Jump to content

In my view

Verified
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Forum reputation = neutral

About In my view

  • Rank
    Forum newbie

Alamy

  • Alamy URL
    http://www.alamy.com/contrib-browse.asp?cid={AC8462F9-8EC9-4342-B6E4-CF0372E17A1A}&name=Samarth+Joshi
  • Images
    0
  • Joined Alamy
    13 May 2017

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Impressive! Would you be able to tell which body and lens was used to capture these images? Looking at the water this doesn't look like long exposure which means the lens must be really good to let in that much of light. Plus you say they were hand held which is very surprising or may be I just suck at it
  2. How about someone sharing a picture taken under similar lighting which they think will pass QC?
  3. No! that was taken with a 50mm f1.8. I cropped the 100% from the original image and pasted there just to compare with original one in the comments from M Chapman above.
  4. I agree there is something wrong I don't know was it the lens or the processing. But here is another image it doesn't have that pixelation issue but what about sharpness? https://flic.kr/p/W2B2HN
  5. Maybe lens is the problem here Check out the below image taken with canon 50mm f1.8 lens. I still see the flare but the quality looks better. Perhaps sigma is not better under low lights. https://flic.kr/p/UPoBJM
  6. Under the night photography yes I thought they were my best. But I guess the issue was with the lens as I was able to get sharp images using 50mm prime under similar conditions. https://flic.kr/p/ULBE3s But yes for now I will focus on simple images with good lighting. Baby steps! Thanks for your advice.
  7. Thanks for your time. I think I know what the issue is.. with the same lighting conditions and same workflow, I took another snap today but this time switched to my 50mm F1.8 and the results have surprised me! (please check the link below) Clearly Sigma 17-55 is not suitable for low light conditions or at least not as good as 50mm f1.8. I will try going to the same places this weekend and shoot with 50mm prime. Hope the results will be better this time. https://flic.kr/p/ULBE3s
  8. Thanks for the feedback. I am using the same lens Sigma 17-50 f 2.8. I admit there is lot to learn but I just can't achieve any further sharpness in dark/low light. I have no complains with the quality of sharpness on a bright sunny day and I am happy with the images but for some reason I love to shoot in the evening/night and I don't know what can make images sharper especially if you are exposing the camera for > 5 seconds. ..and yes I did use a tripod and timer shutter release.
  9. Camera - Canon 70D Lens - Sigma 17 - 55 Tripod used, image stabilizer turned off. Step 1 - Shot the images in RAW at ISO 100 -150, aperture 7.5, Shutter speed > 7 seconds Step 2 - Lightroom edit. Brought down the highlights, cropped a little and saved as jpg (that's it!) Step 3 - Import to photoshop to stitch them to create a panoramic view also ensured no details are lost Step 4 - Upload to Alamy and face rejection
  10. None of these three pictures were taken below shutter speed of 7 seconds. That slow speed was necessary to offset the low light. These images were taken at 10 pm on three different days. Thanks for your feedback though.
  11. Thanks for your comment. I use 50 mm quite often and it's my fav. But these required more wider focal length. I think I should stick with bright day light photography for a while but I would love to hear constructive feedback on those three rejected images. Can I send the original or raw pictures to you? If you can share your email ID?
  12. Then why did the other (much) popular stock websites didn't complain of quality? I admit my images are not razor sharp but low light photography has it's own challenges. And besides if I ever manage to get a crisp image and all the good stuff I would not be looking forward to selling them for £12 per image with 50% royalty. The thing I was pointing out is how quality is defined. A shaky image is bad quality but razor sharp images cannot be achieved with non pro L series lens (except 50 mm f 1.8) so should I buy a £1500 lens so that I will be able to sell my pictures for £6? No thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.