Daily Snaps 2011 2nd Quarter

December 21, 2011 @ 06:25:45
^nice


December 21, 2011 @ 15:08:52
^Nice colors, I have yet to see a parrot in person.

@laxlife1234 : jelly of your lens

@00nikolas00 : what did you shoot with?



I have a feeling my nephew is going to be in the military. All he does a reenact stuff from Battlefield 3.
December 21, 2011 @ 20:56:06
For HDR I use photomatix pro. And if anyone cares do NOT take more files from a raw image, take 3 seperate exposures (raw would be better, but JPEG is also fine).

^nice


Thanks man blushing

@laxlife1234 : jelly of your lens


Took me about 8 months to finally get smokeyface So be patient! Maybe you'll one day get one.. I'm just jealous of people with FF cameras.

www.jacobskoglund.com | www.jacobsphotobooth.tumblr.com

December 22, 2011 @ 06:06:22
good stuff lax and everyone else


f u by MrEllis, on Flickr

all I do is sip espressos and listen to AZ -mrelllis.tumblr.com

December 22, 2011 @ 10:52:20
Some shots from the weekend...







http://blog.anthonykeo.com/
lemme know if you're from hb and i'll follow back.
December 23, 2011 @ 04:04:20
Some shots from the weekend...

http://blog.anthonykeo.com/
lemme know if you're from hb and i'll follow back.


really like the tones.
and kkukshtel.tumblr.com
i dont really post tons of pics (yet), but most everything i post is original.
December 24, 2011 @ 00:02:48



December 24, 2011 @ 08:49:03


super tight shot man. can you give camera/lighting info? it looks like one point at 45 degress pointed down at camera right, but i cant tell if you used a softbox or shot through an umbrella? im leaning towards softbox...
December 24, 2011 @ 17:41:07
TTHX <smokey face>


aless4 by MrEllis, on Flickr


pavel1 by MrEllis, on Flickr


h11 by MrEllis, on Flickr

all I do is sip espressos and listen to AZ -mrelllis.tumblr.com

December 24, 2011 @ 18:20:41
Thanks guys. Loving your film tones Koven.

super tight shot man. can you give camera/lighting info? it looks like one point at 45 degress pointed down at camera right, but i cant tell if you used a softbox or shot through an umbrella? im leaning towards softbox...


I used a soft box way high up down at a sharp angle without the diffusion panel since it was lower power. Then used a shoot through umbrella right next to it for extra fill and enough light to get a high enough shutter speed to freeze the motion.

It really depends on what you plan to do, umbrellas are super versatile and great to use for most general applications. I find though if you need more control over your light, such as I did in these shots using a softbox + a grid is awesome.

I used a Canon 60D with the Sigma 30 1.4 and a Yonguo YN-560 flash with Yongnuo flash trigs.

If you're using speedlites I recommend the Cheetah Qbox 24.
December 25, 2011 @ 05:36:55
I used a soft box way high up down at a sharp angle without the diffusion panel since it was lower power. Then used a shoot through umbrella right next to it for extra fill and enough light to get a high enough shutter speed to freeze the motion.

It really depends on what you plan to do, umbrellas are super versatile and great to use for most general applications. I find though if you need more control over your light, such as I did in these shots using a softbox + a grid is awesome.

I used a Canon 60D with the Sigma 30 1.4 and a Yonguo YN-560 flash with Yongnuo flash trigs.

If you're using speedlites I recommend the Cheetah Qbox 24.


word man. after reading most of the content on the strobist i find it hard to really ever want to use model lights to shoot, i actually did the past stuff i posted in here with a yn-560 as well, but opted to get that lumopro lp160 because the ui of the 560 is so bad. but to each his own, the quality of the flash was great.

and super thanks on the recommendation for that softbox, i was about to ask how you used a softbox with a speedlight. ive been looking for something like this.

as for gear, props on the 60D, i use one too. but for the lens, why did you choose the sigma 1.4? just wondering, not trying to berrate you.
December 25, 2011 @ 06:03:57
the sigma 30 1.4 is sharp as fuck, great creamy bokeh, silent focus and quite reliable, even in low light and built solid as fuck.
cheaper than the 28 1.8 in canada and you get a 10 year warranty. pretty hard to beat and the image quality holds up right next to the canon 35 1.4.
December 25, 2011 @ 16:01:25
Canon 28 1.8 vs. sigma 30 1.4 is like comparing shit to a diamond. Sorry, but most of Canons lower end lenses suck to be honest. They mainly focus most of their attention into lenses that are L lenses and even then some of the L lenses are not the best. The Sigma comes out on top in terms of sharpness, flare control, build quality, it's also faster than the Canon 28mm.

From what I have read though the sigma 30mm really doesn't do as well with FF bodies as it was made for digital cameras (meaning not 35mm format). That's when the Canon 35L would be better than the Sigma 30.

www.jacobskoglund.com | www.jacobsphotobooth.tumblr.com

December 26, 2011 @ 00:18:48
Canon 28 1.8 vs. sigma 30 1.4 is like comparing shit to a diamond. Sorry, but most of Canons lower end lenses suck to be honest. They mainly focus most of their attention into lenses that are L lenses and even then some of the L lenses are not the best. The Sigma comes out on top in terms of sharpness, flare control, build quality, it's also faster than the Canon 28mm.

