Support NeoGAF

[slider]

I'd forgotten how much I love this thread. Fantastic, and inspiring, work folks.

Took my camera away with me for our Christmas break but didn't find the time to even get it out of the bag.

 

[bPod]

 

[TurtleSnatcher]

I think that one would work even better if the amount of sky and water was reversed. The sky and the silhouette are way more interesting to me than the rather regularly patterned water. Granted it might have something to it on its own, but it just pales in comparison.

The one with the boat does not do much for me I'm afraid. The boat (especially the mast and the read) blur into the buildings in the background, which in it self is way too busy. To me the most interesting thing is the reflection of the boat in the water/water on the boat.

Good notes. I'm new to this still. Agreed on too much water. Didn't frame it well enough and was at a fairly low ground spot. Didn't want to make it look as if I was staring into the sky.

The boat one was just a nice vibrant shot. Barely did much to it in Lightroom. Felt like it was nice how the camera caught the colors so crisply.

 

[hEist]

Havent posted in a while but here are a few from Vancouver. These are with a Sony A7ii ... A little Lightroom clean up.

Vancouver Sunset Skyline by TurtleSnatcher, on Flickr

North Vancouver by Turtlesnatcher, on Flickr

I think that one would work even better if the amount of sky and water was reversed. The sky and the silhouette are way more interesting to me than the rather regularly patterned water. Granted it might have something to it on its own, but it just pales in comparison.

The one with the boat does not do much for me I'm afraid. The boat (especially the mast and the read) blur into the buildings in the background, which in it self is way too busy. To me the most interesting thing is the reflection of the boat in the water/water on the boat.

Like Raystorm already mentioned it would be more interesting if there would be more sky in it. The wild structure of the water somehow distract me.
just grabbed your photo and edit it to show you what i mean, if you don't mind.

Just cropped it for now, but i would take this one as the bottom of the photo and then i would go all up with just skyline. Also removed the little "cloud" and the waves in the middle-right part of the original picture. (quick and dirty)

As for the boat picture, i would try to stand parallel to the boat and get the "silhouette" of the boat and also the reflection in one shot. Just only the "colored" area while you stand parallel to it.

and btw. awesome camera. would trade my kidney for it.

 

[Wreav]

The Christmas full moon. This 75mm Olympus lens is really impressing me.

 

[33-Hit-Combo]

iPhone

Always love your photos!

---

Some from my holiday to Hong Kong...

PB267473 by kelv_c, on Flickr
PB247462 by kelv_c, on Flickr
PB247450 by kelv_c, on Flickr
PB237431 by kelv_c, on Flickr
PB237424 by kelv_c, on Flickr
PB227410 by kelv_c, on Flickr

 

[brerwolfe]

A meeting of Snails by brerwolfe, on Flickr

 

[sarcastor]

planted my tripod and tried to capture as many children as I could.



moment in suburbia

Also did same thing with a hula hoop dance friend of mine



collage_02

 

[vern]

Currently having some fun in Thailand:

Wat Pho by Eric, on Flickr

Caught by Eric, on Flickr

Bangkok Light Trails by Eric, on Flickr

King of Trash Mountain by Eric, on Flickr

Lazy by Eric, on Flickr

 

[Groof]

^vern I always enjoy seeing your photos. Good stuff.

Tried to see the aurora today again, but it was way too cloudy. Came away with this instead. I would like some feedback on these. They're only edited in Lightroom, no cropping.

_DSC0513 by Christian, on Flickr

_DSC0512 by Christian, on Flickr

 

[JadedWriter]

Currently having some fun in Thailand:

Wat Pho by Eric, on Flickr


King of Trash Mountain by Eric, on Flickr

I love the first one. Regarding that dog pic, my first thought was, "You know dog, we really are the last of us."

 

[hEist]

^vern I always enjoy seeing your photos. Good stuff.

Tried to see the aurora today again, but it was way too cloudy. Came away with this instead. I would like some feedback on these. They're only edited in Lightroom, no cropping.

image

image

just tested only on the first image (*.jpg)
i would decrease the blacks (-30),
+20 on the highlights,
+20 contrast
and if you still want to see the tress after this setup, then up the shadows +25
saturation maybe after this to -10

looks in my eyes better, when i think of a night sky (but that is just my opinion).

