Gator, I love your conversion..............so that photo seems to work either way.
I usually convert that stuff, but since I didn't see a point, I didn't. However, yours is strong, very strong!
__________________________________________
Thanks, Gus, noticed that you came right on last night and was very happy to see your comments, but also too tired to respond, smile.
Went to bed happy,
Thanks,
_______________________________
Marloff, RsmMadrid, love your comments.
I appreciate that you stopped and looked, and
I always appreciate such nice comments.
____________________________
George, what can I say,
thanks,
__________________________________
I was using my new lenses. On the first one, it would have been the
16-35L Canon and the second one would have been the 70-200L Canon, both being F 2.8.
Even with those fast lenses, I had to go to 3200 ISO, then I underexposed (does that make sense), because those were slow shutter speeds, I will look them up and report. I had trouble with movement, so it was a lot of photos to get a few. But the few were good, especially of this person, Nappy Brown, who was the main man!
I went to the on camera flash, I did not like it! I don't think, I hope it wasn't used on the second one, I would have to eat my words. In general the on camera flash lit too much. I did not get the drama I was after. So, I learned that.
Am glad that for much of the time I did not use flash, but I will be throwing a lot of, not because of shake so much, but subject movement, and not my kind of blur.
Equipment Does Matter
IMO, the equipment one has/does not have matters a lot! Sometimes that is determined by choice such as my not using a tripod most of the time, and sometimes it is a matter of economics. But the idea that it is always and only the photographer, is, IMO, hogwash!
Yes, an experienced photographer with a "good eye", etc, may be able to do more with less than an inexperienced photographer, but with more......well, in my experience the equipment matters.
At Andy's suggest, and at much expense, I traded very similar lenses for the two lenses I used to take these photos. The difference being two stops on each lens. I went from f 4s, to f 2.8s. No excitement there, but I don't think shooting would have been possible in that light with my old lenses.
The first photo was taken with the 16-35L f 2.8 Canon.
F 2.8, 3200 ISO (was the Canon factor a help? I don't know.), 16mm, 1/40 sec, AV, EV-1
The second photo:
Everything the same except I did use the 70-200L f 2.8 Canon.
185mm, 1/60th sec, no flash, AV, EV-1
Thanks for all the nice comments. And the conversion, I do like that and may do one, too.
That 2nd one is really wild! I love it. Great job. I think if you did some LAB work with the B&W, it could come up really really well. But the colour is just fantastic!
Ginger, Boy you weren't kiding when you said there was great blues in your neighborhood...they all sure look like the REAL McKoy ....if they sound like they look ...then its for sure, a big time, happen'n spot...
Comments
The 1st is terrific also.
Great capture.
Cheers,
great!
and 2 is number 1!
love gator's bw of it-
ginger, you're getting better and better!
george
I usually convert that stuff, but since I didn't see a point, I didn't. However, yours is strong, very strong!
__________________________________________
Thanks, Gus, noticed that you came right on last night and was very happy to see your comments, but also too tired to respond, smile.
Went to bed happy,
Thanks,
_______________________________
Marloff, RsmMadrid, love your comments.
I appreciate that you stopped and looked, and
I always appreciate such nice comments.
____________________________
George, what can I say,
thanks,
__________________________________
I was using my new lenses. On the first one, it would have been the
16-35L Canon and the second one would have been the 70-200L Canon, both being F 2.8.
Even with those fast lenses, I had to go to 3200 ISO, then I underexposed (does that make sense), because those were slow shutter speeds, I will look them up and report. I had trouble with movement, so it was a lot of photos to get a few. But the few were good, especially of this person, Nappy Brown, who was the main man!
I went to the on camera flash, I did not like it! I don't think, I hope it wasn't used on the second one, I would have to eat my words. In general the on camera flash lit too much. I did not get the drama I was after. So, I learned that.
Am glad that for much of the time I did not use flash, but I will be throwing a lot of, not because of shake so much, but subject movement, and not my kind of blur.
ginger
IMO, the equipment one has/does not have matters a lot! Sometimes that is determined by choice such as my not using a tripod most of the time, and sometimes it is a matter of economics. But the idea that it is always and only the photographer, is, IMO, hogwash!
Yes, an experienced photographer with a "good eye", etc, may be able to do more with less than an inexperienced photographer, but with more......well, in my experience the equipment matters.
At Andy's suggest, and at much expense, I traded very similar lenses for the two lenses I used to take these photos. The difference being two stops on each lens. I went from f 4s, to f 2.8s. No excitement there, but I don't think shooting would have been possible in that light with my old lenses.
The first photo was taken with the 16-35L f 2.8 Canon.
F 2.8, 3200 ISO (was the Canon factor a help? I don't know.), 16mm, 1/40 sec, AV, EV-1
The second photo:
Everything the same except I did use the 70-200L f 2.8 Canon.
185mm, 1/60th sec, no flash, AV, EV-1
Thanks for all the nice comments. And the conversion, I do like that and may do one, too.
ginger (Oh, full frame, no cropping)
ginger
(I don't like the BW conversion)
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
That 2nd one is really wild! I love it. Great job. I think if you did some LAB work with the B&W, it could come up really really well. But the colour is just fantastic!
Art washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life...Picasso
I like em both...
happen'n spot!
Ginger, Boy you weren't kiding when you said there was great blues in your neighborhood...they all sure look like the REAL McKoy ....if they sound like they look ...then its for sure, a big time, happen'n spot...
2nd one is sweet.
smugmug: www.StandOutphoto.smugmug.com