|
Color accuracy SUCKS on pixels that are blinking on the LCD. Yes you can bring back feather details on a white bird, but you absolutely cannot bring back accurate color on a person's face that even close to approaches clipping. Just because there is detail, doesn't mean there is color accuracy. I neither over expose or under expose. I put the values where I want. I meter caucasian skin at +1, black skin at 0, white objects as +1.5, etc. I will let stuff clip if it's unimportant background info that won't benefit from being withheld, if I want a blown out look and a more properly exposes subject, but exposing to the right or left of what you actually need is pretty stupid just for some theoretical extra information/lower noise. That said, if it won't all fit, and I do want it all in, I go with Brad by keeping things from clipping and realize I'll have to boost shadows. Basically every sensor out there has more information recorded below 0 than above.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2009 12:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 11:19 |
|
|
caberham posted:can you please elaborate some more about that picture you posted please? and if you can, educate us digital neanderthals about slide film =D Slide film is awesome. I think wikipedia does a better job at it explaining it than I can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversal_film
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2009 17:49
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Color accuracy SUCKS on pixels that are blinking on the LCD. Yes you can bring back feather details on a white bird, but you absolutely cannot bring back accurate color on a person's face that even close to approaches clipping. Just because there is detail, doesn't mean there is color accuracy. This is so goddamn true. While, like most people, I'm more afraid of blown out highlights than I should be, the only thing you can reliably pull back from highlights is details in whatever color the blown area is. And, like poop said, this isn't a "spergin' about color" thing, if someone's skin is blown out, anything you can haul back from that will usually not resemble the skin color of any race. The same can APPEAR to be true in shadows (I'm talking here about a shadow in a picture where flash was used), like trying to dodge the shadowed side of someone's face a bit gives you blue or yellow or something instead of their actual skin color. Just remember what light source was hitting the area you're screwing with - in the shadow on a flash-lit picture, the light hitting the shadowed side may be a radically different color temperature than the flash-exposed side, especially if you were doing any kind of correction on the flash.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2009 19:02
|
|
|
Is there a good archival setup where I can dump my RAWs when I'm finished playing with them? I would just prefer something that pretends to be a network drive rather than doing complete system backups. Something like JungleDisk except it they use Amazon's cloud and it seems a little steep on the pricing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2009 21:23
|
|
|
notlodar posted:The technicals of the picture or the subject? and the subject of the picture please. So the picture was suppose to be really dark and almost black at -2 EV yet after post production the red body shape became noticeable? quote:Slide film is awesome. I think wikipedia does a better job at it explaining it than I can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversal_film Seems like very few people develop slide film nowadays. So if slide film had superior perceived colour fidelity, how did you get it printed? Were there any other special processes needed to turn a slide film into a 4R? And loading slide film is just like regular film right? It's just that the technique to shoot is very much different than regular film where you overblown things a bit and bring them back??
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2009 23:02
|
|
|
Slides were printed with a process called dye sublimation which no longer exists. Processing slide film is slightly more complicated than C-41, I think it involves 2 extra chemical steps, that plus low demand is why so few labs do it now. Shooting wise it's the opposite of a negative (obviously). On negative film the darkest black is just clear film base so if you underexpose there's nothing in your shadows. For slide film the highlights are the thin areas, so if you overexpose you lose highlight detail because there's nothing there on the film, it's just clear. edit: Actually you can still print slides onto Polaroids. I forgot what the enlargers that do that are called. brad industry fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Oct 12, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2009 23:43
|
|
|
If I wanted to learn how to take real estate photos of a high quality, where would I start? It seems to be all about balancing the lighting, but I'm hoping there's some sites out there dedicated to this form of photography/lighting..?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2009 07:05
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Is there a good archival setup where I can dump my RAWs when I'm finished playing with them? I would just prefer something that pretends to be a network drive rather than doing complete system backups. Something like JungleDisk except it they use Amazon's cloud and it seems a little steep on the pricing. I have started using Mozy to backup all my data including photos. It takes *ages* to do the initial backup if you are doing 160GB like I am but from then on it is incremental and I can easily shove around 2GB a day into it with little trouble. BUT this is a backup system not a network drive style solution and will cost around $5 a month for unlimited storage per machine (no transfer fees). I am also using dropbox for syncing various things between machines. This works more like a network drive but will cost $10 per month for 50GB of storage (no transfer fees). I can't compare this to JungleDisk as their website is down but based on the Amazon pricing I would be paying around $30 a month to use Amazon's storage cloud. I guess the easiest solution is to buy two external hard drives and keep one at work/parents/friends and rotate them on a regular basis, keeping a full copy of everything you want on each. But then you have to buy the hdds and remember to backup with them. Having said that how much do you trust the cloud not to vaporise your data?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2009 09:42
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:If I wanted to learn how to take real estate photos of a high quality, where would I start? It seems to be all about balancing the lighting, but I'm hoping there's some sites out there dedicated to this form of photography/lighting..? Take a large format photography course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2009 15:46
