|
A couple hundred photos just disappeared off of my SD card (Sony, 64 GB) after i plugged my camera into my computer. Anyone have a recommendation for a program that can maybe possibly recover some of my poo poo?
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 09:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
Rah! posted:A couple hundred photos just disappeared off of my SD card (Sony, 64 GB) after i plugged my camera into my computer. Anyone have a recommendation for a program that can maybe possibly recover some of my poo poo? https://www.piriform.com/recuva E: Sony has it's very own version: https://www.sony.net/Products/memorycard/en_eu/datarescue/index.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:We're kind of getting off of the moon talk, but now I'm curious what you're shooting with because with Canon version 3 TCs I don't find any noticeable loss of quality when I'm shooting (with 1.4 or 2.0 TCs). The only time I've ever had issues was with the older version 2 TCs (even then it was only really noticeable with the 2.0 TC I found) or with 3rd party TCs. Canon 300 F2.8 IS II with 2x TC III. The 300 + TC is better than 2x zooming on something shot on just the 300 obviously, but comparing the "general quality" of photos at 1:1 and the bare 300 is clearly the winner. I mean, it obviously should be, but i was hoping the quality loss from the TC was less than it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
Who has experience with studio lights? I have some old PCB White Lightnings, but I want to do a shoot where I'm freezing time with some people moving very quickly, running and jumping. I just don't think that the White Lightnings are going to dump their power fast enough. Does anyone have suggestions of what I should look at to rent that would be able to fire very quickly?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
thetzar posted:Who has experience with studio lights? I have some old PCB White Lightnings, but I want to do a shoot where I'm freezing time with some people moving very quickly, running and jumping. I just don't think that the White Lightnings are going to dump their power fast enough. Does anyone have suggestions of what I should look at to rent that would be able to fire very quickly? White Lightnings may work just fine. When people complain about longer flash durations on cheap units they are generally trying to photograph something incredibly fast like bullets or glass breaking. Just get a friend to do some tests with you before shelling out hundreds to rent Profotos, bear in mind flash duration is longest at full power so test the lower settings as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:Canon 300 F2.8 IS II with 2x TC III. I dug up a quick example (at 4000 ISO so excuse the noise) I'll post below of what I think is an image that is nearly just as sharp as an image produced without a TC on the same lens. Canon 1DX, 300mm f/2.8 + 2.0 TC v3, 1/500, f/5.6 Full Image (unedited)  Crop:  I certainly don't look at that image and say "I wish it was sharper".
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Good god, that's lovely. Ok, I have a dumb dumb dumb question. My main photo collection (meaning, RAW files) is on a NAS on my home network, which I normally access using Lightroom on my desktop PC (Windows). I also have a Macbook Pro, on which I use Lightroom, to access photos on a external drive, primarily because I'm taking and editing photos when not at or near home. First, I'm dumb, and I formatted this drive as (some format that only MacOS can access/windows does not recognize). I definitely intend in the future to reformat, but it's unfortunately got a large collection of photos on it already that I need to move to my NAS. So the question: What's the right way to do this? I worked out some scheme where I would import all of the catalogs on my Mac to a different (single) catalog on a separate, Windows readable drive, then import them to a separate catalog on the PC that pulled them from that drive to the NAS. To some extent, this has worked, and I've moved some (maybe half) of them, but I've lost track of which ones I moved and which ones I didn't and it seems like I didn't account for this well in my plan. Please tell me there's a simple means I can do this with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
First thing is to be clear about what exactly you have moved. If you just moved catalogues, then you probably didn't move any actual photos. A Lightroom catalogue is just a database of file locations and the edits made to those files. Exporting catalogues by themselves just moves that database not the files that are referenced by it. You need to move the files themselves using the file explorer in the Library pane of Lightroom. Then you can import them all to a new catalogue or an existing one on your Windows machine as you prefer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Sorry, I was moving the RAW files. The intent being to move the actual existing catalogs over (a small matter compared to thousands of photos) and Find Missing Files to the new drive (with same directory structure). I guess the issue, then, is: Is there a simple way to move the remaining RAW files which I did not move so far, without again moving the files I did already move? The only function that I can find that would seem to do this is robocopy, but I've never been able to get it to work for reasons unbeknownst to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
