HOME | DD | Gallery | Favourites | RSS
| eyeseewell
eyeseewell
[3913290]
[2007-01-06 15:49:51 +0000 UTC]
"Billy"
(Australia)
# Statistics
Favourites: 1323; Deviations: 0; Watchers: 887
Watching: 102; Pageviews: 69338; Comments Made: 3987; Friends: 102
# Interests
Favorite movies: Sin City, The Prestige, Gran Torino, CandyFavorite bands / musical artists: Alexisonfire(C+C), Tyler The Creator, Jeff Buckley, Sufjan Stevens, Ryan Adams, Bon Iver
Other Interests: Life
# About me
Favourite genre of music: Acoustic-Rocksmashing-GypsygrindcoreFavourite photographer: Those with a keen sense of humanity
Favourite style of art: Decay of all sorts
Skin of choice: Naked
# Comments
Comments: 979
And I'm glad you spent a great amount of time looking at my gallery, Dena' - It is thoroughly appreciated!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That was a favourite mate, not a watch.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Fantastic gallery. You seem to have a good sense of humor, too.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You have the best artist's comments I've come across.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you very much for the kind words, they are appreciated.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks Pete, I appreciate it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What, may I ask, in particular?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your art of course. Your gallery. It's really impressive. Your pictures tell a story. In my opinion it's not easy to take such photos. You photographed a lot of very interesting people and your portraits are full of detail. I like that a lot. That's it, in particular. :]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm glad you said that, because I rarely think of the portraits in a larger sense, and how many people I've actually photographed, I guess because I'm usually thinking of the next photo...rather than the last.
Thank you, I appreciate it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you for posting along with your photographs. I sometimes feel unsettled when I see a photo and no one has any words with it and leave it blank. I think it adds insight to both you and to the photo, but also allows us to communicate how we feel too!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mate, it's all my pleasure. I do it for myself, as it's something for me to look back at and reflect upon, and to remember certain motives behind my images.
It's always nice to know there's people out there who take the time to read what I write. :0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You have been featured in my news article: [link]
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the favs...you have some good photos in ure gallery!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Your gallery is amazing Billy. You should arrange some form of exhibition!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you Shi!
I've been thinking about it, but I'm working on finishing a photo book of my travels first, and then I'll probably think about it some more. I have a tendancy to procrastinate quite a bit, and need to learn a bit of time management so I can focus on possibly doing an exhibition. We'll see!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Great gallery!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I listened to the music you recommended, very beautiful!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
'tis very beautiful, heavy passion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
just checked out your gallery and you, sir, are a bloody awesome photo taker!! keep it up
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you very much for the recent 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
you have some awesome photography!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
He man, I just keep loving your work, I look at every picture you make and the ones I love most I add to my faves
I tried to make a shallow field of depth, but it resulted in an unsharp photo (wasn't movement unsharpness). How do you reach that level of sharpness and such a shallow field of depth at the same time? Can you give me some examples of f-values on some photographs?
Sorry to keep bothering you, but I admire your talent and want to learn from you!
Cheers,
Daan
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If you're shooting at f1.7 at 100th of a second(like in your photo), there is going to be more depth of field than if you were shooting at say, f1.7 at 500th in a brighter lighting situation; The longer you leave the shutter open to compensate for light conditions, the more susceptible to shallow depth of field and camera shake, making it harder to keep sharp. I think in my images, it all depends on which lens I'm using. Compare shooting my 85 1.4 to my 50 1.4 and you'll see it's obvious the 85 has lots more depth of field, even when they're the same f-stop - this is because it shoots at a different plane due to the focal length. In essence, the closer you can get to a subject, more depth of field there will be, but what the 85 does is it allows me to get closer - without physically getting closer, so the focus distance is further, allowing me a sharp area for a few centimeters then a shallow drop out.
I'm finding it hard to compare my images for depth of field examples, but if you look at this [link] which was shot at 320th/1.4 and this one [link] at 640th/1.4 - you'll see the depth of field is completely different. I would never have been able to shoot the first one with the same lens as the second.
Instead of skipping from image to image, the easiest way to compare the two lenses for depth of field, is to look at this diptych [link] seeing as it used both lenses!
I'm not really sure where to go from here, because I'm still learning myself and don't know whether any of what I said makes sense.
I think if you're looking for depth of field, don't get that 10-20mm ultra wide angle because it'll give you nothing of the sort. If money allows you, buy a 50mm f1.4, or anything that shoots 1.4(My advice is go on ebay and have a look) - but seeing as you already have a 1.7, it'd be pointless and is just a matter of learning to focus spot on.
I know it can be difficult to focus with the tiny view finder, especially in low light, but if you practice, you're only going to get better!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh I never knew the shutterspeed had anything to do with the depth of field... And I know that the more tele your lens is, the shallower the depth of field gets. I also got a 70-200 2.8-3.5 lense, which gives great depth of field (I shot this one with it: [link] even at f:7.1 and still has very shallow field of depth).
What you said about the 1.4 lense, you are very right. I talked this over with a professional, and he said that 1.7 lenses are usually not made to shoot at the largest opening: 1.7. In contrast, the 1.4 lenses are. So the big difference isn't the 0.3 but the fact that the 1.4 is sharp at 2.0 and the 1.7 at 3 or 4. This might be a reason for the unsharpness of the sleep photograph.
I'm on the lookout for a 1.4, but unluckily there is no such lense for the Sony camera's... Only the 135 mm 1.8 Zeiss lense, but that one is 1400 euro's
Thanks for the advice man.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not true man - type Sony f1.4 on ebay and you'll find a shit load of them. This one [link] 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh yes I know, but i meant a 85 mm 1.4 
But thanks! Did you buy on Ebay a lot? I might do some more.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
There is a 85mm f1.4!!! On ebay too, just scroll down.
I've bought two lenses off an ebay store, and they're both great. (Just received my 35/2 today!)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
great!
You meant the Opteka right? I'm not sure if I can buy that one... It seems really shabby lol.
Gratz on the 35! How is it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're not looking!
[link]
[link]
Those two links are good quality 85's. If you want a good 85, you've got to pay good money. Otherwise, you buy cheap crap! But cheap is a start, and it's best not to get caught up in the whole gear fiasco as it's not going to help your "Photography" in the end, just your images.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes I know that, but look at this: [link] Pretty sharp images right? The only thing is that you cant AF, but i don't want that.
What do you think, it's so much cheaper...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think that in the short run, if you're keen to get an 85 and don't have enough money saved, get the cheap one, but if you're willing to work like a dog and save up to buy a good one you won't regret it. As for auto focus...I think it's pointless, unless you're a hardcore photojournalist in a war zone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>