The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

ancient_mariner said:
Don't forget that Lightroom, On1 etc can all upscale for printing, and although you won't get more detail you will reduce pixelation.
Click to expand...

How do you do upscaling?
 
Merlin5 said:
How do you do upscaling?
Click to expand...

Tell it the size you want in inches and the ppi - the software will do the rest, although you may get a VERY large file. IIRC 20 X 30 inches at 300ppi can be >75meg depending on format.
 
nandbytes said:
Personally I use topaz gigapixel AI
Click to expand...
ancient_mariner said:
Tell it the size you want in inches and the ppi - the software will do the rest, although you may get a VERY large file. IIRC 20 X 30 inches at 300ppi can be >75meg depending on format.
Click to expand...

Excellent, thanks chaps. By the way, when I export in lightroom, it's currently set to 320 PPI. Is that same as DPI mentioned earlier or are we talking about the DPI in my printer settings, when I send the photo to the printer?
 
Merlin5 said:
Excellent, thanks chaps. By the way, when I export in lightroom, it's currently set to 320 PPI. Is that same as DPI mentioned earlier or are we talking about the DPI in my printer settings, when I send the photo to the printer?
Click to expand...

PPI = pixels per inch, which is the image resolution. DPI = dots per inch, which is a printer specific resolution (i.e. it only relates to printing). While the 2 are quite different and some will get their panties in a bunch over it, the terms are often used interchangeably. As long as you know what they mean and why it might make a difference then you'll be fine.

BTW many printers ask for the image at 300dpi, but sometimes with a cap on the file size in MB. I generally send at 300ppi unless there's a problem with the output file being too large.
 
I’ve only printed wall canvasses so far. My go to printer for canvasses is trade canvas print in Tenby.

Trade Canvas Print | Quality Canvas, Fine-Art and Photographic Prints

Trade Canvas Print produces high quality canvases, fine-art and photographic prints | 24hr turnaround | Low trade prices | Next day delivery.
www.tradecanvasprint.co.uk www.tradecanvasprint.co.uk

don’t get them mixed up with the .com as that’s a different printer.
 
Outside my window over the weekend.... had to climb out on the roof of my extension :D
was good fun in the rain
Shot on A7C, must say the body is built rather well. I was a bit concerned taking 28-200mm out in rain but it was fine.

51199385436_4a2f1fa224_b.jpg


51200450420_79208896d5_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
It certainly has next to zero appeal to me even as a some time gear fondler with more money than sense but I'm not a professional or even amateur portrait shooter so I struggle to see a use for it, or another use for it. Googling for example pictures brings up a load of mostly people and dog shots. I don't know what else people would use these for. I can see the need for a portrait photographer taking that shot all day long but I wouldn't want to take that picture or pay for it either.

I do think shallow DoF is done to death and I do normally like someone's head to be in the depth. As always, good luck to the lovers of these lenses and the look they give but maybe wrongly they're just one trick ponies for me.

PS.
Soz for the buzzkill :D
Click to expand...

Yeah the 135mm is not for someone like you.

It’s a dedicated portrait lens and there is barely a family/lifestyle photographer working that doesn’t have one. The Sony in particular is one of the best 135mm lenses money can buy.
 
Nupe. It's deffo not for me.

I'm sure it is a very good lens with an attractive spec and it certainly gives a look that many will like and I think is done to death plus there's the practicalities of taking some of those pictures. I do think any hobbyist needs to think about how often they'd use one if the honeymoon period is likely to end. As always good luck to those who do buy and love this very nice but not for me because I think I'd only use it twice lens. A 150mm macro though, yup I had one and liked it :D
 
woof woof said:
Nupe. It's deffo not for me.

I'm sure it is a very good lens with an attractive spec and it certainly gives a look that many will like and I think is done to death plus there's the practicalities of taking some of those pictures. I do think any hobbyist needs to think about how often they'd use one if the honeymoon period is likely to end. As always good luck to those who do buy and love this very nice but not for me because I think I'd only use it twice lens. A 150mm macro though, yup I had one and liked it :D
Click to expand...

The market disagrees with you completely.

A professional portrait photographer will focus on what sells rather than even personal preference.

This is why while we shoot a lot of portrait stuff we are more interested in weddings as we get much more freedom to do what we want.
 
there were some passing rumours about a 100mm f1.4. I really wish its true and they make one. I love the 100-105mm focal length more so than either 85mm or 135mm :D
 
f/2.8 said:
The market disagrees with you completely.

A professional portrait photographer will focus on what sells rather than even personal preference.

This is why while we shoot a lot of portrait stuff we are more interested in weddings as we get much more freedom to do what we want.
Click to expand...

