KelvinHammond

Joined on Oct 21, 2013

Comments

Total: 85, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG DN Sport sample gallery (65 comments in total)
In reply to:

Erwann Loison: Another sigma superzoom that doesn't look very sharp or good.

I’ve had the Nikon version for years. What I’ve found is that you need a minimum speed of 1/2000 to do a sharp photo. They zoom is so long that even a tripod setup requires much higher shutter speed then you’re used to. I’ve put a rifle mount under the lens, and I can get sharp hand-held photos as long as the speed is 3x the focal length used.
That means you prioritize speed first, then aperture, and then use ISO to complete the exposure recipe. So, often that means something like 1/2000, 6.3,
2500iso. Which also means you have to have an image sensor that does well at higher ISOs. Nikons have always been great at that. Sony’s have improved to be able to handle that as well.
If you look at the speeds in the exif data in the gallery, I see 1/500 and slower. That mean almost every photo likely has enough motion blur to notice.

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2021 at 14:09 UTC
In reply to:

Me Brian: Because 19mm is such a wide angle most photos taken with this phone (or the Sharp version) will be digitally zoomed in thus using only a part of the 1" sensor. The 1" sensor is good, but the 19mm lens negates its advantages. A 28mm lens in a thicker body to accommodate it would have been great, but the marketing department had the last word, and the public are delivered a flawed product... unless 19mm is your thing.

Nowhere near wide enough. iPhone and Galaxy have seriously UWAs. Apple's is a 13mm Eq. Great for interiors and mountain hiking.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2021 at 13:37 UTC
In reply to:

karma2011: Time for Apple to upgrade the MP in their top line phones. They can team up with Zeiss? If they don’t I am thinking another phone company is going to. And it will be a big deal as people do want to just point and shoot and vlog and post and chat, etc. And ‘one device to rule them all” logic is key.

Maybe the Apple HazzyVlad :)

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2021 at 13:29 UTC

which makes me wonder about the nature of photojournalistic workflow. When a press photographer finishes an assignment, does he just hand over the SD card to the publisher? Is he prohibited from retaining a set for himself? (thus why Leong is requesting his images)
Why isnt it simplified? The creator owns the copyright, but the contract states that the publisher can use images they've hired out in perpetuity. That way, if a photographer should sell his catalog, the new owner would have to honor that agreement as part of ownership.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2021 at 14:22 UTC as 26th comment

Seems to me that AFP is confusing intellectual property rights with Art. Not the same issue. Intellectual property rights exist in the absence of art or creativity, and it could be a function then of defining 'creativity', which could then be simplified to 'the act of creation of intellectual property, not withstanding the subjective assertion or perception of artistic merit'.
Software is copywrited all the time, and it's not patricianly creative. It's technical mostly. The writer or creator of that software is still afforded intellectual property rights.
When I shoot Real Estate photos, it's far more technical then creative, yet I still retain property rights no matter how nice or benign the image is.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2021 at 14:05 UTC as 29th comment
In reply to:

trungtran: I use Bluray for archival. Try hacking that. Write once media has its place, especially for RAW files.

Right, and I'm not suggesting it's an inevitability, more that it should be treated as if were an inevitability. I also have DVDs that are 20 years old and still function, but I've also had some become unreadable for no discernible reason. It's random. Written the same, stored the same, some fail, some don't. I have more that survive then dont, so that part is good.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2021 at 13:25 UTC
In reply to:

trungtran: I use Bluray for archival. Try hacking that. Write once media has its place, especially for RAW files.

Except disks have a lifespan, because they are capable of deteriorating, even just sitting in storage, as can SD cards. I'm not sure that non-deteriorating media storage exists.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2021 at 02:55 UTC
In reply to:

John McMillin: Having done this kind of work for over a decade, I've photographed thousands of listings. Not once did I wish I had an F1.8 lens. These scenes have a lot of depth, so depth of field is essential. For me, the work begins at f8. My main criteria for a real estate lens is lack of barrel distortion. I've also avoided prime lenses, because it's monotonous to use the same focal length and perspective for a whole set of photos. As you move up from real estate to architectural and interior design photography, longer lenses are preferred. You'd never want to take a front exterior at 14mm if you could help it, and I'm not fond of changing lenses on the job. So I believe this is a misapplication of this lens.

Also SomeGuyPNW, 6 lenses and bodies can be interpreted different ways. Anyone who shoots RE will tell you you dont need what's in my bag... its not necessarily "hardcore", although it does cover anything that comes up.

Now the bodies - A7, A7ii, A7iii, A7rii, A7riii, A6500. Necessary? Nope. It shows you I tend to keep cameras, to me they are work tools, as are lenses.

