# Hooked on Primes



## Neiby (Sep 21, 2011)

I splurged a little and picked up a 50mm f/1.4 lens and it has hardly come off my camera since. This thing is delectably sharp. It's a little cramped at times on my crop sensor, though. I'd love to pick up a 35mm f/1.4L, but it's a bit expensive at the moment! Here's a new shot from my new prime.




20110917-IMG_4234 by jneiberger2002, on Flickr


----------



## tevo (Sep 21, 2011)

You know you have a sharp MFing lens when the picture looks pixellated until you zoom in a few times, and its brilliantly clear.


I'm hooked on my f/1.8 50mm.


----------



## MTVision (Sep 21, 2011)

Neiby said:
			
		

> I splurged a little and picked up a 50mm f/1.4 lens and it has hardly come off my camera since. This thing is delectably sharp. It's a little cramped at times on my crop sensor, though. I'd love to pick up a 35mm f/1.4L, but it's a bit expensive at the moment! Here's a new shot from my new prime.
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/28712832@N03/6159196138/
> 20110917-IMG_4234 by jneiberger2002, on Flickr



I have the same lens and I love it!!


----------



## usayit (Sep 21, 2011)

I've never been hooked on zooms... primes for me as well.

BTW...

I found the 24mmL a much better match for the 50mm f1.4 on both a 1.3 and full frame body;  24 f/1.4L, 50 f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 135 f/2L, 300 f/4L the best balance of value versus quality IMO.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Sep 21, 2011)

I used to have 24-70L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS.  I wonder where they went?


----------



## Neiby (Sep 21, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> I used to have 24-70L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS.  I wonder where they went?



I'd love to have both of those lenses.    However, if I had the selection of lenses in your signature, I don't know how often I'd use them.


----------



## kundalini (Sep 21, 2011)

Nice shot, lovely model,  but I think you should be more cognizant of the background.  The highlights off the car are a buzz kill.


----------



## Neiby (Sep 21, 2011)

kundalini said:


> Nice shot, lovely model,  but I think you should be more cognizant of the background.  The highlights off the car are a buzz kill.



It's funny you mention the car. I didn't even notice it until today. Now I keep noticing it. Very annoying, so you're definitely right!


----------



## Neiby (Sep 21, 2011)

Here's another photo from the same shoot. No annoying car in the background here.  

#2




20110917-IMG_4230 by jneiberger2002, on Flickr


----------



## Netskimmer (Sep 21, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> I used to have 24-70L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I wonder where they went?



You really have no use for that sweet 70-200 2.8?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Sep 21, 2011)

It is too.. hey looky here... i got a big lens man!  It is just too big for me.



Netskimmer said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > I used to have 24-70L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS. I wonder where they went?
> ...


----------



## Netskimmer (Sep 21, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> It is too.. hey looky here... i got a big lens man! It is just too big for me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't want one for the size, I have no need to conpensate for anything (I have a sports car for that) I want one for the reach and low light capabilities. I often find myself in a place where my mobility is limited and I am tracking a moving target so a prime would be difficult to use.


----------



## jparker1 (Sep 21, 2011)

That second shot is superb! You got a great model, her expressions are fantastic. Well done!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Sep 21, 2011)

I'm focusing my self to be a good wedding photographer.   Losing zoom capability is fine for me if I can gain better quality photo and faster. However, I do shoot with 2 bodies simultaneously.  That's my zoom, 2 focal lengths and my feet .


----------



## Neiby (Sep 21, 2011)

jparker1 said:


> That second shot is superb! You got a great model, her expressions are fantastic. Well done!



I work with her at my day job. She's pretty awesome! Take a look at my Flickr stream to see the rest of her photos. She's a total natural.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Sep 21, 2011)

She looks like a super sweet girl until I see her tats.  Hah!  





Neiby said:


> jparker1 said:
> 
> 
> > That second shot is superb! You got a great model, her expressions are fantastic. Well done!
> ...


----------



## Neiby (Sep 21, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> She looks like a super sweet girl until I see her tats.  Hah!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Believe me, she is super sweet even with the tats!


----------



## subscuck (Sep 21, 2011)

The Sigma 30 1.4 is worth looking into as well. It's still under $500, I believe. I've owned it for several years and it's on my camera most of the time. I started with film and a 50mm, so it gives me what I'm used to with "normal" on film. Equivalent FOV of 48mm on Canon crops.


----------



## Neiby (Sep 21, 2011)

subscuck said:


> The Sigma 30 1.4 is worth looking into as well. It's still under $500, I believe. I've owned it for several years and it's on my camera most of the time. I started with film and a 50mm, so it gives me what I'm used to with "normal" on film. Equivalent FOV of 48mm on Canon crops.



I took a look at the Sigma 30, but some online comparisons I found seemed to show that it wasn't nearly as sharp as the Canon 35mm f/1.4. But it is MUCH less expensive, so I suppose I should still consider it.

EDIT: I just checked out this lens comparison site and those two lenses aren't as far apart as I thought. The Canon is definitely sharper, but it costs over double the Sigma lens.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=396&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2


----------



## D-B-J (Sep 21, 2011)

Beautiful Bokeh. Really.


----------



## subscuck (Sep 22, 2011)

Neiby said:


> I took a look at the Sigma 30, but some online comparisons I found seemed to show that it wasn't nearly as sharp as the Canon 35mm f/1.4. But it is MUCH less expensive, so I suppose I should still consider it.
> 
> EDIT: I just checked out this lens comparison site and those two lenses aren't as far apart as I thought. The Canon is definitely sharper, but it costs over double the Sigma lens.