I do think it's a nice lens and although I wouldn't spend a penny on a zero depth portrait there are plainly people and organisations who will and there are bloggers posting shots of lovely models at f1.8 that'll tempt but I do think those with a touch of gas and the urge to fondly lovely lenses need to think how many times we'd use a lens like this after we've taken the initial 1k f1.8 shots of our loved ones including the dog.

I do have an 85mm f1.8 picture printed and framed and I do have a 135mm shot I really like taken at f2.8 but other than the odd picture I'm not really a fan of an avalanche of next to no depth. Good luck to those who are. I'd use that 14mm f1.8 a lot more than I'd use a 135mm f1.8.

Just in case you missed the sledge hammer humour and that it was all my views and mine alone. It was.
 
nandbytes said:
there were some passing rumours about a 100mm f1.4. I really wish its true and they make one. I love the 100-105mm focal length more so than either 85mm or 135mm :D
Click to expand...
100mm is about the only tele lens I use. I love my Oly Zuiko for this. I too don’t normally go for razor-sharp dof, but each to their own. That’s the difference between leisure and pro shooters - we are not constrained by what the customer wants but by what we like.
 
I used to use a 50mm a lot on MFT, 100mm gives a good perspective for lots of things really.
 
Had a 135mm for 10 years on Canon, hardly used it.

Replaced it with something more flexible (70-200) in case i need that focal length, and threw in a 105mm for fun.

5zjTtyP.jpg
 
woof woof said:
I used to use a 50mm a lot on MFT, 100mm gives a good perspective for lots of things really.
Click to expand...

True, the 100mm STF is a lens on my list if I see it come up 2nd hand, wouldn't use it enough to buy it new, but I would get a used one over the 85GM just as I like the FoV, Id like an auto focus 135 as well, probably the Batis as I like Zeiss colours, but as I have a 135mm Super Tak F2.5, I can't justify it
 
What is that Lens top right corner?

Nice collection though Raymond
 
MrMackyB said:
What is that Lens top right corner?

Nice collection though Raymond
Click to expand...

Sigma 105/1.4

I feel like i need a FAST ultra wide still. Had a 20/1.4 before but I feel like i never got a grip fully with that lens.
 
Last edited:
Stephen L said:
100mm is about the only tele lens I use. I love my Oly Zuiko for this. I too don’t normally go for razor-sharp dof, but each to their own. That’s the difference between leisure and pro shooters - we are not constrained by what the customer wants but by what we like.
Click to expand...
The Oly zuiko 100mm f2.8 is lovely. It's fairly sharp and renders beautifully. Used to refer to it as poor man's STF lens :ROFLMAO:
I sold it on this forum a while back
 
I was out shooting street a couple of days ago when three people came up to me and asked me if I could take some photos of them with my camera and email them over. Not for any money of course. I've never done any portraits before so thought it would be good practise. :) Don't really know how to get rid of some shine on her face but anyway, I guess they're not bad.


Pose 1 by Merlin 5, on Flickr


Pose 3 by Merlin 5, on Flickr


Pose 4 by Merlin 5, on Flickr


Pose 2 by Merlin 5, on Flickr
 
Merlin5 said:
I was out shooting street a couple of days ago when three people came up to me and asked me if I could take some photos of them with my camera and email them over. Not for any money of course. I've never done any portraits before so thought it would be good practise. :) Don't really know how to get rid of some shine on her face but anyway, I guess they're not bad.
Click to expand...

Lovely pictures :D

The way I'd tone down the shine would be to zoom in and paint on some exposure compensation but we'd be nit picking here and I think she'll be very happy with the picture as it is.

All in all what a lovely story and much better than being called a P****/weirdo for having a camera :D
 
woof woof said:
Lovely pictures :D

The way I'd tone down the shine would be to zoom in and paint on some exposure compensation but we'd be nit picking here and I think she'll be very happy with the picture as it is.

All in all what a lovely story and much better than being called a P****/weirdo for having a camera :D
Click to expand...


Thanks Alan, I appreciate that. My extremely noob attempt at portrait was fun. Can only get better with more practise. :)
 
Merlin5 said:
I was out shooting street a couple of days ago when three people came up to me and asked me if I could take some photos of them with my camera and email them over. Not for any money of course. I've never done any portraits before so thought it would be good practise. :) Don't really know how to get rid of some shine on her face but anyway, I guess they're not bad.


