>>4195193hah, nice, americans really are out of it
the framing is very tight on the bottom, and the light in the top left attracts quite a lot of attention, so it would have been better if that zone's highlights were severely toned down in post or if you had moved a bit behind and to your right so to create a halo around the guy's head
>>4195143much too busy on the sides and the ground
in a color picture it would have been easy to distinguish between the poles and the lines and the shadows, but since the left side of every pole is dark, since the sun is on the right, they're the same color as the shadows, so everything looks frantic and terribly busy, without anything to fixate on
if you want to edit B&W you need to take into careful consideration the fact that you're losing precious information that allow you to group and distinguish and categorize things
another thing to consider is that, at least with Lr and C1, you can use the color editor after making the picture B&W, which you can employ to selectively edit things that look the same when in B&W
at any rate, play with contrast
>>4195635the subject's head is a tad off center, and while the dark silhouette makes things look dramatic it's not dark enough to be just a silhouette nor bright enough for me to be able to clearly distinguish the details on the front, even when zooming in
>>4195671no worries
>>4195677my 70-200 2.8L is from 20 years ago, was used in the desert for countless weeks, brought in to be serviced a few times, I fell on it twice on a hard surface and it still looks noticeably sharper than that when put in front of a modern sensor, plus it can be had for maybe 40% less
it might be heavier but it's about the same size, and the RF 70-200 2.8 is even smaller and lighter
>>4195678ah, might have been that
was any of the other pictures posted in this thread taken with the same lens?
I figure maybe the second reply to this thread but, likely because of the noise, it's hard to call that sharp either