Obviously, if you plan on going FF at some point, the Sigma wouldn't be the choice to make. But if that's a far off day, and you keep your crop body as a back up, maybe see if you can rent one.


----------



## Neiby (Sep 22, 2011)

D-B-J said:


> Beautiful Bokeh. Really.



This lens makes it easy! I liked my 1.8, but after seeing so many creamy smooth pics with the 1.4, I picked up a used one in the area. At this point it doesn't come off my camera unless I'm shooting my sons football games or something like that, in which case I use my zoom. I'd love to get the 35mm and maybe a 135mm. But then I'd be super happy with a 24-70 and a 70-200 f/2.8.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 22, 2011)

Nice.... very pretty lady! I like the set on Flickr! Glad to see you are partial to one of my favorite lenses also (Sigma 50)! Although I won't give up my Nikon 2.8 zooms anytime soon! lol!

Edit: Hadn't noticed you were local until I saw the Hamburger Mary pic on Flickr... there seem to be several TPF'rs in the area.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 22, 2011)

kundalini said:


> Nice shot, lovely model,  but I think you should be more cognizant of the background.  The highlights off the car are a buzz kill.



Huh...I was thinking the same thing...the "mechanical" highlights from the car kill the "naturalistic" look of the out of focus circles...looking for a clean background is something that comes with more experience, and with more ruined photos like this one made in otherwise good locations. I'm not sure why you left that big, open space to the left of the frame, or in the second pic why you included that ugly telephone pole with the number tag on it...I thought the photos were supposed to be about her...not empty space or telephone poles...


----------



## netza (Sep 22, 2011)

I hear you. Love my 35mm, 50mm and 90mm too. Great shot too.


----------



## Ron Evers (Sep 22, 2011)

Nobody else think it a shame she is cut off on the right in the second shot.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Sep 22, 2011)

Nice shot. My only gripe would be that stinkin car  . I had the 50 1.4 once upon a time. It was great for the price and since it was my first prime, the whole shallow DOF thing was a huge novelty. I ended up dumping it though because I didn't care for the focal length on a crop sensor. I also hated that it didn't have a true ring USM like the 85mm and 28mm has. 
I have heard that the next update will most likely have a true ring USM. I now have the Tamron 60mm f/2 which I use for macro and the occasional headshot (it wasn't really meant to be a replacement for the 50mm, just worked out that way ) and am considering buying the Canon 28mm f/1.8 which seems to be a much more useful focal length on the crop sensor. Although the Tamronis a bit slow on the focus at times, its extremely sharp since its a macro, and the f/2 @60mm provides very nice subject isolation.


----------



## Neiby (Sep 22, 2011)

Derrel said:


> kundalini said:
> 
> 
> > Nice shot, lovely model,  but I think you should be more cognizant of the background.  The highlights off the car are a buzz kill.
> ...



Negative space, complementary colors, contrast. The shot with the "ugly" light pole is one of my favorites specifically because of the contrasting colors. The space is there because I wanted it there. Different strokes, I guess.

EDIT: In hindsight, the "ugly pole" picture makes more sense in the context of the entire shoot and perhaps doesn't make as much sense on its own. When seen in context with the rest of the shots from that day, it seems a bit more clear what I was going for, but I can see that if that's the only one you saw, you definitely might wonder what the heck the pole was doing there.    That's something good to keep in mind for me: each picture needs to be complete and independent of the context created by the rest of the shoot unless it is always intended to be seen as part of a gallery or something like that.


----------



## Neiby (Sep 22, 2011)

GooniesNeverSayDie11 said:


> Nice shot. My only gripe would be that stinkin car  . I had the 50 1.4 once upon a time. It was great for the price and since it was my first prime, the whole shallow DOF thing was a huge novelty. I ended up dumping it though because I didn't care for the focal length on a crop sensor. I also hated that it didn't have a true ring USM like the 85mm and 28mm has.
> I have heard that the next update will most likely have a true ring USM. I now have the Tamron 60mm f/2 which I use for macro and the occasional headshot (it wasn't really meant to be a replacement for the 50mm, just worked out that way ) and am considering buying the Canon 28mm f/1.8 which seems to be a much more useful focal length on the crop sensor. Although the Tamronis a bit slow on the focus at times, its extremely sharp since its a macro, and the f/2 @60mm provides very nice subject isolation.



Yeah, that car is kind of annoying. I didn't see it at the time. We were walking through a park when we passed an open pathway with those trees behind it. I thought it created a nice vibe, so we quickly took that shot. I'm tempted to try to clean up the car a bit in post. I could at least knock out the brightest and most vibrant spots to limit its presence.

The focal length is kind of annoying on my 60D. I'm finding that I'd probably do better with a 35mm on that crop sensor, but the 35mm f/1.4 is very expensive!


----------



## Heitz (Sep 22, 2011)

Neiby, great photo - so crispy!  i'm assuming  you used a tripod and let me ask what did you stop the lens down to?  can't imagine its wide open with that sharpness.  couldn't get the EXIF out...


----------



## Neiby (Sep 22, 2011)

rheitz1 said:


> Neiby, great photo - so crispy!  i'm assuming  you used a tripod and let me ask what did you stop the lens down to?  can't imagine its wide open with that sharpness.  couldn't get the EXIF out...



