Indoor Supertelephoto Portrait

I suppose some people wouldn't call a 300mm f/2.8 a "supertelephoto" per se, but considering its size with lens hood attached, I sure do.

Since my D1H was handy, I slapped on the new-to-me Tokina 300mm f/2.8 that I bought yesterday from the same person I bought the 400mm from. It focuses MUCH closer (8 ft. vs. 14 ft.) and I was able to take the opportunity to grab a quick portrait of my son, cranking the ISO to 1600 and shooting wide open (and removed some of the noise in Neat Image). I had 1/500th at f/2.8, and this lens is a lot more hand-holdable than my 400mm, so I was able to shoot this with only the 15-watt compact flourescent my son was looking into as the light source. Fortunately, he was as willing as always to pose. I just wish he'd follow directions that well when I wasn't taking pictures...

Supertelephoto Art.

Supertelephotos are quite often used to chase around critters, whether small or large, and action, whether fast or slow. You don't see any wide-angle lenses in the sports pits shooting the action on the field. I'm still learning how to handle a supertelephoto for chasing the action. Meanwhile, I took a break practicing shooting action to see what things look like from the perspective of a supertelephoto, when the action wasn't an important part of the image.

Here are a couple of the results:

Welcome, Autumn!

Is it just me or is it coming a little later this year. The colors just now seem to be turning around here.

More from the 400mm f/3.5

Still practicing. Still missing shots, because I'm still trying to control this monster. But I'm getting better...


Interesting bokeh...

First Impressions: 400mm F/3.5 EDIF

I happened to luck into my first supertelephoto over the weekend. These lenses don't become available very often, let alone at the price I paid for it. Fortunately I had just enough in my lens fund, and was able to purchase this awesome lens. I can't wait to shoot a baseball game with it, although, I really have to get used to not having a zoom and using a monopod. This lens is heavy!

I've never shot with a supertelephoto, so I'm trying to get the technique down. It's a different world, that's for sure. I need to practice practice practice...





So, I took a break from using my son as a model. I decided to chase our poor dog around the back yard this time. With the compression that a telephoto gives you, I probably could've used a smaller aperture, to get the nose and other features more in focus.



I was blown away by the crispness of the numbers in this picture, when zoomed in at 100%. I don't think the full 4.1 MP image will display when you click on the picture, but you get a good enough idea.

This lens will change my photography. Heck, at this point, that should be my goal in acquiring gear. It's not about the gear you have, really, but about how you use it. It's too bad the Rainiers' season is over, otherwise I'd head to Cheney and shoot away. Need to practice a bit more before I head to Safeco...

Rescued from the scrap heap...

Ever since I got my first film scanner shortly after Christmas, I still wanted to be able to scan medium-format negatives. But I didn't want to spend a ton, and even considered just sending my film away to be scanned by a scanning service. That actually would've been expensive too -- even moreso, and probably still rather time-consuming. Last night, however, I consummated yet another Craigslist deal, finding an older Epson scanner in a random ad that turned out to be able to scan medium- and large-format negatives. After asking about the model number, (the Epson 2450) I decided to risk the $10. It didn't have any software or the film holders, but it supposedly worked and had the transparency adapter for scanning film. And, it is USB and FireWire compatible

I'll definitely get my $10 worth.

I'm scanning some old negatives from the 1920s right now, that we found in my Grandma's attic. But my first scan was of a color negative I shot probably 15 years ago, with a now 50-year-old camera:



I love the vignetting -- I'm not sure what caused it in this picture. In looking closely at the scan, I probably shot it wide open. The depth-of-field isn't very deep, leading me to believe I shot this handheld and not on a tripod, due to shutter speed or something.

Now if I can only find the box of slides I shot with this camera...