On Sep 2, 2012, at 5:59 PM, jn289 wrote: > Larry, They are nice, but I like the fourth one down (20120901-LRC70339.jpg) > the best. Just something in the lighting and the sparkle in his eye
Thanks Joe. > > >> I had been having some mixed feelings about my Tokina 80-200/2.8. It seemed >> like I just couldn't get sharp photos with it. Last night, some friends >> were playing at the Trout Farm up in Zayante, and I decided to get a little >> more practice with it. Since I did manage to get a few shots, that actually >> were sharp, even wide open, I realized that the lack of sharpness isn't >> entirely the lenses fault. Big surprise, that I'm the limiting factor in >> the sharpness of my photos. >> After reading the article on sharpness in TOP, I think that a lot of my >> perception of lack of sharpness is actually lack of contrast. I think that >> other things also come into play, such as the difficulty of manually >> focusing on moving subjects in low light. Even with a split prism focusing >> screen. For that matter, even with live view it is difficult when the >> subjects move faster than the latency of the image. If I actually had money >> to buy glass, I'd be very tempted to look for the autofocus version of this >> lens, not only would it make focusing easier in many cases, but the shake >> reduction would work a lot better too. >> >> While f/2.8 is as fast as a zoom lens gets, I certainly notice it being a >> lot slower than my primes. There were several times last night, on TAv mode >> where the ISO went all the way up to 25,600. >> >> Things also might have been a bit sharper if I hadn't left my ball head at >> home and could have used my monopod. >> >> The other thing that I've been playing with is my post processing trick of >> dialing up clarity all of the way, up to the point that it nearly looks like >> over done HDR, but with a lot more noise. Interestingly, I think that when I >> use this trick the photos work best when they are actually just a bit soft >> to start with. I'm guessing that this is because the clarity slider does >> something not entirely unlike sharpening, so if I under sharpen first, then >> they don't look quite so oversharpened afterwards. >> >> For them that care, I put the 24 best up on flickr, here they are with the >> fluidr front end so you can see the exposure data: >> http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157631375658366/ >> >> Interestingly, 20120901-LRC70488.jpg was something like five stops >> underexposed. I'm not sure how. I normally shot the drummer at something >> like 1/40 f/2.8 ISO 10000, and it was shot at 1/125 f/5 ISO 125. It's a bit >> rough, but still a testament to capabilities of the K-5 that I was able to >> get it that good. >> >> -- >> Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