No tripod! I'm not sure what it was stopped down to, but it was either wide open or pretty close to it. It was early evening light, so I needed to open it up. I was far enough away to still get a good depth of field that wasn't to shallow or too deep. I think I accidentally stripped the EXIF when I created the JPEGs. I think this was probably wide open with a fast shutter. That lens is super sharp!


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 22, 2011)

I'm a Prime Man myself. I zoom with my feet and also by Schwetty's technique of 2 bodies with different focal lengths. Learned those way back when as a PJ, when zooms were of rather poor quality compared to the average prime. Today's zooms are much better but they're still not up to primes' quality imho and, they are heavier and way more expensive when trying to get close to primes quality and speed (f stop) wise.


----------



## Neiby (Sep 22, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> I'm a Prime Man myself. I zoom with my feet and also by Schwetty's technique of 2 bodies with different focal lengths. Learned those way back when as a PJ, when zooms were of rather poor quality compared to the average prime. Today's zooms are much better but they're still not up to primes' quality imho and, they are heavier and way more expensive when trying to get close to primes quality and speed (f stop) wise.



I know of one photographer who uses nothing but a 5DmkII and a 50mm f/1.4. That's the only lens he has and his shots are freaking amazing. (EDIT: It looks like he has added a 35L to his set of lenses.) Take a look at his Flickr stream:

Flickr: jordanvoth.com's Photostream


----------



## Derrel (Sep 22, 2011)

"negative space"  "I wanted it there"   "different strokes"   gotcha...


----------



## DiskoJoe (Sep 22, 2011)

love my minolta 50mm f1.7. love it, love it, love it!!!! best $100 I ever spent.


----------



## Neiby (Sep 22, 2011)

Derrel said:


> "negative space"  "I wanted it there"   "different strokes"   gotcha...



You asked, I answered. Are we having a snarkiness contest?    If so, I concede that you're the winner, especially since I acknowledged your earlier points and you still continue to be snarky.


----------



## edddial (Sep 22, 2011)

Nice shots. I like the first one.


----------



## Neiby (Sep 22, 2011)

edddial said:
			
		

> Nice shots. I like the first one.



Thanks! It was only my second shoot ever with a person, so it was a good learning experience. I think I got some decent shots despite lots of rookie mistakes.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 22, 2011)

Neiby said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > "negative space"  "I wanted it there"   "different strokes"   gotcha...
> ...



You have been here what? A month? Your retorts are pretty common whenever somebody points out ugly dead space in a photo. "Negative space" and "I like it that way." Gotcha. CLASSIC examples of people who want or ask for evaluation of photographs, and then get defensive and fire back at those who C&C their photos. Your responses, "negative space" and "I like it that way" have been discussed here on many,many,many threads which try to highlight how beginners, in the beginner's forum, respond to C&C, or even to just simple evaluations of their presented photos. If you wish to call dead space "negative space", and think that ugly creosote-covered poles look "good" and "tell a story" when seen as part of a series, okay....whatever...

Maybe you'll take my comments and do something about it the next time you frame up a shot, and think, "is that just dead,empty space?" Or possibly, "Is this really the best thing to include in the shot?" perhaps you will even think to yourself, "Am I including too much dead, uninteresting background in this shot? Should I perhaps use my wrist, and flip the camera to vertical, and then take three steps to the left, to make the background look clean and all-natural."

Or.....you can continue to call it "negative space" (even though other more-experienced shooters are calling it distracting and a buzz kill, etc). And you can continue to say, "I like it that way,". I've seen and heard your responses dozens of times in m y nearly 10,000-post time here...so, yeah...gotcha'...I understand how you feel about your photos. perhaps you can understand where I was coming from if you go back and search, or wait for new, threads on how to accept C&C, and whether it's best to listen and evaluate what your critiques, or to just sit there and smugly defend wort that could benefit from some better compositional skills and better camera-handling and a bit of background evaluation through the viewfinder and on the LCD screen in the field.

As a nearly 40-year prime lens shooter, I will pass along a bit of advice right here: primes force you to LEARN how the lens frames, and how it de-focuses the background, and EXACTLY what a lens's angle of view behind the subject encompasses. When you use a prime focal length, you will LEARN what the background rendering and angle are, and will be able to envision the image width behind the subject. A prime never varies. What you need to do is to start looking behind the subject before pressing the shutter release, and your prime lens will soon become a valuable tool, constant and faithful. So...look at the backgrounds...


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 22, 2011)

2wheelphoto<---goes against grain *and not hooked on primes*. My 70-200 SLOW f2.8 is being delivered tomorrow. And My 24-70 SLOW f2.8 has been a lot of fun


----------



## Robin Usagani (Sep 22, 2011)

Here we go again...  Deja Vu




Derrel said:


> Neiby said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...


----------



## Derrel (Sep 22, 2011)

Neiby said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > "negative space" "I wanted it there" "different strokes" gotcha...
> ...



You have been here what? A month? Your retorts are pretty common whenever somebody points out ugly dead space in a photo. "Negative space" and "I like it that way." Gotcha. CLASSIC examples of people who want or ask for evaluation of photographs, and then get defensive and fire back at those who C&C their photos. Your responses, "negative space" and "I like it that way" have been discussed here on many,many,many threads which try to highlight how beginners, in the beginner's forum, respond to C&C, or even to just simple evaluations of their presented photos. If you wish to call dead space "negative space", and think that ugly creosote-covered poles look "good" and "tell a story" when seen as part of a series, okay....

