General Photography Questions Megathread v4 - Don't Listen to Any of These Freaks

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > General Photography Questions Megathread v4 - Don't Listen to Any of These Freaks

«‹›461 »

tk: Dec 10, 2003; Nap Ghost

Rick posted:

Okay so I know how to see this either on the camera or on a computer, but I'm not sure how to get this to you; will the data survive an upload to IMGUR? Or should I just type it up? Or I can just post dropbox links?

Sorry, I'm dumb.

Flickr is most commonly used around these parts. Dropbox would probably work, but I believe imgur strips exif data.

# ? Aug 17, 2017 14:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 10:32

EL BROMANCE: Jun 10, 2006; COWABUNGA DUDES!
🥷🐢😬

It's worth remembering that the D60 is almost 10 years old, while your cellphone is probably a year or two.

For shutter speed the general rule of thumb for your setup is 1.5x the focal length should be your slowest setting. So if you're at 50mm then 1.5 x 50 = 1/75. If you have lenses with VR then you can buy yourself a stop or two.

Naturally this speed will only counter your movement and if you're photographing something else that's moving you need to take that into account, and go much faster.

ISO is going to be your issue with a maximum of 1600 (I'll presume the 3200 'high' option is unusable garbage. On my D50 which is a bit older it had a max ISO of 1600 with 800 being the usable max). In good lighting, you're fine... in the dark with moving objects and no flash, you'll be limited.

Cellphone sensors are super small, and the lenses attached to them are fixed. On an iPhone in full frame equivalence you're talking a similar field of view as a 28mm lens. The aperture also scales similarly, so you have the equivalent aperture of f11 on a full frame sensor when it comes to what's in focus. ISO doesn't have a strict measurement between manufacturers so that's less important, just know what works well on your camera.

So, If you're using the stock lens that's variable aperture, you might want to look at something like the 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 lenses. No VR but much faster apertures than stock, so helps with low light. They're also on the low end price wise, and second hand is a good place to pick up stuff.

You might also find the cellphone pictures wouldn't stand up as well if printed, but if you don't care about print that doesn't really matter.

# ? Aug 17, 2017 17:27

thetzar: Apr 22, 2001; Fallen Rib

What kind of a computer does Lightroom not drag rear end on?

# ? Aug 17, 2017 20:42

VelociBacon: Dec 8, 2009

thetzar posted:

What kind of a computer does Lightroom not drag rear end on?

Anything with more than 4 cores (actual + hyperthreaded) at >3ghz and >8gb of ram. Make sure it's installed on an SSD. I feel like GPU is less impactful but I've always had something pretty powerful in there so I can't speak to the difference.

# ? Aug 17, 2017 20:51

Rick: Feb 23, 2004; When I was 17, my father was so stupid, I didn't want to be seen with him in public. When I was 24, I was amazed at how much the old man had learned in just 7 years.

tk posted:

Flickr is most commonly used around these parts. Dropbox would probably work, but I believe imgur strips exif data.

EL BROMANCE posted:

It's worth remembering that the D60 is almost 10 years old, while your cellphone is probably a year or two.

For shutter speed the general rule of thumb for your setup is 1.5x the focal length should be your slowest setting. So if you're at 50mm then 1.5 x 50 = 1/75. If you have lenses with VR then you can buy yourself a stop or two.

Naturally this speed will only counter your movement and if you're photographing something else that's moving you need to take that into account, and go much faster.

ISO is going to be your issue with a maximum of 1600 (I'll presume the 3200 'high' option is unusable garbage. On my D50 which is a bit older it had a max ISO of 1600 with 800 being the usable max). In good lighting, you're fine... in the dark with moving objects and no flash, you'll be limited.

Cellphone sensors are super small, and the lenses attached to them are fixed. On an iPhone in full frame equivalence you're talking a similar field of view as a 28mm lens. The aperture also scales similarly, so you have the equivalent aperture of f11 on a full frame sensor when it comes to what's in focus. ISO doesn't have a strict measurement between manufacturers so that's less important, just know what works well on your camera.

So, If you're using the stock lens that's variable aperture, you might want to look at something like the 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 lenses. No VR but much faster apertures than stock, so helps with low light. They're also on the low end price wise, and second hand is a good place to pick up stuff.

You might also find the cellphone pictures wouldn't stand up as well if printed, but if you don't care about print that doesn't really matter.

Yeah, you are correct settings wise, and that explanation makes a lot of sense.

I've been looking to pick a 35mm lens up anyway so this kind of seals that it's a good idea. If I really like taking night time pictures though, it sounds like I should have a long term goal of upgrading cameras. Speaking of, I had a Nikon F-100 in the car too, that I'm really just barely learning to use, but would I have been better off with that?

