# New Lens- new direction



## Lez325 (Dec 15, 2021)

I am a Wildlife Photographer and shoot little else- I have been gifted a new lens ( from the wife)

Sigma 24mm f1.4 ART lens ( Sony FE mount)

It was a bright yet cold morning yesterday I took it out to see how it performed

Here's a shot of a small fishing village some 20 miles from my home - am still finding my way around this genre - so be kind 

Sony a9 + Sigma 24mm f1.4 ART lens-  f10- 1/250th sec ISO 100

@weepete 







Les


----------



## Jeff15 (Dec 15, 2021)

nice shot.....


----------



## John Hunt (Dec 15, 2021)

Not sure what is to the left of the barn but I think the photo may have been better if you moved your view to the left enough to leave out the little bit of shore on the right.


----------



## RAZKY (Dec 15, 2021)

Looks like a wide angle snap sure enough. Do you have a 50mm lens to do the scene justice?


----------



## Peeb (Dec 15, 2021)

John Hunt said:


> Not sure what is to the left of the barn but I think the photo may have been better if you moved your view to the left enough to leave out the little bit of shore on the right.


I actually like the bit on the right.


----------



## K9Kirk (Dec 15, 2021)

I don't do much landscape either so I can only give my un professional opinion. It looks pretty good, maybe what John Hunt said, maybe just crop out the shore on the right. I can't help but wonder what a shot would look like if it were taken from the same spot but a different time of day with the sun more to your back so the boats would have more light on them from that angle.
Overall I think it's a pretty nice shot and I'm curious to see what some sunrise or sunset shots will look like with that lens.


----------



## SquarePeg (Dec 15, 2021)

I agree with peeb - the person standing on the right balances the scene and gives some perspective.  Is that a reflection of something you removed in the water bottom right?  What is that?


----------



## ronlane (Dec 15, 2021)

I understand what peeb and squarepeg are saying about the person. My first reaction was to wonder the importance of them there. But as I look at it more, what sticks out to me is that the boats are center in the frame. While I think this composition works, I would also suggest to work the scene and try a composition where the boats are on the right third and the barn is on the left third.


----------



## NS: Nikon Shooter (Dec 15, 2021)

SquarePeg said:


> Is that a reflection of something you removed in the water bottom right?  What is that?



It looks like something AND its reflection, an attaching post or …


----------



## weepete (Dec 15, 2021)

That's pretty good going Les, I like the way you've held the highlights really well here. I also like the composition. I'm quite fond of the small person, big landscape thing, so the incusion of a figure at the point of the harbour is a really nice addition. The mast on the boats give some very nice repeating lines The couple of other boats moored up helps break up the scene and I like the context the cottages gives with that old English roof shape.

well done!


----------



## dxqcanada (Dec 15, 2021)

I wish my wife bought me lenses.
Switching mentally from wildlife to landscape ain't the easiest thing.


----------



## jeffashman (Dec 15, 2021)

This is a wonderful shot! Personally, I wouldn't crop anything, because of the small boat on the left. It really all balances out, and I agree that the person on the right really gives some great perspective.


----------



## Lez325 (Dec 16, 2021)

Ok Thanks all - I'll try to answer some points



John Hunt said:


> Not sure what is to the left of the barn but I think the photo may have been better if you moved your view to the left enough to leave out the little bit of shore on the right.


Its actually a cottage and left of that is a processing plant- not very attractive 


RAZKY said:


> Looks like a wide angle snap sure enough. Do you have a 50mm lens to do the scene justice?


What? a 50mm would make the image smaller - I don't understand your logic- I do have a Sony 50mm f1.4 G lens - but not good on full frame for images like this


Peeb said:


> I actually like the bit on the right.


Thank you - Me too gives the image some scale 


K9Kirk said:


> I don't do much landscape either so I can only give my un professional opinion. It looks pretty good, maybe what John Hunt said, maybe just crop out the shore on the right. I can't help but wonder what a shot would look like if it were taken from the same spot but a different time of day with the sun more to your back so the boats would have more light on them from that angle.
> Overall I think it's a pretty nice shot and I'm curious to see what some sunrise or sunset shots will look like with that lens.