Maybe you'll take my comments and do something about it the next time you frame up a shot, and think, "Is that just dead,empty space?" Or possibly, "Is this really the best thing to include in the shot?" Perhaps you will even think to yourself, "Am I including too much dead, uninteresting background in this shot? Should I perhaps use my wrist, and flip the camera to vertical, and then take three steps to the left, to make the background look clean and all-natural."

Or.....you can continue to call it "negative space" (even though other more-experienced shooters like Kundalini are calling it distracting and a buzz kill, etc). And you can continue to say, "I like it that way,". I've seen and heard your responses dozens of times in my nearly 10,000-post time here...so, yeah...I gotcha'...I understand how you feel about your photos. Perhaps you can understand where I was coming from if you go back and search for the many threads on how to accept C&C, and whether it's best to listen to and evaluate what your critique presenters have to say, or to just sit there and smugly defend work that could benefit from some more-studied compositional skills and better camera-handling and a bit of background evaluation through the viewfinder, and then some on-the-spot photo evaluation on the LCD screen while still in the field.

As a nearly 40-year prime lens shooter, I will pass along a bit of advice right here: primes force you to LEARN how the lens frames, and how it de-focuses the background, and EXACTLY what a lens's angle of view behind the subject encompasses. When you use a prime focal length, you will LEARN what the background rendering and angle are, and will be able to envision the image width behind the subject. A prime never varies. What you need to do is to start looking behind the subject before pressing the shutter release, and your prime lens will soon become a valuable tool, constant and faithful. So...look at the backgrounds...get a feel for how that specific focal length creates or "cuts" its image. With no zoom, a prime lens means you absolutely must pick the exact, right vantage point. You need to move your feet, and get the camera to the exact right height, and a prime lens will TEACH you how to do these things. I'm not here to merely be snarky: I am here to help people learn more about photography. Maybe I am not Girl Scout Leader sweet...if I did not care, I would not even be responding to you, or anybody else.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 22, 2011)

Oh, Schwetty, do you have anything to add? Anything of value at all? Any comments or tips for a new shooter, you know, for his next shoot?  How about some tips for him to try Schwetylens? Anything?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Sep 22, 2011)

Lol derrel.. i get your joke this time.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 22, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Oh, Schwetty, do you have anything to add? Anything of value at all?



How about you Derrel? Next we are going to get the story of how you walked 40 miles through 3 feet deep snow to get to school in the middle of summer...

Give us all a break or I'm going to tell you the stories of WW2 I heard all my fooking life!


----------



## Derrel (Sep 22, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, Schwetty, do you have anything to add? Anything of value at all?
> ...



And we'll have to listen to your tedious c.clownwalker stories about Life in "Europe", and your uber-costly *Broncolor flash system*, and your "life as a *photojournalist*" and your "*I was a war photographer!*" stories...

Let's bring some information about PRIME LENSES to bear, here, not just personal attacks, okay c.clownwalker? The OP is trying to learn about using PRIME lenses...you know, single focal length lenses...as a newbie, he is missing something very critical, and that is that when a guy starts off shooting with a zoom lens and a d-slr, there is damned little incentive to evaluate photos or compositions because each frame comes so cheap with a d-slr. AND, having cut his teeth with a zoom lens camera, he is unaware of the major differences that a prime lens ******imposes upon the photographer******.   But then, a big-time European, commercial photog, former world-class Photojournalist,  former war photographer like yourself knows all about that stuff, right?   ( place smiley face emoticon here>  *X *)


----------



## subscuck (Sep 22, 2011)

Wow, Derrel, I'm impressed. I'm being serious, no snark. That was a very well thought out, controlled, and most of all, informative response. Is this a kinder, gentler, Derrel? OP, you should read, re-read, and re-read again, Derrel's response. Photographic conventions exist for a reason, and Derrel is well versed in them. While I may often disagree with Derell's approach, in this case he's spot on. All of the reasons he gave you are the reasons I tend to avoid C&Cing newbies pics. It's usually not worth my time to look at a pic and point out the obvious just to have the OP say "I like it like that", or "It's my style" or "It was intentional". Learn the conventions, then learn how to effectively deviate from them. Derrel, you just earned a "like"..


----------



## bennielou (Sep 22, 2011)

Personally, I'm a HUGE fan of negative space.  But I'll sidestep the battle (FIRST!!!!!!!)

I love primes too.  Lovelovelovelove primes.  My husband laughs at me when I use a zoom, and still run back and forth like it's a prime.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Sep 22, 2011)

I dont want to get in an argument again with derrel about negative space and I am not worthy enough to add anything about primes since I picked up my first prime like 15 months ago and my first camera 16 months ago.


----------



## Neiby (Sep 22, 2011)

Derrel, I acknowledged your points. I have no problem admitting to be a noob. It was the tone of your comments that was off-putting, not the content. Besides, I don't agree that there is too much open space in the first image. You could be completely correct about it from a technical perspective, but it still "feels" balanced to me. Maybe I will feel differently as I gain more experience. But you asked why I framed them the way I did and I told you. You mentioned the ugly pole and I admitted that if you only see that photo and not the entire series, the pole she's standing next to has no context, so I need to do a better job making sure my photos stand on their own without additional context. I was simply telling you why I made those decisions at the time. I like the way the first one is balanced and I like the complementary colors and contrast in the second. 

