How is this shot done the way it is ?

gus · February 16, 2005

Ok...its a great example of 100-400 L glass. But look at the photo info...f5.6 1/2500.

To me it looks as if it would be too dark to rip that shutter speed off. I assumed at that f/5.6 in that poor light then the shutter would have been much slower.

Does this seem normal ?.....im impressed

http://www.pbase.com/joubert/image/27759490

.

gregneil · February 16, 2005

Hmm... interesting observation. I'm guessing that there was really much more light than it seems from the photo. The shot was underexposed to give it that look... I'm just guessin' though, don't really know for sure... I will say I think the water in that shot looks really cool.

gus · February 16, 2005

The whole shot & info could indeed be B/S, thats always a possibility.

I wasnt searching telephotos.....i wasnt searching telephotos....i wasnt search

GREAPER · February 16, 2005

That would be my guess as well. Try it sometime. In the middle of the day shoot a scene underexposed and it can look like it was shot at night.

wxwax · February 16, 2005

Yeah, I go with deliberately underexposed, then the shooter brought back the center bird. Look at the harsh shadow. Lots of light.

rutt · February 16, 2005

It would be easy to get this effect with curves.

Michael Allen · February 16, 2005

I'd have to agree, the shadows and reflections look like it was taken mid afternoon on a sunny day and underexposed, IMO.

Shay Stephens · February 16, 2005

Sunbeams
Looks to me like late afternoon sun based on the angle of the shadows. The interesting thing about late afternoon sun is that the subjects can be in sun and the background could well be in shadow.

So to me it looks like the birds are lit with a shaft of light, and at f/5.6 and 1/2500 at ISO 100 that would be EV 15.3 or full sunlight.

Humungus wrote:

Ok...its a great example of 100-400 L glass. But look at the photo info...f5.6 1/2500.

To me it looks as if it would be too dark to rip that shutter speed off. I assumed at that f/5.6 in that poor light then the shutter would have been much slower.

Does this seem normal ?.....im impressed

http://www.pbase.com/joubert/image/27759490

.

ginger_55 · February 16, 2005

My camera has been known to surprise me with stuff like that. My new 300 Prime lens, see Avatar ( an ex of a pleas surprise), it is still operating on its own. To my pleasure usually.

To be able to do stuff like that and KNOW it, now that is impressive. I love that shot.

ginger

ginger_55 · February 16, 2005

If anyone is still reading this thread, I remember one late afternoon or sweet light, don't remember the time. It was light enough to photograph handheld, etc. Anyway, the same thing happened to me. In one shot the background was black. A very striking shot. I know it was my seagull. I have stared at it, no idea why that background was black and nothing else was.

See same time of day, maybe a different bird, or the same bird moved a bit, but it made no sense to me at the time, and it doesn't make any sense now. You can see how light the other ones are, the sky as background in the other ones. I would think so in the black one, too. Anyway, there was no black anywhere around.

It was a green and light brown type place. Shrimp boats, too. No black at all.

g

gus · February 16, 2005

Tks everyone...its a great shot but i dont think it will do a surfer in the last avail evening sunlight...this size/speed/$ thing has me perplexed.

Ginger....what 300mm prime did you end up getting ?

Im looking at the Sigma 120-300 F/2.8 atm (for surf stuff) but from my web wanderings it appears that you have to get a good one & thats a worry.

DoctorIt · February 16, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Im looking at the Sigma 120-300 F/2.8 atm (for surf stuff) but from my web wanderings it appears that you have to get a good one & thats a worry.

I really like that lens... but I can't even think about affording it, so I've been looking at the 100-300 f/4, and I haven't heard about bad/good copies of this one.

gus · February 16, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

I really like that lens... but I can't even think about affording it, so I've been looking at the 100-300 f/4, and I haven't heard about bad/good copies of this one.

There is an over supply of 'Chicken Little's' on the net. I have little doubt that many are quick to bag something they dont have the patience to learn how to use.

pathfinder · February 16, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Tks everyone...its a great shot but i dont think it will do a surfer in the last avail evening sunlight...this size/speed/$ thing has me perplexed.

