Doesn't the f4.5 give a bit more depth of field so the portraits capture a bit more detail? Especially these raw type subjects with wrinkles and whiskers, you don't want to soften them and only have the eye pin sharp. Although they are not perfect I like what these photos do
I think that as long as you're comfortable with the gear you're using, you dont really need a high-end pro thousands of dollars camera. You can produce images that are incredibly expressive through imagination and creativity rather than through your gear😊
@@keenarnia Exactly! Lowly M43 cameras are no good for any kind of photography!! One must have full frame or a 15 year old piece of canon junk in order to be considered to be critiqued by the master preset salesman himself!
There is more to photography, the camera is just a tool. Composition is far more important. But this doesn't apply to m4/3s of course. Because whatever you do with it, it has a small sensor and can't get bokeh. 😁😁😁
I love my Canon t5i but i'm a hybrid shooter so I upgraded to a Sony A7iii because I need those video features. But I will continue to shoot on my canon for some photoshoots.
@@d4bid15 You're a tool. Did you read the video title? "ANCIENT 15-yr-old DSLR + Solid Processing = WINNING Photos (GEAR DOESN'T ALWAYS MATTER)". Plus, most of the critique is about composition... wake up
I appreciate the honesty in these critiques. The Rebel XTi / 400D was my first DSLR. I think it only had 5 focus points. 40mm is more like 64mm on the APS-C sensor. Shooting on a budget, much can be forgiven.
I use a Nikon D5000 (which is about 10 years old) and I've had a great time learning photography with it. With minimal investment I've gotten to do astrophotography, macrophotography, landscape, portraits, abstract, sports, light painting/long exposures, panoramas, flash photography, and more with great results. Despite only having 12.3MP it takes great images and lightroom's modern processing algorithms really help bring the most out of the data the sensor captures. Using a prime lens I've gotten amazing sharpness and detail that holds up well against modern cameras even after cropping. So I agree with you 100%! The one thing that makes me really want to upgrade is the autofocus, I can deal with the other limitations and work around them, but too often I miss good shots because the AF messes up and often I can't tell it missed until I pull up the image in lightroom which is too late. So I end up taking 2-3 shots for each subject/composition just to ensure I get the focus and sharpness I want, which is annoying and doesn't always work either and means I have an ass ton of redundant RAW files I have to sort through and delete. (luckily 12.3MP RAW files are tiny by modern standards so I can afford to let them pile up in my HDD). AF and ISO are about the only significant downsides to old DSLRs in my experience, but even that doesn't stop one from getting great images with them.
The EOS 400D, called Digital Rebel XTi in North America... introduced by Canon on 24 August 2006 ( not 15 Years ago... ) Unless Wikipedia is wrong. 9 AF points
Great job, Jared. I didn’t have a problem with the focus issues the way you did, though. And I find that my lenses are sharpest when they’re not wide open, and I have good glass. Please keep doing these and giving a critquee macrateekerson to those who submit their photos. Most entertaining and informative as well.
This photographer has only been shooting a couple of months and they're on the right path! Jared understands that and is helping. If you're in a situation that might be overwhelming, your fundamentals help guide you through it. How many times does he suggest getting the exposure correct? A lot. It matters!!
Focus schmocus... There is more to it that just taking a picture. I have no problem with his focus, he did well on composition. Don't know what his post processing entailed. Is he doing grab shots on the street or character studies in a social environment? Are they going to be on the wall of a gallery, coffee shop, or in a newspaper or photo essay book. Looks like he shot or post processed them as black and whites. I know nothing about his camera (15 years can be a long time for a digital camera), but then it's the photographer not the camera that makes the difference.
Yes, I agree. Sharp focus isn't the flagship criteria for an artistic photo. Neither is pulling back so that you can see what shoes someone is wearing. This seems to be more of a nuts and bolts critique session rather than an artistic one. I think these photos are fantastic!
I'll argue your point on that last photo. I was using a rebel xs up until this winter when I bough a 60d (not a huge step up but for $250 I didn't see any better options) and if he was taking photos at 1600iso they would all be quite grainy. Even 800 iso on my xs would lead to somewhat unappealing images. In this situation I probably would have suggested he go to maybe 400-800 but after 800 I would say that him getting a lower percentage of photos would be worth it because at least at that point he may get some photos that are acceptably sharp vs having horrid iso noise in all his photos.