It means I like to play while I work, and... I understand that the tax code rewards business people who spend money on equipment in the form of write-offs, which helps a capitalist economy function, IMO, thats why they reward it. Either Uncle Sam gets the money, or you get equipment... kind of a no brainer. If I bought a personal car, there isn't the same reward.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2021 at 15:22 UTC
In reply to:

John McMillin: Having done this kind of work for over a decade, I've photographed thousands of listings. Not once did I wish I had an F1.8 lens. These scenes have a lot of depth, so depth of field is essential. For me, the work begins at f8. My main criteria for a real estate lens is lack of barrel distortion. I've also avoided prime lenses, because it's monotonous to use the same focal length and perspective for a whole set of photos. As you move up from real estate to architectural and interior design photography, longer lenses are preferred. You'd never want to take a front exterior at 14mm if you could help it, and I'm not fond of changing lenses on the job. So I believe this is a misapplication of this lens.

At SomeguyPNW The 12-24 is a great lens. Very sharp, but it does stretch stuff, all through its range. It appears less at 24, but I think the stretch is a function of the glass, so even at 24 there is still distortion on the sides of the frame. Really, until you get to 50, all wide angles have it. It boils down to at what point somebody finds it objectionable.
I happen to LOVE UWA lenses. They force you to think about composition more, because not only can you have distortion, you generally have a super long focus range, meaning you have to consider EVERYTHING in your frame, not just the subject. Its a good skill to have.
The 14mm 1.8 would be a fun full length portrait lens. At 1.8, you could shoot a 6ft subject and still have the background out-of-focus, which is similar to when we used to shoot large format 4x5 cameras. Think the Jock Sturges look. Perhaps with clothes on, or off.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2021 at 14:59 UTC
In reply to:

John McMillin: Having done this kind of work for over a decade, I've photographed thousands of listings. Not once did I wish I had an F1.8 lens. These scenes have a lot of depth, so depth of field is essential. For me, the work begins at f8. My main criteria for a real estate lens is lack of barrel distortion. I've also avoided prime lenses, because it's monotonous to use the same focal length and perspective for a whole set of photos. As you move up from real estate to architectural and interior design photography, longer lenses are preferred. You'd never want to take a front exterior at 14mm if you could help it, and I'm not fond of changing lenses on the job. So I believe this is a misapplication of this lens.

@Obsolescence Not necessarily a drone, I had one, I stopped flying it. There are a million people with drones. A dime a dozen. But the goal of RE photography is $$. The more you vary what you offer, the more you might slow down your volume, which is exactly why I quit flying it. There were too many delays, weather, wind, traffic, waiting on cars to move, people to clear, FAA clearance. It was a nightmare of wasted minutes that I couldn't bill out. I dont have those delays when just concentrating on int/ext. On to the next house. That doesnt mean we dont have drone shots, it means that gets farmed out.

And that doesnt mean I dont think the 14mm wouldnt be an awesome lens for RE... it just cant be your only lens. Neith could the 35. or the 20. 99% of the time its the 16-35, because time is money.

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2021 at 14:33 UTC
In reply to:

s1oth1ovechunk: These wide angle lenses should be illegal for home listings. They are completely deceptive and it's impossible to get a good sense of the space.

Fisheye lenses give a better sense of the space, but I think photospheres are obviously the most true-to-life. I'll take a mercator/cylindrical projection in a pinch, but no rectilinear projections beyond 90-degree diagonals or so...

Our goal in RE is to sell a house, not to enter a photo competition. All we want is feet marching in the door. It makes no difference what lens I choose to get that done, as long as it attracts a buyer. If distortion was problematic to the degree you suggest, then I'd be more inclined to pick on 3D-Tours using 360 cameras. Like John said, most people are aware they are looking at virtual representation, not having an actual to-scale experience.

There are times I'm shooting a luxury cabin, the great room might be 20x30 all by itself, with a 20ft+ ceiling, with architectural beams supporting the roof... with an 18mm, I cant begin to show what kind of room we are in. It will look 1/2 it's height. I may have to use 12mm FF to show how it's constructed. But yeah, that will also mean that anything a few feet from camera will look HUGE. Deceptive would be to make that room look 1/2 the size that it is.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2021 at 20:32 UTC
In reply to:

wcan: Nice work!
How much better is the Aurora Skylum HDR processing vs. Lightroom's?

The term "natural" is subjective. With regard to RE, UWA's, and HDR, there is a lot that can make us define it as "unnatural".

Getting dressed, most of us are aware that 2 colors are Ok, 3 maybe. 4-6 = Clownish.

