|
HPL posted:Stop down to reduce the purple fringing. Or in Lightroom reduce the "purple" colors saturation slider to 0... hopefully you dont have any purple in your photo 
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
Munkaboo posted:Or in Lightroom reduce the "purple" colors saturation slider to 0... hopefully you dont have any purple in your photo I assume you can do this in Lightroom too, but in Aperture you can brush in most adjustments to only affect specific parts of the photo, so even if there's more purple, that shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
I own a Nikon D5100 and have gone on several trips this year where I have taken pictures in JPEG + RAW format. I have now realized that all the RAW files are taking up a significant amount of space on my harddrive. Since I already have all the image files in high quality JPEG, is there a point in keeping the RAW files?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:I assume you can do this in Lightroom too, but in Aperture you can brush in most adjustments to only affect specific parts of the photo, so even if there's more purple, that shouldn't be a problem. True, you could desaturate the purple fringing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 22:45
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:I assume you can do this in Lightroom too, but in Aperture you can brush in most adjustments to only affect specific parts of the photo, so even if there's more purple, that shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 22:46
|
|
|
Busy Bee posted:I own a Nikon D5100 and have gone on several trips this year where I have taken pictures in JPEG + RAW format. I have now realized that all the RAW files are taking up a significant amount of space on my harddrive. Since I already have all the image files in high quality JPEG, is there a point in keeping the RAW files? Generally it's better to delete the JPEGs and keep the RAWs, because you can always create more JPEGs from the RAW files, whereas the RAWs contain additional information that may be useful if you ever want to go back and reedit/reprocess the photos. However, if you don't care about that and are sure you're never going to do any other work on them, delete away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
Busy Bee posted:I own a Nikon D5100 and have gone on several trips this year where I have taken pictures in JPEG + RAW format. I have now realized that all the RAW files are taking up a significant amount of space on my harddrive. Since I already have all the image files in high quality JPEG, is there a point in keeping the RAW files? Hard drives are cheap buy an external. Keep everything forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2012 11:38
|
|
|
What's the general consensus on Aperture's noise removal? LR4's approaches magic on some images, but I've never heard anyone talking about what Aperture ships with. Mainly because I guess I've never heard anyone talk about Aperture, period.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 06:31
|
|
|
Much like Capture One 6 and a handful of other raw processors, it was better until Adobe finally got their act together and knocked it out of the park. By modern standards it's pretty bad, but it'll usually do a passable job on moderate noise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:Thanks guys! So it'd be probably better to stick with a polarizer for most daylight shooting and on special occasions like when I need a larger aperture for bokeh or smooth water I should switch to ND/GND? Define cheap? Have a look in the tripod thread, it has some good info in it: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3390180 Unfortunately tripods are one of those things you get what you pay for. If you are on a budget I would try to find a used one if possible as tripods last for a long time. Your ideas for using ND filters etc would be correct. Basically just use an ND filter if you want a longer exposure or to stop down more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:SLIK has some decent budget options. I've got one that I spent about 75 dollars on, and it's held up like a champ. Dread Head posted:Define cheap? Have a look in the tripod thread, it has some good info in it: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3390180 Thanks for the advice! Yeah looking for something around 100 bucks at most. Not having an income as a student doesn't help...