Regarding the first photo, perhaps you could have said something like, "I think you may want to watch your use of space in the first one. With a portrait, it can be helpful to cut down some of that empty space and focus more on the subject, and be careful about accidentally including stuff in the background that you didn't intend." Instead, you went on about how it was completely ruined by the car and the empty space. 

Regarding the second photo, perhaps you could have said, "The pole seems unnecessary and out of place. If this is supposed to be a portrait of the woman, focusing more on a single subject in the photo is usually preferable. In this case, the pole is almost as much of a subject as the woman." 

You could have said any number of things that didn't sound snarky. I think what you said was right on and needed to be said, and I took your comments to heart, but the tone didn't come across as being all that friendly and helpful.


----------



## bennielou (Sep 22, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> I dont want to get in an argument again with derrel about negative space and I am not worthy enough to add anything about primes since I picked up my first prime like 15 months ago and my first camera 16 months ago.



Don't feel down.  CLIENTS LOVE NEGATIVE SPACE.  At least in my experience.  And so does PPA, WPPI, WPJA, and any other body of "pros".  Some photogs hate it.  I hate selective color and refuse to do it.  Different Strokes and all that.


----------



## Neiby (Sep 22, 2011)

Derrel said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



So much tension on this forum.     I see your point, Derrel. Composition still continues to be my weakest point, although I've improved quite a bit recently. I was Mr. Zoom for a while, but I'm really trying to get a handle on this prime lens. It does impose quite a bit. Thanks for the tips.


----------



## Ron Evers (Sep 22, 2011)

DiskoJoe said:


> love my minolta 50mm f1.7. love it, love it, love it!!!! best $100 I ever spent.



Got one too but I prefer the Minolta 50/1.4, beats the Canon FD 50/1.4 I have.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 22, 2011)

bennielou said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > I dont want to get in an argument again with derrel about negative space and I am not worthy enough to add anything about primes since I picked up my first prime like 15 months ago and my first camera 16 months ago.
> ...



"Different Strokes and all that." No such thing in Derrel's world. More like his way or the highway...

And the louder he talks, the more newbies listen and get led astray from any possible creativity and into the ultimate WalyWorld mold. But maybe they'll get to experience photography the ultimate way, by breaking copyright laws when copying a 1oo year old book to ultimately keep in their safe...


----------



## Neiby (Sep 22, 2011)

Here is an example of the sort of feel I was going for in that first shot. It's quite different and far better than my composition, but maybe it will give you an idea of what I had in mind when I got to the park for the shoot. We had a chance to do a shot very similar to this, but the light changed too quickly and we had to move on.

Tessa - Before & After | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

This guy's photos are FAR better than mine, but this one will give you an idea of the sense of space that I like.

Here's another one by the same guy. 

Smookie | Flickr - Photo Sharing!ome people might hate the composition, but I like the overall feel of it. This guy is a prime master, at least compared to me! I'm learning even now just going through his photostream. He has a FF camera, which does change things a little bit. I'm trying to get similar shots with the same lens on a 1.6x crop sensor. Definitely doable, but different.


----------



## LiquidGrace (Sep 22, 2011)

Neiby said:


> I splurged a little and picked up a 50mm f/1.4 lens and it has hardly come off my camera since. This thing is delectably sharp. It's a little cramped at times on my crop sensor, though. I'd love to pick up a 35mm f/1.4L, but it's a bit expensive at the moment! Here's a new shot from my new prime.
> 20110917-IMG_4234 by jneiberger2002, on Flickr



I did the same as you  A fellow photographer introduced me to the idea.  I was very hesitant because I was so used to using zoom capabilities once I got used to the fixed length I feel in love. Needless to say like you, this is where I'll be looking to invest my money when it comes to lens'. While it's a pain to switch especially at a wedding (during a ceremony) I feel the overall outcome is great. Congrats on your new lens


----------



## bennielou (Sep 22, 2011)

Hey Cloud, there are a LOT of highways.  If everyone was the same, there would be no choices in this world.  Breaking rules can be great for business.


----------



## Neiby (Sep 22, 2011)

Maybe I should point out that this woman was doing this shoot for me as a favor. It was purely for me to get more experience shooting people. So....mission accomplished.    I learned a ton that day, as well as the next day when I did a shorter photo shoot with someone else indoors. Again, they did it as a favor to me. They were my guinea pigs.  lol

That these pictures turned out even as well as they did despite my mistakes is because of the great advice and direction I've gotten here and in other forums. Thanks to all.


----------



## MTVision (Sep 22, 2011)

subscuck said:
			
		

> All of the reasons he gave you are the reasons I tend to avoid C&Cing newbies pics. It's usually not worth my time to look at a pic and point out the obvious just to have the OP say "I like it like that", or "It's my style" or "It was intentional"...



Hey - I take offense to that statement!   Not ALL newbies are like that!


----------



## Neiby (Sep 22, 2011)

subscuck said:


> Wow, Derrel, I'm impressed. I'm being serious, no snark. That was a very well thought out, controlled, and most of all, informative response. Is this a kinder, gentler, Derrel? OP, you should read, re-read, and re-read again, Derrel's response. Photographic conventions exist for a reason, and Derrel is well versed in them. While I may often disagree with Derell's approach, in this case he's spot on. All of the reasons he gave you are the reasons I tend to avoid C&Cing newbies pics. It's usually not worth my time to look at a pic and point out the obvious just to have the OP say "I like it like that", or "It's my style" or "It was intentional". Learn the conventions, then learn how to effectively deviate from them. Derrel, you just earned a "like"..



