|
Anyone have any experience with mail in rebates from B&H? I hate MIRs but I trust B&H not to screw me over. Term says 60 days, is that about right?
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
I'm going on a snowboarding trip at the end of January, and I'm debating bringing the SLR to the slopes. Probably no extra lenses, just a pound and a half of metal SLR. The crucial difficulty is carrying it without having it in a place where I can hurt myself on it
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 18:42
|
|
|
A point and shoot would probably be fine. If it's a sunny day, there will be tons of light so even the crappiest of cameras should be able to get adequate shutter speeds. Another option would be one of those helmet cams so you can take photos of whatever you're looking at while you're actually skiing. EDIT: You'll look like a dork, but I'm sure the photos will be awesome: http://www.goprocamera.com/index.php?area=2&productid=1 HPL fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jan 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 18:48
|
|
|
Snaily posted:the nicest place I've thought of yet is just above the knee, between the legs, since that will always be out of the way. I carry my SLR in my pack, but I wear dorsal protection under my coat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 19:02
|
|
|
Snaily posted:I'm going on a snowboarding trip at the end of January, and I'm debating bringing the SLR to the slopes. Probably no extra lenses, just a pound and a half of metal SLR. A point and shoot will probably work better, but if you do want to bring a slr, I suggest strapping it to your chest really good, maybe in sort of an X shape or front backpack-type thing. That way it's easily accessible and pretty safe, without interfering with your legs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 19:26
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You're loving crazy. Not really. With the way you're strapped to the board, the general area between the boots and a feet or two up never is in the way and not an impact area either. If I wasn't renting a board I'd consider making some kind of binding screw hole - quick release adapter and just strap the SLR there. I'll probably borrow a co-riders LX-3 for proper shots, though, and keep a Minox B in a pocket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 19:59
|
|
|
Snaily posted:Minox B
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 21:09
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:Wow. I apologize, because I hate it when people ask me this, but...can you still get film for that? Yes. Minopan 25, 100 and 400 B&W and Minocolor 100 C-41 are all available from the original manufacturer. There are allegedly also a few people who cut 135 or 120 film to 8x11 and refill your cartridges for not that much.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2010 22:19
|
|
|
Hey guys. I'm in Bogota, Colombia for about another week and a half. I brought my first DSLR, a Pentax k-x. I don't have any lenses except for the 18-55mm stock, and honestly not a lot of an experience with a DSLR. I know how a camera works and what all the setting do, that's not the problem. I've been trying to do some photos of this city as it's really diverse, and the area I'm staying in is very unique, but I can't seem to do it. I don't know if the stock lens is too limiting or I'm just terrible so far. I'm trying to capture the unique brightly old area with age old graffiti in contrast with the rebuilt areas. Here's an example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rory_o/4234958186/sizes/l/ Any creative ideas? I read this and will give some of it a shot, but I'll try just about anything. If I can get it to work cool pictures will be taken of an area most people never see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 04:54
|
|
|
Try some really long exposures with aperture cranked way up and iso very low.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 07:15
|
|
|
Is there a reason that the "photoshop tips and tricks" thread was closed after half a page? I'm really clueless when it comes to post-processing (well...I'm pretty clueless when it comes to alot about photography). Can anyone recommend a good book or a few websites for beginners?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 16:34
|
|
|
Reggie Died posted:Is there a reason that the "photoshop tips and tricks" thread was closed after half a page? I'm really clueless when it comes to post-processing (well...I'm pretty clueless when it comes to alot about photography). I'm basically in the same boat as you, and found GIMP really easy to use (and it's free, so hey  ), since there's a couple quick-n-dirty options like AUTO W/B, Color Balance, Brightness, etc. It can't open RAW files, unfortunately, but that's kind of hard to argue with when it's saved a lot of my hockey photos with piss-yellow tint.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 16:50
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I'm basically in the same boat as you, and found GIMP really easy to use (and it's free, so hey If you can ever scrape some money together, Photoshop Elements is really good. It's way faster and easier to use than GIMP and it has more features.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 16:56
|
|
|
HPL posted:If you can ever scrape some money together, Photoshop Elements is really good. It's way faster and easier to use than GIMP and it has more features. Oh , wow that's cheaper than I thought. I'll have to look into it. Thanks! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 17:05
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I'm basically in the same boat as you, and found GIMP really easy to use (and it's free, so hey
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 17:20
|
|
|
dunkman posted:Try some really long exposures with aperture cranked way up and iso very low. I didn't bring a tripod, but I could probably find one easily.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 17:21
|
|
|
DJExile posted:Oh , wow that's cheaper than I thought. I'll have to look into it. Thanks! It's what I use. The downside of Elements is that it can only do some functions in 8-bit mode. Not a huge restriction though. You just do as much work as you can in 16-bit mode before converting to 8-bit and finishing it off. For most basic photo editing functions it'll be more than enough and you'll never look back at GIMP again. Every time I use GIMP nowadays, it's like nails on a chalkboard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 17:22
