# I CAN use something other than a 500mm.



## zombiesniper (Oct 17, 2016)

I'm just not as good with it.




Fall by Trevor Baldwin, on Flickr


----------



## robbins.photo (Oct 17, 2016)

They make something other than 500mm?

Huh.

Why?


----------



## zombiesniper (Oct 17, 2016)

Sure they do. 
They make training lenses so you can work up to it.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 17, 2016)

Yeah, work up to 5,000mm


----------



## robbins.photo (Oct 17, 2016)

zombiesniper said:


> Sure they do.
> They make training lenses so you can work up to it.



So can you like, hang weights off them and stuff or do you have to keep buying the next heavier model?


----------



## zombiesniper (Oct 17, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> zombiesniper said:
> 
> 
> > Sure they do.
> ...



That's budget dependent.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 17, 2016)

robbins.photo said:


> They make something other than 500mm?
> 
> Huh.
> 
> Why?


So that every now and then he can use a lens that isn't taller than he is!


----------



## robbins.photo (Oct 17, 2016)

tirediron said:


> So that every now and then he can use a lens that isn't taller than he is!



Ok, sure.. but isn't that going to make it really tough to get shots of da plane, da plane?


----------



## SquarePeg (Oct 17, 2016)

Pretty trees and nice composition.  Too bad the sky isn't better for such a lovely scene.


----------



## ZombiesniperJr (Oct 17, 2016)

Nice


----------



## zombiesniper (Oct 17, 2016)

Thank you.



SquarePeg said:


> Pretty trees and nice composition.  Too bad the sky isn't better for such a lovely scene.



Thank you.
Agree the sky was crap today.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 17, 2016)

Skies are easily replaced in post.


----------



## Peeb (Oct 17, 2016)

Sky or no sky- very cool image!


----------



## zombiesniper (Oct 17, 2016)

Thank you.


----------



## Peeb (Oct 17, 2016)

Slid the exposure compensation to the left with shocking results!


----------



## thereyougo! (Oct 17, 2016)

Advanced Photo said:


> Skies are easily replaced in post.



That's my pet hate in image making.


----------



## zombiesniper (Oct 18, 2016)

thereyougo! said:


> That's my pet hate in image making.



Everyone has that thing that drives them nuts, for me it's Dutch angles and crayola HDR. Just had to learn to close those threads without posting.


----------



## Advanced Photo (Oct 18, 2016)

thereyougo! said:


> Advanced Photo said:
> 
> 
> > Skies are easily replaced in post.
> ...


You mean you hate doing it, or you hate seeing it, of course if you see it, it wasn't done right anyway.
The good examples are the ones you think were untouched, just like in HDR.


----------



## Peeb (Oct 18, 2016)

BTW, I'm 72% sure that folks recognized that my sky-replacement was a playful poke at the practice in general.  

Typically, we won't see distinct shadows under trees or brightly lit green fields under a starry sky.


----------



## zombiesniper (Oct 18, 2016)

What!?!?!

I thought it looked totally natural.


----------



## thereyougo! (Oct 19, 2016)

Peeb said:


> BTW, I'm 72% sure that folks recognized that my sky-replacement was a playful poke at the practice in general.
> 
> Typically, we won't see distinct shadows under trees or brightly lit green fields under a starry sky.



I took your comment in the spirit it was intended. 

I just see sky replacement as lazy as you could be shooting in better conditions. Magazines and many online courses are obsessed with sky replacement. 

Photographers should always IMHO aim to do their research and groundwork to get the best possible shot in camera. I'm not a SOOC freak but the image still needs to hve authenticity.


----------