ISO 1600 performance on cameras did not improve much in the last 10 years, and all camera manufacturers since then sacrified color accuracy for the higher megapixels. See yourself www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/9025332744/canon-eos-400d-review-samples/7279220549 These images are without NR because at that time there was no builtin NR in cameras.
Focus focus focus... you need to expand your approach to photography I think. Most of the most beautiful and striking photos of the history are out of focus.
Dude, nearly EVERY great photo is in focus. Looking through the Time 100 photos of all time, nearly all of them are in focus. I mean, I guess the photos from the beaches of Normandy and the Zapruder film aren't in focus but anything resembling a portrait is in focus. Orlando Scott Goff got Sitting Bull's face in focus back in 1880 with a manual focus lens on a camera the size of three desktop computers and a glass plate negative. If he can do it in 1880, we can get faces in focus today. It's outright laziness to have images out of focus, unless the subject is so important that you just have to snap the photo right now, i.e. Falling Man.
@froknowsphoto Jared! Thank you for the critique!!!! It is straight forward and will be pretty useful for my next shots and I appreciate it! . I am trying to get pretty close to individuals even though they notice me. Some of them laugh, some of them get mad or show different expressions which is what I like. The only posed photo was the old guy with glasses that you did not like :) . Once again I really appreciate it man again and I will be more careful with my distance, and aperture / iso settings :) Oh and the first one I don't recall cropping it... I just got pretty close.
That´s what separates a snapshot from a keeper though. A keeper feels right. No missed focus. Not too dark or too bright. Emotions captured at the right moment. But then again these old cameras miss focus sometimes.
Great video, it’s always good hearing photographers talk in depth about others pics, always something to learn no matter what your experience. Love some of those black and white tones on Enriques pics. Oh and if that idiot who kept trolling on your other video is here I should say “thank you father”
Nice critique Jared but there is probably a good reason for this guy shooting at aperture 4.5 in most of the photos. First two photos at 2.8 both missed focus which isn't surprising since it's an old camera. Aperture 4.5 tends to be more forgiving plus it is a sweet spot for most of the lenses. He tried to shot at 1.8 and with relatively fast shutter speed and result of that is blurrish photo which can be seen at the end. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against bigger apertures like 2.8 and 1.8 if you can get this in focus but with street photography there is not always time for that. Processing is good but I would like to see more than dark and white.
Hi Jared. I'm using a 24mm 2.8 (pancake) a lot in the last few days, and if I shoot at 2.8 all the time I think I will lose sharpness sometimes, especially on landscape photography when I want to go wider. It is much sharper at f4. The 24mm is not much different than the 40mm I think. That being said, why should he shoot at 2.8 all the time? Is it because he's close to the subject? I don't usually do that, unless REALLY close, almost macro. Please note, I'm used to checking for sharpness on this lens in "long distances" (landscape), I zoom in to check it, and generally is not sharp, but in f4 is a bit better. I have to try something similar to that. I have this lens for about 2 weeks only.
Nuno Cardoso landscapes should not be shot at f2.8. But when you’re focusing on a close subject, why wouldn’t you use the f2.8 to focus on the subject?
Great! Thanks Dhruveel and Basil. I'm still getting used to this lens. That's good to know. Basil, I use 2.8, but I find it sharper only on very close subjects. For portrait, I use the Plastic Fantastic at 1.8 to get the proper DoF. I'll have to try portrait with the Pancake. Thanks to both 👍👍
3:48 so disrespectful. Stop shoving your camera in the faces of homeless people, making it black-and-white, and calling it 'Art.' You're not an artist, you're just rude.
Telling stories with your camera is the best (my opinion) street photography. Now, I'm terrible at street photography. So don't take me as an expert. However, a guy laughing is great but the shot needed to be wider so we could see what he's laughing at.
I mean, he says it's out of focus. But this dudes photos look AWESOME! I'm a noob and if my picks get like this I will be so happy lol. What does he mean about processing?
The guy's probably shooting at 4.5 to get sharper results, I would think. His shutter speeds were a little slow, sometimes, but I understand stopping down the lens a bit.
Hi, I have a Canon Rebel 2000 EOS with 28-80mm / 75-300 mm lenses along with remote control, additional flash speed lite 200E , special lenses 58 mm +4, +2, + 1 and R2, an original canon camera bag, mini tripod , as well as professional tripod stand . Any suggestions or idea , where I can sell this ?
street should be shot at 4+ because you want more things in focus since you're trying to shoot a scene. no need to blur background when doing street unless you're doing street portraits and by "portraits" i mean right in on the face. i shoot street at 5.6 most of the time.
