Photoclubalpha

Took these shots at a local landmark on the Kent coast:-

The panel on the second one is ruining the picture. As for 1 & 3, wow, they are excellent.

Thanks doctor

I included the panel for a reason (honest) It's a commemorative plaque of the testing site for the "bouncing bomb" which the Dambusters used in WW2. Interestingly at full size the text on it is very legible!

#1 for me, great textures and shapes. The clouds in the top right corner look eerie - is this part of the B&W conversion?

Birma wrote:#1 for me, great textures and shapes. The clouds in the top right corner look eerie - is this part of the B&W conversion?

the contrast was already there and i upped it a bit in the B&W conversion. It had a wierd trail of clouds that day - very odd.

Both #1 & #2 are very good. Great textures and colours with 1 being an excellent conversion.

I wander if you could go back to where you shot #3 and reshoot it by standing up against the fence so you can eliminate these distractions. Also the horizon is not quite straight.

Nino Xerri wrote:Both #1 & #2 are very good. Great textures and colours with 1 being an excellent conversion.

I wander if you could go back to where you shot #3 and reshoot it by standing up against the fence so you can eliminate these distractions. Also the horizon is not quite straight.

Thanks nino

Did you mean number 2? If you mean the notice board its inclusion is delibeate as a) it describes this part of the coast as where they tested the bouncing bombs in WW2 and b) i wanted to se hw well the text of the notice board came out. take your point re the horizon though - should have lined it up better!

100% crop of notice from 2 above.



This statue was recently unveiled at Herne Bay just down the road from reculver to commemorate Barnes-Wallis' invention and reminded me of this post

Well, I like them. I think that at times a slightly skewed horizon reminds us that the world doesn't always line up as we would like it to.

It's been an old habit of mine to from the film days to snap a few of the explanatory signs. That way when you dig them out 20 years later, it can jog your memory.

Of course, now we can geo-tag and add comments to the files, but do we always get around to doing that?

Dusty

Apologies for being pedantic but I trust you meant the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG ASHPHERICAL HSM lens. Your posted results look really good. I wonder how the Sigma performs against the much acclaimed Nikon 12-24 lens? This Sigma W/A Zoom plus the CZ 24-70 and G 70-400 would be a powerful combination of lenses for the A900. When funds permit you could add the new Sony 600 mm F4. Referring to DK's acclaim of Nikon's 12-24 on the D3X and the ability to severely crop distortion filter corrected images and still retain sufficient detail would mean that for all but the most critical work a T&S lens would not be required for the A900.
I wonder if you now judge that the Sigma 12-24 on your A900 (at least at 100-400 ISO) can produce images that allow for severe cropping and still can print at A3 or above. Maybe that is an unfair request.

Nikon 14-24, Sigma 12-24!

I am using the Sigma, and I can assure you that once you are at f8, around the important range of 12-16mm it's a fair match for the Nikon. Not only that, but with the A900 focusing screen, there really is no difference in viewing brightness - and the A900 AF is so much better than Nikon's (don't let anyone tell you otherwise, the 51-point thing has its uses for action tracking or groups at parties but it does not focus very accurately, or in very low light - the A900 centre double cross sensor beats it any day and the f2.8 sensor, which does not work with the Sigma of course, is probably the best of any DSLR on the market for single-shot AF accuracy).

David

My favorite is #1. Very nice.

A year or two ago I saw the 1955 English movie The Dam Busters about the development of the bouncing bombs and their use to destroy German dams during WWII:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046889/

Here is a short documentary clip with some archival footage of the testing of the bombs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3ohMEZ-d3I

A bit of info about Operation Chastise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise

alphaomega wrote:Apologies for being pedantic but I trust you meant the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG ASHPHERICAL HSM lens. Your posted results look really good. I wonder how the Sigma performs against the much acclaimed Nikon 12-24 lens? This Sigma W/A Zoom plus the CZ 24-70 and G 70-400 would be a powerful combination of lenses for the A900. When funds permit you could add the new Sony 600 mm F4. Referring to DK's acclaim of Nikon's 12-24 on the D3X and the ability to severely crop distortion filter corrected images and still retain sufficient detail would mean that for all but the most critical work a T&S lens would not be required for the A900.
I wonder if you now judge that the Sigma 12-24 on your A900 (at least at 100-400 ISO) can produce images that allow for severe cropping and still can print at A3 or above. Maybe that is an unfair request.

Good spot Alphaomega I was just seeing if people were paying attention.......

In addition to the 12-24 i have the 24-70zeiss and the 70-300G I don't think i can justify the 70-400 as well though, although I am toying with idea, having seen several threads on the subject, with getting a teleconverter for the 70-300 to give me a long range manual option. As for the 600mm I dont think it will ever be in my price range although it would be nice to take some real close up shots of the mighty Whitstable Football Club in action.

I have to say I am very pleased with the 12-24 and yes i have produced some perfectly good crops (i wouldnt call them severe though) from it on my epson R1800 at A3. Thanks for the links bakubo there are some related ones with footage at reculver - I'm amazed how smooth the water is!

How are rthe edges @16mm f8 pretty sharp and what about ca not to bad?
Could this be compared with the 16-35mm cz?
Thanks

Kuau

I've no experience of the 16-35Cz maybe David has?