I didn't say he was wrong. In fact, I've twice said that I appreciate the content of his message. And to characterize my response to him as a simple, "I like it that way" minimizes what I actually meant. For example, in the first pic, is it technically wrong to have that space there? No, it's not. Some people don't like it, others do like it. In that particular case, that was what I was going for. I chose to have space because I wanted a feeling of space. I fail to see how this is objectively wrong. The biggest mistake in that picture was not paying enough attention to the background. That was certainly a mistake. I don't agree that the use of space is an objective mistake. It seems as if some here are making subjective style decisions into hard-and-fast rules.

On the other hand, even I think I tend to use too much space in portraits. I didn't post any shots from my other shoot, but this problem became very apparent to me later when I had to time to view those pictures with fresh eyes. I was too focused on one set of issues and didn't see the glaring composition issue in front of me. I was treating portrait photography the same way I was treating architectural photography where I tend to balance elements against each other in the frame. That works great for architecture, but it moves the main subject too far off to the side in portraits. It was just a habit that worked well in one context but wasn't working at all in a different context, and it took a while to spot the problem.


----------



## Neiby (Sep 22, 2011)

Derrel said:


> Neiby said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



Thanks! And I mean it. No snarkiness intended. This is valuable advice and I will take it to heart. I wasn't ever intending to be dismissive of you or your experience. I was trying a lot of different shots that day for different reasons. It was just for practice. All I meant was that in that particular picture (the "space" picture), the extra space was intended and it still gives me the impression of being well balanced, but maybe I'm just not experienced enough to know a well-balanced picture. 

With regard to the other picture, my edit in my response clearly indicated that you were right and that I was re-thinking that photo. Since I was there at the shoot and saw the surrounding area, I have memories and context of the site that no one else has the benefit of. That means that I was imparting context to the image that no one else would get. All they see is the pole and the woman, which doesn't make much sense as a photo. That is definitely a mistake on my part. I didn't stop to think, "What would someone with completely fresh eyes see when they look at this?" That right there is one of the best lessons I've taken away from your post. With regard to the overall composition, the context, and the background, I need to always pause for a second and consider if the image stands on its own, shows what I want to show, and doesn't show anything I don't want to be there.

In all seriousness, thanks!


----------



## Neiby (Sep 22, 2011)

Okay, I'm *really* trying to view that first picture with fresh eyes and now I agree that there is too much space on the left side. It took a bit of a mental exercise to re-think it without having any attachment to it. Maybe I'll try a new edit tonight that crops out some from the left, and I can try to clean up that car a bit, too, just to see what it would look like. Of course, it would be better to to have framed the picture so there was no car right behind her.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Sep 22, 2011)

Do what you like man. You are the artist.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 22, 2011)

Regarding one of the sample pictures you sent us to look at, this one: All sizes | Tessa - Before & After | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Okay....woman in stylish autumn clothes, with beautiful fall foliage BUT--a massive failure as a fashion shot, or a for-pay outdoor portrait. Why? Here's a design principle that simplifies human vision: "Light advances, dark recedes". See those two very dark tree trunks on the right hand side of the photograph, and then see that car parked, showing up, burned-out white and RIGHT BETWEEN TWO DARK PILLARS? My eye goes right past her, and zooms right to that ugly light advancing out of the dark...I look right PAST the woman...it's virtually automatic, and part of the human visual system.As in, the kind of thing we know from psychology and the visual perception field. Good God...that's not a skilled shooter framing that shot. How about the cheap little econo-box car on the right hand side of the frame??? Anybody who has any training in the visua arts KNOWS that an object placed exactly on the edge of the composition creates visual TENSION.

He did a "before and an after". Yeah...he boosted the saturation a bit....but his photo still has a snapshooter's background with two GLARING mistakes: first the glare on the car, positioned between two dark, anchoring "pillars". Errrrrrrr!@! Buzzer!!!!! And then he puts an econo-box automobile directly at the right hand edge of the frame!!!!!!! My eye leaves the woman every single time. The eye flow through the example photo is poor. Extremely poor. It's not a successful photo.

As a "prime lens shooter", what should he have done? Well, first off, he should have tried to eliminate the car between the two dark trees; have her move over two steps to the right side of the frame, step, and he takes three steps to the left, and the car will be blocked by her body. Or he uses a slightly longer prime lens, one that has a narrower angle of acceptance BEHIND the subject, and he gets the colors of the fall foliage, and the space around her, but he manages to keep that car from showing up right between two very,very strong visual "anchor points". he could have made an absolutely,positively lovelty image with a 300mm lens from about 45 yards...and the background would have been a wash of lovely fall color....but...he shot medium, from medium close...and didn't look at the ugly background elements. he did a before and an after, but he did not do what the shot desperately needed, which is serious retouching to remove two UGLY CARS that ruin the photo...

I learned photography before retouching was feasible, unless done by trained women with airbrushes at $25-$35 an hour, back when $35 was five hours' pay...the example shown at All sizes | Tessa - Before & After | Flickr - Photo Sharing!  is a good example of a before and after where the BASICS should have been addressed in the field...AND THE AFTER parts should have been cloning out the ugly stuff that ruins the shot.


