|
Nothing to read here.
germskr fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Oct 27, 2009 |
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
The flash will freeze it whether it's moving or not. If it's dark and you're using a high f/stop for the flash that would work pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 21:09
|
|
|
I'm retarded. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 21:13
|
|
|
germskr posted:I'm retarded. If only I'd seen the original post. torgeaux fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Oct 28, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 22:12
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:It does mean less control over the outcome, so it might need a few reshoots.. and can only be done in near darkness.. but it'd work, no?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2009 23:31
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:This guy takes 8fps on a D3, combines them in Photoshop and makes them look pretty drat good. Yeah that would work just fine, but, like you said, you will need to work in near perfect darkness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 14:43
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:oh man thats cool, is he in the hampton roads area? need an assistant on anything regarding the shoot? He's in Richmond, I'm gonna stop by on my way up to northern Virginia for a Halloween party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 15:03
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:This guy takes 8fps on a D3, combines them in Photoshop and makes them look pretty drat good. Hell, you don't even need strobes if you just want to do a quick and dirty one. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 17:34
|
|
|
Stupid question, but it's always been nagging me. Is there anyway to get lower than ISO200 on my 40D without going out of a manual setting? I can only get 200 in manual/priorities, but if I throw the camera into Portrait mode it can do 100. Anyway I can bypass this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 19:15
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:This guy takes 8fps on a D3, combines them in Photoshop and makes them look pretty drat good. TsarAleksi posted:Yeah that would work just fine, but, like you said, you will need to work in near perfect darkness. i experimented with this a while ago when I had nothing better to do 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 19:22
|
|
|
No. 9 posted:Stupid question, but it's always been nagging me. This is odd. ISO 100 is the base ISO, available in everything but some autoiso situations. If you can't set it to 100, there's a problem. Did you buy it used? Take a look at the manual. Manual
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 19:28
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:This is odd. ISO 100 is the base ISO, available in everything but some autoiso situations. If you can't set it to 100, there's a problem. Did you buy it used? Take a look at the manual. Manual I can't get below 200 in Manual or Priorities. Only in the C1, C2. C3 modes I can set it at 100.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 20:07
|
|
|
You have on highlight tone priority. REad the manual. It's limited to 200 ISO when that's enabled.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 20:23
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:You have on highlight tone priority. REad the manual. It's limited to 200 ISO when that's enabled. thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 20:29
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:You have on highlight tone priority. REad the manual. It's limited to 200 ISO when that's enabled. Ha. I completely forgot about that limitation. Don't use it, don't have those situations that often.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2009 20:35
|
|
|
I was wondering what file types you guys use to print out pictures. I have a nikon d80, and I know there are different file types on the actual camera to choose from when you're shooting...and I know you can change them in photoshop aswell. I'm asking cause everytime I have them in jpeg format they never print out decently at a kiosk. And its for every digital camera I've ever owned..so I was wondering if there was a special technique I'm missing or something. thanks! I'm kinda new to post-processing so I'm completely lost
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2009 01:03
|
|
|
scorntic posted:I was wondering what file types you guys use to print out pictures. I have a nikon d80, and I know there are different file types on the actual camera to choose from when you're shooting...and I know you can change them in photoshop aswell. I'm asking cause everytime I have them in jpeg format they never print out decently at a kiosk. And its for every digital camera I've ever owned..so I was wondering if there was a special technique I'm missing or something. I know it sounds really wacky, but I use .PNG files because they're small but lossless. If there were no file size limits, I'd use TIFF. But I don't print very often, so I don't know what the actual best format is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2009 01:08
|
|
|