Valid reminder that gear does not equal skill Street photography can be tricky. I was with my kid at a water park last summer, taking images. A mother kind of freaked out as she thought I was taking images of her kid
bought a Canon 300D when they came out. Even blew one up to 20x30 just 2 years ago for a gift for my wife. Just a quick random elephant pic i took and it looks amazing..YES cameras have come a long way,but honestly even early 2000's dslr's are perfectly fine..
Just an Idea, as you explained the changes in speed, ISO etc, maybe have a picture you did recreating what they did and show how your suggestions change it up. IMHO it would be neat to see, and informative.
Jared's critique only consists of bit**ing about freakin' technicality. Damn, Jared, could you please bring your attention to THE ACTUAL PHOTO, not the technical stuff behind it? This is not a critique, it's just you looking at the numbers.
oh, so don't look at the technical info to try and figure out why an image might not be sharp or might be off, okay. So don't try and help the photographer based on as much information as I have at my finger tips? Cool. NO
@@froknowsphoto right, thats fine, but the thing is, you mostly critique only on the technical aspect and I found out that you yourself even admit that you have nothing to say about the photo itself. I dont know, it seems pointless to me, saying the same exact thing so many times.
@@attilazincak6549 It seems you are not understanding these critiques....at all. This type of comments usually come from people who frequently miss focus, dont understand the exposure triangle etc. Sloppy work overall and then want to justify mediocre images as artsy.... I hope you are not in that category.
@@oscarbaezsoria1650 instagram.com/zincak you can look me up if you want to know, that that is really not my problem I dont like jareds critique simply because he doesnt help you go forward art-wise. He just tells you how to set a camera (which isnt a bad thing on itself, but when its only that, without some comment on the photo as it is, its kind of pointless).
I still own and use the Canon rebel t1i but just recently (last week actually) I just bought a Canon 7D mark II... ancient cameras still work i promise
@@froknowsphoto hmmmm...the banner image is always the first image in the gallery, unless changed. In this case, the banner image wasn't changed so that doesn't solve this mystery
These ancient cameras at ISO 1600 provide about the same quality , same DR as most cameras today with more accurate and more natural colors. Just don't process them with LR because they are degrading image quality on purpose for all old cameras.
For the people who say composition is everything and if you know what you're doing or comfortable with your camera then that's what matters..... just shut up ! I bought a m4/3 Panasonic G85 which is a fantastic little camera, but i went to Paris with it and the problems started when the sun went down, my pictures from the top of Eiffel tower are horrendous ! they look like they were taken with a smartphone camera. Now I upgraded to the Sony A7ii, and the difference is vast ! this might be the best camera i've ever used for low light ! Conclusion is: yes, composition, creativity and exposure matters, But the gear matters as well (in my humble opinion)....
I’m guessing you didn’t use “hand held night shot”. I’ve seen some stunning results on the G85 in that setting. It’s hidden in the scene mode. Pity the G9 doesn’t have it. It comes across as being a gimmick but it actually works.
@@Greggie_D No i did not, and i've never heard of it in the matter of fact !. I had decent results using a tripod and long exposure. But that only work for landscapes, anything moving will probably ruin the shot. Try taking a a picture of your friends at night and you will see how horrible m4/3 is. I'm not just defending my opinion but if m4/3 gives stunning results at night then full frame sensors have no advantage at all ! It's just physics, more light is getting in to the full frame sensor compared to the micro four thirds sensor, and that extra light is the reason behind the better low light performance, shallower depth of field, and most of the advantages full frame have over smaller sensors
Not everything has to be totally infocus or be at 1,8-2,8f to be a good picture, you seem to talk like you know nothing about photography, blurry images have their story too and a bigger DOF definitely is needed when you need to show a little bit more, like a stunning landscape or an interesting background. I currently use an old D300 and i have to say i am quite happy with it. I have used at work d610, d500... Gear does matter at low light whatever the process may be. At morning shots you can use film too, there are people who actually paid a lot and use film slr... I hate overprocessing my images. And Btw what's wrong with a little bit of grain, its not like anyone will actually print it like 1x1 to see the small details you point out at the 1000% zoomed in eye...
it's important to remember that jared is obsessed with "blowing out the background." smfh. it's actually kinda annoying. it's not always necessary. relax.
I can. But you know what, people send their photos in for a critique. In a critique you tell people as much as you can to help them improve it. Which means you point things out. They may not matter for this photo but sometime in the future it may help with a different image.