I'll give that a go Kirk, Time permitting 


SquarePeg said:


> I agree with peeb - the person standing on the right balances the scene and gives some perspective.  Is that a reflection of something you removed in the water bottom right?  What is that?


Thank you- the item you mention is a mooring buoy- with a pole to attach a flag- should I remove it?


ronlane said:


> I understand what peeb and squarepeg are saying about the person. My first reaction was to wonder the importance of them there. But as I look at it more, what sticks out to me is that the boats are center in the frame. While I think this composition works, I would also suggest to work the scene and try a composition where the boats are on the right third and the barn is on the left third.


Ok - thank you 


NS: Nikon Shooter said:


> It looks like something AND its reflection, an attaching post or …


Correct it's a Mooring Buoy with a small ple on top of it 


dxqcanada said:


> I wish my wife bought me lenses.
> Switching mentally from wildlife to landscape ain't the easiest thing.


Tell me about it- I don't get this many comments on my wildlife images 


jeffashman said:


> This is a wonderful shot! Personally, I wouldn't crop anything, because of the small boat on the left. It really all balances out, and I agree that the person on the right really gives some great perspective.



Me too Jeff- that's why I left it in shot 

Thank you all for the comments

Here's an edit with some of your suggestions 






I will persevere 


Les


----------



## K9Kirk (Dec 16, 2021)

I think the clean space in front of the boats enhances the pic a bit and puts more emphasis on the subject, the boats and their reflection. The poles in the water in the bg on the right now lead your eye way out into the distance where the other boats are. Yes, I like this better. Good job.


----------



## Lez325 (Dec 17, 2021)

K9Kirk said:


> I think the clean space in front of the boats enhances the pic a bit and puts more emphasis on the subject, the boats and their reflection. The poles in the water in the bg on the right now lead your eye way out into the distance where the other boats are. Yes, I like this better. Good job.


 I am the same as you Kirk- I don't usually like to remove things from images- I guess sometimes its a must ?

Les


----------



## John Hunt (Dec 17, 2021)

I think the crop looks better also.


----------



## Lez325 (Dec 17, 2021)

John Hunt said:


> I think the crop looks better also.


  Not a crop John- I just removed the bank and person on the rigt, using Photoshop


----------



## weepete (Dec 17, 2021)

I'm not a fan of that edit, as removes much needed balance from the scene. Without that spit and the person the leading lines in the shot take the eye out of the page. 

IMO the best crop of this shot would be of the boats, the spit, and the figure. That would put the focal point on the mooring positons further out, rather than off the page. Though that crop would loose the context and a bit of personality as it cuts out the cottages.

I was going to show you, but notice you've marked your shots not ok to edit.


----------



## Lez325 (Dec 17, 2021)

weepete said:


> I'm not a fan of that edit, as removes much needed balance from the scene. Without that spit and the person the leading lines in the shot take the eye out of the page.
> 
> IMO the best crop of this shot would be of the boats, the spit, and the figure. That would put the focal point on the mooring positons further out, rather than off the page. Though that crop would loose the context and a bit of personality as it cuts out the cottages.
> 
> I was going to show you, but notice you've marked your shots not ok to edit.


  Thank for that insight Pete- as you know this genre is new to me- and I bow to your experience in these landscape images- on this occasion please feel free to show me your edit


Les


----------



## weepete (Dec 17, 2021)

Thanks Les, sometimes it's easier to see with an image.

Below I've marked on the leading lines on the edit:





With any imagery, it's good to keep the eye in the frame, and we can see from the arrows the direction it takes the eye. This empasizes the importance of using anchors, particularly when a focal point is shifted to one side of an image.

Below would be what I'd suggest, if  you were really wanting to crop. It's a simpler composition, though it has a bit less personality as it mostly removes the context of the surrounding landscape.