Ginger....what 300mm prime did you end up getting ?

Im looking at the Sigma 120-300 F/2.8 atm (for surf stuff) but from my web wanderings it appears that you have to get a good one & thats a worry.

The Sigma 120-300f2.8 gets very good reviews and has that magical quality called speed - F2.8 - it WILL work with 1.4X, and possibly a 2X, teleconvertor. That is a good thing, right?!

'gus - I agree with Shay's comment about the image being shot in late afternoon - the quality of the light and the shadow angle suggests to me that this was shot with the sun getting low in the sky, but that does not necessarily mean that the light level was low.

As for f5.6 and 1/2500 seeming like it was an under exposure - it would depend on the ISO shot at right? - I,initially, thought your comments might be correct, so I sat down and drew up an exposure value table based on the Sunny 16 Rule for ISO 100, 200, and 400. I left the other ISO values for some one else to do as an exercise

Here is the table - note how fast the shutter speeds are at f5.6 in bright sunlight for 100, 200, and 400 ISO.

gus · February 16, 2005

Thanks for that chart PF. If i cant shoot surfing & bike racing then i would almost not bother with anything over 135mm.

When the axe falls i see that sigma as a contender. 300mm @ f/2.8 has to be good for those late afternoon gold/yellow surf tones.

gus · February 16, 2005

Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 samples......what about it Doc

think what you will do with it......

http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=394

.

ginger_55 · February 16, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Tks everyone...its a great shot but i dont think it will do a surfer in the last avail evening sunlight...this size/speed/$ thing has me perplexed.

Ginger....what 300mm prime did you end up getting ?

Im looking at the Sigma 120-300 F/2.8 atm (for surf stuff) but from my web wanderings it appears that you have to get a good one & thats a worry.

I got the Canon 300L from Zippy. I just got an extender from B&H today, I mean it was delivered today.

I got the extender, and the lens itself is running away out of control. Will see what the lens can do with the extender. I might have to step in and learn what I am doing.

I got that from Zippy and the 17-40L from Fish. Love them both. The wide one is a good boy, does what I tell him.

Then again the long one does such wonderful things that I wouldn't have thought of, like making the background all one color and beautiful for a no PS Challenge.

ginger

pathfinder · February 16, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 samples......what about it Doc think what you will do with it......

http://www.trekearth.com/photos.php?cat=lens&id=394

.

I wish I had as good an eye as that Polish photgrapher has - he has some really great images, all apparently shot with the Sigma 120-300 F2.8. Not all the images are sharp and probalby were not planned to be sharp. But the images are great. It MUST be foggy a lot in Poland too! He does a fair amount of selective color and I like what he has done.
I googled the web and found a thread on FM that is luke warm about the Sigma 120-300. Some posters liked it, some complained of CA and blurry samples in circulation. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/169178

I also found the Shutterbug article that I remembered when I said it had a good reuptation for being as sharp as the Sigma prime.
http://www.shutterbug.net/test_reports/0204sb_sigma/index.html

Street price for this lens is around $2000 ar B&H. The Sigma 1.4 + 2x can be had for less than $400 for the pair I believe.

It looks like a nice useful package, altho if it were me, I would want try out the specific lens I was going to purchase before committing funds to it.

With the 1.4x and the 2X you would have the equivalent of a 420 f4 and a 600f5.6 as well.. Kind of a nice kit for long glass. It is easy to spend substantially more to get those three lens lengths.

gus · February 16, 2005

Heres the site where i found a lot complaining about it.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=9995

As with any problem i find during my day at work...i ALWAYs want to know if the person complaining is qualified to give valuable comment on the subject, as some people are just born whingers.

I have seen complaints where UFO's are landing constantly on the high voltage towers going past a house in order (her words) draw free fuel/power & she wanted to know whom was paying for it.

How is this shot done the way it is ?

Comments