I don't like this kind of povery voyeurism. Some rare photos do bring out "character", but the backdrop is almost always grungy. It's standing on the edge and gawking at the other side. Earth meets water. Water meets sky. Poverty meets glass.
Hi Jared.... still thinking on your decision to remove your latest Olympus video. May I suggest a brave move... do an intro and apologise for your previous version which you felt was inappropriate... hence your decision to remove. Re upload revised version and delete the non gear related clips (ordering food from your room etc) and your out of line comments towards the event organisers... explain that you were wrong with your conclusive judgement on M43... I assure you that you will re gain subscribers and respect. Take care and I wish you well.
Jared loves low light shooting. The one inarguable weakness everyone can agree about with M43 is that it underperforms in low light. He just isn't the guy to watch if you're a fan of M43. Go watch Joe Edelman if you want to see an overly positive view of M43, from a guy who mostly does 80s style studio work.
I listened to your podcast. I respect you trying to do something, that didn’t get the response you expected or hoping for. The problem I have is that, you chose this as your career...just like I chose mine and other people theirs. Both of our jobs have good and bad things. But the difference is that you chose to show a video of YOU getting stuff paid for by someone else and complain about it. Yes, I understand it’s for you to promote their stuff, but you also have the option of not doing it. Plus it gives you the opportunity to create content on which you make money (and costs you money too, I understand). You can be negative as much as you like and whenever you want, but I think you should also realize that the people watching your videos assume that you enjoy creating this content for them, and not: “I hate doing this and don’t want to do any of this, but you guys keep forcing me to go on these terrible trips that I hate so much”.
I stopped at when you said complain. It’s not complaining it’s showing behind the curtains of what goes on. It’s not comparing. Trust me I appreciate the shit out of these trips. Accept when they waste our time for free content. Olympus did a nice trip. .
Did you like this persons processing??
It‘s not bad, but it’s going into the right direction! Step back on the sharpening and other sliders like you said.
I have an xsi and I love it. I also have a 60d. They both take beautiful pictures
Who won the Tamron lens? No posts???
Doesn't the f4.5 give a bit more depth of field so the portraits capture a bit more detail? Especially these raw type subjects with wrinkles and whiskers, you don't want to soften them and only have the eye pin sharp. Although they are not perfect I like what these photos do
Love it. Very engaging.
I think that as long as you're comfortable with the gear you're using, you dont really need a high-end pro thousands of dollars camera. You can produce images that are incredibly expressive through imagination and creativity rather than through your gear😊
Unless its micro 4/3's then, then you're not a professional 😉
@@keenarnia Exactly! Lowly M43 cameras are no good for any kind of photography!! One must have full frame or a 15 year old piece of canon junk in order to be considered to be critiqued by the master preset salesman himself!
There is more to photography, the camera is just a tool. Composition is far more important.
But this doesn't apply to m4/3s of course. Because whatever you do with it, it has a small sensor and can't get bokeh. 😁😁😁
I love my Canon t5i but i'm a hybrid shooter so I upgraded to a Sony A7iii because I need those video features. But I will continue to shoot on my canon for some photoshoots.
@@d4bid15 You're a tool. Did you read the video title? "ANCIENT 15-yr-old DSLR + Solid Processing = WINNING Photos (GEAR DOESN'T ALWAYS MATTER)". Plus, most of the critique is about composition... wake up
I appreciate the honesty in these critiques. The Rebel XTi / 400D was my first DSLR. I think it only had 5 focus points. 40mm is more like 64mm on the APS-C sensor. Shooting on a budget, much can be forgiven.
I use a Nikon D5000 (which is about 10 years old) and I've had a great time learning photography with it. With minimal investment I've gotten to do astrophotography, macrophotography, landscape, portraits, abstract, sports, light painting/long exposures, panoramas, flash photography, and more with great results. Despite only having 12.3MP it takes great images and lightroom's modern processing algorithms really help bring the most out of the data the sensor captures. Using a prime lens I've gotten amazing sharpness and detail that holds up well against modern cameras even after cropping. So I agree with you 100%!
The one thing that makes me really want to upgrade is the autofocus, I can deal with the other limitations and work around them, but too often I miss good shots because the AF messes up and often I can't tell it missed until I pull up the image in lightroom which is too late. So I end up taking 2-3 shots for each subject/composition just to ensure I get the focus and sharpness I want, which is annoying and doesn't always work either and means I have an ass ton of redundant RAW files I have to sort through and delete. (luckily 12.3MP RAW files are tiny by modern standards so I can afford to let them pile up in my HDD). AF and ISO are about the only significant downsides to old DSLRs in my experience, but even that doesn't stop one from getting great images with them.