Pose 1 by Merlin 5, on Flickr


Pose 3 by Merlin 5, on Flickr


Pose 4 by Merlin 5, on Flickr


Pose 2 by Merlin 5, on Flickr
Click to expand...
I think you did a great job. Not keen on number 3 but like the rest with the first being my fav. I would go into camera raw and brush on some white reduction to just tone done the highlight side of the face slightly. Don't do too much though as the contrast works with the bold colours. While you are in there tone down her top, particularly the right as we look, to put more attention on her face. Good job and I'm sure they will love the images
 
wookie6262 said:
I think you did a great job. Not keen on number 3 but like the rest with the first being my fav. I would go into camera raw and brush on some white reduction to just tone done the highlight side of the face slightly. Don't do too much though as the contrast works with the bold colours. While you are in there tone down her top, particularly the right as we look, to put more attention on her face. Good job and I'm sure they will love the images
Click to expand...

Thanks Simon and great advice! I had tried the brush in lightroom on her face and then reduced the whites slider but it didn't look very good. Is that basically the same tool as in camera raw?
I've been told since that I would have been better off with spot metering and locking exposure on the brightest part of the subject, in this case on her coat or face, and then recomposing. I was actually in multi metering mode which was obviously not the best choice for this. So would I have been better off changing to spot metering standard with the focus point link attached to it and then focusing on her coat and then reframing which would then avoid blowing out/over exposing those shiny and overly white areas? Actually, I think it means using auto exposure lock which I've never used. My AEL button is my back button focus, so I'll have to reassign AEL.

I just got an email back from them and they thought the photos are amazing (they're not but I'm glad they like them and I sent 16 photos) and said they might be in touch for more, so maybe I can ask for a few quid next time. :D
 
Last edited:
Merlin5 said:
Thanks Simon and great advice! I had tried the brush in lightroom on her face and then reduced the whites slider but it didn't look very good. Is that basically the same tool as in camera raw?
I've been told since that I would have been better off with spot metering and locking exposure on the brightest part of the subject, in this case on her coat or face, and then recomposing. I was actually in multi metering mode which was obviously not the best choice for this. So would I have been better off changing to spot metering standard with the focus point link attached to it and then focusing on her coat and then reframing which would then avoid blowing out/over exposing those shiny and overly white areas? Actually, I think it means using auto exposure lock which I've never used. My AEL button is my back button focus, so I'll have to reassign AEL.
Click to expand...

I'm going to say something silly but when I was looking into my a7iii menu, I seem to remember that you can assign the metering point to be the same as the focus point?
Not sure how I ended up setting mine but seem like a good option for this king of shot?
 
Lemaildetom said:
I'm going to say something silly but when I was looking into my a7iii menu, I seem to remember that you can assign the metering point to be the same as the focus point?
Not sure how I ended up setting mine but seem like a good option for this king of shot?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I believe that's the focus point link found in my menu under the heading Spot Metering Point. I think it follows the focus box and meters for wherever the focus box is. But if I'm recomposing and want to refocus elsewhere, I think I'd need to lock the exposure before recomposing, and I think that means using AEL? It's all a bit confusing, lol. Maybe someone can enlighten me on AEL.
 
Last edited:
Merlin5 said:
Thanks Simon and great advice! I had tried the brush in lightroom on her face and then reduced the whites slider but it didn't look very good. Is that basically the same tool as in camera raw?
I've been told since that I would have been better off with spot metering and locking exposure on the brightest part of the subject, in this case on her coat or face, and then recomposing. I was actually in multi metering mode which was obviously not the best choice for this. So would I have been better off changing to spot metering standard with the focus point link attached to it and then focusing on her coat and then reframing which would then avoid blowing out/over exposing those shiny and overly white areas? Actually, I think it means using auto exposure lock which I've never used. My AEL button is my back button focus, so I'll have to reassign AEL.

I just got an email back from them and they thought the photos are amazing (they're not but I'm glad they like them and I sent 16 photos) and said they might be in touch for more, so maybe I can ask for a few quid next time. :D
Click to expand...
Spot metering would definitely be one way to go. There is harsh light so there will always be contrast. Had the highlights blown on the girls face. It looks close on the small example shown here but no idea if you shot in raw. Once they are gone then trying to get them back usually ends up with an ugly grey colour. I think the Raw tools in lightroom and photoshop are pretty much the same so looks like you have done as much as you can to recover the highlights.
 
Merlin5 said:
Yeah, I believe that's the focus point link found in my menu under the heading Spot Metering Point. I think it follows the focus box and meters for wherever the focus box is. But if I'm recomposing and want to refocus elsewhere, I think I'd need to lock the exposure before recomposing, and I think that means using AEL? It's all a bit confusing, lol. Maybe someone can enlighten me on AEL.
Click to expand...

Yes my idea was so you wouldn't need to recompose and AEL.
 
Lemaildetom said:
Yes my idea was so you wouldn't need to recompose and AEL.
Click to expand...

That's one thing I miss with my A7, I can't link the focus point and metering as I can with other cameras.

Actually I like the contrasts and wouldn't change anything too much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top