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:I've never used this with Windows, but you could try UFRaw for working with RAW files in GIMP. HPL posted:It's what I use. The downside of Elements is that it can only do some functions in 8-bit mode. Not a huge restriction though. You just do as much work as you can in 16-bit mode before converting to 8-bit and finishing it off. For most basic photo editing functions it'll be more than enough and you'll never look back at GIMP again. Every time I use GIMP nowadays, it's like nails on a chalkboard. Y'all rule. I'll give the UFRaw a try and see about Elements. Just found out a friend has it so I'll give Elements a try and see how I like both. Thanks a ton!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 17:49
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend a good (preferably free) iphone portfolio/gallery type app? Currently whenever I want to show people something the flickr app is too slow and the main iphone gallery is crowded full of random snapshots between the good things I have saved to the phone. I'd love something that looks sleek and simple, is fast and maybe can make several galleries/categories for some semblance of sorting/order to what I put in it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2010 12:14
|
|
|
Lon Lon Rabbit posted:Can anyone recommend a good (preferably free) iphone portfolio/gallery type app? When I open the iPhone photo app, the main screen is an icon for iPhone Camera pics, and then icons for individual folders sync'd through iTunes. I just keep things organized on my PC and they're pretty separated from the other stuff. Good lord, watch out for compression though, some times things look terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2010 14:29
|
|
|
Keep your poo poo organized on your computer and it'll sync fine to your phone (just point it at the directory you want). If you use smugmug, smugwallet rules.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2010 15:49
|
|
|
UserNotFound posted:When I open the iPhone photo app, the main screen is an icon for iPhone Camera pics, and then icons for individual folders sync'd through iTunes. I just keep things organized on my PC and they're pretty separated from the other stuff. Good lord, watch out for compression though, some times things look terrible.  Had no idea, how simple, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2010 15:59
|
|
|
Wasn't sure where to ask this, but I may ask in a couple threads-- Anyway, I was playing with my camera and I've been tinkering around with color styles (i think that's what it's called?) You can choose between portrait, landscape, neutral, monochrome, etc. and I also installed a few others from the canon site (Studio, Snapshot, etc) Anyway, on the camera they look fine, but when I upload them to my computer they revert back to the original profile (example: if i used the monochrome, when i view it in aperture its in full color) How do I make it so it keeps the ones i actually shot with? I hope my question makes sense :-p I have the 5d mark II if it matters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 23:31
|
|
|
That might be a better question for the Canon thread. I'm not a Canon shooter, but a couple of possibilities come to mind. 1) Are you shooting RAW or JPEG? With a JPEG, what you see is what you get, but RAW files occasionally look a little different when you view them on your computer. 2) What are you using for post-processing? Some photo editing software can, when it loads files, apply presets to your images based on your camera body. Maybe your software thinks it should ignore your custom settings and just display a neutral image?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 23:37
|
|
|
I'm shooting raw, so maybe I'll shoot jpeg for these styles. I'm using aperture to view them. I actually dumped all the raw files into a folder and the preview icons look "correct" but when i open them in preview or aperture they're "corrected" Blah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 23:43
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:I'm shooting raw, so maybe I'll shoot jpeg for these styles. What you can do is shoot raw+jpeg or just shoot raw and extract the embedded jpeg from the raw file.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 23:51
|
|
|
Or use DPP to process the raws. It'll read out the Picture Style or any on-camera settings and apply it. Lightroom/ACR/Aperture/etc. don't know what to do with that information and ignore it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 00:47
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:Wasn't sure where to ask this, but I may ask in a couple threads-- Just a suggestion but unless you have no time to dump images to your computer and tinker around in LR/PS/whatever post program, it's generally just better to shoot in RAW and make the adjustments later. I personally don't like what the camera does so I leave it until post but I realize that some people live in the "OMG I GOTSTA HAVE IT NOW!!!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 01:26
|
|
|
Molten Llama posted:Or use DPP to process the raws. It'll read out the Picture Style or any on-camera settings and apply it. Perfect, I used DPP and it does exactly what I needed it to.  I usually do the post later but it's good to know I can use these if I need to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 02:46
|
|
|
On that note, where can I get the latest DPP? It's hell to find anymore and I think I have a pretty old version.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 02:50
|
|
|
570 megapixel camera. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/...gle+Feedfetcher
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 03:35
|
|
|
germskr posted:570 megapixel camera. this is the exact camera that they take security footage from in CSI
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 04:09
|
|
|
germskr posted:570 megapixel camera. You think there are guys at Fermilab saying, "Dude, 550 is plenty. Get another lens instead."