The EOS 400D, called Digital Rebel XTi in North America... introduced by Canon on 24 August 2006 ( not 15 Years ago... ) Unless Wikipedia is wrong. 9 AF points
That camera with 10MP and a Digic II processor can't handle iso 1600. The best it can do without diving into noiseland is iso 800
Great job, Jared. I didn’t have a problem with the focus issues the way you did, though. And I find that my lenses are sharpest when they’re not wide open, and I have good glass.
Please keep doing these and giving a critquee macrateekerson to those who submit their photos. Most entertaining and informative as well.
This photographer has only been shooting a couple of months and they're on the right path! Jared understands that and is helping. If you're in a situation that might be overwhelming, your fundamentals help guide you through it. How many times does he suggest getting the exposure correct? A lot. It matters!!
Focus schmocus... There is more to it that just taking a picture. I have no problem with his focus, he did well on composition. Don't know what his post processing entailed. Is he doing grab shots on the street or character studies in a social environment? Are they going to be on the wall of a gallery, coffee shop, or in a newspaper or photo essay book. Looks like he shot or post processed them as black and whites. I know nothing about his camera (15 years can be a long time for a digital camera), but then it's the photographer not the camera that makes the difference.
Yes, I agree. Sharp focus isn't the flagship criteria for an artistic photo. Neither is pulling back so that you can see what shoes someone is wearing. This seems to be more of a nuts and bolts critique session rather than an artistic one. I think these photos are fantastic!
I'll argue your point on that last photo. I was using a rebel xs up until this winter when I bough a 60d (not a huge step up but for $250 I didn't see any better options) and if he was taking photos at 1600iso they would all be quite grainy. Even 800 iso on my xs would lead to somewhat unappealing images. In this situation I probably would have suggested he go to maybe 400-800 but after 800 I would say that him getting a lower percentage of photos would be worth it because at least at that point he may get some photos that are acceptably sharp vs having horrid iso noise in all his photos.
ISO 1600 performance on cameras did not improve much in the last 10 years, and all camera manufacturers since then sacrified color accuracy for the higher megapixels.
See yourself www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/9025332744/canon-eos-400d-review-samples/7279220549
These images are without NR because at that time there was no builtin NR in cameras.
Focus focus focus... you need to expand your approach to photography I think. Most of the most beautiful and striking photos of the history are out of focus.
Dude, nearly EVERY great photo is in focus. Looking through the Time 100 photos of all time, nearly all of them are in focus. I mean, I guess the photos from the beaches of Normandy and the Zapruder film aren't in focus but anything resembling a portrait is in focus. Orlando Scott Goff got Sitting Bull's face in focus back in 1880 with a manual focus lens on a camera the size of three desktop computers and a glass plate negative. If he can do it in 1880, we can get faces in focus today. It's outright laziness to have images out of focus, unless the subject is so important that you just have to snap the photo right now, i.e. Falling Man.
There is a big difference between intentional unfocused image and missed focus
Yessir! Gear doesn't matter :D
Jared, when the video of your best portrait critique will be posted??
I love your podcasts
@froknowsphoto Jared! Thank you for the critique!!!! It is straight forward and will be pretty useful for my next shots and I appreciate it! . I am trying to get pretty close to individuals even though they notice me. Some of them laugh, some of them get mad or show different expressions which is what I like. The only posed photo was the old guy with glasses that you did not like :) . Once again I really appreciate it man again and I will be more careful with my distance, and aperture / iso settings :) Oh and the first one I don't recall cropping it... I just got pretty close.
XTI was my first camera I started with! loved it so much.
Jared, do you still go to Allen's Camera? That is my local shop. I had no idea you live around here.
yes of course.
Focus for street photography is nothing. Its more about seizing the moment
That´s what separates a snapshot from a keeper though. A keeper feels right. No missed focus. Not too dark or too bright. Emotions captured at the right moment.
But then again these old cameras miss focus sometimes.
Great video, it’s always good hearing photographers talk in depth about others pics, always something to learn no matter what your experience. Love some of those black and white tones on Enriques pics. Oh and if that idiot who kept trolling on your other video is here I should say “thank you father”
Nice critique Jared but there is probably a good reason for this guy shooting at aperture 4.5 in most of the photos.
