Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fun Pictures with Sony . . . .

Jorgen Udvang

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
jonoslack said:
Rural Street Photography:

Kids with Attitude:

Click to expand...
Jono,
There's something wrong with this photo. It looks as if it's (his? her?) head is coming out through the front of my monitor, but when I look on the backside (of the monitor), the rest of the animal isn't there... :confused:

Ok, ok... great photo :thumbup:
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
Hi Diane
Diane B said:
I especially like the horse shot from above---but the tea strainer and whatever that is that is stacked--lovely. I'd love to visit your kitchen *smile*.
Click to expand...
Thank you - the stack is weights - you would be most welcome in our kitchen - any time. There's always good coffee on the stove, and on sunny days it streams in through the windows. . . . mind you, to get the good shots you often have to put things on the floor and lie down next to them!

Diane B said:
I like the one of Emma and---is it Blue??---and the rural 'kids with attitudes' just tickled me. You're on a roll.

Diane
Click to expand...
Dixie - she's a Whippet / Bedlington cross - lovely, but she really has lost the plot over the last year or so (she's 14). Blue is a flat-coat retriever . . .quite a different kettle of fish!
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
Jorgen Udvang said:
Jono,
There's something wrong with this photo. It looks as if it's (his? her?) head is coming out through the front of my monitor, but when I look on the backside (of the monitor), the rest of the animal isn't there... :confused:

Ok, ok... great photo :thumbup:
Click to expand...
:ROTFL:
Thank you Jorgen . . . I think they're boys . . and I'm afraid they're due for the pot, but not for a year, and in the meantime they're having fun running down fences and the local dogs and photographers! terrorising.
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
Springtime in Suffolk
Just a few from a lovely sunny (but chilly) day.

Marsh Marigolds


(Sony 100mm f2.8 macro)

On Redgrave Fen

(Sony 100mm f2.8 macro)

A couple of shots of the old barn in Magpie Green:
(both with Zeiss 24-70 f2.8)




The obligatory BIG sky

Sigma 12-24 zoom

Anemones and Daffodils


Zeiss 24-70
 
Jorgen Udvang

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Jono,
Rather lovely again, I'm afraid. The flowers in the jug almost gives me associations to national days and other spring celebrations. Very deep, powerful colours in that one. Any pp to get that look, or is it straight out of the camera?

Lovely b&w too. I like the contrast between the leafless trees and the fluffy clouds in the last one.
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
HI Jorgen
Jorgen Udvang said:
Jono,
Rather lovely again, I'm afraid. The flowers in the jug almost gives me associations to national days and other spring celebrations. Very deep, powerful colours in that one. Any pp to get that look, or is it straight out of the camera?
Click to expand...
What would you like me to say? I did crop it very slightly, and recover the highlights in the jug just a touch - but really, in effect, that's it, straight out of the camera.
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
HI Dave
Do you have Daffs with blue leaves, or did you do some PP on that one . . . or were the stalks in the shade?

Quentin - lovely ants view - the old 12-24 does a good job on the A900 I think.
 
Quentin_Bargate

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Bill, like the background - your ants have a nice view!

Jono, thanks, I have been admiring your ambient light and other shots in this thread. I agree about the 12-24mm, I seem to have a decent copy and the field of view is unmatched. I see no reason to buy the less wide Zeiss despite the fact it is probably better optically. I sometimes wonder what Sigma could do if their designers and quality control were told to produce no compromise "Super EX" lenses.

Quentin
 
dhsimmonds

dhsimmonds

New member
jonoslack said:
HI Dave
Do you have Daffs with blue leaves, or did you do some PP on that one . . . or were the stalks in the shade?

Quentin - lovely ants view - the old 12-24 does a good job on the A900 I think.
Click to expand...
Hi Jono, they were in the shade! Just processed the RAW files with C1 at default and resized in PS. I think I may also have tweaked the contrast a bit in PS with that one!

I also love the "worms" eye view (even lower than an ant!) of the daffs. I bet you got your knees dirty!
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
dhsimmonds said:
Hi Jono, they were in the shade! Just processed the RAW files with C1 at default and resized in PS. I think I may also have tweaked the contrast a bit in PS with that one!
Click to expand...
HI Dave
It's the perfect example of why using auto-white balance in light/shade daylight situations is so completely ludicrous - any variable amount of light makes it bonkers. I settle for daylight on everything . . . the joy of shooting RAW means that you can always change it later (I very rarely do though).
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
Quentin_Bargate said:
Bill, like the background - your ants have a nice view!

Jono, thanks, I have been admiring your ambient light and other shots in this thread. I agree about the 12-24mm, I seem to have a decent copy and the field of view is unmatched. I see no reason to buy the less wide Zeiss despite the fact it is probably better optically. I sometimes wonder what Sigma could do if their designers and quality control were told to produce no compromise "Super EX" lenses.

Quentin
Click to expand...
Thanks - the ambient light stuff is only because I'm too lazy to learn about 'real' (or do I mean 'unreal') lighting :ROTFL:- my sentiments exactly, the 16-35 is now way down my want list . . . . the 135 f1.8 on the other hand :bugeyes:
 
dhsimmonds

dhsimmonds

New member
jonoslack said:
HI Dave
It's the perfect example of why using auto-white balance in light/shade daylight situations is so completely ludicrous - any variable amount of light makes it bonkers. I settle for daylight on everything . . . the joy of shooting RAW means that you can always change it later (I very rarely do though).
Click to expand...
Ok, OK hands up! I've been caught out being lazy! So here it is again using daylight on C1 this time! It does look a lot better IMHO
 
Last edited:
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
dhsimmonds said:
Ok, OK hands up! I've been caught out being lazy! So here it is again using daylight on C1 this time! It does look a lot better IMHO
Click to expand...
HI Dave
nothing to do with laziness. Just put it on daylight and leave it there (I reckon it would have improved the other picture as well).

There was much talk about this around here about a year ago. Basically, it makes one really understand the colour response of the camera (rather like using a particular brand of film), which is a GOOD thing, it's also more likely to be the right compromise in mixed lighting. Finally, you can always change it.

I can bore for England on this subject, so I had better shut up fast!

I do the same with all my cameras these days - the only time I ever use AWB is indoors with mixed lighting (setting 3 on the lovely A900 settings).

Auto ISO on the other hand seems to me to be a wonderful invention :clap:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top