# ? Aug 17, 2017 23:15

Helen Highwater: Feb 19, 2014; And furthermore; Grimey Drawer

Ok, it looks as though you had the 55-200mm kit lens. It's not a great lens (kit zooms with a lot of range rarely are) but you should be able to capture that scene with the camera and lens combo that you have.

Firstly, you'll need to stay zoomed out as far as you can, because the aperture changes as you zoom in and that is going to crimp your style a lot. Also, by staying at the close end of the zoom, you can handhold at lower speeds.

I looked at DSC_1503 which was shot at 1/50th second, ISO 3200 and f/4. You were at the minimum zoom and the widest aperture when you took it which is good. You can see that there is some blur from camera shake and you can also see a lot of noise (the red 'mist' around the lights).

The problem you have is that there is a lot of dynamic range. That means there's a massive difference between the lightest parts and the darkest parts of the image. Even really good cameras aren't going to properly expose all of a scene like that, so you have to choose which parts you want to see and expose for that. Your metering mode was set to centre weighted average, which means that it measures the light all over the scene and tried to come up with an exposure level that works for all of it (giving more weight to the area around the focus point). As I just mentioned though, there isn't an exposure that's going to work for all of the scene. So, the first thing to do is to change the metering mode to spot metering. This is going to ignore everything in the scene except the part that you are focused on and work out an exposure for that. In your case, that's going to be some bright lights so the rest of the image is going to be pretty dark. Depending on what's going on, you might be ok with that, or you might want to tell the camera to try and get some of those darker areas as well. You do that by setting an exposure compensation. Basically your lightmeter is going to look at the lights and figure out an exposure that's correct for those. You'll get a relatively fast speed because the lights are bright and the lightmeter won't care about the dark scene around them. If you set an exposure compensation of say, +2 or +3, then the camera will calculate an exposure that's 2 or 3 stops overexposed. That means your lights are now going to be very, very bright but you'll get some detail in the shadows too. You can usually set the exposure compensation directly on the camera (so that when the exposure meter says you are correctly exposed, you are actually 2 or 3 stops over), or you can use the exposure meter and just set the shutterspeed so that the indicator is towards the right-hand side of the meter.

Finally, if you shoot in RAW format, you can salvage a lot of blown highlights and lost shadows in post-processing. The downside of shooting in RAW is that you have to post-process, even if all you are doing is converting it to jpeg. But, to be honest, you should be doing at least some processing to any picture you care about enough to publish anyway.

# ? Aug 18, 2017 00:43

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

thetzar posted:

What kind of a computer does Lightroom not drag rear end on?

Watch this video, http://f16.click/tips/speed-up-lightroom-with-fuji-files.html specifially the part on using smart previews. Doing that alone has made postprocessing weddings on a 4 year old laptop bearable for me.

# ? Aug 18, 2017 02:22

xzzy: Mar 5, 2009

Smart previews trick doesn't help if you're working on a laptop with internal storage. :v:

I guess an external drive is the right answer, but I got too much poo poo in my travel bag already.

# ? Aug 18, 2017 02:24

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

xzzy posted:

Smart previews trick doesn't help if you're working on a laptop with internal storage.

I guess an external drive is the right answer, but I got too much poo poo in my travel bag already.

Yes it does. Make smart previews, close LR, then rename the folder containing the raws and restart LR. You just have to exit LR and rename the folder back to the original name before export or it will export smart preview sized images.

# ? Aug 18, 2017 02:27

Rick: Feb 23, 2004; When I was 17, my father was so stupid, I didn't want to be seen with him in public. When I was 24, I was amazed at how much the old man had learned in just 7 years.

Helen Highwater posted:

Ok, it looks as though you had the 55-200mm kit lens. It's not a great lens (kit zooms with a lot of range rarely are) but you should be able to capture that scene with the camera and lens combo that you have.

Firstly, you'll need to stay zoomed out as far as you can, because the aperture changes as you zoom in and that is going to crimp your style a lot. Also, by staying at the close end of the zoom, you can handhold at lower speeds.

I looked at DSC_1503 which was shot at 1/50th second, ISO 3200 and f/4. You were at the minimum zoom and the widest aperture when you took it which is good. You can see that there is some blur from camera shake and you can also see a lot of noise (the red 'mist' around the lights).

