Credit goes to Jeff for wrapping his guitar in the lights...
The reason this is qualified for the "lights" tag is that I off-camera'd the flash behind the guitar, just laying on the ground using the cabling and shoe adapters.
I'm also surprised how much detail is left in the shadows here... my camera is apparently very good with dynamic range on a setup like this. Huzzah, I suppose!
I have to disagree. Fisheye is bad because it is an unneeded distortion effect, besides being cliche. Flash images, while they are often technically flawed due to poor flash technique, are sometimes amazing.
The way I see it is that flash is a way of achieving results not possible due to equipment limitations, namely issues with exposure latitude and shutter speeds. Even when flash exceeds merely extending the limitations of photographic equipment, it CAN be done in a fashion that does not create something "unreal" to the eye. Where I draw the line with flash, like digital editing, is not where the image created is beyond reality by exceeding equipment limitations, but where the supplemental technology exceeds the mind's limit for believability. Hence why I detest HDR. I can pick out an HDR image 9/10.
I think the guys at Strobist often manage to balance the use of flash with creating images that the mind doesn't reject.
And hey, I'd rather people get the picture right IN THE CAMERA, than on a computer somewhere by combining a series of images or something similar.
I suppose I could just as easily have found a flashlight to put back there to illuminate the wall and done a longer exposure... but then that would have created a different balance of light between the guitar and the wall.
Also, I wasn't the one using fisheye on it, at least? Not that I can't say I wanted to, I think it may have been kind of cool.
really, flash for cheap tricks that didn't really happen is, to me, bad. same as the fisheye. flash because you want a shot and your film/sensor can't 'see', that's not as bad, but not my thing
it IS all a matter of opinion tho, and i tend to have some odd opinions.
i don't recall if it's a proper film lens in your case, or only has small-sensor coverage. if the former, it should be king for quite some time, as the 8's of the world are NOT common or affordable. and not very good in most cases.
if it's not 35mm full frame coverage, i'll possibly have something wider soon. the Girl is a huge fan of rectilinear wides, so the impending Very Old Camera will be getting either a 12 or a 15. probably the 15, as it's more 'sane' to handle for normalish shots. not fast - 15/4.5 - but it should do. i like the nikon 14/2.8, but damn! huge, expensive
so it's december now - what's everyone taking pictures of/with for christmas or such?
The 10-17 is very reduced circle - it was designed to give 180 from corner to corner on a 1.5 APS-C sensor. At 16, it covers the entire area of a 135 exposure, though - I've mounted it and taken pictures with it on my MX, as you might recall. Of course, at that point, it's limited to being an F32 lens, but I think it did pretty well, considering. It might actually approach being a circular fisheye at 10mm on 135, and thus useful for night skyviews, if it weren't for the permanent hood installed on it.
Pentax had a FE zoom for 135 format, too, though. 17-24 I think... pretty much the same overall specification, just a bit larger. They could easily start making it again if they needed to, as it was an autofocus design.
I still think sometimes about picking up a 20-35 f4 zoom for the eventuality of a return to 24x36 image area. Some of the 18-35 designs would be fun if not for the fact that they're slower than time itself. I had the opportunity to hold a Tamron 14/2.8 at that workshop I went to, and I can see why lenses like that aren't very popular. Is there some reason a 14/4 wouldn't sell? It's not like you really need the speed at that focal length, but then again, depth of field probably suffers. I don't know; I don't have that much of a problem with 16/4. Just Chromatic Aberration.
Christmas is probably trinkets around my mom's house. That and my cat. I should also try to get some pictures with my 50/1.7 down at the national christmas tree.
exactly why i'm looking at a 15/4.5 - wides don't need to be fast most of the time, and this way, they can be small as hell. well, other than needing an external viewfinder in this case......
as for DOF, figure set it to something like 10 feet, wide open at 4.5, and never have to worry about silly stuff like focusing!
There is really no incentive for a 14/4 prime for full-frame. The handful of professionals who need a 14mm lens on full-frame 35mm can afford to pay for a 14/1.x or a 14/2.x. 90% of the amateurs who want a 14mm lens want it for wide-angle on a APS-C sized sensor, and they generally don't buy primes.
That said, if Canon were to release a 14/4 prime, at around $300-400, I think they sell 10-20 times more 14mm lenses than they do right now.
Besides, as GMT alluded to, the lens would achieve hyperfocal in like, 95% of all shooting situations, WIDE OPEN.
GMT,
Well, when my finals are over Saturday, and I'm done driving, I'll probably try to get into NYC or DC with the Pacemaker Speed or the dReb with the 17-40. Niether get's much use in urban environments, so I'm curious to try them out there. Also, I hope to catch a little snow if I am so lucky. Since it has already snowed twice at my parents house, I think I might be in luck this year. I might also do a little star trail photography if we get any clear nights, especially around when the Gemenids pass by. The pacemaker speed is uniquely suited amongst my cameras for long-exposure photography, as it has absolutely zero electronics. No battery to die, no circuits to zap with condensation.
Credit goes to Jeff for wrapping his guitar in the lights...
ReplyDeleteThe reason this is qualified for the "lights" tag is that I off-camera'd the flash behind the guitar, just laying on the ground using the cabling and shoe adapters.