When we mark on the leading lines, we can see how it is more sucessful at keeping the eye in the frame, as there is now a focal point inside the image, with the lines of the spit and the person directing the eye back. 

This also applies to the original shot. The major difference being the crop could be anywhere, whereas the original is very much a shot of that particular location.


----------



## K9Kirk (Dec 17, 2021)

Lez325 said:


> I am the same as you Kirk- I don't usually like to remove things from images- I guess sometimes its a must ?
> 
> Les


It's a must only if you agree it would or does look better. What one person may find to be an eye sore another may look at in a different way and see interest or beauty so it comes down to what _you think_ because in the end it's you that's going to take credit for it. Just think, there wouldn't be a Vincent Van Gogh if he listened to everyone that said his brush strokes were too swirly.


----------



## RAZKY (Dec 17, 2021)

Lez325 said:


> What? a 50mm would make the image smaller - I don't understand your logic- I do have a Sony 50mm f1.4 G lens - but not good on full frame for images like this.


It's my personal opinion, of course, but the building and trees in the background look abnormally small. Panorama stitching with a longer lens would look more natural.


----------



## K9Kirk (Dec 17, 2021)

weepete said:


> Thanks Les, sometimes it's easier to see with an image.
> 
> Below I've marked on the leading lines on the edit:
> 
> ...


I feel that with the picture done this way it's a little confusing as to what the subject is, the boats or the person on the right and the mooring buoy is so dark it just grabs too much attention like if Nessy were sticking her head out of the water.


----------



## weepete (Dec 18, 2021)

RAZKY said:


> It's my personal opinion, of course, but the building and trees in the background look abnormally small. Panorama stitching with a longer lens would look more natural.


I'm afraid that's a bit of a misconception. 

It's not an intuitive thing to understand, but the size of foreground and background objects is determined by perspective, rather than focal length, so the shooting position would have to change as well to alter that relationship.


----------



## Lez325 (Dec 18, 2021)

K9Kirk said:


> I feel that with the picture done this way it's a little confusing as to what the subject is, the boats or the person on the right and the mooring buoy is so dark it just grabs too much attention like if Nessy were sticking her head out of the water.


  Thank you Pete- I will try to take on board your advice- I really appreciate the time you take answering these posts 

Les


----------



## RAZKY (Dec 18, 2021)

weepete said:


> It's not an intuitive thing to understand, but the size of foreground and background objects is determined by perspective, rather than focal length, so the shooting position would have to change as well to alter that relationship.


Most any rank amateur knows that. It also ought to be obvious that the more of a scene that is included in a particular image size, the smaller each component of the scene must be. Do you agree?


----------



## jeffashman (Dec 18, 2021)

RAZKY said:


> Most any rank amateur knows that. It also ought to be obvious that the more of a scene that is included in a particular image size, the smaller each component of the scene must be. Do you agree?


For those of us who are sub-rank amateurs, it's not quite as obvious...  All levels are learning here.


----------



## bchalifour (Dec 18, 2021)

weepete said:


> I'm afraid that's a bit of a misconception.
> 
> It's not an intuitive thing to understand, but the size of foreground and background objects is determined by perspective, rather than focal length, so the shooting position would have to change as well to alter that relationship.


??? Well sorry to disagree but the focal length of a lens also determines whether the same object in the background looks closer to the foreground objects (telephoto) or further away (wide angle lens). Just try it.


----------



## vStiles (Dec 18, 2021)

Everyone focusing on the image itself, and I take away something completely different lol.  I see a long time shooter about to rediscover the love.
This is the beauty of photography.  Taking yourself outside the comfort zone and (re)discovering something in yourself that gives you that feeling and excitement when you first got the bug.


----------



## mathbias (Dec 18, 2021)

I'm sure I know less about good photo composition than any of you.  But I'll give an opinion anyway:
I like the original overall framing of the scene.  I like the inclusion of the person on the right and the point of land there.

I really dislike the stuff to that person's left:  The white thing (I think a plastic mesh bin maybe) and the floating pole thing and its reflection.