The problem you have is that there is a lot of dynamic range. That means there's a massive difference between the lightest parts and the darkest parts of the image. Even really good cameras aren't going to properly expose all of a scene like that, so you have to choose which parts you want to see and expose for that. Your metering mode was set to centre weighted average, which means that it measures the light all over the scene and tried to come up with an exposure level that works for all of it (giving more weight to the area around the focus point). As I just mentioned though, there isn't an exposure that's going to work for all of the scene. So, the first thing to do is to change the metering mode to spot metering. This is going to ignore everything in the scene except the part that you are focused on and work out an exposure for that. In your case, that's going to be some bright lights so the rest of the image is going to be pretty dark. Depending on what's going on, you might be ok with that, or you might want to tell the camera to try and get some of those darker areas as well. You do that by setting an exposure compensation. Basically your lightmeter is going to look at the lights and figure out an exposure that's correct for those. You'll get a relatively fast speed because the lights are bright and the lightmeter won't care about the dark scene around them. If you set an exposure compensation of say, +2 or +3, then the camera will calculate an exposure that's 2 or 3 stops overexposed. That means your lights are now going to be very, very bright but you'll get some detail in the shadows too. You can usually set the exposure compensation directly on the camera (so that when the exposure meter says you are correctly exposed, you are actually 2 or 3 stops over), or you can use the exposure meter and just set the shutterspeed so that the indicator is towards the right-hand side of the meter.

Finally, if you shoot in RAW format, you can salvage a lot of blown highlights and lost shadows in post-processing. The downside of shooting in RAW is that you have to post-process, even if all you are doing is converting it to jpeg. But, to be honest, you should be doing at least some processing to any picture you care about enough to publish anyway.

Thank you, very helpful, I'm going to save this.

I do normally shoot RAW and JPEG, since I am rarely filling up my memory card (I usually import the jpegs of almost everything I shoot into Photos and leave the RAW on my phone for a while and save any that I still think are good after six months or whatever to an external drive), but for whatever reason I found when I was importing it that I had RAW off for some reason this time.

# ? Aug 18, 2017 02:44

xzzy: Mar 5, 2009

On the topic of Lightroom speeding up: is there a way to batch calculate histogram so I don't get a spinner the first time I look at a photo? Generating previews/smart previews doesn't seem to do this.

Edit - nevermind I'm an imbecile. Building standard previews generates the histogram.

xzzy fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Aug 18, 2017

# ? Aug 18, 2017 03:14

underage at the vape shop: May 11, 2011; by Cyrano4747

whats the sweet point of price to performance of getting a colour calibrator? what ones are good?

# ? Aug 18, 2017 03:26

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

underage at the vape shop posted:

whats the sweet point of price to performance of getting a colour calibrator? what ones are good?

The X-Rite ColorMunki Display is a pretty decent calibrator for the price.

# ? Aug 18, 2017 04:03

underage at the vape shop: May 11, 2011; by Cyrano4747

alkanphel posted:

The X-Rite ColorMunki Display is a pretty decent calibrator for the price.

And it doesn't even break the bank, thanks

# ? Aug 18, 2017 05:26

alkanphel: Mar 24, 2004

underage at the vape shop posted:

And it doesn't even break the bank, thanks

It only breaks the bank if you're really really serious. Then you also do printer calibration, and you get a proper monitor like an Eizo, and special color temperature controlled lamps.

# ? Aug 18, 2017 06:42

rio: Mar 20, 2008

I don't plan on taking eclipse photos beyond a picture of my daughter and me looking at it for the sake of posterity. But I have still been reading about it and someone mentioned taking a photo of the non- eclipsed sun at f32 and 1/8000 exposure. He got a blown out photo of the sun but is thinking of trying it with the eclipse. With electronic shutter speed going higher, would it be possible to take such a small aperture, high speed photo without damaging a mirrorless camera? I would try it just to see but I don't want to fry my camera just out of curiosity.

# ? Aug 20, 2017 16:15

VelociBacon: Dec 8, 2009

rio posted:

I don't plan on taking eclipse photos beyond a picture of my daughter and me looking at it for the sake of posterity. But I have still been reading about it and someone mentioned taking a photo of the non- eclipsed sun at f32 and 1/8000 exposure. He got a blown out photo of the sun but is thinking of trying it with the eclipse. With electronic shutter speed going higher, would it be possible to take such a small aperture, high speed photo without damaging a mirrorless camera? I would try it just to see but I don't want to fry my camera just out of curiosity.

The way to do this is actually with ND filters but the problem actually becomes that you wouldn't be able to see your daughter and yourself in the same shot as a properly exposed sun. You would be completely black and the sun would be properly exposed, or the sun would just be a huge highlight spot and you'd be properly exposed.

# ? Aug 20, 2017 16:24

xzzy: Mar 5, 2009

From what I can tell it's sort of a grey area, though best practice is obviously to never point a lens at the sun.