I'm also surprised how much detail is left in the shadows here... my camera is apparently very good with dynamic range on a setup like this. Huzzah, I suppose!
still - flash, like the fisheye, is bad
ReplyDelete-GMT
GMT,
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree. Fisheye is bad because it is an unneeded distortion effect, besides being cliche. Flash images, while they are often technically flawed due to poor flash technique, are sometimes amazing.
The way I see it is that flash is a way of achieving results not possible due to equipment limitations, namely issues with exposure latitude and shutter speeds. Even when flash exceeds merely extending the limitations of photographic equipment, it CAN be done in a fashion that does not create something "unreal" to the eye. Where I draw the line with flash, like digital editing, is not where the image created is beyond reality by exceeding equipment limitations, but where the supplemental technology exceeds the mind's limit for believability. Hence why I detest HDR. I can pick out an HDR image 9/10.
I think the guys at Strobist often manage to balance the use of flash with creating images that the mind doesn't reject.
And hey, I'd rather people get the picture right IN THE CAMERA, than on a computer somewhere by combining a series of images or something similar.
- Josh
I suppose I could just as easily have found a flashlight to put back there to illuminate the wall and done a longer exposure... but then that would have created a different balance of light between the guitar and the wall.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I wasn't the one using fisheye on it, at least? Not that I can't say I wanted to, I think it may have been kind of cool.
Then again, that's why I own one.
One other thing - nothing can get the field of view, depth of field, and close focus of the 10-17... photoshop trickery notwithstanding.
ReplyDeleteJosh -
ReplyDeletereally, flash for cheap tricks that didn't really happen is, to me, bad. same as the fisheye. flash because you want a shot and your film/sensor can't 'see', that's not as bad, but not my thing
it IS all a matter of opinion tho, and i tend to have some odd opinions.
-GMT
yah, 10-17 is W I D E
ReplyDeletei don't recall if it's a proper film lens in your case, or only has small-sensor coverage. if the former, it should be king for quite some time, as the 8's of the world are NOT common or affordable. and not very good in most cases.
if it's not 35mm full frame coverage, i'll possibly have something wider soon. the Girl is a huge fan of rectilinear wides, so the impending Very Old Camera will be getting either a 12 or a 15. probably the 15, as it's more 'sane' to handle for normalish shots. not fast - 15/4.5 - but it should do. i like the nikon 14/2.8, but damn! huge, expensive
so it's december now - what's everyone taking pictures of/with for christmas or such?
-GMT
The 10-17 is very reduced circle - it was designed to give 180 from corner to corner on a 1.5 APS-C sensor. At 16, it covers the entire area of a 135 exposure, though - I've mounted it and taken pictures with it on my MX, as you might recall. Of course, at that point, it's limited to being an F32 lens, but I think it did pretty well, considering. It might actually approach being a circular fisheye at 10mm on 135, and thus useful for night skyviews, if it weren't for the permanent hood installed on it.
ReplyDeletePentax had a FE zoom for 135 format, too, though. 17-24 I think... pretty much the same overall specification, just a bit larger. They could easily start making it again if they needed to, as it was an autofocus design.
I still think sometimes about picking up a 20-35 f4 zoom for the eventuality of a return to 24x36 image area. Some of the 18-35 designs would be fun if not for the fact that they're slower than time itself. I had the opportunity to hold a Tamron 14/2.8 at that workshop I went to, and I can see why lenses like that aren't very popular. Is there some reason a 14/4 wouldn't sell? It's not like you really need the speed at that focal length, but then again, depth of field probably suffers. I don't know; I don't have that much of a problem with 16/4. Just Chromatic Aberration.
Christmas is probably trinkets around my mom's house. That and my cat. I should also try to get some pictures with my 50/1.7 down at the national christmas tree.
exactly why i'm looking at a 15/4.5 - wides don't need to be fast most of the time, and this way, they can be small as hell. well, other than needing an external viewfinder in this case......
ReplyDeleteas for DOF, figure set it to something like 10 feet, wide open at 4.5, and never have to worry about silly stuff like focusing!
-GMT
Nat,
ReplyDeleteThere is really no incentive for a 14/4 prime for full-frame. The handful of professionals who need a 14mm lens on full-frame 35mm can afford to pay for a 14/1.x or a 14/2.x. 90% of the amateurs who want a 14mm lens want it for wide-angle on a APS-C sized sensor, and they generally don't buy primes.
That said, if Canon were to release a 14/4 prime, at around $300-400, I think they sell 10-20 times more 14mm lenses than they do right now.
Besides, as GMT alluded to, the lens would achieve hyperfocal in like, 95% of all shooting situations, WIDE OPEN.
GMT,
Well, when my finals are over Saturday, and I'm done driving, I'll probably try to get into NYC or DC with the Pacemaker Speed or the dReb with the 17-40. Niether get's much use in urban environments, so I'm curious to try them out there. Also, I hope to catch a little snow if I am so lucky. Since it has already snowed twice at my parents house, I think I might be in luck this year. I might also do a little star trail photography if we get any clear nights, especially around when the Gemenids pass by. The pacemaker speed is uniquely suited amongst my cameras for long-exposure photography, as it has absolutely zero electronics. No battery to die, no circuits to zap with condensation.
- Josh