|
Quick question before I do this: I can clean my camera lens with the same lens solution that I use for my glasses.. right?
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
RangerScum posted:Quick question before I do this: Yep, totally safe. HOWEVER -- glasses lens cleaners sometimes have soaps in them that can leave a little bit of a residue. I personally clean lenses with 100% methanol, which is great because it dissolves organics really effectively and evaporates instantly, rather than leaving behind drying marks. Regular Windex theoretically has the same soap problem but I've used it on lenses before -- if it doesn't leave streaks on glass windows it won't on your lens either. Try to avoid things that have a lot of water in them -- isopropyl alcohol is great for removing gunk, but anything under 70% will leave water marks when it dries and you really want >90% to ensure you get the thing really clean. orange lime fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Jun 30, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 03:46
|
|
|
Shnitzel posted:What exactly does the wide-flash adapter accomplish? I know that it sets the SB focal length to 14mm by default, but I don't really understand what it actually does, and how useful it is?
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 09:52
|
|
|
Oops, there was a Canon megathread... my bad. Moved question there.
Death by Cranes fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Jul 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2010 14:46
|
|
|
I've been noticing that my camera is starting to take loving forever to transfer images to the memory card. I only shoot RAW, but I swear it used to take half as long to shoot the image, press the play button and quickly check out what I just took. Now I have to sit there for a few seconds and wait, before I can check it out. What the heck is the issue, the memory card speed? I'm sure it was fine before..
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2010 05:03
|
|
|
Did you accidentally change the in-camera noise reduction settings?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2010 05:52
|
|
|
What body do you use, is it possible you changed it to 14bit RAW?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2010 08:22
|
|
|
Also slow memory cards are terrible with huge raws.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2010 21:04
|
|
|
What are some good settings and lighting ideas for shooting at conventions? If it helps, I'm armed with a Nikon D80, SB-600 speedlight, a diffuser, and a Tamron 18-250 f/3.5-6.3 (I know super zooms like that are lame, but its all I have right now besides a 50mm prime).
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 23:33
|
|
|
Dr. Lenin posted:What are some good settings and lighting ideas for shooting at conventions? If it helps, I'm armed with a Nikon D80, SB-600 speedlight, a diffuser, and a Tamron 18-250 f/3.5-6.3 (I know super zooms like that are lame, but its all I have right now besides a 50mm prime). Shoot with the prime. Even at an effective 75mm, it'll be better than the zoom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 23:51
|
|
|
I'm used to car shows rather than conventions, but with a 50mm prime you're probably going to have a hell of a time getting a shot without people walking through.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 01:37
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:I'm used to car shows rather than conventions, but with a 50mm prime you're probably going to have a hell of a time getting a shot without people walking through. That's why I was wondering about using a flash / zoom combo. I'm not using the 18-250 to its full range, probably just between 18-70 or so. Can I get by with a flash/diffuser and a zoom, or will the lack of low ceilings to bounce off of make it difficult? edit: It's mostly going to be shots of vendors, models, entertainers, and group shots of said people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 02:33
|
|
|
I don't suppose anyone knows where someone posted their workflow for architectural photography. It might have been W00t fatigue, it was very involved, with multiple exposures for almost everything in the rooms. it was I guess a sort of HDR process, only, not poo poo...