----------



## Neiby (Sep 22, 2011)

That was an excellent breakdown of a shot. Thanks a lot! That was very helpful. I appreciate it.


----------



## subscuck (Sep 22, 2011)

MTVision said:


> Hey - I take offense to that statement!   Not ALL newbies are like that!



Settle down, missy. Not all are like that, but more than enough are. Once in a while a newbie surprises you by not defending their pics. The number of newbs, however, who justify poor technique/composition as "artistic license" without knowing the fundamentals makes me offer C&C and advice less than I would like to. And yes, you are one of the exceptions.


----------



## Ron Evers (Sep 22, 2011)

Derrel, I looked @ that link as well & thought the pic would have been torn apart if presented here by the originator.  I agree with what you posted but could never articulate it as well as you.


----------



## subscuck (Sep 22, 2011)

Neiby said:


> I didn't say he was wrong. In fact, I've twice said that I appreciate the content of his message. And to characterize my response to him as a simple, "I like it that way" minimizes what I actually meant. For example, in the first pic, is it technically wrong to have that space there? No, it's not. Some people don't like it, others do like it. In that particular case, that was what I was going for. I chose to have space because I wanted a feeling of space. I fail to see how this is objectively wrong. The biggest mistake in that picture was not paying enough attention to the background. That was certainly a mistake. I don't agree that the use of space is an objective mistake. It seems as if some here are making subjective style decisions into hard-and-fast rules.
> 
> On the other hand, even I think I tend to use too much space in portraits. I didn't post any shots from my other shoot, but this problem became very apparent to me later when I had to time to view those pictures with fresh eyes. I was too focused on one set of issues and didn't see the glaring composition issue in front of me. I was treating portrait photography the same way I was treating architectural photography where I tend to balance elements against each other in the frame. That works great for architecture, but it moves the main subject too far off to the side in portraits. It was just a habit that worked well in one context but wasn't working at all in a different context, and it took a while to spot the problem.



I was posting while you were responding to Derrel, therefore I didn't see your acknowledgements. My post was also directed more towards all the newbies, and, yes, a bit towards you as well.

There is a place, time and effective way to use space. The most common misuse of space you see on this, and other fora, is putting a subject on left/right side of frame, looking in that direction, but the space is on the opposite side. This makes for a pic that looks claustrophobic as the visual "feel" is that the person is crammed up against the side of the frame. The effective way of doing this is to have the empty space where the subject is looking/facing (sometimes referred to as "looking space"). Sometimes empty space is just that. It actually detracts from the pic because of the visual sense of being off balance. So you're correct in saying using space isn't an objective mistake, but the way it's (mis)used often is.

As far as minimizing your comments, certainly not my intent. Once you've been here for a while, and hopefully you will be, you'll see time and again newbs saying the exact same things that I referenced. They know their pics are perfect because they are exactly what they intended. I call shenanigans. Again, artistic conventions are in place for a reason; they work. And they work because they are based on the way the human eye/brain connection works. Without understanding how things work, it's impossible to consistantly break rules in a way that makes for a good shot.


----------



## Compaq (Sep 22, 2011)

If there is one person on this site whose posts are worth reading, it's Derrel. His posts should be linked on the front page. Even if he isn't talking about photography, he still writes very well, and I can feel the enthusiasm.

We're all going to end up on someone's ignore list sooner or later. I lasted 800 posts. Are we here to be touchy of someone's "tone" (read: omg) or to look past that and actually just read what the post says? When new members understand that, they'll do fine here.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Sep 22, 2011)

althought it took some wading thru and arguing allot of very good points are being brought up. things i never would have thought to look for in shots like that. some of the info shared here is the exact reason why visit these sites.


----------



## usayit (Sep 22, 2011)

Actually, subscuck's IMO was much better articulated.

Derrels response gets lost in his rant like style... spending a paragraph to simply state the darken trees and car highlights are distracting.  What subscuck pointed out in words accurately is why the model looks cramped in frame even though there is adequate space.... the space itself is not an integral part of the photo.... its just there.

bravo.....  this is what the tpf used to be like.


----------



## Compaq (Sep 22, 2011)

His rants should be hand written in calligraphy and put in a book with gold on the edges of the pages, hand drawn illustrations and a red band for bookmarking pages. Hardcover with classy drawings and illustrations on front.


----------



## usayit (Sep 22, 2011)

Compaq said:


> His rants should be hand written in calligraphy and put in a book with gold on the edges of the pages, hand drawn illustrations and a red band for bookmarking pages. Hardcover with classy drawings and illustrations on front.



Yeh.. its exactly what's wrong with this place.  

Place is suppose to be fun... but how many people find it tense..


The content of crap may be good but it still stinks.


----------



## Compaq (Sep 22, 2011)

It only stinks if your glasses stink. I, for one, aren't wearing glasses.


----------



## GeorgieGirl (Sep 22, 2011)

subscuck said:


> Neiby said:
> 
> 
> > There is a place, time and effective way to use space.
> ...