 

[Groof]

just tested only on the first image (*.jpg)
i would decrease the blacks (-30),
+20 on the highlights,
+20 contrast
and if you still want to see the tress after this setup, then up the shadows +25
saturation maybe after this to -10

looks in my eyes better, when i think of a night sky (but that is just my opinion).

Just tried this and it does look much better, but I upped the whites.

What do you think?

_DSC0513-2 by Christian, on Flickr

 

[hEist]

Just tried this and it does look much better, but I upped the whites.

What do you think?

_DSC0513-2 by Christian, on Flickr

would also try to decrease the grain (noise reduction - don't know how good it is or how it really works in lightroom, because i never used it)

it looks definitely better in my eyes, when i think of a night sky.
sure, the big tree in front is kinda distracting, but that is a image composition thingy. Maybe try to find a position/view where you have a more "straight" bottom line of trees. (i know, that is quite hard to find this kinda composition, specially near towns.)

 

[VisceralBowl]

 

[Groof]

would also try to decrease the grain (noise reduction - don't know how good it is or how it really works in lightroom, because i never used it)

it looks definitely better in my eyes, when i think of a night sky.
sure, the big tree in front is kinda distracting, but that is a image composition thingy. Maybe try to find a position/view where you have a more "straight" bottom line of trees. (i know, that is quite hard to find this kinda composition, specially near towns.)

I already got the noise reduction fairly high (for my standards at least). Any more and it starts losing too much detail imho.

Unfortunately if I turn slightly to either side you start seeing the skyline of the city, so that's all the trees I got at that place But I do understand what you mean.

Thanks for the feedback!

 

[TrojanBlade]

I need some help from the experts here. I am looking at buying this camera:

Sony Alpha a6000

First how is this camera? Any of you guys have this camera? Does it do a good job for semi-professional photos? I need a good camera that is better than cell phone cameras mostly for indoors and low light conditions.

Secondly, I have a choice to buy it with the 16-50mm kit lens or I can get the camera body only and get this lens:

Sony SEL50F18/B 50mm f/1.8

What do you guys think I should do? I can't get both due to budget. So have to choose one.

Any feedback will be appreciated.

 

[theepicoftyler]

I need some help from the experts here. I am looking at buying this camera:

Sony Alpha a6000

First how is this camera? Any of you guys have this camera? Does it do a good job for semi-professional photos? I need a good camera that is better than cell phone cameras mostly for indoors and low light conditions.

Secondly, I have a choice to buy it with the 16-50mm kit lens or I can get the camera body only and get this lens:

Sony SEL50F18/B 50mm f/1.8

What do you guys think I should do? I can't get both due to budget. So have to choose one.

Any feedback will be appreciated.

The a6000 is a fantastic camera. I love mine.

Lens choice is dependent on what type of photography you want to do. Indoor and low light, you'll want a lens that lets in the most light. The SEL50F18 is going to do that better than the kit lens. Opened wide at f1.8 you're going to get better shots in lower light than the SEL1650 which will be at f4.0 at 50mm.

However, I think the kit lens is a good wide angle lens. I use it a lot for general landscape photography at 16mm. I have no experience with the 50 mm f1.8 though.

Be aware of what you're getting in to if you're not experienced with photography though. Your average smartphone camera has a wide angle lens on it. 50 mm is a very different animal.

 

[TrojanBlade]

The a6000 is a fantastic camera. I love mine.

Lens choice is dependent on what type of photography you want to do. Indoor and low light, you'll want a lens that lets in the most light. The SEL50F18 is going to do that better than the kit lens. Opened wide at f1.8 you're going to get better shots in lower light than the SEL1650 which will be at f4.0 at 50mm.

However, I think the kit lens is a good wide angle lens. I use it a lot for general landscape photography at 16mm. I have no experience with the 50 mm f1.8 though.

Be aware of what you're getting in to if you're not experienced with photography though. Your average smartphone camera has a wide angle lens on it. 50 mm is a very different animal.

Thanks for your reply. What do you mean by the bolded part?

Would the SEL50F18 be an ok/good lens for nature photography too (landscapes)? Is it a good overall lens I can use indoors and outdoors?

Sorry I am new to this stuff.

 

[Billy Lee]

Thanks for your reply. What do you mean by the bolded part?

Would the SEL50F18 be an ok/good lens for nature photography too (landscapes)? Is it a good overall lens I can use indoors and outdoors?