I think it's mostly a function of focal length and sun elevation because I know we've all pointed our cameras at the sun for a wide angle sunset or whatever and there isn't a plague of landscape photographers out there charring their bodies.

I think if you keep it short it'll be okayish. I'd use live view though.

# ? Aug 20, 2017 16:25

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

VelociBacon posted:

The way to do this is actually with ND filters but the problem actually becomes that you wouldn't be able to see your daughter and yourself in the same shot as a properly exposed sun. You would be completely black and the sun would be properly exposed, or the sun would just be a huge highlight spot and you'd be properly exposed.

All you need is a few thousand watt seconds of fill flash.

# ? Aug 20, 2017 21:01

dakana: Aug 28, 2006; So I packed up my Salvador Dali print of two blindfolded dental hygienists trying to make a circle on an Etch-a-Sketch and headed for California.

8th-snype posted:

All you need is a few thousand watt seconds of fill flash.

I have 5 normal speedlights and 1 AD200 which is 200w/s, and now I'm kind of curious to see if they'd do anything at all during the 90% totality.

# ? Aug 20, 2017 23:04

rio: Mar 20, 2008

VelociBacon posted:

The way to do this is actually with ND filters but the problem actually becomes that you wouldn't be able to see your daughter and yourself in the same shot as a properly exposed sun. You would be completely black and the sun would be properly exposed, or the sun would just be a huge highlight spot and you'd be properly exposed.

Yeah, I'm aware of that - I would have prepared with a heavy duty nd filter if I was planning on shooting it. I just meant that the only picture I will be taking during the eclipse was of me and my daughter but was curious about a photographer friend on Facebook talking about shooting with f32 and 1/8000. Wide angle shouldn't be an issue but he was talking about shooting a big telephoto lens and I was just wondering if the short exposure and small aperture would protect his camera or if he were asking for trouble and even with such a small amount of light (relatively speaking) coming through it he was asking for trouble. He already did that shooting the normal midday sun and his camera is still working but who knows about problems down the road unless there is some way to know if it is safe or not. I am pretty curious in general so I would love to try it with the x-t2 electronic shutter maxed out as close as I could get with the lenses I have but I'm concerned about frying something for the sake of curiosity even though his camera seems to be fine.

# ? Aug 20, 2017 23:17

xzzy: Mar 5, 2009

dakana posted:

I have 5 normal speedlights and 1 AD200 which is 200w/s, and now I'm kind of curious to see if they'd do anything at all during the 90% totality.

It's easy to calculate, the solar filters considered safe for eyes have an equivalent f-stop reduction of 16.6.

Photography safe ones are a mere 12.6 stops.

(None of this considers filters blocking UV, which proper solar filters will)

# ? Aug 21, 2017 00:59

Father O'Blivion: Jul 2, 2004; Get up on your feet and do the Funky Alfonzo

rio posted:

I don't plan on taking eclipse photos beyond a picture of my daughter and me looking at it for the sake of posterity. But I have still been reading about it and someone mentioned taking a photo of the non- eclipsed sun at f32 and 1/8000 exposure. He got a blown out photo of the sun but is thinking of trying it with the eclipse. With electronic shutter speed going higher, would it be possible to take such a small aperture, high speed photo without damaging a mirrorless camera? I would try it just to see but I don't want to fry my camera just out of curiosity.

Stage a double-exposure.

# ? Aug 21, 2017 02:04

dakana: Aug 28, 2006; So I packed up my Salvador Dali print of two blindfolded dental hygienists trying to make a circle on an Etch-a-Sketch and headed for California.

rio posted:

Yeah, I'm aware of that - I would have prepared with a heavy duty nd filter if I was planning on shooting it. I just meant that the only picture I will be taking during the eclipse was of me and my daughter but was curious about a photographer friend on Facebook talking about shooting with f32 and 1/8000. Wide angle shouldn't be an issue but he was talking about shooting a big telephoto lens and I was just wondering if the short exposure and small aperture would protect his camera or if he were asking for trouble and even with such a small amount of light (relatively speaking) coming through it he was asking for trouble. He already did that shooting the normal midday sun and his camera is still working but who knows about problems down the road unless there is some way to know if it is safe or not. I am pretty curious in general so I would love to try it with the x-t2 electronic shutter maxed out as close as I could get with the lenses I have but I'm concerned about frying something for the sake of curiosity even though his camera seems to be fine.

My take would be that if you aim a telephoto directly at the sun, you've got magnified, focused, and concentrated sunlight hitting whatever's behind your lens regardless of whether or not you're actively taking a photo. I'd imagine you've got a chance of damaging the sensors responsible for autofocus, metering, live view, etc.

