Any photographers in here?

[sleeper3]

I got a 17-50mm from tamron. The only time I take it off is if I need a farther reach. It's sharp enough that I'd almost rather take a shot with the 17-50 and crop it than put on the 55-250 though. I think I'm going to buck up and get a 70-200 though.

 

[SeR_Cyclops]

you showed us your photo and asked us what we thought... don't get all bent out of shape because we expect more from a photo than most people...

It's a learning experience... We're all here to get better.

I hate the internet just because its hard to display emotion. Im not bent out of shape. I was just saying I am set under the wrong frame of mind.

 

[FunkyBuddha]

I must have been under the wrong impression then. I thought it was to capture the car in its surroundings, and in this case the lights gave off a yellow effect so I went with it. Lol you all are too technical everyone else I have shown loves it.

But thanks for the criticism. Its always useful.

Okay..I'll give you that, but that is how I felt when I saw your photo. Why? It actually "hurts" the eyes. Maybe you could try moving the car closer to us instead of being so close to all those lights. We would be able to tell what its true color is. It could also help composition wise so that the car sticks out like it's the actual subject instead of being part of the background. Also having the subject in-focus would help. Look at the rocks on the ground..those are in focus, the car is not. It's actually blurry. That's where the focus point was.

There...that is why you can do better.

 

[Wagonbacker9]

funky = back with a vengance.

 

[Vocko]

 

[SeR_Cyclops]

Okay..I'll give you that, but that is how I felt when I saw your photo. Why? It actually "hurts" the eyes. Maybe you could try moving the car closer to us instead of being so close to all those lights. We would be able to tell what its true color is. It could also help composition wise so that the car sticks out like it's the actual subject instead of being part of the background. Also having the subject in-focus would help. Look at the rocks on the ground..those are in focus, the car is not. It's actually blurry. That's where the focus point was.

There...that is why you can do better.

WOW, Now that is a post I can use! Thanks...... alot I am wanting to get where I can take pretty good shots. I need to get a tripod out of all the pictures I had taken which was like 150 only like 20 turned out alright since most had a slight blur.

 

[Vocko]

Tripod is a must for night shots.

 

[SeR_Cyclops]

What is a good cheap tripod that you all recommend?

 

[Wagonbacker9]

What is a good cheap tripod that you all recommend?

I watched today's DOD until one popped up. $12 will get me through until it breaks and I can get a new one that doesn't suck. lol

 

[SeR_Cyclops]

I have a walmart one but it blows so much it would be better in the trash than on my camera.

 

[gr?]

What is a good cheap tripod that you all recommend?

If you're using a dslr, don't go cheap on a tripod. You'll thank us later

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/479933-REG/Manfrotto_190XDB_190XDB_Tripod_Legs_Black_.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/553704-REG/Manfrotto_460MG_460MG_3D_Magnesium_Head.html

 

[SeR_Cyclops]

Wow, what about a tripod around 50-90 bucks? for both pieces?

 

[Wagonbacker9]

If you're using a dslr, don't go cheap on a tripod. You'll thank us later

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/479933-REG/Manfrotto_190XDB_190XDB_Tripod_Legs_Black_.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/553704-REG/Manfrotto_460MG_460MG_3D_Magnesium_Head.html

my cheap one works just fine.. I have to shield it from wind in low light... but other than that it does its job.

 

[JerseyKid]

^
Me too, i got the 20 dollar adjustable one from Best Buy. No complaints here.

 

[gr?]

Once you start using the better lenses and/or bodies, the cheapo tripods can't hold the weight.

 

[JerseyKid]

I only have a D40 with a 15-55 and a 55-200, so they work fine for me.

 

[Wagonbacker9]

I'll admit I don't have any great lenses, but it holds my 70-300 fine at full extension on my 20d in macro.

 

[whowa004]

my cheap tripod cant hold my set up at all, 30D w/ extended grip and either the 100-400L or the 17-55 f/2.8. I am indesperate need for an upgrade...my gear weighs a ton.

 

[Vocko]

I have a Hama Tripod Star 62 - it costed about 30-35euro. It's ok for that price, 'cause the next is Manfrotto with the price range around 100e.

 

[sleeper3]

I have a cheapie one that holds my 50d+grip and 17-50mm f/2.8 just fine. I used it to make this:

time lapse

As you can see, there is lots of wind, and no camera movement.

Would I like a better one? of course. Would I rather spend the money on something else? yep.