|
ZippySLC posted:Anybody in the NJ area have a Lensalign and can help me solve my focusing issues? Just use a book, tripod and trial & error. That's pretty much all the lensalign is, a plane full of fine printed numbers fixed at 45 degrees. You can also print out a page specifically designed for figuring out focus issues, I forgot where I found that.
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
What do you guys recommend for sensor cleaning? I bought a little blower thing and it did an ok job, but I have a clump of pesky dust in the corner that I can't get to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
I've used something like this swab-thing (that one is overpriced, it would take a long time to run through 12 swabs unless you habitually change lenses in duststorms). I bought mine locally, it's basically a lint-free bit of fabric on the end of a plastic stick and it comes with a tiny bottle of alcohol. You wet the swab with the alcohol and carefully sweep it across your sensor, like cleaning a window.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
You might want this version instead, since it comes with the lens cleaning solution that it's meant to be used with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Buy the smallest pack of sensor swabs you can get, just so you can acquire the plastic tools they wrap the actual swab around. Then buy a box of kimwipes and use that for future cleanings, it's way cheaper and does the exact same job. I'm not sure if there's a cheap replacement for their cleaning solution though, so I haven't experimented with that part of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Just use a book, tripod and trial & error. That's pretty much all the lensalign is, a plane full of fine printed numbers fixed at 45 degrees. You can also print out a page specifically designed for figuring out focus issues, I forgot where I found that. I have something printed out. It's just on kind of flimsy copier paper, where the lensalign is rigid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
...maybe, I don't know, glue it to something rigid?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Buy the smallest pack of sensor swabs you can get, just so you can acquire the plastic tools they wrap the actual swab around. Then buy a box of kimwipes and use that for future cleanings, it's way cheaper and does the exact same job. I'm pretty sure the cleaning solution is just alcohol - a big bottle of rubbing alcohol (isopropanol, or some mixture of ethanol/propanol) costs like $4 and will evaporate through the plastic bottle before you use it all if all you use it for is camera-sensor cleaning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
rawrr posted:...maybe, I don't know, glue it to something rigid? Yes, and then that turns into a whole trip to Staples to buy rigid paper & glue & whatnot when, if I'm already making a special trip somewhere, I could go visit someone local who has a Lensalign and has experience using it. Maybe, I don't know?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
How should I go about handling pictures of little children on sites like flickr and 500px? I live in rural Panama and it's pretty common for children under five years old to be either naked or just have something covering up the bottom. I'm a little wary about Googling this question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
huhu posted:How should I go about handling pictures of little children? I live in rural Panama and it's pretty common for children under five years old to be either naked or just have something covering up the bottom. I'm a little wary about Googling this question. I'm confused, is this something you want to photograph and are wondering how to go about it? Or are you taking pictures of other stuff and naked kids accidentally run into frame? Or are parents asking you to take photos of their naked children?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I'm confused, is this something you want to photograph and are wondering how to go about it? Or are you taking pictures of other stuff and naked kids accidentally run into frame? Or are parents asking you to take photos of their naked children? I have one shot of a little girl with just a bottom on. She ran up to me and asked me to take her picture. That's the only picture I have that would fall into this area and don't really plan on having many more. I guess I'm just weirded out a bit by this subject matter and all the creepiness that can be associated with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
I feel like this is one of those situations where, if you are asking the question you already know the right answer. If you don't feel comfortable about it, I'd just leave it out. It's just one picture.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
huhu posted:I have one shot of a little girl with just a bottom on. She ran up to me and asked me to take her picture. That's the only picture I have that would fall into this area and don't really plan on having many more. I guess I'm just weirded out a bit by this subject matter and all the creepiness that can be associated with it. When I take pictures of kids that could be misused, I (a) make sure they aren't named or tagged anything that could be searchable, (b) if actual nudity, I keep the picture private, not publicly viewable. There are many good, keepable pictures of kids that have some nudity (cute bath/mishap photos) so don't reject them out of hand. On the other hand, pics of other people's kids naked is rife with peril.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
huhu posted:I have one shot of a little girl with just a bottom on. She ran up to me and asked me to take her picture. That's the only picture I have that would fall into this area and don't really plan on having many more. I guess I'm just weirded out a bit by this subject matter and all the creepiness that can be associated with it. If you feel weird about it, then don't do it. From a legal stand point, there is more of an issue of taking pictures of kids without the parents' permission than there is about them being mostly naked. Think of it this way; If you were being paid by National Geographic to document the lives of people in Panama, no one would think twice about you taking pictures of half naked kids playing soccer, or climbing trees, or digging through garbage if that is the angle you are going for. National Geographic has published plenty of pictures like that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Yes, and then that turns into a whole trip to Staples to buy rigid paper & glue & whatnot when, if I'm already making a special trip somewhere, I could go visit someone local who has a Lensalign and has experience using it. You really don't have like, a roll of scotch tape and a piece of cardboard?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
Okay.