# ? Aug 21, 2017 15:01

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

I just want everyone to know that I didn't even bother to go outside for the eclipse, the sun can gently caress off.

# ? Aug 21, 2017 20:28

luchadornado: Oct 7, 2004; A boombox is not a toy!

8th-snype posted:

I just want everyone to know that I didn't even bother to go outside for the eclipse, the sun can gently caress off.

gently caress the sun, hail Satan.

# ? Aug 22, 2017 15:05

xzzy: Mar 5, 2009

It was pretty crazy to watch in person. :colbert:

The eclipse itself is not the most remarkable part, the way light changes on the ground is what was really trippy.

# ? Aug 22, 2017 16:24

Bubbacub: Apr 17, 2001

Anyone know how to stack eclipse shots? I took a continuous sequence of -4EV,-2EV,0EV,+2EV,+4EV for the entire totality through a 420mm lens. There's some nice detail in the corona, but I'm at a loss at how to process the shots in Photoshop.

# ? Aug 23, 2017 03:46

xzzy: Mar 5, 2009

I've been trying to figure it out too, over a lovely 4g connection in the back woods. It's a rabbit hole of sketchy as gently caress astronomy software so far.

I have figured out you can't simply merge them as hdr!

# ? Aug 23, 2017 04:08

Bubbacub: Apr 17, 2001

I've figured out that I can't apply radial gradient masks to blend the layers without it looking like dogshit.

# ? Aug 23, 2017 04:30

Popelmon: Jan 24, 2010; wow
so spin

Looks like Tony Northrup has a template for Lightroom!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDdWEAJXoM8

# ? Aug 23, 2017 21:55

Bubbacub: Apr 17, 2001

gently caress it, just slapped the layers together in PS and messed around with the curves.

2017-08-21 - Eclipse - Casper WY by Jason the Hutt, on Flickr

# ? Aug 24, 2017 01:46

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

Bubbacub posted:

gently caress it, just slapped the layers together in PS and messed around with the curves.

2017-08-21 - Eclipse - Casper WY by Jason the Hutt, on Flickr

I hope you don't mind but I took the liberty of making a few edits that I think really improve the image.

# ? Aug 24, 2017 02:01

Bubbacub: Apr 17, 2001

You jest, but here's an uncropped view of the eclipse. It was impossible not to stare at it.

# ? Aug 24, 2017 03:01

rio: Mar 20, 2008

Funny, I thought there might have been a wedding ring and a man elaborately manipulating himself.

# ? Aug 24, 2017 03:04

underage at the vape shop: May 11, 2011; by Cyrano4747

If only the goatse contest was this month

# ? Aug 24, 2017 06:41

voodoorootbeer: Nov 8, 2004; We may have years, we may have hours, but sooner or later we push up flowers.

I need to buy an Instax Wide camera at a brick and mortar store today or tomorrow. All of the Best Buys, Wal-Marts, and Targets near me are out of stock or don't carry the wide. He;lp.

# ? Aug 30, 2017 20:09

8th-snype: Aug 28, 2005; My office is in the front room of a run-down 12 megapixel sensor but the rent suits me and the landlord doesn't ask many questions.

Dorkroom Short Fiction Champion 2012; Young Orc

voodoorootbeer posted:

I need to buy an Instax Wide camera at a brick and mortar store today or tomorrow. All of the Best Buys, Wal-Marts, and Targets near me are out of stock or don't carry the wide. He;lp.

Where do you live?

# ? Aug 31, 2017 01:40

Air Skwirl: May 13, 2007; Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed shitposting.

voodoorootbeer posted:

I need to buy an Instax Wide camera at a brick and mortar store today or tomorrow. All of the Best Buys, Wal-Marts, and Targets near me are out of stock or don't carry the wide. He;lp.

If you'd asked just a few hours earlier you could've probably just used Amazon Prime

# ? Aug 31, 2017 04:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 8, 2024 10:32

voodoorootbeer: Nov 8, 2004; We may have years, we may have hours, but sooner or later we push up flowers.

8th-snype posted:

Where do you live?

Southwest PA, but I'm driving to Western VA tomorrow.

I dropped my 210 and the only visible damage was the battery door clasp. The first two shots seemed to work ok but after that it refused to eject. I took the cartridge out in my darkbag and pulled the front film sheet, then put it back together. Next shot after it cleared the nonexistant dark slide worked just fine so maybe I don't have to buy a new one after all?

# ? Aug 31, 2017 06:01

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > General Photography Questions Megathread v4 - Don't Listen to Any of These Freaks

«‹›461 »