If I just want to experiment with some macro shots, would I better off with extension tubes or a reverse ring mount? I'm using a crop-sensor body and my 50mm lens has a manual aperture ring so I don't have to worry about jamming open the aperture arm or anything. It seems like either way I lose all electrical contact with the camera body, unless I buy the much more expensive extension tubes, but since I'm already getting used to manual focus only on this lens and I want to learn more about how everything works anyway, I figure that's not a huge deal. I know neither option is as good as just buying a macro lens, but I'm on a tight budget and my first priority is a wide-angle lens anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Your third option is a set of filter-ring magnifiers. They usually come in a set of 3 - +1 / +2 / +4 in some kind of arbitrary definition of increasing magnification. You can pick up a set in the filter-ring-size of your 50mm for less than $50. You don't lose electrical contacts or automatic camera control of the aperture, but the autofocus might freak out. Extension tubes are cheap and cheerful, too, so if you find a set for a good price why not? Tubes also combo nicely with a proper macro lens if you ever decide to spring for one. The screw-on filter mags don't really help a proper macro lens any. I've never used a reverse-mount, so I can't say anything about ease of use. Given you want a wide-angle as your next lens, I vote for the tubes. The degree of magnification is proportional to the focal length of the lens on the end of the tube - 50mm of tube would double the magnification of your 50mm lens, less distance than that and the amount of magnification is correspondingly less. With a wide-angle (say, 14mm for a point of comparison), you'd double your mag at only 14mm of tube length, which is probably achievable in a basic tube set.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Long shot, but figured I'd ask this particular cabal of goons if anyone had any ideas on this. In the new Blade Runner movie, one of the props that appears for like twenty seconds on screen is a portable Voight-Kampff machine, which is used to identify Replicants from Humans. I'm trying to build one, and I started by doing some 3D modelling of the thing...  ... but I can't help but feel like this is based on a real digital camera, at least in part, and I'd love to figure out what. I did a few hours of blind googling for "thin digital camera" which resulted in absolute garbage. Some more images of the camera that I have been able to collect are below.     I fully expect the side-bit that pops out to be custom made, but I feel like the body of that thing is probably a discernible camera base. Anyone got any ideas? I'll probably still make a 3D model of it, but having the body of the camera for reference and scale would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
One of those early digital cameras apple made had a body sort of like that as I recall. Think it was called the Quick Take.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
I mean, just to be clear, my guess right now is that those black panel inserts are covering a traditional front-facing camera like most digital cameras would be expected to have, with the revised lens part that pops out re-oriented on probably a wholly original part created by the prop designer. I'm just curious if the silhouette of the lower body matches anything commercially available. The Quick Take seems to have a camera lined in the fashion of the prop, but otherwise doesn't much resemble the enclosure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
Honestly? That looks like a micro tape recorder of some sort that's been modified so that the microphone section slides out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Your third option is a set of filter-ring magnifiers. They usually come in a set of 3 - +1 / +2 / +4 in some kind of arbitrary definition of increasing magnification. You can pick up a set in the filter-ring-size of your 50mm for less than $50. You don't lose electrical contacts or automatic camera control of the aperture, but the autofocus might freak out. Macro filters are crazy cheap if you watch ebay. I list a ton on there when we get them in and they hardly ever go for more than $15 a set unless they are one of the camera oem brands.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
nmfree posted:Honestly? That looks like a micro tape recorder of some sort that's been modified so that the microphone section slides out. Yeah. No actual miniature camera would be thinnest where the lens is supposed to be, see e.g. even slightly better phone camera lenses sticking out due to being impractical to miniaturise further without compromising quality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 06:33
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Harvey Baldman posted:Long shot, but figured I'd ask this particular cabal of goons if anyone had any ideas on this. The battery bulge in the back is somewhat similar to a Lumia 1020 camera grip / battery case, but agreed that it looks more like a (mini)cassette recorder than anything. Three buttons on the side and you can see the outline where cassette door would be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Your third option is a set of filter-ring magnifiers. They usually come in a set of 3 - +1 / +2 / +4 in some kind of arbitrary definition of increasing magnification. You can pick up a set in the filter-ring-size of your 50mm for less than $50. You don't lose electrical contacts or automatic camera control of the aperture, but the autofocus might freak out. Thanks for the info, that's very helpful! Speaking of wide angle lenses, I have another quick question: since I'm on a crop-sensor body, how wide of a lens would I actually need for landscapes? It seems like most of the ones being sold as wide-angle lenses are like 20-24mm, which doesn't seem that wide with the 1.5x crop factor applied. But then the much wider ones like 8mm are all fisheye lenses. I have the 18-55 kit zoom, so maybe that's good enough for now? There are so many articles about how the kit zoom's quality sucks compared to a prime lens and stuff, but I'm not experienced enough to know how much of that is just people trying to sell me a new lens. The 50mm prime I have does seem much sharper so far, but it could very well just be bad technique on my end when using the kit zoom - it kinda seems like even the cheapest lenses are probably capable of taking extremely sharp pictures, and any softness is due to error on my end.