K-9

In before Nicole!

 

1/500 f/3.5 ISO 1600

Forget all the complicated slave and strobe setups and just use a continuous light softbox. With many, as the one you mention, you can just use CFL bulbs. You see all lighting and shadows before the shot is taken, too. I'll take continuous lighting over strobe every time. Much easier.

The second shot has more even lighting on your face, but the light looks rather bright and cold. You may have had the flash too close or set too high.

In the first one, a reflector positioned to your right will bring more light into the shadows and darker areas around your nose, cheek, and forehead.

The shiny glare on your forehead in the first one can be subdued in Lightroom.

Cindy, I'm trying to determine what you mean by "so much attention" and his work being "outstanding"? I will admit, I am not seeing the majority of his work as anything special, but I do like a few of his photos. Looking also at his Instagram site, he definitely appears to be inspired by William Eggleston, who IMO, has some outstanding images, but I'm not of huge fan of most of his work. A lot of it can be considered boring, but it's also viewed by some as exceptional art.

I don't exactly see anything on his site that indicates he is garnering much attention. The three places listed on his about me page are obscure online fine art outlets, and not sources where one can say "you've made it" as a photographer if you get your work showcased there. It says his work is nationally exhibited, but that can mean anything. One of the online sites where his work is featured lists over 3,000 other photographers on their site.

You have to hand it to him that he's networking and getting his work out there, and maybe selling a few prints and books. I can't knock anyone like that, especially a fellow photographer, even if I'm not the biggest fan of his work.

Yes, those two lenses will be all you'll need. With outdoor street photography and hiking photographs, you won't need to go very wide. The main places you would need wide angle lenses are cramped interiors, and you have already been using the 35mm indoors, so it sound like you'll be fine. You saying that you only keep the 35mm lens on there now proves you don't really need the kit lens.

That sounds like a reasonable trade in offer from Amazon. You may get a little more selling it on ebay, but it would be easier to trade it in and not have to worry about ebay and paypal fees.

If you are not using it, sell it.  I've gone years without anything wider than a 35mm focal length, and can never remember a time where I couldn't get a shot.  If there's somewhere that you cannot back up a little bit with your 35mm lens, just pull out your cell phone so you don't miss the shot.  Most cell phones are 28-35mm focal lengths, which is pretty close to the wide end of the 18-55mm.  

 

If you aren't using it now, I doubt you will miss it.  Put the money toward stuff you will use.  I'm sure your 35mm and 55-200 will cover 90% or more of your photography needs.

I always recommend using just a rocket blower first, and only use a wet system or a kit with something that actually touches the sensor if the air cannot clear it.

Fantastic! That was a great read and a visual treat. I've really only been to New England once, but you definitely make me want to visit again. I'm so intrigued by these battleships--and a sub! I'd love to see it. Though I'm super claustrophobic…so I don't know if I could do it. Nice work, though; with such close quarters, I think a fisheye is the only way to go, eh?

 

Thanks, Nicole.  I'm a bit claustrophobic, too, but there was just enough space to not feel so cramped.  Although, the submarine was extremely tight quarters.  Once you get in there and there's people ahead of you, it makes you feel even more trapped.   I would be able to go out to sea on the battleship, but never in the sub.

 

I certainly needed the 10mm angle of view in many of the rooms and exhibits!  A wide angle of some type would be a must inside.

I am anxious to see the rest of the set.

 

You got it.  And check out even more in my blog: http://jamesonscott....it-aboard-bb-59

Yes, as Adam says, bring those 2 lenses and you're good to go.  I would leave the larger/heavier 70-200 at home.

 

I don't use zooms, so if I could only choose 1 lens to take on a vacation, I'd probably go with a 50mm (or a 35mm on a D7000).  It's super light and can capture most situations.  The camera's sensors are so good now, that if you needed to zoom in on something, you can crop it later, and if you need to go a little wider, just back up with your feet.

It's always best not to have to adjust any Lightroom sliders too far from how the shot was originally taken.  The more you increase any of the sliders like contrast, sharpness, luminance, highlights, etc. the more prone you are to some sort of altered edges and awkward looking color and highlight separation.

This phenomena is usually related to too much increasing or decreasing of the shadows/highlights sliders in Lightroom. Go back through your history of the original RAW photo and jump back a few steps to before you adjusted those sliders, convert it to black and white at that stage, and I bet it disappears. Tinkering with those sliders a lot may not show in all areas of the photo, or on the color version, but the effects are pronounced in mono.

Yeah I've often been confused by their overall mark when, to me, it appears another lens is better based on their own figures. In saying that though, that Tammy 70-200 must be good.

Everything Tamron is good!

Thanks, I only wish I hadn't clipped her elbow.

Didn't even notice until you pointed it out. Cropped body parts only look bad if the remaining cropped part appears awkward.

First of a new series I just shot.  More to come soon.

 

Samsung NX20, 10mm lens, 1/15, f3.5, ISO 800