Here is the Princess shot I sent to newspapers/ magazines. Yes, I have broken all the technical rules.
1. the use of a warming white balance(set for shade} with in camera j-peg.
2. the use of 1600 iso in sunlight.
3 the use of an extreme telephoto for a portrait.
4. out of focus in some photographs Tower7, He He.
After being a medical photographer where we were told extreme telephotos were bad as well as wide angles more than 35mm not usable, it is fun to break all the rules and even burn whites out! I am relearning what I was told not to do in school.
Here is another of the Dragon for ya SkiesOf Azel. The in camera j-peg is super warm and good. This is the Raw though scaled down in photoshop to level 12.
I enjoy breaking a few rules myself, but your nr. 3 I never break.
There is nothing gained by giving your subject bigger ears than normal (or bigger nose/cheeks, in the case of wide angle).
What are you calling an extreme telephoto, Redcarmoose?
I'm also partial to ultra wide angles myself. Nowadays, they have less distortion then any time before, with even better corner sharpness. There is literally no reason to not have a decent ultra-wide in one's bag, provided there's room and money.
What are you calling an extreme telephoto, Redcarmoose?
I'm also partial to ultra wide angles myself. Nowadays, they have less distortion then any time before, with even better corner sharpness. There is literally no reason to not have a decent ultra-wide in one's bag, provided there's room and money.
Ultra wide on a crop sensor, or ultra wide using full frame? The difference can be significant.
You can use a true ultra wide, and it will give some goofy proportions, but sometimes that is fun.
I look at the equivalent focal length in this case, so I'd consider ultra-wide 21 and below.
I like the focusing effect it gives--it can emphasize something that normally would be insignificant or lost in the picture without an ultra-wide. A bit of drama.
I have used some great 20mm f3.5 lenses (Nikon F, Minolta XD) from my 35mm days and that focal length was the best trade-off between ultra-wide and flat field IME; they were my favorite lenses in both systems.
This 1980s ED Glass Nikon 300mm which when placed on a D-40 in manual mode becomes {300X1.6} a 480mm.
I consider anything from 500mm to 1000mm an extreme telephoto lens.
Not Koarl, Otto! This would be Jugendstil not Baroque.
I can't imagine a sharper contrast, the radiant Steinhof church towering above the dark history of Spiegelgrund:
This 1980s ED Glass Nikon 300mm which when placed on a D-40 in manual mode becomes {300X1.6} a 480mm.
I consider anything from 500mm to 1000mm an extreme telephoto lens.
Crop factor for Nikon DX cameras is 1.5, not 1.6. Unless you're talking about the Canon 40D, which I suppose would be 1.6. Nice lens either way
I'm a little less picky and consider anything 400mm and up to be extreme telephoto, but I only rate the lens itself, not including crop factor. I just finished doing a large theatre shoot, and I'm tied down processing the thousand odd files, so I'm not doing any shooting right now. Maybe next week.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