Sorry I am new to this stuff.

I think he means that the 50mm lens has a very narrow field of view compared to a smartphone camera so you will be creating very different kinds of photos.

It's not generally used for landscapes because it's not wide angle. Having said that, you can be creative and make different kinds of landscape shots which focus on a small area of the scenery.

 

[FStop7]

A 50 is tight for landscapes but many 50s have the benefit of being very low distortion.

I've seen some 3 or 4 frame stitched panos taken with a 50 that look incredible.

 

[JadedWriter]

I use a 50 on my camera pretty much full time for street photography, granted it's more like a 75mm since it's a full frame lens on a crop sensor camera. I'm starting to realize that it's pretty narrow and I would recommend a wide angle lens if you're looking to do more landscape stuff. I'd also look for something that at least has a max aperture of at least 2.8 cause I find 3.5 too slow for my tastes.

 

[vern]

I love the first one. Regarding that dog pic, my first thought was, "You know dog, we really are the last of us."

^vern I always enjoy seeing your photos. Good stuff.

Thanks fellas.

 

[Astral/H3X]

Thanks for your reply. What do you mean by the bolded part?

Would the SEL50F18 be an ok/good lens for nature photography too (landscapes)? Is it a good overall lens I can use indoors and outdoors?

Sorry I am new to this stuff.

50mm is a bit too narrow for photography. Really depends. The 16-50mm might be alright for landscape photography (though you'll lose a lot of detail, it isn't exactly the sharpest lens), but 50mm is a short telephoto -- it's good for keeping some distance and getting some nice portraits, and some wildlife, but you won't take sweeping canyon shots with it (not without a tripod and some stitching anyway).

 

[Ty4on]

(not without a tripod and some stitching anyway).

There are free programs (MS ICE) where you can dump a bunch of overlapping pictures and it will figure out how to stitch them together and afterwards lets you edit projection and crop the finished image.

 

[theepicoftyler]

Thanks for your reply. What do you mean by the bolded part?

Would the SEL50F18 be an ok/good lens for nature photography too (landscapes)? Is it a good overall lens I can use indoors and outdoors?

Sorry I am new to this stuff.

As mentioned above, 50 mm is pretty narrow.

http://snapsort.com/learn/lens/focal-length/images/15mm-wide-angle-vancouver-cityscape.jpg

This image illustrates what I mean.

 

[FStop7]

I use a 50 on my camera pretty much full time for street photography, granted it's more like a 75mm since it's a full frame lens on a crop sensor camera. I'm starting to realize that it's pretty narrow and I would recommend a wide angle lens if you're looking to do more landscape stuff. I'd also look for something that at least has a max aperture of at least 2.8 cause I find 3.5 too slow for my tastes.

I've shot a 50 and a 75 on the street and I found the 75 was good if I wanted to get a portrait of one person. But the criticism I got was that the pics I took with the 75 lacked context and didn't tell a story since the surroundings weren't visible. I guess my counter to that would be that there is no real definition of what "street photography" is. It could be candid portraiture, it could be a wide photo of a busy marketplace, it could be a funny or ironic interaction between a passerby and a billboard, etc. That said, if I had to pick a single focal length, it would be 35. It's wide enough to capture the scene and up close a 35 can do a portrait, though you have to be more mindful of distortion. Plus, 35 is great for pre-focusing based on hyperfocal distance. You can set your 35's aperture to f11 and focus to a distance of 12 feet and that means anything 6' away to infinity will be in focus. Makes it a lot easier to catch a fleeting moment. With a 50 at f11 you'd focus to 24 feet and anything 12 feet to infinity is in focus. Double the minimum distance of the 35. It doesn't work nearly as well on the street. Even on an autofocus camera this kind of pre-focusing is really useful. AF's misfocus or start hunting all the time.