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 12:31
|
|
|
m4mbo posted:I don't suppose anyone knows where someone posted their workflow for architectural photography. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3227180&userid=114841 woot fatigue, yes. Second post. The first is good for marveling at his awesome results.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 15:49
|
|
|
linus posted:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3227180&userid=114841 That thread is awesome. I can't believe I haven't seen that yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 16:26
|
|
|
linus posted:http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3227180&userid=114841 My god that man is insane. I'm gonna have to reread those posts when I have a few spare hours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 17:25
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:That thread is awesome. I can't believe I haven't seen that yet. Magic, thanks very much!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2010 23:49
|
|
|
Is there any way of locking my camera's focus to infinity? (or any manually focused point I suppose) At night, I use mostly manual focus and like to set it all the way out by focusing on some distant light, but its annoying doing that over and over because I move the ring when I walk around. There doesn't seem to be a real option to do it, but is there a trick that I can do? like setting it out that far then turning it to auto focus and doing something? I can't think of it
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 23:58
|
|
|
FetusOvaries posted:Is there any way of locking my camera's focus to infinity? (or any manually focused point I suppose) At night, I use mostly manual focus and like to set it all the way out by focusing on some distant light, but its annoying doing that over and over because I move the ring when I walk around. There doesn't seem to be a real option to do it, but is there a trick that I can do? like setting it out that far then turning it to auto focus and doing something? I can't think of it Gaffer tape on the ring. Just stick a small piece to the lens barrel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 00:26
|
|
|
We need a gaffer tape thread. Sometimes I have dreams about gaffer tape.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 00:37
|
|
|
brad industry posted:We need a gaffer tape thread. Sometimes I have dreams about gaffer tape. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3329684 Excellent idea. I firmly believe with gaffer tape, crazy glue and marine putty epoxy you can fix anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 01:04
|
|
|
brad industry posted:We need a gaffer tape thread. Sometimes I have dreams about gaffer tape. Speaking of this, yesterday I finally found the brand new big roll I bought from Pearl when they were going out of business however-many months ago. Time to get crackin' on that box full of DIY projects!
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 02:40
|
|
|
Dr. Lenin posted:What are some good settings and lighting ideas for shooting at conventions? If it helps, I'm armed with a Nikon D80, SB-600 speedlight, a diffuser, and a Tamron 18-250 f/3.5-6.3 (I know super zooms like that are lame, but its all I have right now besides a 50mm prime). What kind of convention? If its anything like the conventions I shoot, you're going to be in a huge mix of lighting, sometimes with three or four different types in the same small area. The best thing to do is find the areas with the most complimentary light, areas with large windows, incandescent or track lighting, and low-ish white ceilings for creamy smooth bounce. http://gallery.prairiesquid.com/v/squidography/sanjapan2010/ That's the last convention I shot. Yes, I'm a nerd. Yes, there are some terrible shots in there. But, if you look you can see the shots where I followed my own advice, and the shots where I didn't or couldn't. All of that was done with a D70s, 18-200 3.5-5.6 lame super zoom, SB-800, and the mighty Gary Fong Flash Top Blender, Food Processor, and Light Diffuser. The same results could have been had with just about any diffuser and bounce card. The only exceptions are the first few in the Tricky album that were shot with my AB.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 17:06
|
|
|
Does anyone know of a place to buy replacement parts for lenses? I cracked the filter screw-on ring of my tamron 17-50 and would like to replace it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 21:39
|
|
|
Brozekiel posted:Does anyone know of a place to buy replacement parts for lenses? I'd call them at 631.858.8400 (http://www.tamron.com/contact/default.asp) and ask about it. I know Nikon has a parts department that'll sell you various little bits and pieces.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2010 07:28
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:http://gallery.prairiesquid.com/v/squidography/sanjapan2010/ What's with the squid? It really kind of bothers me throughout the album. The posed shots without it are mostly good, but I don't think I like any of the ones with the squid. Props can be good and all, but it seems that most nerds only look creepier when they hug and molest plushy sea creatures.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 18:45
|
|
|
brad industry posted:We need a gaffer tape thread. Sometimes I have dreams about gaffer tape. Ah, yes, the caviar of the adhesive world 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 18:48
|
|
|
Wooten posted:What's with the squid? It really kind of bothers me throughout the album. The posed shots without it are mostly good, but I don't think I like any of the ones with the squid. Props can be good and all, but it seems that most nerds only look creepier when they hug and molest plushy sea creatures. Some things start out as a joke. See what you can get people to do, make references to creepy things and see who you can get to go along. Then it gets out of hand. Then people demand you bring the thing. "Hey, where is that squid? I wanted to stuff the tentacles down my shirt."