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 20:36
|
|
|
I could've sworn I saw a printing / output thread, but now I can't find it. Anyway, I've tired of sending off prints to mediocre printers who don't know how to color balance anything, so I've decided to get my own photo printer. I wan't something that'll deliver a "pretty good" quality in A3 sized prints. I'll be printing some pretty vibrant pictures in A5, A4 and A3 size. They'll be used for portfolio and I'll be displaying them at various customer sites. I know nothing about photo printers, so I just scanned my local hardware shop, and the Canon Pro9000 Mark II is within my price range, while the 9500 is going to hurt. I'll be printing from either PhotoShop or Lightroom on a Mac, but I'm very disappointed in Canon's OSX driver support, so I'm dreading buying another Canon product. Please help me - what should I get and why? Links to further information is very much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
Zombietoof posted:What's the general consensus on Aperture's noise removal? LR4's approaches magic on some images, but I've never heard anyone talking about what Aperture ships with. I've found the noise reduction to be practically useless, but I think I am very bad at using noise reduction software in general. I haven't been able to make things look very good even with some of the separate plugins you can buy, like Topaz DeNoise and such, which are pretty much all supposed to be excellent. Noise reduction is pretty much the only thing I don't like about using Aperture+Pixelmator, but the two together cost barely over $100 now so there's bound to be something that gives compared to the competition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
I'm on my second camera with AF micro-adjustment available to me, and I can't say I've ever touched it. I came across this really neat looking software (FoCal) today though, and it piqued my interest enough to at least ask other goons for their opinion. Is AF micro-adjustment just snake oil that enthusiasts with gear-signatures on POTN sperg over, or is it something with practical applications? Would you only notice the difference on lenses with razor-thin DoF like a f/1.2?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
ShadeofBlue posted:I haven't been able to make things look very good even with some of the separate plugins you can buy, like Topaz DeNoise and such, which are pretty much all supposed to be excellent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:I'm on my second camera with AF micro-adjustment available to me, and I can't say I've ever touched it. I came across this really neat looking software (FoCal) today though, and it piqued my interest enough to at least ask other goons for their opinion. Is AF micro-adjustment just snake oil that enthusiasts with gear-signatures on POTN sperg over, or is it something with practical applications? Would you only notice the difference on lenses with razor-thin DoF like a f/1.2? I had to adjust my 15mm for a bit of front focusing, to test if it needed it I just focused by phase detect, shot a test frame, then shot the same frame with live view AF. If the focus is good one will be sharper, adjust until phase detect gives good results.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 13:52
|
|
|
apologies if this has been asked in the past (probably has), but can anyone recommend some reading about general composition in photography? guidelines, analyses of really good photos, things like that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
longview posted:I had to adjust my 15mm for a bit of front focusing, to test if it needed it I just focused by phase detect, shot a test frame, then shot the same frame with live view AF. If the focus is good one will be sharper, adjust until phase detect gives good results. I had to do something similar for my Sigma 30/1.4. The problem with my copy was it behaved differently when focusing on things at different differences, so the adjustment couldn't really fix it. If the lens didn't behave like that, the micro AF adjust would have done the trick, so I definitely think it's a nice thing to have. slardel posted:apologies if this has been asked in the past (probably has), but can anyone recommend some reading about general composition in photography? guidelines, analyses of really good photos, things like that. I've had The Photographer's Eye recommended to me, by someone in the Dorkroom I believe. Danoss fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Oct 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
slardel posted:apologies if this has been asked in the past (probably has), but can anyone recommend some reading about general composition in photography? guidelines, analyses of really good photos, things like that. http://www.amazon.com/The-Nature-Photographs-A-Primer/dp/0714859044/
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 03:30
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:I'm on my second camera with AF micro-adjustment available to me, and I can't say I've ever touched it. I came across this really neat looking software (FoCal) today though, and it piqued my interest enough to at least ask other goons for their opinion. Is AF micro-adjustment just snake oil that enthusiasts with gear-signatures on POTN sperg over, or is it something with practical applications? Would you only notice the difference on lenses with razor-thin DoF like a f/1.2? I bought a Tamrom 10-24 that was really soft (almost like a missed focus) when opened up full with anything even remotely near the camera; followed this how-to http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/1ds3_af_micoadjustment.html and nearly had to peg the microadjustment control in one direction in order to fix it... Massive difference, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 10:54
|
|
|
DxO Optics Pro, the best post-processing software you've never heard of, has a new version out: http://www.dxo.com/ca/photo/dxo_optics_pro/whats_new
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 17:39
|
|
|
looks like those are both available at my local library, I'll be sure to check them out, thanks real nap shit fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Oct 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