----------



## Neiby (Sep 22, 2011)

subscuck said:
			
		

> I was posting while you were responding to Derrel, therefore I didn't see your acknowledgements. My post was also directed more towards all the newbies, and, yes, a bit towards you as well.
> 
> There is a place, time and effective way to use space. The most common misuse of space you see on this, and other fora, is putting a subject on left/right side of frame, looking in that direction, but the space is on the opposite side. This makes for a pic that looks claustrophobic as the visual "feel" is that the person is crammed up against the side of the frame. The effective way of doing this is to have the empty space where the subject is looking/facing (sometimes referred to as "looking space"). Sometimes empty space is just that. It actually detracts from the pic because of the visual sense of being off balance. So you're correct in saying using space isn't an objective mistake, but the way it's (mis)used often is.
> 
> As far as minimizing your comments, certainly not my intent. Once you've been here for a while, and hopefully you will be, you'll see time and again newbs saying the exact same things that I referenced. They know their pics are perfect because they are exactly what they intended. I call shenanigans. Again, artistic conventions are in place for a reason; they work. And they work because they are based on the way the human eye/brain connection works. Without understanding how things work, it's impossible to consistantly break rules in a way that makes for a good shot.



Composition is definitely my weakest area. This thread has given me even more food for thought and some great ideas. My use of space is improving, but I have a long way to go! As I keep telling people, good photography is way harder than I thought it would be before I tried it for myself. 

I definitely don't think my pictures are anywhere close to perfect!   The best I can do is keep learning and keep practicing.

I appreciate everyone's tips and advice!


----------



## Jace (Sep 22, 2011)

Maybe it has something to do with my childhood, but Optimus will always be my favorite, though Rodimus was pretty badass.


----------



## subscuck (Sep 22, 2011)

Jace said:


> Maybe it has something to do with my childhood, but Optimus will always be my favorite, though Rodimus was pretty badass.



There's a reason Optimus was the leader first...


----------



## usayit (Sep 22, 2011)

Grimlock.. Roar!


----------



## kundalini (Sep 22, 2011)

Compaq said:


> I lasted 800 posts.


You're still in diapers and haven't learned to wipe you own a$$ yet.


----------



## Neiby (Sep 22, 2011)

GeorgieGirl said:


> subscuck said:
> 
> 
> > Neiby said:
> ...


----------



## pearlphotos (Sep 23, 2011)

Nice shot, lovely model, background is not so good. it's eye irritating


----------



## Neiby (Sep 23, 2011)

pearlphotos said:
			
		

> Nice shot, lovely model, background is not so good. it's eye irritating



Do you mean the quality of the background or the content? What could I have done to make it not be irritating?


----------



## bennielou (Sep 23, 2011)

Compaq said:


> If there is one person on this site whose posts are worth reading, it's Derrel. His posts should be linked on the front page. Even if he isn't talking about photography, he still writes very well, and I can feel the enthusiasm.
> 
> We're all going to end up on someone's ignore list sooner or later. I lasted 800 posts. Are we here to be touchy of someone's "tone" (read: omg) or to look past that and actually just read what the post says? When new members understand that, they'll do fine here.



Oh Dear, someone hand this guy a tissue so he can wipe his nose.  LOL.  Just jacking with ya dude.....


----------



## bennielou (Sep 23, 2011)

As for the Teresa link, I personally like it.  Yes, I have some nits:

The cars (patch out)
The weird left leg placement.  (wait for the leg to come down)

What I like is the saturation
The expression of joy on the model
The "set design" (outfit, cooresponding colors, background (without the cars).

Now back to negative space...It's a big client fave.  (At least in my business). Wanna know why?  (This from client's own mouths  "It looks modern and natural".  I'm not making this up folks.  Clients think it's "new" and "arty" even though photogs have been doing it for ages.  A lot of my clients don't like centered shots because they feel too much like studio shoots or mom's old photos.  Even though people have been doing negative space for a while now, it's still "fresh" to the clients.

Now, is it a waste of space?  An oldie PPA no no?  Ummm, kinda.  (As for PPA oldies it still has to do with the thirds).  But I'm not entering contests and haven't for at least 5 years.  I let my clients tell me what they want within reason.  (I absolutely refuse to do selective color.  Absolutely REFUSE- lol)

Otherwise, I say there is an @ss for every seat.  The less conventional I can be, the better it is for my business.  Again, within reason.


----------



## Compaq (Sep 23, 2011)

bennielou said:


> Compaq said:
> 
> 
> > If there is one person on this site whose posts are worth reading, it's Derrel. His posts should be linked on the front page. Even if he isn't talking about photography, he still writes very well, and I can feel the enthusiasm.
> ...



I've gotten a cold. What a ridiculous expression. I'm not even cold. In Norwegian, we have a proper name for this sickness! What a weird language this English is. It has even got "ish" in it, so we're talking something that loosely resembles a language called "Engl"...we're talking "Engl"-ish. My point is that I could use with a few tissues!


----------



## bennielou (Sep 23, 2011)

Compaq said:


> bennielou said:
> 
> 
> > Compaq said:
> ...



Ok, I'm gonna switch to sign language now:  Oh never mind.  Funny response.  We're cool my man.  I'd explain it, but your last post was priceless so I'll just leave it be.  Gold.  Total gold.


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Sep 23, 2011)

I just realized that the face on Compaq's Avatar, is very fitting for that post 


( I'm just busting your chops Compaq, don't get all puffy about it )


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 23, 2011)

Today consider me the anti-prime with my new slow f2.8 unsharp zoomer


----------



## Netskimmer (Sep 23, 2011)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Today consider me the anti-prime with my new slow f2.8 unsharp zoomer



All we get is a picture of the box! Your killin' me!


----------