First two photos at 2.8 both missed focus which isn't surprising since it's an old camera. Aperture 4.5 tends to be more forgiving plus it is a sweet spot for most of the lenses. He tried to shot at 1.8 and with relatively fast shutter speed and result of that is blurrish photo which can be seen at the end.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against bigger apertures like 2.8 and 1.8 if you can get this in focus but with street photography there is not always time for that.
Processing is good but I would like to see more than dark and white.
Thanks for this critique Jared! Would you (or anyone here) happen to know the keyboard/mouse combo he's using? Thanks!
Hi Jared.
I'm using a 24mm 2.8 (pancake) a lot in the last few days, and if I shoot at 2.8 all the time I think I will lose sharpness sometimes, especially on landscape photography when I want to go wider. It is much sharper at f4. The 24mm is not much different than the 40mm I think. That being said, why should he shoot at 2.8 all the time? Is it because he's close to the subject? I don't usually do that, unless REALLY close, almost macro.
Please note, I'm used to checking for sharpness on this lens in "long distances" (landscape), I zoom in to check it, and generally is not sharp, but in f4 is a bit better.
I have to try something similar to that. I have this lens for about 2 weeks only.
Nuno Cardoso landscapes should not be shot at f2.8. But when you’re focusing on a close subject, why wouldn’t you use the f2.8 to focus on the subject?
It's not issue with lens. 2.8 is much shallower depth of field. It's not usable for landscapes. For landscapes use narrow aperture like 6.3,7.1, 8.
Great! Thanks Dhruveel and Basil.
I'm still getting used to this lens. That's good to know.
Basil, I use 2.8, but I find it sharper only on very close subjects. For portrait, I use the Plastic Fantastic at 1.8 to get the proper DoF. I'll have to try portrait with the Pancake.
Thanks to both 👍👍
One of my favorite lens. I find it great for street but not landscapes. Possibly portraits.
3:48 so disrespectful. Stop shoving your camera in the faces of homeless people, making it black-and-white, and calling it 'Art.' You're not an artist, you're just rude.
Your discussion of the exposure triangle is always super helpful. Thanks for throwing in the math game! P-p-pow...pow....p-pow.
My father has uploaded another banger
Aaron Hill lol I saw that guy commenting on the other video too. We his children are here
Mark Hardy 😂👏
I’ve got one and I can’t seem to find the firmware updates. Canon doesn’t support this camera anymore.
Telling stories with your camera is the best (my opinion) street photography. Now, I'm terrible at street photography. So don't take me as an expert. However, a guy laughing is great but the shot needed to be wider so we could see what he's laughing at.
I mean, he says it's out of focus. But this dudes photos look AWESOME! I'm a noob and if my picks get like this I will be so happy lol.
What does he mean about processing?
editing :)
The guy's probably shooting at 4.5 to get sharper results, I would think. His shutter speeds were a little slow, sometimes, but I understand stopping down the lens a bit.
Hi, I have a Canon Rebel 2000 EOS with 28-80mm / 75-300 mm lenses along with remote control, additional flash speed lite 200E , special lenses 58 mm +4, +2, + 1 and R2, an original canon camera bag, mini tripod , as well as professional tripod stand . Any suggestions or idea , where I can sell this ?
I bought the XTI brand new, I didn't need to be reminded how long ago that was...
@Jared Polin: how I would know, you have done the Critique on the photos link that I have sent to you?
I still sometimes use eos 400D and with good lenses it is still great camera I think.
I have this camera and at first because I didn’t know how to use it I thought I needed better gear but now I can take amazing photos!
street should be shot at 4+ because you want more things in focus since you're trying to shoot a scene. no need to blur background when doing street unless you're doing street portraits and by "portraits" i mean right in on the face. i shoot street at 5.6 most of the time.
Where's the link to his flickr page?
www.flickr.com/people/163855178@N03/
I prefer everything in focus when it comes to street photography. So an aperture of 5.6 to 9 is more of my choice.
Do I need a Flickr account to submit shots?
cheers
Hit'em with the Heiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin......
babba booey.
"We will do it live! Fuck it ....
To quote beetlejuice " goo fo u"
Valid reminder that gear does not equal skill
Street photography can be tricky. I was with my kid at a water park last summer, taking images. A mother kind of freaked out as she thought I was taking images of her kid
Fro knows fro-toe!
bought a Canon 300D when they came out. Even blew one up to 20x30 just 2 years ago for a gift for my wife. Just a quick random elephant pic i took and it looks amazing..YES cameras have come a long way,but honestly even early 2000's dslr's are perfectly fine..
sharpness sweet spots for lenses are usually not quite wide open...