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2010 21:45
|
|
|
Where's the best generic "retouching skin" tutorial?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 04:42
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Where's the best generic "retouching skin" tutorial? I sort of use this - http://www.sxc.hu/blog/post/476 It works pretty well if you tweak it a bit and don't follow it completely blindly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2010 12:02
|
|
|
Random question: Is it possible that one day we'll have sensors with a dynamic range equal to the human eye? Or are the technological limitations unlikely to be overcome?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 21:14
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Random question: Is it possible that one day we'll have sensors with a dynamic range equal to the human eye? Or are the technological limitations unlikely to be overcome? I think part of the problem is that when we see a scene, we focus on several parts of the scene individually with our eyes adjusting each time whereas a camera captures the entire scene in one go and must make compromises in order to reach a sort of middle ground with regards to exposure. When you view a bright part of a scene and then a dark part, your brain does not interpret both parts with the same "exposure" values like the camera does. The most feasible way of increasing range is probably doing a Foveon-type of sensor so the camera brackets the scene all at once and does tone compression on the fly. HPL fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Jul 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 21:20
|
|
|
HPL posted:I think part of the problem is that when we see a scene, we focus on several parts of the scene individually with our eyes adjusting each time whereas a camera captures the entire scene in one go and must make compromises in order to reach a sort of middle ground with regards to exposure. When you view a bright part of a scene and then a dark part, your brain does not interpret both parts with the same "exposure" values like the camera does. Well, whatever the reason, I never read about future significant improvements in dynamic range for sensors. It seems like the technology has plateaued and I wonder why. It seems like that's a license to print money if anyone can develop that, so I'm sure people are trying. The fact that nobody can do it makes me think that there are technological limitations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 21:25
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Random question: Is it possible that one day we'll have sensors with a dynamic range equal to the human eye? Or are the technological limitations unlikely to be overcome? It's closer now than you think, as HPL points out. Look at a high range "scene" today, with lots of shadows. Don't move your eye, and use your peripheral vision and think about how dark the shadow is, versus how bright the sunlit parts. Sure, your eye is better than film/sensors, but it's not like we don't lose shadow detail in an otherwise brightly lit room.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 21:45
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:It's closer now than you think, as HPL points out. Are they really that close? The instantaneous dynamic range of the human eye is 10-14 stops according to this. What's a digital sensor? 7 stops or so?
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 21:57
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Are they really that close? The instantaneous dynamic range of the human eye is 10-14 stops according to this. As the article says, 10-14 for human eye (not that measurable, really). The Nikon D3x is supposed to have 12.8 (per DXO). That's 91.4% of the highest estimated human eye.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 22:06
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Well, whatever the reason, I never read about future significant improvements in dynamic range for sensors. It seems like the technology has plateaued and I wonder why.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 22:22
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:As the article says, 10-14 for human eye (not that measurable, really). The Nikon D3x is supposed to have 12.8 (per DXO). I doubt those two measurements are comparable in practice. I suspect it refers to how much you can squeeze out of a raw file. I doubt you can get 12.8 stops without getting noise. DXO says the 5d2 can get 11.9 stops and there's no way I can get that kind of range without a lot of noise. evil_bunnY posted:There are physical limits to what you can do with a given sensor areas. Still, try comparing DRs on sensors a couple years old with what you can get now for a laugh. Okay, so it is improving. I thought that the technology had leveled off. TheAngryDrunk fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Jul 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 22:23
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Well, whatever the reason, I never read about future significant improvements in dynamic range for sensors. It seems like the technology has plateaued and I wonder why. TheAngryDrunk posted:What's a digital sensor? 7 stops or so? TheAngryDrunk posted:DXO says the 5d2 can get 11.9 stops and there's no way I can get that kind of range without a lot of noise. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Jul 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:
What I'm saying is that attempting to recover that detail from the raw file via post processing will bring out noise, too. Go into your post processing software and jack the exposure all the way to the left or right. You might get some detail you couldn't see before, but it will look like poo poo. TheAngryDrunk fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Jul 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 22:48
|
|