My head was hurting for some reason this morning. Wild Turkey power.

Image

Image

Image
[Reply]

What ISO were you at Brad? It's not available in your exif data.
[Reply]

I am jealous of that lens, Justin, it would be nice to use that in a place like I shot this weekend.
I chased my tail with the aperture til i just had everything all screwed up, so I just shot a LOT to cover
all my mistakes. And I made many dozens of mistakes. It did force me to learn something though, and
I forced myself to read about Auto Focus sensor zone switching with the D-pad. It always sounded like a
pain in the butt to me, so I just skipped over it and figured I'd work around not knowing how to do it, or at least
practice it one day sitting around, haha. So I got the focus zone in the middle, which was EASY,
but wrong over a lot of the stuff I shot. Lots of perfectly focused BELTS and BOOBS and soft faces and eyes.
had I realized how easy it is to do in practice, i would have made much better use out of that practice trip last night.
[Reply]

I ranged between 800 and 1600 all night. TOO HOT, I needed to work harder with the aperture
I had to give. 1600 was not ideal. I might have capped it at 1200 about midway through the
evening. I need to look at the originals, where I know I can read the EXIF on the camera itself.
I can look at the items I posted here, too, specifically, to see where the ISO was.
[Reply]

Why not pick up a 50mm f/1.8 brad? You can get the older AF-D model for a lil over $100 new. Or even a 35mm f/1.8
[Reply]

What the hell you think I was shooting with, lol....:-) But I didn't play around long enough to see JUST
what I needed to do to balance maybe a 1200 ISO with some other changes to find a sweet spot with
the aperture. I think I wanted to be a coupla stops short of wide open for clarity. But most times I must
have failed, because it looks like I stayed in 1600 all night. I am not sure why I couldn't get off that.
Surely auto ISO did not feel like it was that dark in the place. I must have been whacking that iris a
little more than I thought. I should have matrix metered and seen what the computer might have done.
[Reply]

Well after posting the pic in the critique section on POTN, I think I have my shot how I want it. Next time I'll try to frame it this way.


Image
Crystal Final by emopunker2004, on Flickr
[Reply]

Always leave talk-space, TV or not. That's the 'proper framing'.
LOL, what do I know?
[Reply]

:-)
[Reply]

You know, talk space...you frame so that the direction they are 'talking' has the most room, not with their nose in
a frame edge. Doesn't everybody know obscure TV terms? :-) I like the implied horizontals on the bottom in the sand.

[Image
Craquelure by MemphisBrad, on Flickr]

REDRUM.
[Reply]

Here she be! :-)

Image
Untitled by emopunker2004, on Flickr
[Reply]

that's a big lens.
[Reply]

Sad thing it really isn't lol. The f/2.8 model is much bigger and heavier.
[Reply]

F2.8 is a sweet lens. I had the Nikkor, but I have heard good things about the Cannon lens. The front element is pretty large though!
[Reply]

I rented the 2.8 a lil while back and it's not something I want to shoot on a regular basis without a monopod
[Reply]

No, it was definately a handfull. Back in the day I shot a lot of wildlife stuff, and since I was young, single and thought I had lots of money to blow, I bought some pretty fast lenses. At one point I had a 200/2.8, a 300/2.8, and an 800/4.0. Man, I wish I had the cash I spent on those babies these days!
[Reply]

Yeh this was only $475 shipped
[Reply]

There were times that I resembled this poor bloke...

Image

No wonder my neck, back and knees kill me these days!
[Reply]

:-) :-)
[Reply]

OLS: #2021 shot 1 ( CD $5 ) :-)
EMO - # 2027 :-)

Really Nice work guys. .
[Reply]