 

[JadedWriter]

I've shot a 50 and a 75 on the street and I found the 75 was good if I wanted to get a portrait of one person. But the criticism I got was that the pics I took with the 75 lacked context and didn't tell a story since the surroundings weren't visible. I guess my counter to that would be that there is no real definition of what "street photography" is. It could be candid portraiture, it could be a wide photo of a busy marketplace, it could be a funny or ironic interaction between a passerby and a billboard, etc. That said, if I had to pick a single focal length, it would be 35. It's wide enough to capture the scene and up close a 35 can do a portrait, though you have to be more mindful of distortion. Plus, 35 is great for pre-focusing based on hyperfocal distance. You can set your 35's aperture to f11 and focus to a distance of 12 feet and that means anything 6' away to infinity will be in focus. Makes it a lot easier to catch a fleeting moment. With a 50 at f11 you'd focus to 24 feet and anything 12 feet to infinity is in focus. Double the minimum distance of the 35. It doesn't work nearly as well on the street. Even on an autofocus camera this kind of pre-focusing is really useful. AF's misfocus or start hunting all the time.

That last part does explain why sometimes my focus is only half there on some shots.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Went out a couple weeks ago to downtown LA and snapped a few pics. This is the one I liked the most.

 

[TrojanBlade]

Thanks for the explanations...but I am still not sure which one to choose

Here are my choices:

1. Get a6000 with the standard 16-50mm lens

a6000 16-50mm

Or

2. Get a6000 body only with either 50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/1.8 lens

35mm f1.8

50mm f1.8

Problem is that I have a tight budget and have to choose 1 option.

What would you guys do? Thanks again for the help.

 

[RayStorm]

Thanks for the explanations...but I am still not sure which one to choose

2. Get a6000 body only with either 50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/1.8 lens.

You may find "The Official Camera Equipment Megathread" better suited to your questions.
Regardless, and I have no idea about the actual performance, but going from my own experience with a crop sensor camera: 35mm F1.8 would be my choice without a doubt. Granted, I never got to use a 50mm lens, but between kit-zoom and 35mm prima I had way more fun with the latter. I mostly walk around town and shoot, quite often at night, and sometimes indoors.

 

[RayStorm]

Went out a couple weeks ago to downtown LA and snapped a few pics. This is the one I liked the most.


http://s8.postimg.org/suzykmlk5/DSC00634.jpg/IMG][/QUOTE]

I understand why, but to offer some critique: While the seperation between background and foreground comes out quite nicely, the sparkling lights right next to his head are a bit of a distraction for my eyes. Qutie naturally my eyes are attracted to the highlights, which are not in focus (And why would they be), but the actual subject suffers a bit. I wonder if increasing the brightness of the sacophone player to actually give him a bit more seperation to most of the background might make it work better, or perhaps a bit of a different crop. Hm...

 

[snaffles]

Thanks for the explanations...but I am still not sure which one to choose

Here are my choices:

1. Get a6000 with the standard 16-50mm lens

a6000 16-50mm

Or

2. Get a6000 body only with either 50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/1.8 lens

35mm f1.8

50mm f1.8

Problem is that I have a tight budget and have to choose 1 option.

What would you guys do? Thanks again for the help.

I would go with the standard kit lens since you really don't know what you want or have a preference for a focal length. Better to learn on the kit lens and figure out what focal length you like than to just get frustrated because you are never close enough/far enough away from your subjects. As for low light you can always use a tripod and failing that should be able to just push the ISO higher on that camera without having to worry about noise affecting the image quality too much.

 

[TrojanBlade]

You may find "The Official Camera Equipment Megathread" better suited to your questions.
Regardless, and I have no idea about the actual performance, but going from my own experience with a crop sensor camera: 35mm F1.8 would be my choice without a doubt. Granted, I never got to use a 50mm lens, but between kit-zoom and 35mm prima I had way more fun with the latter. I mostly walk around town and shoot, quite often at night, and sometimes indoors.

Thank you will do that

 

[vern]

No new thread yet? I'll post here. Thailand continues to be impressive, hope I can do it justice with my images.

Long Neck Village Portraits by Eric, on Flickr

Long Neck Village Portraits by Eric, on Flickr

Long Neck Village Portraits by Eric, on Flickr

Long Neck Village Portraits by Eric, on Flickr

Long Neck Village Portraits by Eric, on Flickr

Chiang Rai Clock Tower by Eric, on Flickr

 

[Laieon]

Chiang Rai Clock Tower by Eric, on Flickr

Really like this one, awesome job.

Have a few friends in Koh Tao right now, they seem to be having a lot of fun too.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I understand why, but to offer some critique: While the seperation between background and foreground comes out quite nicely, the sparkling lights right next to his head are a bit of a distraction for my eyes. Qutie naturally my eyes are attracted to the highlights, which are not in focus (And why would they be), but the actual subject suffers a bit. I wonder if increasing the brightness of the sacophone player to actually give him a bit more seperation to most of the background might make it work better, or perhaps a bit of a different crop. Hm...