ZippySLC fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Aug 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Calm down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
Back-button focus question: For those of you who use it for portrait photography, what's your setup like? Do you have it set up that the back button locks focus and the shutter locks exposure? Or do you have the back button lock both? I get that the flexibility of locking each separately, but the shutter button on the 5d is weird and doesn't have a "half way lock" or whatever you call that feeling when you click in the shutter part way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
I have AE lock on shutter half press on my d800, unless I know I'm going to shoot backlit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I have AE lock on shutter half press on my d800, unless I know I'm going to shoot backlit. Yeah actually, this is what raised the question, I tried some backlit shots and had a hell of a time getting it looking right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
That's prob because it heavily favors the area under the AF point for AE, even if it changes wildly after AF lock. When the lighting is problematic I just switch to a dedicated AE button.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
So I'm trying to free up space on my computer. I have tons of images saved in RAW format in Lightroom, and I'd like to just convert them all into JPG to save space. I've already retouched the ones I'd want, so I can't imagine being too sad about losing all the outtakes raw files. Is there a way to do this easily? I'm guessing I would just highlight all the old photos, batch export them to high-rez jpegs, delete the files from my library and re-add the new ones? Or is there a better way I'm not thinking of?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:So I'm trying to free up space on my computer. I have tons of images saved in RAW format in Lightroom, and I'd like to just convert them all into JPG to save space. I've already retouched the ones I'd want, so I can't imagine being too sad about losing all the outtakes raw files. Storage is stupidly cheap these days, unless the photos are really bad I would probably just get some more storage. If you don't want to do that I guess you could export them from LR and then re-add the photos.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Seriously just buy a 2TB hard drive for $80-100.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Storage is stupidly cheap these days, unless the photos are really bad I would probably just get some more storage. If you don't want to do that I guess you could export them from LR and then re-add the photos. RangerScum posted:Seriously just buy a 2TB hard drive for $80-100. Hi, I am triplexpac from 5 years in the future and I've just travelled back in time to say that these guys are right and I am pleased that I listened to their advice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
... 2TB of dick pics makes a pleasant diversion from a bleak landscape of nuclear fallout and decay. Three-and-a-half thumbs up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 10:38
|
|
|
If you haven't already you can convert the raw files to DNG. I typically get about a 20% file size reduction compared to the Canon raw files.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Baron Dirigible posted:... 2TB of dick pics makes a pleasant diversion from a bleak landscape of nuclear fallout and decay. Three-and-a-half thumbs up. Is paris hilton still terrorizing the land?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
Don't storage space shame me guys, some of us don't have $80 to spend on cheap hard drives!!! Nah it's cool, you're right. This is a lot faster and easier than compressing all my outtakes haha.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
For archival purposes, Lightroom's catalog export is the way to go. Then if you ever want to revisit those pictures you just gotta browse to that directory and LR is cool with it.. it doesn't give a poo poo about where the directory actually exists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
I just bought babby's first DSLR, a nikon D3100. It came with the usual 18-55mm lens. I like landscape photography so I want to get a more long-distance orientated lens on the cheap. From what I understand, the lenses for nikon's full sized DSLR's will fit my camera just fine, but they won't auto-focus because they don't have an internal autofocusing mechanism. I'm ideally hoping to get something like this. I want this specifically because I can't be bothered paying four times as much for a new lens I can't use on any full-sized camera I purchase in the future, when I can get an obsolescent lens for gently caress all. How would I go about focusing the lens manually? Is it done by the ring at the front of the lens? Also, from what I understand, because of the smaller sensor in my camera compared to a full-sized one, the focal length works out to be quite a bit longer. I have no issue with this, in fact it would be somewhat beneficial because I would be getting more 'zoom' without paying for more lens. However, would this affect what I see through the viewfinder? As in, could I expect my photo to come out like it looks in the viewfinder, or would the end result be cropped somehow? Finally, would my camera's light-metering and other functions be 'fooled' into thinking conditions are different to how they actually are due to the artificially inflated focal length, somehow?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
If you like landscape photography wouldn't you want a wide angle rather than a telephoto lens? I got the Sigma 10-22 for my old Nikon D50 and it's great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
Telephotos are fantastic for landscapes and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Anyway, unless I'm horribly mistaken, your 18-55 lens is already cropped, so you're getting the equivalent of a 27-90 lens. I don't think any company sells crop-sensor lenses by their full-frame equivalent terms (for good reason). So your viewfinder is already showing the cropped FOV, and any other lenses should behave identically. If that makes sense. Basically you don't have to worry about anything. I think the only reason you'd ever need to worry about exposure compensation wrt focal length is when you're using extension tubes for macro work, but others here know a lot more about that than I do (paging MrDespair).
