws it off for me is that the left eye is not in focus. I think it would look really neat if both eyes were in focus (but alas, only way that will happen is if subject is looking straight ahead).
Click to expand...

We all like different things. For a long time I basically used the photo journalist mantra which is "f/8 and be there" and I probably shot at that Aperture almost exclusively for about 2 years. I would shoot in full manual, and just change the shutter or iso and get that light meter in the middle, very uncomplicated. I was more into travel/landscape/architecture so it suited what I was doing anyway. After I really learned the Exposure Triangle inside and out I just found that I prefer to draw attention to things, and that I just generally like focus falloff.

And for something like this, generally I feel all you need is one eye to make a striking portrait. I didn't want to start a war, but I'm glad there is a dialog. You don't have to like my style or preferences. That's okay with me, I know I can't please everyone. We all just do what we do. I can say this though, all of my best work is done when I'm allowed to take control and shoot it how I want to do it. Input just stifles flow and creativity.
 
lol, I dont "hate" your work or style, I didn't imply that nor was I looking to argue, it was merely an indifferent comment. In retrospect, I should have said nothing.
 
Empty_Quarter said:
lol, I dont "hate" your work or style, I didn't imply that nor was I looking to argue, it was merely an indifferent comment. In retrospect, I should have said nothing.
Click to expand...

lol, I don't consider it an argument either. :)
I know text isn't good for communicating emotion, but I promise you, even if you did hate it (which I know you don't), that's okay! Which is what I was trying to say in the last post. We all like different stuff, it makes the world go round, and it's all good! :cool:
 
I'm sorry, but I have to put myself squarely in the "depth of field too narrow" camp. Both eyes should be in focus, always. When we look at people, when we perceive their faces, we don't see them as having part of their face blurry.
 
Daggah said:
I'm sorry, but I have to put myself squarely in the "depth of field too narrow" camp. Both eyes should be in focus, always. When we look at people, when we perceive their faces, we don't see them as having part of their face blurry.
Click to expand...

That's okay, you can make your artistic choices.

My only challenge for you is thinking about how limiting that is. You've created a rule for yourself. What if you want to create a portrait with neither eye in focus? What if the focus was on something else entirely? (Say it's a musican and it's their musical instrument, or a builder of some sort and it's on their tools. Their face could still be in the frame, while not having their face in focus).

I would also challenge your statement. If the discussion is that: you never perceive any part of someone's face to be blurry, I guess you could also argue that nothing should ever be blurry or out of focus. Really, whether you intended to or not, by extension you're saying that everything should be in focus all the time, as that is how our perception works. We look at something, and it's in focus. When our eyes look around a room, each item appears in focus. Then when you'd want to take a picture of said room or any space, by these rules we should probably all be shooting at f/11-f/16 all the time.

I personally don't want to have my art or my work be limited. Rules are fine, but in this case they're your rules, I clearly don't subscribe to them. :cool: I don't suggest you subscribe to mine either. At the end of the day, the most important thing (and I know this will sound irrelevant to our current conversation) is that you believe in your work, and that your work is good. I had someone comment they thought my color grade was too cold (to the point of blue tones appearing in the skin). I didn't worry about that (as that was my intent), just like I won't worry about this. I know what I want and what I want to achieve, and it's beyond okay with me that it's totally different than what you want and what you want to achieve.
 
Last edited:
UnknownSouljer said:
That's okay, you can make your artistic choices.

My only challenge for you is thinking about how limiting that is. You've created a rule for yourself. What if you want to create a portrait with neither eye in focus? What if the focus was on something else entirely? (Say it's a musican and it's their musical instrument, or a builder of some sort and it's on their tools. Their face could still be in the frame, while not having their face in focus).

I would also challenge your statement. If the discussion is that: you never perceive any part of someone's face to be blurry, I guess you could also argue that nothing should ever be blurry or out of focus. Really, whether you intended to or not, by extension you're saying that everything should be in focus all the time, as that is how our perception works. We look at something, and it's in focus. When our eyes look around a room, each item appears in focus. Then when you'd want to take a picture of said room or any space, by these rules we should probably all be shooting at f/11-f/16 all the time.

I personally don't want to have my art or my work be limited. Rules are fine, but in this case they're your rules, I clearly don't subscribe to them. :cool: I don't suggest you subscribe to mine either. At the end of the day, the most important thing (and I know this will sound irrelevant to our current conversation) is that you believe in your work, and that your work is good. I had someone comment they thought my color grade was too cold (to the point of blue tones appearing in the skin). I didn't worry about that (as that was my intent), just like I won't worry about this. I know what I want and what I want to achieve, and it's beyond okay with me that it's totally different than what you want and what you want to achieve.
Click to expand...

I think it's a stretch to call a fairly basic headshot "art," and I think you're hiding behind that as an excuse for this shot. It's pretty obvious that there's a wide middle ground between always shooting wide-open, and only getting one eye in focus, and shooting everything at f/11-f/16. Your response seems so defensive that I quite honestly wonder if you were just shooting wide open without thinking of the possibility that your subject's face might be angled, resulting in an image with one sharp eye and one blurry one. That's understandable, I've made the same mistake in the past.

A portrait's purpose is to connect the viewer with the subject. For people, that connection usually comes through the eyes. Yes, a portrait can make use of selective focus to highlight a different area - I've done that myself in the past - but it's not obvious that's the intention in this particular picture. If you want the shallow depth of field fad look, that's fine, but you could easily have stepped down a stop, carefully placed your focus, and still gotten that look while getting both eyes in sharp focus with an imperceptible difference to the rest of the portrait.

By the way, the autumn leaves photo I just posted was shot at f/7.1 on my 24-70 f/2.8. If I had shot at f/2.8, there'd be so little of the picture in actual sharp focus that the viewer would have a hard time figuring out where to look. So I stopped down a few stops, got a slightly wider DoF, and still captured an image with the background melting away into bokehliciousness.
 
ZJChaser said:
In Maui for the week and brought the a6000. Still stoked on this little thing. Anyone want a 7d and a bunch of canon glass? ;p

Waihee Ridge Trail Hike by ZJChaser, on Flickr

Waihee Ridge Trail Hike by ZJChaser, on Flickr

Waihee Ridge Trail Hike by ZJChaser, on Flickr

Waihee Ridge Trail Hike by ZJChaser, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Man I'm so tempted to pick up the a6000 as a 2nd body, and this post certainly making the case for it :). It's on sale on Adorama/BH for $448. SOOOOOO tempted! MUST RESIST!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top