|
|
|
So what's the monitor calibration package de jour around here? I've heard good things about the X-Rite Eye-One Display 2 but if I can get by with something cheaper than $200, all the better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2009 22:21
|
|
|
I use a Huey Pro, ~$70ish. It works just as well as any other I've used.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2009 22:22
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Slides were printed with a process called dye sublimation which no longer exists. Dye transfer's done the ashes to ashes thing, but Ilfochrome/cibachrome is still kicking. The difficulty is finding a lab that still does it. Between customer demand ("hybrid digital" ahoy) and the Oji/Harman split-up kinking the supply chain for months, most labs have dropped it. The Lab and Laumont Studio still print ciba, and if you're in a population center you can probably find at least one nutjob who does it in his darkroom. quote:edit: Actually you can still print slides onto Polaroids. I forgot what the enlargers that do that are called. Daylab. Used to be owned by Polaroid, but they spun it off as they spiraled into bankruptcy. They have a lovely 1993-era web site now. Freestyle still carries them too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2009 23:44
|
|
|
I have an old Nikon 4004 that I am trying to get fixed and I also plan to purchase a decent beginner SLR. My question is how compatible are lenses from an old nikon film camera and a new Nikon? Are there any compatibility issues to look out for or will a Nikon lens usually fit most any Nikon body?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2009 22:11
|
|
|
Atticus_1354 posted:I have an old Nikon 4004 that I am trying to get fixed and I also plan to purchase a decent beginner SLR. My question is how compatible are lenses from an old nikon film camera and a new Nikon? Are there any compatibility issues to look out for or will a Nikon lens usually fit most any Nikon body? A lot of old lenses fit (f-mount, right?) on the newer cameras, though the biggest problem is lack of autofocus and metering. I believe you can check something on ken rockwell's website that discusses some of the compatibilities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2009 22:28
|
|
|
Off-camera flash with a curly-cord... Anyone got any beginners tips? I got the cord thrown in as a sweetener with some new kit, so I figure I'll give it a whirl. I can already see that making sure the flash sensor beam is pointing in the right place with one hand while making the shot with the other will be fun  (Canon 50D + 430EXII)
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2009 23:22
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:Off-camera flash with a curly-cord... Anyone got any beginners tips? I got the cord thrown in as a sweetener with some new kit, so I figure I'll give it a whirl. I can already see that making sure the flash sensor beam is pointing in the right place with one hand while making the shot with the other will be fun Put a diffuser like an Omnibounce or something on it so it won't be so critical where you aim it. Hold the flash as far away from the camera as you can to minimize red eye and make the light less harsh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2009 23:43
|
|
|
HPL posted:Put a diffuser like an Omnibounce or something on it so it won't be so critical where you aim it. Hold the flash as far away from the camera as you can to minimize red eye and make the light less harsh. Cool, I've got an Omni and a Fong dome (somewhere), I'll trial them both. The AF assist beam will be tricky to get pointing perfectly if I'm shooting in dim conditions, but a bit trial and error is part of the fun :p
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2009 23:53
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:A lot of old lenses fit (f-mount, right?) on the newer cameras, though the biggest problem is lack of autofocus and metering. I believe you can check something on ken rockwell's website that discusses some of the compatibilities. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm Everything (except invasive fisheyes) fits on the bottom tier, most fit on everything else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 02:33
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:Cool, I've got an Omni and a Fong dome (somewhere), I'll trial them both.  That said congrats on the kit, and good luck with the lighting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 08:01
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:A lot of old lenses fit (f-mount, right?) on the newer cameras, though the biggest problem is lack of autofocus and metering. I believe you can check something on ken rockwell's website that discusses some of the compatibilities. Get a D200 ($5-600) and it'll do nearly everything on "old" lenses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 13:21
|
|
|
Atticus_1354 posted:I have an old Nikon 4004 that I am trying to get fixed and I also plan to purchase a decent beginner SLR. My question is how compatible are lenses from an old nikon film camera and a new Nikon? Are there any compatibility issues to look out for or will a Nikon lens usually fit most any Nikon body? What's wrong with your Nikon 4004? Probably best off buying another Nikon SLR off of Keh then fixing it. For example, you can buy the excellent Nikon F100 for $165 in EX condition.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2009 19:51
|
|
|
pwn posted:I remember being kinda amazed (coming from Nikon) when I discovered Canons didn't have AF-assist lights in-body. It would suck not having that little light. Cheers Didn't go so bad: http://is.gd/4nBv8 http://is.gd/4nAD1 http://is.gd/4nDdq (though looking at the eye catchlights, these might have been with the flash on the camera rather than with the curly-cord extension) Linked to the full pic rather than the thumbnail page because it was 4am when I finished Lightrooming 
NoneMoreNegative fucked around with this message at 13:01 on Oct 17, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2009 12:33
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:Yerrs, thinking about it, it is a bit of a silly omission - 'if you need it, buy our flash-head for $$$', I suspect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2009 14:12
|
|
|
Oh god, the media is so lazy now they're just posting Google Maps Street View photos with their stories: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Body+found+Surrey/2117284/story.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 20:55
|
|
|
HPL posted:Oh god, the media is so lazy now they're just posting Google Maps Street View photos with their stories:
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 21:05
|
|
|