Shoorting RE and Architecture requires lens choice discipline, but also color discipline. Limit the color palette of an interior to 3 colors, allowing for green and blue outside. When processing via HDR, you end up with an unnaturally long color palette, showing the color of the room and it's contents, but now introducing extra colors from light sources (both artificial (amber/florescent) and incoming from windows (blue/green).

Acceptable might be Beige, Brown, accent, and Blue and Green outside. That's a 5 color range. More is grunge.

Use shot and processing discipline is to minimize that palette to as few as possible. A Sushi Bar. maybe fun to the eyes, but hard to photograph well because the long color range is there on purpose.

...so neither. Hand blending.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2021 at 20:14 UTC
In reply to:

John McMillin: Having done this kind of work for over a decade, I've photographed thousands of listings. Not once did I wish I had an F1.8 lens. These scenes have a lot of depth, so depth of field is essential. For me, the work begins at f8. My main criteria for a real estate lens is lack of barrel distortion. I've also avoided prime lenses, because it's monotonous to use the same focal length and perspective for a whole set of photos. As you move up from real estate to architectural and interior design photography, longer lenses are preferred. You'd never want to take a front exterior at 14mm if you could help it, and I'm not fond of changing lenses on the job. So I believe this is a misapplication of this lens.

Me either, that’s why I show up with 6 lenses on 6 bodies… no lens changing. 2 of the 6 are primes, the rest zooms.
12-24 G
16-35 GM
24 Zeiss
85 Zeiss
10-18 (APC) Sony
70-300 G
And sometimes the 150-600 Sigma on a Nikon

That’s an RE bag. But I’m in the Rockies, lots of variation from super tight urban, to wide open ranches, wildlife, peaks to ranges. 25yrs doing RE and Arch

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2021 at 18:31 UTC
In reply to:

iShootWideOpen: Why do so many photographer shoot interiors with ultra wide lenses? My buddy Ben is one of the best architecture photographers in the world and his favorite focal length is in the 35mm (FF) range. He rarely shoots ultra wides.

It’s not to make the room look bigger, it’s to show more of the room, not just the sofa and an end table, neither of which constitute what is been sold. Some of my competitors use 35 in tight bedrooms… all you see is mattress and a lamp. That isn’t what’s being sold, unless you are shooting for Craigslist. 😂

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2021 at 17:58 UTC
In reply to:

iShootWideOpen: Why do so many photographer shoot interiors with ultra wide lenses? My buddy Ben is one of the best architecture photographers in the world and his favorite focal length is in the 35mm (FF) range. He rarely shoots ultra wides.

They do make people look bigger, and anything else that falls in either side of the frame, even at 24mm. I used to use the Canon 24-105 to do weddings, and at 24mm, the people on sides of the frame weighed considerably more then peeps in the middle. This happens in RE work as well. Going to 20mm doesn’t solve it, and 35mm is too long for RE in tight homes, it’s more for editorial perspectives where lifestyle is more important then the property itself.
Distortion is a fact of life, embrace it, compose to its best advantage, and zoom out if you have the luxury. Which, as it suggests, means going to the 16-35 for RE. You don’t want to be stuck at 14mm for this genre.

Really, if you showed up with just a 35mm lens, you’d have just as many limitations as showing up with only a 14mm lens.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2021 at 17:47 UTC

The lens itself is fine, and distortions while shooting RE are unavoidable until you get out past 35mm, which is unusable for most interior work. The biggest distraction when showing off this lens is doing via HDR processing, which contaminates the color, too “hot” and too much mud, which is where the incandescent amber mixes with the blue daylight to produce ruddy mudtones. Think of it as mixing orange paint and blue paint… separately they are fine, but mixed, not so much.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2021 at 17:28 UTC as 60th comment | 3 replies

In spite of finding the entire account horrific and unconscionable, I found myself wondering about this sentence:

"This has never happened at such a large scale at the reserve.'"

In other words, there have been similar events at a smaller scale, which makes me wonder what they were. Q: Are Elegant Turns easily scared? If so, is the island adequately protected from unnatural intruders?

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2021 at 14:07 UTC as 68th comment | 1 reply

Also seems to have that feature in LR Classic. Right Click image- Enhance Details. I cant really tell what it's doing though. In LR, it puts another version next to the original, but I cant really see much difference.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2021 at 19:10 UTC as 52nd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

d4kk0n: Everything was perfect. And then I saw the price

This is why you cant have nice things ;)

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2021 at 03:32 UTC

Holy Crap! Speechless.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2021 at 16:52 UTC as 369th comment
Total: 85, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »