Thanks. The Peace Corps is a US government agency that trains and places volunteers in developing countries to partner with communities to share skills and passion at the local level where they can make a difference. Also known as grassroots development. It’s a 2 year commitment and has been around since 1961.
Instead of living in a compound with other Americans, a volunteer will either live with a host family or have their own dwelling with a partnering local organization. In most countries it’s important to learn the local language and Lesotho is one of those. I focused heavily on learning to speak Sesotho and that really paid off in terms of cultural integration. You’re really on your own and there isn’t much structure other than broad goals the Peace Corps has in any given location. You really make your own experience. Lesotho is within the epicenter of the HIV epidemic, so the first goal there is prevention education. I used my IT and business skills to assist with economic development in addition to teaching at the school pictured here.
For example, one young man I met in the village while playing soccer told me that he was an orphan (lost both parents to AIDS) and was responsible for raising his two younger siblings. I worked with him to develop a business model for opening a roadside car wash and used some grant funds to purchase a power washer for him. We still keep in touch and he often sends thanks and gratitude. Almost 10 years later his car wash business is still operating and he recently said he plans to have his brother open a 2nd location one village over. It’s this kind of development that is most effective and I’m proud to know my time there was well spent, which unfortunately not every volunteer can say after their service ends often times for reasons beyond their control.
Anyway, I know this was long but thanks for asking! I took my wife there in 2019 on our honeymoon and it was amazing to see all my friends again. Thanks to the internet we still keep in touch but of course nothing compares to being there. Lesotho is a beautiful country with an incredible culture.
I kept a blog while there so feel free to send a PM if you’d like to see/learn more about Lesotho 😃
I guess it should be for photography more serious than "i took a picture" but I'm not gatekeeping content right now, let's just share images and build a community. Posts about photography, including photography blogs are welcome as long as you don't spam. I'm open to community suggestions.
I think a lot of communities start out as a single group for a wide range of content related to a topic like photography, including gear talk, photos, industry news, howtos, etc.... When they get to a certain size, discussions start getting lost in the flood of content and it makes sense to fork more specialized sub-communities.
Forking too early leads to a bunch of dead communities with a handful of posts.
I think it'd be good to put a few guidelines in place to shape the discussion away from the lowest common denominator. Even the very basics of asking posters to describe why they liked the photograph enough to post it is a nice, gentle nudge in the direction you're describing.
That makes sense, but it just feels like splitting off talking about photography from posting images just to share your work -- which is great, don't get me wrong -- seems more useful? That's my 2 cents.
I think that's a wise approach, it's too early with people adopting new platforms. I do like @Melon 's idea of suggesting photo-only posts come with some context, or insight into the post. Especially if folks happen to be sharing other work that isn't their own, but that's another topic altogether. I doubt we'll hit spam levels of posts soon, but it would at least guide the community in some regard.
That thing is big and heavy, lol. I’m currently rocking Tamron’s 50-400. I could see maybe switching to Sony’s 200-600. The Sigma is more than twice the weight of the 50-400. Sony’s 200-600 is 500 grams lighter and I don’t think the extra weight is worth the wide end that I’ll only occasionally use with this kind of mass/reach.
I did try out Tamron’s 150-500 and didn’t think the extra 500 grams (roughly 50% heavier) was worth it for only 25% more reach.
Sorry, focus is the one thing that can’t be fixed in post by traditional methods. AI can attempt to make it better but often times the result looks like it was obviously AI generated… since well, it was.
This reminds me a lot of a number of fresh water lakes in Michigan, especially in the upper peninsula. Maybe that’s why something like 1 in 6 people who live up there can trace their roots to Finland?
It has a nice depth which is often not easy to achieve with this subject, well done! The grading also looks really nice, subtle but powerful, really like it.
Thanks! I shot it wide open at f/2.8 at 50mm and focused on the foreground but I must admit I was slightly conflicted about the background being out of focus.
Unfortunelatley I noticed logging markings on the trees which is what prompted me to take this as a “before” photo. I expect this forest no longer to be here next year as is the case with huge number of nice spots like this around where I live.
I agree that forests like this are quite nice looking but they’re not natural. These are all planted trees intented to be cut down once they mature. That’s why it’s all the same specie trees with zero undergrowth.
The twigs stand out due to the lighting conditions. I didn’t do anything to intentionally make them pop. Them beight light colored and me bumping up the “whites” probably plays a factor though.
I generally try to underexpose my pictures to avoid blowing out the highlights and I then bring back the shadows in post-processing. My editing usually consists of playing with shadows/highlights and blacks/whites so that I get maximum detail from the shadows without any too bright spots around the edges distracting from the subject of the photo. Generally this also includes adding vignette and often also a gradient filter on the top/bottom of the photo to lead your eyes to the centre. I also try to keep the darkest parts of the photo dark gray instead of black. For moody photos like this I usually also bring down the vibrance for more realism. In daylight shots I do the opposite. I do this all by eye.
Almost all my photos also contain some amount of “dodge and burn” meaning locally brushing in darker and brighter spots all around the picture to make the lighting more interesting. I never use any color filters but I tend to adjust the white balance more towards the warm side.
One good tip for editing is to not save it when you think you’re done. Put it away for a little while and then come back to it. Our eyes get used to the look of it pretty quick and we tend to go a overboard with the editing. More often than not I end up toning it down a bit.
I can’t say much about kids on a field, but I bought the Tamron 150 - 500mm to go with my a6000 for wildlife, getting approximately 225 - 750 FF equivalent.
It’s a decent lens, and the reach is great. As you say though, it’s quite heavy. I don’t find it too bad while I’m out and about, as I don’t tend to be standing in one place for long periods holding it, but it’s quite awkward when I’m moving from place to place. It’s heavy to carry, especially at the end of the day, and I wouldn’t like to hand hold it for the length of a match / game. It’s quite difficult to swap lenses compared to the kit lens and the 55 - 210mm too, due to the size and weight.
If you’re likely to be in a seat, or somewhere where you can use a tripod, and have something to lean on if you change the lens, then the two biggest problems are gone immediately.
I don’t want to put you off it though, it is a good lens. Apart from anything else, I feel like a ‘proper’ photographer when I’ve got it on a tripod :D
I’m still getting used to the weight, but I’ve got some great photos out of it recently, as well as some wobbly ones :)
Thanks for the reply! I weighed my 70-300 and it’s around 830 grams, making the Tamron 150-500 about a kilo heavier. I hope to be handholding and am reasonably young/fit, but I also know the weight could get annoying. A tripod at a T-ball game seems a little weird, which is pushing me toward more compact options. Maybe I should rent the Tamron for a weekend.
I’ve hand held and walked around with the 70-300 at a number of 8+ hour race weekends.
It seems like anything beyond 400mm is going to be in this weight class, so the question comes down to whether the extra 100mm (or 200mm for say the 200-600) is really necessary.
I crawled through through the EXIF data of the 230 photos I’ve taken so far across one soccer game and two t-ball games. Here’s the spread of FF EQ focal length:
I’ve taken 11 (~5%) photos that have a FF EQ focal length of > 400mm. In looking at them, they’re not photos that I’m likely to try to take again. A number of them were taken from behind the chain link backstop at home plate of my kiddo in the outfield and the shots weren’t compelling, had the fence in frame (but significantly out of focus obviously), etc
I’ve taken 16 (~7%) photos that had a FF EQ focal length of < 150mm. These sub-divide into 50% soccer game pics with the action somewhat close to where I was and 50% of photos of the kid that wasn’t playing being goofy on the sidelines. For the soccer action, it looks like I could have been a little tighter than I was for most of the shots and for the kiddo on the sidelines I could have probably backed up more
In terms of already-taken EXIF data, it seems like a toss up between a 50-400/100-400 and the 150-500.
I stopped by my local camera store today to feel Tamron’s 50-400 and 150-500 on camera / in hand. I walked out with the 50-400. It was hard to argue about 1,155g / 40.7 oz (2.54 pounds) vs 1,725g / 60.8 oz (3.8 pounds). They have a 14 day return policy, so if push comes to shove over the next two weeks I can always swap.
I assume you know this, but I believe the d5300 has a crop sensor of 1.5. So if you shoot at say 300 regularly with that you would need to shoot 450 with an a9 to get the same FOV/zoom.
I have the Sigma 100-400 DX for my a6400 so I’m getting an equivalent FOV of 600mm. The lens is still rock solid with image stabilization, even fully hand-held. The auto focus motors are lickety-fast. It’s ~$900, and I’m thrilled with it.
It sound like you really liked the a9, which is cool, get a body you like and are comfortable with, but you may still get more use from an APS-C than a full frame for less money. You said everything is outdoor day, and now the upscaling in PS, or Capture One, etc are so good prints from the smaller sensor don’t have to suffer.
Well, that’s two of my particular cents, but I also would be curious what others would have to say.
Thanks for the reply. Yup, I’m aware of the crop factor - that’s why I tried to pivot to FF EQ in my post. I started E-mount with an A7III and generally like the camera. But man, was it’s mechanical shutter loud in the museums and what not we usually go to with the kids. Its electronic shutter is also super slow. Used A9s are pretty cheap for what they are, so it was a no brainer to switch. A9 AF tracking and the blackout free shutter are also nice perks. If only Sony’s FF mechanical shutters were as quiet as Nikon’s on the z-mount…
Based on EXIF data I’m pretty confident I’ll be fine with a FF EQ focal length of 400mm, I just wonder how future proof it will be. Do you use your a6400 w/ 200-600 FF equivalent for sports?