If you were going to edit stuff out, that would be just a bit more difficult.  I don't know exactly how you would decently clone a small segment of the land/water boundary.  Clone a bit more land should be OK and obviously you've demonstrated cloning a lot more water (so cloning just a little shouldn't be hard).  But I think editing out that bit of trash is much better than editing out the whole point of land.


----------



## weepete (Dec 18, 2021)

RAZKY said:


> Most any rank amateur knows that. It also ought to be obvious that the more of a scene that is included in a particular image size, the smaller each component of the scene must be. Do you agree?


If I misunderstood your post, I apologise. I thought by the way you phrased your reply, you were suggesting that a change in focal length alone would change that relationship.


----------



## weepete (Dec 18, 2021)

bchalifour said:


> ??? Well sorry to disagree but the focal length of a lens also determines whether the same object in the background looks closer to the foreground objects (telephoto) or further away (wide angle lens). Just try it.


That's ok mate, It's commonly talked about that way in photography circles, but it's actually a function of perspective, not focal length. 

If you shoot without changing your position, the relationship between foreground and background objects will be maintained. 

If you put a finger close to your eye, and look at the size relationship between an object in the background, then put your finger at arms length and do the same. The background object will appear larger, in comparison, when your finger is at arms length.


----------



## weepete (Dec 18, 2021)

Lez325 said:


> Thank you Pete- I will try to take on board your advice- I really appreciate the time you take answering these posts
> 
> Les


No bother Les, I'm happy to.  

I've been lucky enough to have had a very good art teacher, and being an engineer by trade, I like to get a good handle on the technical aspects of photography too. As it's a subject I care about, I do like to think, and discuss thoughts about it. I've also had a lot of help along my journey, in photography terms a lot of that has been through kind people on this forum taking the time to give me feedback, tips, discuss concepts etc. So, yeah, happy to pitch in if there is something you'd like to know or gt feedback on!


----------



## Lez325 (Dec 18, 2021)

weepete said:


> No bother Les, I'm happy to.
> 
> I've been lucky enough to have had a very good art teacher, and being an engineer by trade, I like to get a good handle on the technical aspects of photography too. As it's a subject I care about, I do like to think, and discuss thoughts about it. I've also had a lot of help along my journey, in photography terms a lot of that has been through kind people on this forum taking the time to give me feedback, tips, discuss concepts etc. So, yeah, happy to pitch in if there is something you'd like to know or gt feedback on!


 Thank you Pete- I'll be certain to access your knowledge 

Les


----------



## RAZKY (Dec 19, 2021)

weepete said:


> If I misunderstood your post, I apologise. I thought by the way you phrased your reply, you were suggesting that a change in focal length alone would change that relationship.


And my reply could have been clearer, for which I must apologise.


----------



## RacePhoto (Dec 21, 2021)

I like the shot, and the way the water was and the colors, it almost looks as if it's moving, in the still image.

Personally, and I know you asked and people are being helpful and honest, crop it the way YOU see it, not the way I'd see it.   

I like the human element, a person standing on the gravel, but you could clone them out and keep the nice reflections and composition. The colors are outstanding without being artificial looking.


----------



## BobMc (Dec 21, 2021)

Lez325 said:


> I am a Wildlife Photographer and shoot little else- I have been gifted a new lens ( from the wife)
> 
> Sigma 24mm f1.4 ART lens ( Sony FE mount)
> 
> ...


Read some of the other comments, I like your shot! Bob.


----------



## Lez325 (Dec 22, 2021)

RAZKY said:


> It's my personal opinion, of course, but the building and trees in the background look abnormally small. Panorama stitching with a longer lens would look more natural.


I'll re-vistit and take my 600mm f4 would that be long enough ????


vStiles said:


> Everyone focusing on the image itself, and I take away something completely different lol.  I see a long time shooter about to rediscover the love.
> This is the beauty of photography.  Taking yourself outside the comfort zone and (re)discovering something in yourself that gives you that feeling and excitement when you first got the bug.