These ancient entry level bodies are focusing quite bad with large aperture lenses. This body has a backfocus.
Just an Idea, as you explained the changes in speed, ISO etc, maybe have a picture you did recreating what they did and show how your suggestions change it up. IMHO it would be neat to see, and informative.
Jared's critique only consists of bit**ing about freakin' technicality. Damn, Jared, could you please bring your attention to THE ACTUAL PHOTO, not the technical stuff behind it? This is not a critique, it's just you looking at the numbers.
oh, so don't look at the technical info to try and figure out why an image might not be sharp or might be off, okay. So don't try and help the photographer based on as much information as I have at my finger tips? Cool. NO
@@froknowsphoto right, thats fine, but the thing is, you mostly critique only on the technical aspect and I found out that you yourself even admit that you have nothing to say about the photo itself. I dont know, it seems pointless to me, saying the same exact thing so many times.
@@attilazincak6549 It seems you are not understanding these critiques....at all. This type of comments usually come from people who frequently miss focus, dont understand the exposure triangle etc. Sloppy work overall and then want to justify mediocre images as artsy.... I hope you are not in that category.
Your pfp wants to talk to my manager😂😂😂
@@oscarbaezsoria1650 instagram.com/zincak you can look me up if you want to know, that that is really not my problem
I dont like jareds critique simply because he doesnt help you go forward art-wise. He just tells you how to set a camera (which isnt a bad thing on itself, but when its only that, without some comment on the photo as it is, its kind of pointless).
"Hit 'em with the Hein!" :-D made my day
I still own and use the Canon rebel t1i but just recently (last week actually) I just bought a Canon 7D mark II... ancient cameras still work i promise
I think he was using Av.
Yeah had to use a Rebel Xs for a year finally just upgraded to m50
Btw I like his shots
Just bought my first dslr, a canon xsi with a minolta telephoto lens !!!
11th photo being the banner image perhaps?
hmmm, maybe, it was odd right?
@@froknowsphoto hmmmm...the banner image is always the first image in the gallery, unless changed. In this case, the banner image wasn't changed so that doesn't solve this mystery
Maximum ISO on the XTI was 1600. Pics at that ISO probably wouldn't be good.
Had the same thought my 40d can't go over 3200 but the grain is already really bad at 1600
These ancient cameras at ISO 1600 provide about the same quality , same DR as most cameras today with more accurate and more natural colors. Just don't process them with LR because they are degrading image quality on purpose for all old cameras.
Tibor Danilics my camera from that era took marginal photos at 800 and mostly unusable at 1600.
Oh Yeah Yeah
Agree on too much clarity, contrast and sharpness, tons of that on instagram etc
Lol going up to 1600 iso on this old cam might be a little bit of a stretch XD
This was literally the 1st DSLR I ever owned
I actually still own this camera. I use it all the time it’s great!
I still have my OG rebel XT from 2006 :)
All about skills..
Hit em with the Heine, Baba Booey!
Love your humor, Can you do some tutorials for us noobs?
woohoo
Nice
You wouldnt wear those f?!?!ing T shirts anymore!!!
For the people who say composition is everything and if you know what you're doing or comfortable with your camera then that's what matters..... just shut up ! I bought a m4/3 Panasonic G85 which is a fantastic little camera, but i went to Paris with it and the problems started when the sun went down, my pictures from the top of Eiffel tower are horrendous ! they look like they were taken with a smartphone camera. Now I upgraded to the Sony A7ii, and the difference is vast ! this might be the best camera i've ever used for low light ! Conclusion is: yes, composition, creativity and exposure matters, But the gear matters as well (in my humble opinion)....
I’m guessing you didn’t use “hand held night shot”. I’ve seen some stunning results on the G85 in that setting. It’s hidden in the scene mode. Pity the G9 doesn’t have it. It comes across as being a gimmick but it actually works.