this might sound strange, but I'm making a greyscale zone card for myself.. Would it make a big difference if the dynamic range that was covered was in the very low end of shutter speeds? I did some test shots last night and zone 0 was 30 seconds, all the way up to zone 10 which was about 1/30 IIRC. Would you expect a greycard to look any different if the shutter speed ranged in that range, compared to doing it on a bright sunny day where zone 0 had to be done at 1/4000, covering a completely different range of shutter speeds?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2009 01:50
|
|
|
scorntic posted:I was wondering what file types you guys use to print out pictures. I have a nikon d80, and I know there are different file types on the actual camera to choose from when you're shooting...and I know you can change them in photoshop aswell. I'm asking cause everytime I have them in jpeg format they never print out decently at a kiosk. And its for every digital camera I've ever owned..so I was wondering if there was a special technique I'm missing or something. check out https://www.drycreekphoto.com for lots of more info and the print thread. Brad Industry and others have lots of insights. If there are a few keepers, I recommend shooting in RAW because it's much easier to do post processing work. You can fine tune white balance and the colours more than JPEG. I'm a newbie at this too but it's not really the file type that's the major concern. It's the printer's ICC colour profile which affects how your picture looks on paper. When you make adjustments, adjust your monitor's ICC profile to your designated printer. If they don't have a ICC profile, then ask if they print in sRGB or CYMK. CHange your settings accordingly and hopefully the pictures turn our right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2009 18:17
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:this might sound strange, but I'm making a greyscale zone card for myself.. It shouldn't matter, assuming that zone 5 is 18% percent or whatever and you're metering off zone 5 and the rest of the zones are getting the same light. 30 seconds and 1/30th are about 10 stops apart so I think you're doing it right. Did zone 5 meter at 1"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2009 19:01
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:this might sound strange, but I'm making a greyscale zone card for myself.. Yes that's going to be a pretty major problem because of reciprocity failure at the longer shutter speeds.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2009 19:08
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Yes that's going to be a pretty major problem because of reciprocity failure at the longer shutter speeds. Thanks, That's what I thought. I just didn't know the technical term for it. I'm doing an correspondence course at the moment, and one of the assignments was to make a greycard and test the dynamic range of your cameras. It was so drat dark inside that zone 10 ended up being 30 seconds long, and I was thinking "surely i'd get different results much quicker shutter speeds" Edit: after a decent google, it sounds like Reciprocity failure is only applicable to film, not so much digital photography.. is that correct? Cyberbob fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Oct 29, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2009 21:30
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:
Correct.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2009 06:10
|
|
|
On digital you just have to be a bit careful about noise in long exposures.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2009 10:19
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:On digital you just have to be a bit careful about noise in long exposures. Curse you, red pixels!  Also, Reciprocity Failure would be a great name for a technical death metal band.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2009 15:37
|
|
|
point-n-shoot question I am a VERY beginner-level picture taker with a Powershot Pro1. I just saw that the SX120IS is out and cheap: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-SX120IS-Digital-Stabilized/dp/B002LITT3S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1256920483&sr=1-1 I asked about replacing my Pro1 in this thread a month ago or so, and was told to keep it because its sensor is bigger than in the new Powershots. Is the consensus really that I am better off with a 5 year old camera with a 2/3" ccd than a fancy-schmancy new one with a 1/2.5" ?? edit: What about the G11? I'd be willing to wait for the price to drop on those if that 1/1.7 made it that much better. Very Strange Things fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Oct 30, 2009 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2009 18:05
|
|
|
Newbie question... no, not me. I'm trying to teach a friend of mine the basics of shooting, and she's having trouble coming up with inspiration to start burning through film. Is there anything out there that anyone knows of that's sort of like an idea list for beginners? I can teach her how to work the camera and I can offer up suggestions for composition, but she's got to be the one that is inspired to point it at something. Any help would be appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2009 18:55
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Is there anything out there that anyone knows of that's sort of like an idea list for beginners? I can teach her how to work the camera and I can offer up suggestions for composition, but she's got to be the one that is inspired to point it at something. Any help would be appreciated. Go for a walk in the park. Nature is easy to photograph because it doesn't move. You can focus on individual subjects like flowers or you can do landscapes. There will most likely be widely varying light conditions as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2009 18:59