pwn posted:I remember being kinda amazed (coming from Nikon) when I discovered Canons didn't have AF-assist lights in-body. It would suck not having that little light. My 1000D strobes the pop-up flash for AF assist. It's pretty annoying, not only for the dazzled subjects, but it's slow as hell. So these days I pop on the 430EX II even if I don't need the flash itself, just so I can get the AF assist beam. It seems silly. It has an LED right there for the self-timer, why not use a high-intensity LED there in a dual-purpose role?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2009 23:28
|
|
|
SquallStrife posted:My 1000D strobes the pop-up flash for AF assist. It's pretty annoying, not only for the dazzled subjects, but it's slow as hell. So these days I pop on the 430EX II even if I don't need the flash itself, just so I can get the AF assist beam. Just so you know you can turn this off in the custom functions menu so it doesnt flash for auto assist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 01:41
|
|
|
Any recommendations on how to shoot corporate yet casual (is there such a thing) staff photos? I've got a bit of a rep for being the office photographyer guru so they're getting me to shoot some staff profiles. I've got a couple of wireless speedlights at my disposal and a relatively large boardroom.. might have to play around with a dummy model the day beforehand. Shooting the staff in their environment is also an option but it might be trickier with variable light levels etc.. half the office has a full length window right next to them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 03:01
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:Just so you know you can turn this off in the custom functions menu so it doesnt flash for auto assist. Yeah, I know that, but if you turn it off when it's dark the lens just hunts. Luckily, I have an EX speedlite, but not everyone does... My EOS 500N film body has a regular incandescent light which it uses for AF assist, even that's people-friendlier than the silly flash thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 04:09
|
|
|
SquallStrife posted:My EOS 500N film body has a regular incandescent light which it uses for AF assist, even that's people-friendlier than the silly flash thing. My EOS A2E has a built-in AF assist that's the same NIR grid type of light that they have in the speedlights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 04:15
|
|
|
HPL posted:My EOS A2E has a built-in AF assist that's the same NIR grid type of light that they have in the speedlights. Oh nice. Why don't they include this sort of thing in modern digital bodies? It doesn't seem like an overly expensive thing to add...
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 04:59
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Any recommendations on how to shoot corporate yet casual (is there such a thing) staff photos? I would do a pre-light the day before, get something set up that's pretty general but will work consistently for a lot of different kind of people (you don't want to have to move lights around for people who wear glasses or you know...  ).As far as "corporate yet casual" you're on your own. If someone asked me to do that I would try to get them to clarify that in more meaningful terms. ie "What story do you want to tell?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 05:02
|
|
|
Eh, 'corporate yet casual' to me just means a headshot from waist up where they're leaning into the camera a wee bit and smiling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 05:16
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I would do a pre-light the day before, get something set up that's pretty general but will work consistently for a lot of different kind of people (you don't want to have to move lights around for people who wear glasses or you know... Sounds like they're not going to be too demanding for quality. A flash on a hotshoe with a Lightsphere or Omnibounce or whatever bouncing off the ceiling may be enough. I imagine that they're looking for photos of people at their desks or talking to each other, sort of like those generic stock images of "worker" "desk" "casual".
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 05:18
|
|
|
I've already booked out the board room for the afternoon before so I can play around in there, with the lucky chick that asked me to do it as my test model. It'll be individual shots, so we shall see what ideas I come up with. Cheers... always good to have somewhere to bounce around ideas
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 09:56
|
|
|
Remember, tonight is another good meteor night. http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20091020/sc_space/getoutorionidmeteorshowerpeaksovernight
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2009 20:06
|
|
|
Group photo sharing? What's a really simple way of making a collaborative photo album? I've just been to a conference and I'd like to organise some way for people to share all their photos with other delegates. The catch? I don't expect many of them to particularly web-savvy or into social networking- so I doubt that they will be using flickr already. So what is the simplest way to put together something where people can easily upload their photos into one big group? Ideally, it would not be something that gets pushed around the web a la flickr (ie if you go to a specific url, you can find it, but otherwise it doesn't get indexed and pushed around like flickr public albums) Do I have to set up a complicated flickr private group? Or is there something better/easier?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 05:20
|
|
|
spog posted:Group photo sharing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 11:12
|
|
|
Tziko posted:Picasa released collaboration features for their web albums: http://googlephotos.blogspot.com/2009/08/collaborate-on-picasa-web-albums.html Close - but requires a) each user to download and install Picasa and b) the administrator has to manually add each user to the group.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 12:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 11:19 |
|
|
Any of you guys members at Sportsshooter.com? Worth the $25 a year? I just got "sponsored" for an account and the couple images I uploaded are currently being reviewed. Seems like a bit of a hassle, with lots of very specific instructions, but I think I'm actually happy with that. Weeds out all the morons that seem to populate most of the photography-related forums outside of SA I've come across. Actually, I'm thinking of starting a thread devoted to photography resources on the web. I'm sure there are lots of great resources in the form of blogs, forums, communities, etc. out there that many of us just don't know about it. Think there'd be enough interest to keep something like that up, likely with a continually updated OP?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2009 14:39
|
|