From what I have read though the sigma 30mm really doesn't do as well with FF bodies as it was made for digital cameras (meaning not 35mm format). That's when the Canon 35L would be better than the Sigma 30.


http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm

i think good lighting is way more important than perceived sharpness of a lens. but to each his own.
December 26, 2011 @ 02:12:03
Ken Rockwell is probably the last person you should listen to man. But yeah the 28 1.8 is by no means shit. Cameras and lenses are just tools, people get waaaaay too caught up in equipment. Get out and shooting will make you better, not an extra stop of ISO performance or narrower depth of field.
December 26, 2011 @ 02:32:44
Canon 28 1.8 vs. sigma 30 1.4 is like comparing shit to a diamond. Sorry, but most of Canons lower end lenses suck to be honest. They mainly focus most of their attention into lenses that are L lenses and even then some of the L lenses are not the best. The Sigma comes out on top in terms of sharpness, flare control, build quality, it's also faster than the Canon 28mm.

From what I have read though the sigma 30mm really doesn't do as well with FF bodies as it was made for digital cameras (meaning not 35mm format). That's when the Canon 35L would be better than the Sigma 30.


my 50 1.8 shits on a 50L i know soo many people on potn that have downgraded from the 50L. stop being a fuckhead and saying all cheaper lenses suck.
December 26, 2011 @ 02:56:24
Ken Rockwell is probably the last person you should listen to man. But yeah the 28 1.8 is by no means shit. Cameras and lenses are just tools, people get waaaaay too caught up in equipment. Get out and shooting will make you better, not an extra stop of ISO performance or narrower depth of field.


haha i've been put onto him by a lot of people, why's he no good? just wondering. regardless though, the article rings true with your statement. the only way to get better is by shooting and learning. great photographers take great pictures with shit equipment, and bad photographers can take horrible pictures with great equipment.

i think when you start considering that the majority of photographers who shoot for a living aren't taking pictures for other photographers, but for ad agencies and firms, the minutia of differences between any good lens are obliterated because, unless a trained photographer, the client probably won't notice.
December 26, 2011 @ 03:04:55
Ken Rockwell is probably the last person you should listen to man. But yeah the 28 1.8 is by no means shit. Cameras and lenses are just tools, people get waaaaay too caught up in equipment. Get out and shooting will make you better, not an extra stop of ISO performance or narrower depth of field.


haha i've been put onto him by a lot of people, why's he no good? just wondering. regardless though, the article rings true with your statement. the only way to get better is by shooting and learning. great photographers take great pictures with shit equipment, and bad photographers can take horrible pictures with great equipment.

i think when you start considering that the majority of photographers who shoot for a living aren't taking pictures for other photographers, but for ad agencies and firms, the minutia of differences between any good lens are obliterated because, unless a trained photographer, the client probably won't notice.
Ken Rockwell is probably the last person you should listen to man. But
yeah the 28 1.8 is by no means shit. Cameras and lenses are just tools, people get waaaaay too caught up in equipment. Get out and shooting will make you better, not an extra stop of ISO performance or narrower depth of field.


He is horrible and does not know what he is talking about.
haha i've been put onto him by a lot of people, why's he no good? just wondering. regardless though, the article rings true with your statement. the only way to get better is by shooting and learning. great photographers take great pictures with shit equipment, and bad photographers can take horrible pictures with great equipment.

i think when you start considering that the majority of photographers who shoot for a living aren't taking pictures for other photographers, but for ad agencies and firms, the minutia of differences between any good lens are obliterated because, unless a trained photographer, the client probably won't notice.
December 27, 2011 @ 11:22:14
@koven that film you used?
dope
December 27, 2011 @ 13:01:35
They're digital, shot with the x100.
December 27, 2011 @ 15:29:47
cool stuff guys

December 27, 2011 @ 15:54:37
They're digital, shot with the x100.

Wow
December 27, 2011 @ 21:00:45


the colors on this are amazing
December 27, 2011 @ 22:13:19
They're digital, shot with the x100.


Koven does the x100 give those tones, naturally or are you editing them in lightroom?

EDIT: what kinda processing you do on lightroom to get them tones??
December 27, 2011 @ 22:53:05
(Invalid img)
December 28, 2011 @ 03:01:56

Cleveland-2 by hodrick., on Flickr


Cleveland-4 by hodrick., on Flickr


Cleveland-5 by hodrick., on Flickr


Cleveland-7 by hodrick., on Flickr
December 28, 2011 @ 05:28:38

streamzoo = redsalapao - instagram = greensalapao

December 28, 2011 @ 08:47:11
December 28, 2011 @ 10:06:02
Hey Man thanks those were all edited in light room and photoshop. I play with the color balance and I add a film grain layer. The fuji x100 does have film filters based on the legendary fuji films like provia, velvia, ect!

By the way good shit everyone!

all I do is sip espressos and listen to AZ -mrelllis.tumblr.com

December 28, 2011 @ 14:27:15
that parrot shot is amazing!
Please login first to reply.
x