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Speaking of wide angle lenses 1. Your kit zoom at 18mm is a fine wide lens. Landscapes are some of the least-demanding shots as far as a lens is concerned, you can stop down quite a bit because sunlight is wonderful stuff and you're probably focused at infinity anyways. Don't shoot it wide-open, there's no need for 1/2000sec shutter speed for a pile of rocks and trees. Shoot at like f/11, see what that's like. My guess is a lot of that sharpness you're missing will come back. 2. Stop worrying about the crop factor. IT DOES NOT MATTER. Just use your eyeballs to decide what's "wide" and what's "narrow". What's the point of comparing different lenses across different cameras used by different people for different purposes? Just shoot. The numbers are arbitrary, there's nothing magical about millimetres. 3. My favourite landscape shots I've taken have almost all been quite narrow, using telephoto lenses.  Patterson River Campsite by Martin Brummell, on Flickr123mm on a piece-of-poo poo Sigma 100-300 telezoom that cost like $60. Note that the crop factor on my camera is the same as on yours. Flickr "helpfully" tells me that this is 184mm equivalent, which is useless information. I kinda feel like I'm cheating a little bit here, though, because that picture is from the High Arctic where I was super lucky to go during my PhD. But I think my point stands - wide is useful for landscapes, but certainly not synonymous with landscapes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
I think the kit lenses have come a long way. My Nikon kit 18-55 or whatever it is, is 2 versions behind the current one and I was always pleasantly surprised by it and the fact you get image stabilization included is pretty great. Build quality isn't up there with the pro lenses, and you don't get a fixed, fast aperture which is nice, but you can get them cheap and take good photos. With regards to wide angle lenses for landscapes, I'm not of the opinion you need to go ultra wide. Every mm makes a fairly big difference on that end, and I have a 11-16mm which on a crop body goes pretty drat wide. But it's more useful for being stuck in enclosed spaces than it is for outdoor use. In those circumstances it helps to then heavily crop the top and bottom for a more panoramic look, as WA lenses by design make things far away look even further away and small. I actually had a lot of fun shooting mountains and stuff with a 200-500 a few months ago, so don't be too dictated by focal length for this kind of work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Thanks for the info, that's very helpful! Depends on the kind of landscape photo. People also do some landscapes with telephoto lenses. In general anything 24mm (16mm on APS-C) or below is considered ultrawide.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Early on I spent a chunk of change to get a 10-22mm because I figured it was REQUIRED for landscapes, and it turns out I use my 18-55 for everything anyways. The 10-20 does get used, but it's not a mainstay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Ideas for shooting a typical vacation shot of family member standing in front of some building? I typically zoom in a bit to make the building in the background appear larger, but then even with F/16-22 I’m getting blurring of background. If I do the opposite and use a wide angle then obviously my DOF is significantly greater but now said landmark appears tiny. I could try use a wide angle, standing further away from the subject so that both are relatively smaller, and then cropping in post?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Tbh I’d just use my phone for that kind of shot but yeah I think closer to the subject with a wide angle and have them off to one side so you can frame the *important building* in the shot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:1. Your kit zoom at 18mm is a fine wide lens. Landscapes are some of the least-demanding shots as far as a lens is concerned, you can stop down quite a bit because sunlight is wonderful stuff and you're probably focused at infinity anyways. Don't shoot it wide-open, there's no need for 1/2000sec shutter speed for a pile of rocks and trees. Shoot at like f/11, see what that's like. My guess is a lot of that sharpness you're missing will come back. More very helpful info! And yeah I probably worry too much about crop factor, but I've had a few times out shooting with my 50mm where I literally couldn't get a picture because the crop was so tight and I couldn't back up any more to get decent framing. Most of the time it's not an issue, though, and that was definitely just a case of me bringing the wrong lens for the situation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Chiming in to agree about the 18mm being enough for most cases. I've had a lot of fun with an ultrawide on a crop (Sigma 8-16) but it is primarily useful for landscapes when a) you have a *lot* of crazy clouds you want to be the focus of your shot, or b) you want to feature something in the foreground. Not that these are great photos but just some examples... Ultrawide "standard" landscape- kinda boring (could be cropped as mentioned above)  Yellowstone2012 226 on FlickrUltrawide with poo poo in the foreground  Grand Prismatic Spring-6020 on FlickrUltrawide with clouds  Grand Prismatic Spring-6007 on Flickr Yellowstone2012 242 on Flickr
