My Tamy 17-50 F2.8 w/motor ...

[copikau]

Hi all. Had this baby like 3 weeks and never had a chance to test it.
So, just this evening got a chance to snap few pixs at our local Botanicle Garden.
Reach there late evening at 18:30.
CC are welcome ...


1)

2)

3)

4)

[copikau]

5)

[soeypixels]

care to share the price?
is the pics straight from your d80?

[copikau]

Humm ... thanks for the colur editing. Didn't pay much attention on colur, though
anyways. Nikon 17-55 is way to XpenSive and also my dream lense.
Me no silverspoon or earn big buxs like everyone else here.
But,yes. Would love to hv Nikon 17-55 lense.
Anyone here care to borrow this baby ...

[copikau]

Quote: photobum : you can always loan a Nikon 17-55 to try

and how / where can I do that ...

[boyboy]

Originally Posted by photobum Just like any other Tamron lenses, your 17-50 inherits the 'signature' cyan-bluish (and sometimes yellowish) cast. Now you see why some people are willing to fork-out three times the amount for a Nikon 17-55.

isn't it possible to WB it properly?

yes i know why pple are willing to fork out more $$ for original. but for some, it's called diminishing marginal returns

for film, then i'd really agree that it's impt to get the colours right. for digital, as u demo-ed, not too hard to tweak the camera or PP a bit here and there

edit: btw, ur monitor is calibrated with spyder or equivalent? mine isn't, and the unedited pic by ts actually looks better on my screen. looks like i better get my monitors calibrated otherwise no matter what high end nikon lens also no point.. LOL

[coldfish]

I do like the original posts with colour cast alot.
the corrected ones looked bland.
Just my personal preference.

[calebk]

Are you so sure those two images you colour corrected, had colour casts simply because of error on the side of white balance? I do think that without clarification, things are blown out of proportion a bit.

[coldfish]

Originally Posted by photobum You do heard of the term 'reality sucks' before I am sure. Well, as a matter of fact, reality does need to be savored to be appreciated.

I'm sorry but I can't agree with you.

Photography is often described as an art form: To me, the original pictures are very pleasing to the eyes and I'd love to keep it that way simply because the photographer was not recording the images from journalistic point of view.

Sometimes, you really don't need to get to the true picture to appreciate it...

[Daedalus Trent]

Originally Posted by photobum You do heard of the term 'reality sucks' before I am sure. Well, as a matter of fact, reality does need to be savored to be appreciated.

Actually...i kinda agree with coldfish I prefer colours of the originals.

Just my 2 cents

[coldfish]

Originally Posted by photobum That's okay. I think this is the reason why I am stuck with a permanent photography job drawing peanut wages, whereas some folks here are paid much higher.

Here's something I read from, erm, Popular Photography (I think): The white you see on some flower petals are not really white. The real colour is somewhat off-white. The cameras and lens are all then mimicking our eyes to produce what we want to see.

So now the truth is starting to become a little vague?


Here's another lesson I learned from event photography:

You take what you think is best or what your clients want?

I don't know the right answer, all I know is that taking stuff people want to ensure that they come back to you again and again.

And when I believe I'm famous enough to do whatever I want, people will call this style (as in fashion or even art):" Hey look, his picture style is so 'Coldfishish'..."

[coldfish]

Originally Posted by photobum So my style is so 'photobumish'. Anyway, too bad most of my local clients don't appreciate individual style. I shoot what they want. When they are happy, I am happy (I got paid for giving what they want, of course I am happy).

I share your pain.

[copikau]

shizz ... I didn't know mt pix created so much debate on white balance.

For me, I like the way the colour and pix was taken. Its all up to individuals.
I don't concentrate on w/b unless its so orangy or its too blueish.

If I wanna do PP, I'll just touch on levels, bit on exposure and some other functions
which I can't recall. I rarely use sharpen tool too. An lastly, crop.

Each person has their own way of style and how they want the pix to be
taken and lastly PPing it. Just like an art, even scrap metals can turn into a nice piece of art junk ... Its how the individuals look at it ...

anyways ... to coldfish and Daedalus Trent, thanks for the CC.
Am not a perfectionist. And I still need lot of tricks/tips/stuydy on photography ...

one question though ... using of CP and ND, will there be changes to W/B ?

[copikau]

another night shot using this lense ...

1)



2)



3)




Thanks for viewing ...

[Kenneth83]

was looking at the pictures as I am thinking about the lens to replace my D60 18-55 kit lens.
Maybe its just me but I kinda like the way the pictures turn out. Now to convince myself to break the bank for it.

[Webbyboy]

Originally Posted by copikau another night shot using this lense ... 1) 2) 3) Thanks for viewing ...

your settings?

[Viru5]

Originally Posted by Webbyboy your settings?

2nd picture
Camera Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D80
Image Date: 2007:11:09 22:32:53
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 17.0mm (35mm equivalent: 25mm)
Exposure Time: 15.000 s
Aperture: f/10.0
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: -1.00
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual

3rd picture
Camera Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D80
Image Date: 2007:11:09 21:12:30
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 17.0mm (35mm equivalent: 25mm)
Exposure Time: 30.000 s
Aperture: f/10.0
ISO equiv: 100
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual

[copikau]

Originally Posted by photobum Yes, but very minor. The camera's AWB should be able to detect this slight change.

I did use AWB ... or should I use PRE WB ...

To VIRU5 ... thanks for answering Webbyboy's question ...

[boyboy]

i still prefer the tamron colours. maybe cos i don't know better.

planning to get a spyder and set my monitors right once and for all. maybe i have "bad taste" but i'll come back and check out the colours of the nikon vs tamron.

[boyboy]

very very nice, but meaningless without a comparison with tamron, under same conditions

i won't say the tamron can match it, but can you say for sure that it can't?

i rather work on my technique. there may come a day when i'm shooting well enough that the so-called inferior colours of the tamron are the thing which is limiting my shooting. then i will upgrade to nikon equivalent. currently i'm thinking that day will never come though (for me).. LOL.

one thing i was skeptical of at first, was that film delivered much better colours. so i tried and was amazed. but i'm using a tokina lens on my film camera.. ah well.

ok the film bit is OOT. i'm just explaining why i'm perfectly satisfied with what i have, for now

things which bother me far more are sharpness (agar agar can liao), af speed (tamron definitely loses to nikon for the example that i have, but not a huge issue).