@@Greggie_D No i did not, and i've never heard of it in the matter of fact !. I had decent results using a tripod and long exposure. But that only work for landscapes, anything moving will probably ruin the shot. Try taking a a picture of your friends at night and you will see how horrible m4/3 is. I'm not just defending my opinion but if m4/3 gives stunning results at night then full frame sensors have no advantage at all ! It's just physics, more light is getting in to the full frame sensor compared to the micro four thirds sensor, and that extra light is the reason behind the better low light performance, shallower depth of field, and most of the advantages full frame have over smaller sensors
Not everything has to be totally infocus or be at 1,8-2,8f to be a good picture, you seem to talk like you know nothing about photography, blurry images have their story too and a bigger DOF definitely is needed when you need to show a little bit more, like a stunning landscape or an interesting background. I currently use an old D300 and i have to say i am quite happy with it. I have used at work d610, d500... Gear does matter at low light whatever the process may be. At morning shots you can use film too, there are people who actually paid a lot and use film slr... I hate overprocessing my images. And Btw what's wrong with a little bit of grain, its not like anyone will actually print it like 1x1 to see the small details you point out at the 1000% zoomed in eye...
Send my love to Stephen
....horizontal Jared.
love my monochrome D in my lumix 90% a good black and white tone #umixwalk
Team T5i
i have the t1i (500d) trust me autofocus for street photography is shit . i usually do manual when shooting street
Don't overlook the computer! Can't even run PS on my PC.
It has... NINE(screaming German voice) focus points
I wonder what would Jared feel if I say his black and white editing is horrendous. Too much contrast.
it's important to remember that jared is obsessed with "blowing out the background." smfh. it's actually kinda annoying. it's not always necessary. relax.
Brazilian street photographer lol.
what did those photos win?
Can't do a lot of paid shoots if you have a crap camera that misses focus. Gear matters.
what does your comment win?
Technique matters more
There is no camera made that can make you a better photographer!!! Learn your craft and you will be able to make good images with any decent camera.
Fourth..
I like to take photography but i don't have money. If any body help me contact me.
he was sooting auto
I was shooting AV
1😎
fronows photos dot com
Hey! Why can’t you appreciate an image for what it is.
I can. But you know what, people send their photos in for a critique. In a critique you tell people as much as you can to help them improve it. Which means you point things out. They may not matter for this photo but sometime in the future it may help with a different image.
@@froknowsphotoAnd once again :) Thank you for the critique it will be pretty helpful
anyone share opinion on the PENTAX K5?
I know Canon and Nikon are popular but sometimes there are hidden gems
thank you
I don't like this kind of povery voyeurism. Some rare photos do bring out "character", but the backdrop is almost always grungy. It's standing on the edge and gawking at the other side. Earth meets water. Water meets sky. Poverty meets glass.
All these guy's pictures are black and white and look the same. How about some variety. Some landscapes, or the beach, something different!
He turned it up to 11 ; /
jared- you are perfect
Hi Jared.... still thinking on your decision to remove your latest Olympus video. May I suggest a brave move... do an intro and apologise for your previous version which you felt was inappropriate... hence your decision to remove. Re upload revised version and delete the non gear related clips (ordering food from your room etc) and your out of line comments towards the event organisers... explain that you were wrong with your conclusive judgement on M43... I assure you that you will re gain subscribers and respect. Take care and I wish you well.
Jared loves low light shooting. The one inarguable weakness everyone can agree about with M43 is that it underperforms in low light. He just isn't the guy to watch if you're a fan of M43. Go watch Joe Edelman if you want to see an overly positive view of M43, from a guy who mostly does 80s style studio work.
I don’t apologize for the video at all.
first
I listened to your podcast. I respect you trying to do something, that didn’t get the response you expected or hoping for. The problem I have is that, you chose this as your career...just like I chose mine and other people theirs.
Both of our jobs have good and bad things. But the difference is that you chose to show a video of YOU getting stuff paid for by someone else and complain about it. Yes, I understand it’s for you to promote their stuff, but you also have the option of not doing it. Plus it gives you the opportunity to create content on which you make money (and costs you money too, I understand).
You can be negative as much as you like and whenever you want, but I think you should also realize that the people watching your videos assume that you enjoy creating this content for them, and not: “I hate doing this and don’t want to do any of this, but you guys keep forcing me to go on these terrible trips that I hate so much”.
I stopped at when you said complain. It’s not complaining it’s showing behind the curtains of what goes on. It’s not comparing. Trust me I appreciate the shit out of these trips. Accept when they waste our time for free content. Olympus did a nice trip. .
Ok, it probably didn’t convey to me as you intended it. Because the part of you appreciating the trip, didn’t come across. But good to know !
If I were required to take photos like these I'd never use a camera. I'm glad I don't have to LOOK at photos like these.