|
|
|
What about shoot a roll of images that focuses on each of the elements and principles of design? http://www.wiu.edu/art/courses/design/intro.htm ie. shoot one that shows texture, one for repetition, one for symmetry, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2009 19:03
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Newbie question... no, not me. When I started film in high school, I took rolls and rolls and skateboarding shots. Are you into any group activities? Maybe it would be easier to just try and document something. Give you something to focus on, set it on aperture priority and just get comfortable with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2009 19:12
|
|
|
I met Shaun this afternoon, the camera truck guy. He showed me the truck and talked about the process, then pulled out a couple enormous finished prints to take a look at, which were super cool. The photos I took are nothing special at all, basically quick snaps while he was doing a few things. I was focusing more on the reporting aspect, since I'm gonna write a story on him. All the same, when I've put that stuff together in the next day or two I'll share it here.  He's a really cool guy, by the way. He's not a photographer by trade. He's in marketing, just always been interested in photography and decided to try out his crazy idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2009 22:40
|
|
|
I used to think ISO 100 was the "best" ISO. Now, it seems most high-end cameras start at 200. Can someone explain this to me? I am thinking it has something to do with the switch from CCD to CMOS sensors. I skimmed the Wikipedia article and found this relevant bit: quote:For example, a camera sensor may have the following properties: S40:1 = 107, S10:1 = 1688, and Ssat = 49. According to the standard, the camera should report its sensitivity as
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 06:20
|
|
|
Spectracide posted:I used to think ISO 100 was the "best" ISO. Now, it seems most high-end cameras start at 200. Can someone explain this to me? I am thinking it has something to do with the switch from CCD to CMOS sensors. You really can't generalize, it just depends on what sensor and what body you're talking about. Most Canons go to ISO 100, most Nikons start at 200.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2009 07:35
|
|
|
I'm pretty much a complete newbie, so forgive the potentially really lame question that follows. What kind of camera is needed to take those really cool night time cityscape photos? This is an example of what I'm talking about. Is that anything special? Or can it be done with a pretty much anything?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2009 04:40
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:I'm pretty much a complete newbie, so forgive the potentially really lame question that follows. Tripod.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2009 05:13
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:I'm pretty much a complete newbie, so forgive the potentially really lame question that follows. Tripod and a long shutter speed. Most cameras can do this decently, you just need to avoid shake as the camera takes light in, so, yeah, tripod.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2009 07:02
|
|
|
Or if you are really poor a solid ledge that won't move and ISN'T right next to water so your camera gets blown off into it. Put on self timer so you don't move the camera by pressing the shutter button.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2009 07:03
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:I'm pretty much a complete newbie, so forgive the potentially really lame question that follows. Any camera with some level of manual control. Turn off the flash, set to lowest ISO, shoot for long exposure. Self-timer and camera not hand held. Ta da.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2009 14:13
|
|
|
Spectracide posted:I used to think ISO 100 was the "best" ISO. Now, it seems most high-end cameras start at 200. Can someone explain this to me? I am thinking it has something to do with the switch from CCD to CMOS sensors. My best guess is that they do this so that they can get cleaner pictures at the high end. If they start at a faster ISO they can end at a faster ISO. If ISO 100 was the base, then 3200 would be the max. Instead, 6400 is the max (and then you can push it to 12,800 or 25,600). To answer your other question, no, a sensor that starts at 200 is not worse than one that starts at 100. They're just different. You have to look at the other characteristics of the sensor to determine if one is better than the other. Where the 200/100 thing becomes a problem is when you take a camera whose native ISO is 200 and lower it to 100, because the camera has to perform additional functions to get that to work and it can affect image quality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2009 14:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
I found the answer. Nothing to see here.
ConspicuousEvil fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Nov 11, 2009 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2009 04:29
|
|