Agreed and thank you for pointing that out - As I say I am a Wildlife Photographer and my 600mm lens is never off my camea- to switch to a 24mm is some learning curve I can tell you  


RacePhoto said:


> I like the shot, and the way the water was and the colors, it almost looks as if it's moving, in the still image.
> 
> Personally, and I know you asked and people are being helpful and honest, crop it the way YOU see it, not the way I'd see it.
> 
> I like the human element, a person standing on the gravel, but you could clone them out and keep the nice reflections and composition. The colors are outstanding without being artificial looking.


Thank you- Your comments are appreciated 

Les


----------



## RacePhoto (Dec 24, 2021)

I hope this isn't inappropriate for the discussion? There was a guy fishing on the rock bar in this image, before I finished editing the path and cloning him out.





I'm not going to say, someone would sue for seeing himself fishing, even if it was his side and back, but sometimes, that has happened. Without a release, depending on the final use, if anything is going to be marketed, you might want to eliminate a person.

My favorite is a guy who insisted he was in a shot of a driving range, and he actually went to a layer and tried to get money. (what makes someone that nuts?) After some back and forth, it was the wrong year and a different state. But honest, who does that kind of thing?


----------



## jeffashman (Dec 24, 2021)

RacePhoto said:


> I hope this isn't inappropriate for the discussion? There was a guy fishing on the rock bar in this image, before I finished editing the path and cloning him out.


Not inappropriate. Sometimes it's worth removing objects from a photo. As for people doing crazy things to get money, that's the world we live in. It's one reason I keep my raw images safe, and only post jpeg copies.


----------



## Lez325 (Dec 25, 2021)

RacePhoto said:


> I hope this isn't inappropriate for the discussion? There was a guy fishing on the rock bar in this image, before I finished editing the path and cloning him out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


  Here in the UK we do not need to remove people from images - if photographed in a public place


----------



## petrochemist (Dec 26, 2021)

Lez325 said:


> Ok Thanks all - I'll try to answer some points
> 
> 
> Its actually a cottage and left of that is a processing plant- not very attractive
> ...


I think I prefer it with the shore & person on the right, but with the 'mooring bouy'  (I think actually a Withy with something caught up on it - Withys (sp?) are branches used to mark the channel, four can just be seen beyond the boats ) removed or at least not reaching the shore. (Changing your position slightly to the right might have been enough.


----------



## RAZKY (Dec 26, 2021)

Lez325 said:


> I'll re-vistit and take my 600mm f4 would that be long enough ????
> 
> Les


Well, that's an ignorant response to constructive criticism!.


----------



## Lez325 (Dec 27, 2021)

RAZKY said:


> Well, that's an ignorant response to constructive criticism!.


Not really - your comment was not constructive - I merely asked you a question hence the ??? at the end of my comment

I do apologise if I offended you- that was not my intention

Les


----------



## mathbias (Dec 27, 2021)

Lez325 said:


> Not really - your comment was not constructive - I merely asked you a question hence the ??? at the end of my comment


In context "would 600mm be long enough" felt like more of a joke than a question.  The relevant question might have been "would 600mm be too long".  (but I wasn't assuming you even needed to ask any question).

I'd like to learn something here myself, relevant to the original suggestion:

"the building and trees in the background look abnormally small. Panorama stitching with a longer lens would look more natural."

*Standing further away* with a longer lens would increase the relative size of background objects (ignoring for the moment the fact that I don't see them as "abnormally small" in the original).
*Panorama stitching* with a longer lens, so far as I understand (and do quite a bit myself) gives you the same image but with more pixels.  So the size of background objects would be unchanged from the original.  I like to look at photos on a big computer display and then be able to zoom in on details.  That takes a lot of extra pixels that most people wouldn't notice.

Did the original suggestion imply both of those, or what?


----------



## Lez325 (Dec 28, 2021)

mathbias said:


> In context "would 600mm be long enough" felt like more of a joke than a question.


It was a question - hence the question marks


----------