BetterLekNextTime fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Oct 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Having a bison that large in frame at 8mm is wayyyyy too close.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Having a bison that large in frame at 8mm is wayyyyy too close. BetterLekNextTime didn't take the Yellowstone Pledge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
There are many uses for ultrawides. If you are an urban photographer it let's you get large scenes in from the sidewalk. This one is at 10mm. https://flic.kr/p/UVr8aE
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
You make a good point. Yeah, that was from a few years ago- I don't think I would do that again. I'll remove it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Don't know why you'd remove it, the picture already exists so you might as well keep it. Just don't do it again. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Really noobish question: I generally shoot RAW, on cloudy days is it better to expose for the sky and pull up the shadows in post to avoid blowouts? I find even on low ISOs this can get noisy though. Most of my photography at the minute is done whilst I'm at work- I do support work so a lot of my days are spent wandering around the great outdoors with people with schizophrenia etc; they are harmless and tend to either bring binoculars or disposable cameras themselves too. However this means I'm generally out and about in midafternoon where the light is flat and also means I generally only get a short time to take a shot. This has the plus of making me make decisions and I've found my framing is slowly getting better (and definitely faster). I've read Understanding Exposure and have been bingeing the landscape and PAD threads and have picked up loads from them. When I'm out and about on my own I have more time to fiddle with settings obviously, this is more about being able to take maybe one or two shots before moving on- am I gimping myself by going full manual, or should I trust the camera (Sony a5000) in A or S mode? TLDR: better to under or over-expose on grey days to fix in RAW?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
It doesn't seem like a good thing to encourage or glamorize. Plus I'm a wildlife biologist and this doesn't reflect how I normally behave.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
NonzeroCircle posted:TLDR: better to under or over-expose on grey days to fix in RAW? That said, post-processing is boring compared to actually shooting, and is easier when the original shots are good. Set it to Av, add maybe 2/3 of a stop of positive EV comp to bring out things like faces while blowing out the (probably boring) sky, and don't worry about it too much. Off-topic, but do your clients ever get weirded out by your camera or you taking pictures of them / each other / random other things?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
I don't take pictures of them at all, its against our policy unless they ask and even then I'll only take pics of them on their own devices, not mine. We tend to go on the moors, beaches or similar a lot. As it's a mirrorless its a dinky, non-threatening looking camera and fits nicely in a pocket. As I said, I try to shoot quickly so I'm not taking the piss indulging in a hobby whilst working. 99% of my attention is focused on them, but if we're somewhere new or interesting its nice to scope it out and grab sa couple of shots- if I find a good location I will head there on my own time. Quite often I'll get asked 'can you take a picture of that bird/aeroplane/boat/goat/whatever', it's a good way to get them to engage a bit more in their surroundings, I encourage them to take their own photos too. For one in particular we are encouraging him to take pictures of all the nice places he goes to, once he's filled his disposable we're gonna get it processed and make a little scrapbook so when he's feeling low he can look at what he's done and remember everything isn't total poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
So the Photography CC suite got a bunch of changes and upgrades Lightroom 6 will be the last standalone lightroom, ever Lightroom CC as we knew it is renamed to "Lightroom Classic" but keeps the same featureset (and some new features like VASTLY improved performance) An entirely new program, Lightroom CC, which is a cloud based software that works on a wide range of devices, was released. This is built from the ground up with cloud functionality in mind, so Lightroom Mobile is essentially redundant now (?)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
NonzeroCircle posted:and remember everything isn't total poo poo. Seriously though, thanks for the clarification. That's a cool little photo-project and it sounds like you have an interesting job. Any of the automatic or "semi-automatic" (Av, Sv) modes on your mirrorless will probably make good decisions about settings for exposure almost all the time. It knows the Rules, but you know how to break them. Fiddling around in Manual is for off-work times when you can indulge in a little self-obsession.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
spog posted:https://www.piriform.com/recuva sweet, thanks for this. I haven't tried it yet, but i'm hoping i can get at least a few pics back.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
Is there a generally recommended tripod to start with that doesn't cost multiple hundreds of dollars? The one that came with my camera feels super flimsy and isn't very stable so I kinda don't want to use it, but I know that it's generally a good idea to use one whenever possible. Ideally looking for something in the $150 or under range, unless saving a little more means a huge jump in quality.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 00:08
|
|