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 09:39
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I just bought babby's first DSLR, a nikon D3100. It came with the usual 18-55mm lens. I like landscape photography so I want to get a more long-distance orientated lens on the cheap. Lenses that don't have an internal autofocus motor, denoted by AF instead of AF-S, is a legacy thing. It's wrong to say that all of Nikon's DX bodies lack the motor for AF lenses. So Nikon keep prices down on their entry level cameras, such as your D3100, by not including the in-body motor but there are DX bodies that do have one. For example, the D7100 does. You 18-55mm DX AF-S will work and autofocus on an FX body, although it will switch to crop mode (given that the image circle isn't wide enough to cover the whole sensor). By comparison, Canon crop-lenses (EF-S) won't work on Canon full-frame bodies (the mirror will crash in to the end of the lens) (as understood by a Canon shooter) Pablo Bluth fucked around with this message at 10:13 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 10:10
|
|
|
Lady Gaza posted:If you like landscape photography wouldn't you want a wide angle rather than a telephoto lens? I got the Sigma 10-22 for my old Nikon D50 and it's great. I shoot landscape with a 70-200 all the time. I also use a 10-22
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
Focusing a lens like that manually would be done using a ring on the lens, yes. Did you look at the full line of Nikon AF-S lenses? The 55-200 mm lens is $190 new on amazon. If you can't afford the extra $70 you might be able to find it used for even less. Certainly worth the added convenience of autofocus. Yeah there is a EX condition one on KEH for $84 BANME.sh fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Aug 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Oh no, not another crop-factor focal-length discussion! Slavvy, do you have a bunch of experience shooting 35mm film, like in an SLR? Do you have a bunch of experience with autofocus and don't want to worry about manual focus? If the answer to both those questions is "no", then don't worry about that mess. Pablo Bluth is assuming you will eventually upgrade to a "full-frame" DSLR with a sensor the same size as a frame of 35mm film (24x36mm - the 35mm refers to the total measurement across the width of the film strip covering the sprocket holes on both sides). You might or might not eventually make that upgrade, but in the meantime enjoy shooting your camera. Manual focus is by twisting the narrow ring at the front of that lens you linked. That's true for most zoom lenses from most manufacturers. Among manual-focus lenses, you have the choice of "one touch" and "two touch" - that AF lens, like nearly all AF zooms, is two touch because there are two separate rings to control zoom and focus. On one touch lenses there's a single ring, typically a big fat one, that slides backwards and forwards to control zoom and twists to control focus. Which one is best is completely a matter of personal preference. Some old manual-focus lenses are very heavy because the glass is thick and the body is made of metal, where consumer-grade AF lenses tend to be lighter because they're built from lots of plastic (not the lenses, those are glass, don't worry). That can make a difference to how likely you are to actually take a lens with you when you're out walking around. I don't know enough about Nikon to tell you anything useful about specific lenses, but for a budget of around $120 (based on your link) you should have lots and lots of choices. And telelandscapes are awesomeness, especially in New Zealand where I'm guessing you live. KEH is a good site, they have good selection, good prices, and excellent customer-service, but they're based in Georgia, USA so shipping to places outside of North America tends to be brutally expensive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Thanks guys, all of this is very illuminating! I do live in NZ and yeah, electronics goods tend to be hysterically overpriced here because of the shipping bottleneck; having looked around, $120 is actually a pretty awesome price. I have the feeling getting one from KEH would work out the same/equally expensive because of shipping.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
Baron Dirigible posted:I don't think any company sells crop-sensor lenses by their full-frame equivalent terms (for good reason). Let me tell you about a bunch of retards called Olympus and a 4/3 lens that has "140-600mm" written on it. Not joking.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2014 20:21
|
|