I actually think shooting from a different position (specifically from a lower angle) so as to make the lights on the tree look like they're being blown out of the saxophone would have been neat. I didn't think about that until after the fact though. Thanks for the critique!

 

[RuGalz]

No new thread yet? I'll post here. Thailand continues to be impressive, hope I can do it justice with my images.

Nice shots. I assume you get permissions from people for these portraits? (since it looks like they are actually posing for you) I'm terrible with street photography, still working up my nerves for it.

 

[captive]

No new thread yet?

Someone want to put together a nice logo kind of like the one Mrorange did for the camera equipment thread. I think it would be nice to have since we're going to have the new thread for the whole year instead of quarterly.

 

[vern]

Nice shots. I assume you get permissions from people for these portraits? (since it looks like they are actually posing for you) I'm terrible with street photography, still working up my nerves for it.

Yeah, they let me take their photos for sure.

Street photography is highly dependent on where you are, in my opinion. So, where are you? When I'm in the USA I don't like to take street shots in my hometown because most pedestrians are meth users or gangbangers, and their aren't many people around in general if shit were to go down. But when I'm in San Francisco or some other US city it's pretty easy generally to do it, don't need balls of steel. Maybe start with a longer focal length so you aren't too close to the subject. Once you get accustomed to going out and shooting in the street then switch to something wider that lets you get a lot closer, more intimate shots?


@captive - that would be good. I know there used to be monthly themed photo threads too, maybe we can do some more things like that in the main photography, or other interesting stuff more clever and creative people than me think of... just to keep it active and more people getting out and shooting.

 

[JadedWriter]

DSC_7225 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
DSC_7020 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
DSC_7318 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
And here's this seagull...
DSC_6993 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr

 

[vern]

.

Third one is looking straight up his nose, and just isn't good, to be frank. I'd have deleted it faster than fast. The first two are fine, normal portraits. I think the second one is best. 4th his face is funny, like his chin is tucked down into his neck giving him a few chins. The seagull has a bit of a blue tint on my monitor, maybe adjust the warmth/white balance? It's also a little dark in general, increase the exposure in lightroom. My 2 cents.

 

[FStop7]

You guys should check out D-Nice's photography.

https://www.instagram.com/djdnice/


Testing my Monochrom... 35mm f2, ISO 10,000, 1/750th

 

[JadedWriter]

Third one is looking straight up his nose, and just isn't good, to be frank. I'd have deleted it faster than fast. The first two are fine, normal portraits. I think the second one is best. 4th his face is funny, like his chin is tucked down into his neck giving him a few chins. The seagull has a bit of a blue tint on my monitor, maybe adjust the warmth/white balance? It's also a little dark in general, increase the exposure in lightroom. My 2 cents.

I have more, but it's hard for me to figure out the best shots I have of him. Now that I think about it I like the background more than the subject is some of my pics. The sky behind him is nice looking, at least to me. I did edit that seagull picture so hopefully it doesn't look blue anymore. I really need to either stop shooting under people or tell them to point their head down so I'm not going directly up their nose, thanks for the advice.

 

[RayStorm]

I have more, but it's hard for me to figure out the best shots I have of him, I did edit that seagull picture so hopefully it doesn't look blue anymore. I really need to either stop shooting under people or tell them to point their head down so I'm not going directly up their nose, thanks for the advice.

While the part about the nose is true and certainly not my fetish I thought that picture was not all that bad. In fact I would say it probably was the second most exciting one for me from those you originally showed, but him looking/moving to the right and also being in the right half of the picture is not ideal in terms of composition... going through your flickr you did that quite a lot. The blue sky picture is probably the best as has been said, although I would remove that bit of whatever it is that is to his right. Looks like dust on your sensor or lens (though it probably isn't judging from the other pictures), but it distracts.

And again from your flickr: I think you've got way better pictures than those you showed. 7278 or 7282 would be my prefereed ones from that particular set. In fact I would say of those 4 pictures you took in that location you probably selected the worst one to show here. Then again your horizon is not straight, and that is obviously more noticable in those pictures you didn't show here. But aside from that (and you cropping his feet just a tiny bit on 7282) I really wonder why you thought the one you showed would be the best representation out of the four.