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 04:13
|
|
|
No. 9 posted:On that note, where can I get the latest DPP? It's hell to find anymore and I think I have a pretty old version. From the Canon download center. Pick "EOS (SLR) Camera Systems", "Digital EOS Cameras," and your model. Make sure your popup blocker is off; Canon loves their loving popups. If you need to download multiple files, clicking "I Decline" will go back to the download list without making you start the whole process over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 04:45
|
|
|
Please excuse my silly n00b question. I want to view RAW files just like any other image files without having to open up heavy image editing software. I use Irfanview (which I quite like) and it can open RAW files fine but it is waaay to slow. Any other good image viewers? I just want it to be fast, not bloated and preferably free.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2010 05:30
|
|
|
Download Canon's RAW codec? I can open my RAWS in regular old Microsoft Picture Viewer just like any other image.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2010 05:48
|
|
|
I downloaded the codec but it seems to do nothing. Even uninstalled Irfanview to let Windows Picture viewer or whatever it's called take over again but it says it's an unknown format or something. I have restarted my computer too. Running Win7 Pro if that helps. Anyone else here using Irfanview? I've set it to load half size RAWs to speed it up a bit but it doesn't seem to make a difference. VV - The codec page is just a bunch of links. Links to the same Canon codec I've already installed. And I don't want to install a program just to view raws, which I can already have but it takes like 10 seconds to load  Thanks anyway though.
Ringo R fucked around with this message at 09:58 on Jan 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2010 08:55
|
|
|
Ringo R posted:I downloaded the codec but it seems to do nothing. Even uninstalled Irfanview to let Windows Picture viewer or whatever it's called take over again but it says it's an unknown format or something. I have restarted my computer too. Running Win7 Pro if that helps. Have you tried this page? http://www.microsoft.com/proPhoto/Resources/all-downloads.aspx There's a codec that should work really well with windows. There's also an image viewer All free!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2010 09:49
|
|
|
Ringo R posted:Please excuse my silly n00b question. I want to view RAW files just like any other image files without having to open up heavy image editing software. I use Irfanview (which I quite like) and it can open RAW files fine but it is waaay to slow. Any other good image viewers? I just want it to be fast, not bloated and preferably free. Well, if you're not going to edit the photos, why are you shooting in RAW? The point of RAW is to give more flexibility when you edit. If you just want to see them how they came out of the camera, you should consider shooting JPG. Or, if I have this all wrong and you just want a fast way to browse through your RAW files for other reasons, you may want to consider shooting RAW + small JPG. The small JPGs are, well, small -- in file size and in dimensions -- so they don't take up much disk space and load pretty quick. Then, when you want to actually edit the image, you just match file names to pull in the RAW.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2010 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 11:27 |
|
|
dakana posted:Well, if you're not going to edit the photos, why are you shooting in RAW? The point of RAW is to give more flexibility when you edit. If you just want to see them how they came out of the camera, you should consider shooting JPG. Alternatively, invest in a faster image viewer-- try a trial of Photo Mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2010 20:27
|
|
