Wide Angle Shots (28mm or wider)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by chrismccorkle, Jul 26, 2006.

  1. chrismccorkle macrumors regular

    chrismccorkle

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    #1
    Sigma 10-20mm F/4-5.6
    Just bought it the other day... $499 off B&H.

    There are some spontaneous test portraits I took using it.

    Post-prod thanks to the beautiful beta of Adobe Lightroom (adios Aperture)

    All shot RAW+L on Canon 350D, 10mm f/4 @ 1sec ± w/ Canon 430EX Flash

    Post yours too, 18mm or wider!
     

    Attached Files:

  2. seenew macrumors 68000

    seenew

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    #2
    Chris, I sent you a PM and email a while ago, asking about SCAD.

    Anyway, here's some shots I took with my dead Coolpix 8800 a while back.
    I know it was at least 28mm, I don't know how accurate the exif is.

    Make: NIKON
    Model: E8800
    Shutter Speed: 10/2631 second
    F Number: F/6.3
    Focal Length: 10 mm
    ISO Speed: 50
    Date Picture Taken: Nov 15, 2005, 9:15:16 AM
    [​IMG]

    Make: NIKON
    Model: E8800
    Shutter Speed: 10/15000 second
    F Number: F/2.8
    Focal Length: 9 mm
    ISO Speed: 50
    Date Picture Taken: Feb 8, 2006, 10:07:22 AM
    [​IMG]
     
  3. ksz macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2003
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    #3
    Taken with a Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 at 28mm on a Nikon F100 (Fuji Sensia or Provia slide film scanned on a Nikon SuperCoolscan 4000). Cropped.

    Gallery within a Gallery (Louvre)
    [​IMG]
    Gard du Nord, Paris
    [​IMG]
    Arc de Triomphe
    [​IMG]
    Ascending Eiffel
    [​IMG]
     
  4. chrismccorkle thread starter macrumors regular

    chrismccorkle

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    #4
    Just a quick note: you guys should, instead of directly linking to the image, attach it.

    This keeps the thread space small and allows us to click on a thumbnail instead of actually having to scroll right to see the whole image (which is redundant considering the avg 1280x768 powerbook user would still see the cropped version)

    and, this is a thread for focal length 18mm or wider (17, 16, 15, and so on). This does not include consumer-grade digital cameras such as nikons or canons you can buy for under $100 whose focal lengths, due to the small physical length of the "lens," are insignificantly smaller and don't realistically capture at least 100º± of view.

    Also, SCAD is a horrible art school.

    Thanks.

    Here is a better example of a wide angle shot taken at 10mm:
     

    Attached Files:

  5. andiwm2003 macrumors 601

    andiwm2003

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #5

    so why does the thread title say 28mm then?:confused:

    Mac Forums > Special Interests > Digital Photography > Wide Angle Shots (28mm or wider)
     
  6. gwuMACaddict macrumors 68040

    gwuMACaddict

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    washington dc
    #6
    care to elaborate? that's pretty contradictory to everything i've ever heard...
     
  7. ksz macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2003
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    #7
    Someone has already pointed out your contradiction, but nevertheless 18mm on a DX sensor is about 27-28mm on full frame. The Nikon F100, being a film camera, is FF.
     
  8. seenew macrumors 68000

    seenew

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    #8
    Your title said 28mm. And my Nikon was not anywhere near $100, it was $950.

    AND: SCAD is not a horrible school, in fact you're the first person I've ever heard say that. And it wouldn't matter anyway, I've been awarded the Frances Larkin McCommons scholarship there, so I'm going since it pays more than half the cost..

    But please, elaborte. Or maybe finally reply to one of my PM's or emails.. :|
     
  9. chrismccorkle thread starter macrumors regular

    chrismccorkle

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    #9
    Alright, how about:

    Wide angle shots.

    Wide angle lens - A lens which takes in a great deal of a scene owing to its wide coverage angle.

    The focal length of a wide-angle lens is always shorter than the diagonal of the film format. In the case of 35mm any lens shorter than 42mm or so is a wide angle. Wide angle lenses can be rectilinear (straight lines are preserved) or fisheye (extreme barrel distortion is evident). Most wide angle lenses used on SLR cameras are of the inverted telephoto design. (photonotes.org)

    Chris New:

    You will learn so much from that; take Photo 100 at Bergen and you'll have more of an idea of what I'm talking about.
     
  10. andiwm2003 macrumors 601

    andiwm2003

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #10

    so somebody wants to be the cool expert who doesn't need to explain himself or be polite. i'm not gonna waste more time on this thread.:rolleyes:
     
  11. pdpfilms macrumors 68020

    pdpfilms

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Location:
    Vermontana
  12. ksz macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2003
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    #12
    ^^^ Ya'll have to explain how you do this. I've seen this done several times, but the explanations have always been cryptic.
     
  13. pdpfilms macrumors 68020

    pdpfilms

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Location:
    Vermontana
    #13
    It starts with taking multiple shots of a single jump. Then, you bring those shots into photoshop, and cut the subject out of each one, and place them all on one of the frames. Basically, if you hold the camera steady enough, you can just slide each of the subject cut-outs into place, and teh background behind them will line up (trees will overlay correctly, the dock will line up). For shots where the subject overlays on top of itself (the middle jumper's toes over the fourth jumper's thigh), you have to manually cut out the top layer.

    Hmm... that still looks kind of cryptic. It's essentially cut and paste, thats all.
     
  14. seenew macrumors 68000

    seenew

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    #14

    I KNOW what a wide shot is. If you look at my second shot, you can see barrel distortion where it brought elements further in from the sides. Excuse me if you labeled your thread wrong.

    And you don't have to be such a prick. I mean, honestly, offering me a link to a "Basic Photography" book. *******.
     
  15. chrismccorkle thread starter macrumors regular

    chrismccorkle

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
  16. jared_kipe macrumors 68030

    jared_kipe

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle
    #16
    One of our rules here is not to insult. There was a time when you could get booted for it, but not so much anymore.
     
  17. seenew macrumors 68000

    seenew

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    #17

    Well I think my post was entirely justified, as he has insulted me first, as well as other posters in this thread.
     
  18. ksz macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2003
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    #18
    I agree with seenew. The OP does not fit into the MacRumors culture. Not sure if he fits into any culture.
     
  19. aricher macrumors 68020

    aricher

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Location:
    Chi-il
    #19
    I haven't shot wide angle in a few years. I'll have to dig it out of the closet this weekend.

    [​IMG]
     
  20. snap58 macrumors 6502

    snap58

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Location:
    somewhere in kansas
    #20
    I do like Soul Coughing, in particular "True Dreams of WIchita", nice photo,
     
  21. aricher macrumors 68020

    aricher

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Location:
    Chi-il
    #21
    Thanks. That song is one of my favorites as well. The whole Ruby Vroom album is one of my all-time faves.
     
  22. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #22
    you are my hero. if i send you a SASE will you send me your autograph?
     
  23. TheAnswer macrumors 68030

    TheAnswer

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2002
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #23
    I think seenew might have overreacted slightly, but his feelings were justified given the tone of the OP.

    For what it's worth, from what's been posted in this and other threads, seenew's pics regularly grab my eye and can I see the talent there. Pics of shoe store employees, tend not to yield the same results.
     

Share This Page