Yeah, I hope I didn’t come off as like I was talking down, I was trying to keep the numbers and concerns in my head, and I see your first paragraph makes it clear you already understand all that.
I have used it for sports, not as a pro, and not often, I thought it did an admirable job. I mostly use it for birds, but it really handles fast panning well in my opinion, which think translates reasonably from birds to sports.
Now one thing I’m not necessarily trying for is the blurred background panning to give a sense of speed and motion. At least I’m not making that priority, so can’t speak to that kind of performance. But I think it should be as easily doable as most of the lenses you mentioned.
You’re totally good. It never hurts to over communicate. If anything I was somewhat worried that I might have under communicated, lol.
When you used it for sports, what did you think? Did you find yourself wanting to use the entire zoom range, or did you not need to go all the way? I’m certainly not a pro, just a parent who enjoys taking photos.
I actually took it to one MLB game and a couple farm games more to experiment and learn than anything else.
I’m guessing as far as range, the farm stadium setup would be a decent approximation of what you’re doing. And if I wanted to get the very cool shot of a pitcher mid throw with sweat coming off the face, and the ball leaving the hand from say the waist up… yeah I would have to use pretty close to 400. But most action shots, like a slide, or home plate tag… No, more like you said, 300 ish, maybe less.
You talked about future proofing, I don’t know if this is relevant but I can say the larger stadium makes a significant difference, but also because they don’t let me hang out with the actual press on the field.
I do also have a feeling that at least on my APS-C , anything longer would absolutely require a monopod at least, even with the stabilization on the lens. (The 6400 doesn’t have IBIS). I don’t know if that would be practical for your purposes or setup.
Those shots are from years ago on a HDD somewhere. I’ll see if can find any to give you an example.
When you said 400mm, did you mean FF EQ or after the APS-C crop? Haha
You talked about future proofing, I don’t know if this is relevant but I can say the larger stadium makes a significant difference, but also because they don’t let me hang out with the actual press on the field.
Yup, this looks like it will eventually be my hurdle if my kids stick with it long enough. I’m not sure that a ton of extra reach will really save me here.
At this point, I’m leaning toward a lens that tops out at 400mm, but I might ask the local camera store if I can get a feel for tamron’s 150-500. If it’s not that much more heavy in hand then I might give it a go. Sony’s 200-600 looks great, and isn’t that much bigger than the 150-500 when it’s fully extended, but I think it’s still going to not really be appropriate at a T-ball game.
Sorry, all my measurements are without conversion. So yeah I’m shooting between 450-600. Mostly towards the lower end but occasionally all the way. I also think the150-500 would be a nice move but I have no experience with the Tamron as far as focus speed and stability.
Ditto on the Sony G-master or whatever, when I see birders with one, I always wonder if they worked up to it or just bought the highest end lens they could. It has to be super hard to use that range without a gimble mount.
so it started in camera really. i knew that i was going to have a hard time saving details in the clouds, so i shot it really dark with the intent of brightening it in post.
when i got back i saw i still managed to blow a little off the highlights, but the shadows were perfect. nothing clipped, so i cranked the hell out of them, but added back a lot of black contrast with the dehaze slider. cropped it long and narrow, brushed some detail out of the flair on the barn, masked out the background to treat the clouds as much as o could to save the highlight detail without screwing the rest of it. uhhh warmed it slightly, maybe pushed the barn more red if i remember correctly…
i was pretty sleepy when i did this one lol. I’d have to check the lightroom history to tell you more.
Very cool! Thanks for the details. It’s fun to hear about others’ workflows. Good call to underexpose it. A lot of the videos I’ve watched, they will bracket exposures and treat them separately… but honestly I’ve found if I shoot raw I don’t need to most of the time. Is LR pretty good at masking? I left the Adobe suite a few years ago and have been on Affinity Photo (basically the same as PS). I use a lot of luminosity masks, which I don’t remember if LR has some “smart” way to do that (e.g. “select all the bright stuff”). Anyway… nice work!
lightroom’s masking tools have recently gotten a hell of a lot better. it’s a proper good implementation of modern ai. it’s scary how well it will mask people now. you can even select by section, so like “teeth” “face” “clothes” etc. it will also separate them by person. for this one i just used the ai quick select on the sky and it worked perfectly. the barn on the other hand i just did a soft edge brush. the new ai Denoise also feels like magic. it straight up made me reconsider what i think of as a usable iso on my camera.
photography
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.