I'm very new to full frame (5D II) and haven't had the chance to use a lot of lenses with it. I want to take some nice group pictures this weekend and my only two available options are the 85 1.2 and 16-35 2.8... I'm not a huge fan of how the 16-35 makes people look, but 85 will be way, way too tight for group (4-5 people) portraits, won't it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
tarepanda posted:I'm very new to full frame (5D II) and haven't had the chance to use a lot of lenses with it. Yeah, the 85 will be crazy long unless you happen to like the challenge of taking group shots from 8 metres away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
tarepanda posted:I'm very new to full frame (5D II) and haven't had the chance to use a lot of lenses with it. Pick up a 50mm and that'll round up your options pretty well. A 50mm is a good walk around anyways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Pick up a 50mm and that'll round up your options pretty well. A 50mm is a good walk around anyways. I have a 50 1.8. The other two lenses I mentioned would just be a loan from my CEO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
tarepanda posted:I'm very new to full frame (5D II) and haven't had the chance to use a lot of lenses with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Keep the zoom at 35 and fire away. Just don't get too close. This too. It's ok to crop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2012 01:39
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:This too. Yah, remember that perspective distortion comes from distance to the subject, not the focal length of the lens. If you don't like how people look at 35mm, take a couple of steps back and crop it later.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
I browsed the stickied threads and first page and didn't see this answered, so I'm posting. If I missed it, please kick me for being a bad poster. In cleaning out a bunch of boxes, I found about 30 old disposable cameras and rolls of film. I have no idea whether they're damaged or not, most are a decade or more old. What would be the best/least expensive service I can mail them to for processing that I could preview and select which ones to have prints made of? I found mpix.com but it sounds like they charge $.20 per shot processed. That seems reasonable if they're not damaged, but I'd hate to pay that for 30 rolls worth of black frames. What's the go-to goon site for such services? Any assistance is much appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
MAKE NO BABBYS posted:I browsed the stickied threads and first page and didn't see this answered, so I'm posting. If I missed it, please kick me for being a bad poster. You are always gonna have to pay per roll for processing. It costs the same whether you get 36 frames of black or 36 arts. You could select a couple of rolls to send in a and see if its any good rather than do the whole thing if you are leery about the film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
Also just pay for processing to begin with, then you can pick and choose which of the shots you want to print when you get the negatives back. There's probably SOME lab in your city that'll be able to provide these services to you if you look around. It might not be evident, but unless you live in bumfuck nowhere then there's probably some niche spot that hipsters go to have their holga photos developed and printed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
Another thing to note is that some places won't charge if the roll is blank. I know walgreens didn't charge me when I had a roll that was blank, for example.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 00:58
|
|
|
Cool, thanks guys. I live in the SF Bay Area, so there's lots of places to get it done in person, I just figured since they're snapshots and didn't have to be fancy, online might be cheaper. I'll just pick a few and ask if they charge for blank rolls. Some of them very well might not have been shot at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 01:06
|
|
|
Costco will do cheap develop only too and a lot of the time their technicians are pretty nice about that kind of thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
This definitely depends on the Costco. Ours got rid of their film minilab a long long time ago 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
What DSLRs have the fastest/most accurate AF? I want to get a proper DSLR with phase detection and whatnot. I've missed too many shots because of the slow, inaccurate AF on the x100.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 05:04
|
|
|
D4 / 1Dmk4 if you have  to burn 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
Blasphemoplasty posted:What DSLRs have the fastest/most accurate AF? I want to get a proper DSLR with phase detection and whatnot. Contrast detect is more accurate than phase, hence slower. If you're having accuracy problems with contrast detect autofocus make sure you're not focusing like you would a phase detect DSLR, ie focus on solid surfaces instead of edges. Amusingly, your question reminded me that I was supposed to go dig out my 7D tonight because I discovered last night that my Tokina 12-24 pro dx II, a champ of a lens, can not focus for poo poo on the 7D with all the billion focus points enabled. I thought maybe the lens was out of alignment because it made many sharp photos for me in the past when it was on my T2i. Seems to work fine on the Rebel so I have to go try it out with centerpoint only on the 7D. I'm super baffled that the 7D with its normal super wizardry autofocus claims positive focus when literally nothing is close to being in focus. Edit: Yep, the 7D thinks that objects are about a foot closer than they actually are. But only in auto AF and Zone AF. Spot, Single and AF Expansion all focus fine. Lens focuses fine on the T2i in any mode. Bizarro. ThisQuietReverie fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Nov 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 07:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
That reminds me, I used to think the 5D II was absolute terrible cruddy poo poo that couldn't do jack. Then I moved my second hand and realized that it could focus, albeit slowly and poorly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2012 07:45
|
|