 

[RuGalz]

Yeah, they let me take their photos for sure.

Street photography is highly dependent on where you are, in my opinion. So, where are you? When I'm in the USA I don't like to take street shots in my hometown because most pedestrians are meth users or gangbangers, and their aren't many people around in general if shit were to go down. But when I'm in San Francisco or some other US city it's pretty easy generally to do it, don't need balls of steel. Maybe start with a longer focal length so you aren't too close to the subject. Once you get accustomed to going out and shooting in the street then switch to something wider that lets you get a lot closer, more intimate shots?

I'm in the SF bay area. The biggest problem is just lack of practice I guess. SF isn't exactly that close that I'd travel there frequently for people watching. However, wherever I'm traveling, I always find street photography fascinating whenever I'm not doing landscape. A few months ago I spent a few hours walking around in Vegas with a couple photogs. It was an eye opening experience seeing how they work on the street. Vegas is easier since, well, it is Vegas. But I still do a lot of shooting from my hip. Part of it is avoid being seen; the other part of it is hard to capture the candid expression one they notice me. Good SP seems to be able to swiftly capture the image either without being noticed or it's after the shot is taken.

 

[hEist]

No new thread yet? I'll post here. Thailand continues to be impressive, hope I can do it justice with my images.

Long Neck Village Portraits by Eric, on Flickr

Long Neck Village Portraits by Eric, on Flickr

so good! great work and wonderful processing.

 

[vern]

I have more, but it's hard for me to figure out the best shots I have of him. Now that I think about it I like the background more than the subject is some of my pics. The sky behind him is nice looking, at least to me. I did edit that seagull picture so hopefully it doesn't look blue anymore. I really need to either stop shooting under people or tell them to point their head down so I'm not going directly up their nose, thanks for the advice.

I agree with Ray for the most part. And I'm on mobile now but the seagull looks white, I'm assuming you replaced right? Looks a lot better anyway.

I'm in the SF bay area. The biggest problem is just lack of practice I guess. SF isn't exactly that close that I'd travel there frequently for people watching. However, wherever I'm traveling, I always find street photography fascinating whenever I'm not doing landscape. A few months ago I spent a few hours walking around in Vegas with a couple photogs. It was an eye opening experience seeing how they work on the street. Vegas is easier since, well, it is Vegas. But I still do a lot of shooting from my hip. Part of it is avoid being seen; the other part of it is hard to capture the candid expression one they notice me. Good SP seems to be able to swiftly capture the image either without being noticed or it's after the shot is taken.

East bay and north bay are great for street shots, avoid the bad parts of course. Head to jack London square in Oakland or Santa Rosa/San Rafael in the north bay for some interesting people and downtown areas.


@heist thanks a lot man!

 

[jongkookie]

A couple of pics from yesterday's shoot:

 

[JadedWriter]

While the part about the nose is true and certainly not my fetish I thought that picture was not all that bad. In fact I would say it probably was the second most exciting one for me from those you originally showed, but him looking/moving to the right and also being in the right half of the picture is not ideal in terms of composition... going through your flickr you did that quite a lot. The blue sky picture is probably the best as has been said, although I would remove that bit of whatever it is that is to his right. Looks like dust on your sensor or lens (though it probably isn't judging from the other pictures), but it distracts.

And again from your flickr: I think you've got way better pictures than those you showed. 7278 or 7282 would be my prefereed ones from that particular set. In fact I would say of those 4 pictures you took in that location you probably selected the worst one to show here. Then again your horizon is not straight, and that is obviously more noticable in those pictures you didn't show here. But aside from that (and you cropping his feet just a tiny bit on 7282) I really wonder why you thought the one you showed would be the best representation out of the four.

Sometimes I know what to post, other times not so much, this was definitely one of those times. I actually didn't crop his feet, but we were doing one of those action shots where he would jump off so I had a hard time of having him in the frame and not chopping off his head while he would be up in the air. I guess my problem was I just didn't have a wide enough focal length. So give me a second here. I can't have him at center frame, but bad composition is also bad if he's further to the right or left? I can't win. I think after having my girlfriend laughing at my pictures cause of the model I just didn't even know what was good anymore, but it's good to at least know that I had better ones than the ones I posted. Makes me now wonder what I should go through regarding the other 100 or so pics that I have hat I didn't even bother uploading.