|
King Nothing: Don't worry about it. Depends entirely on what you're shooting and light conditions.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:49 |
|
|
Yeah its just a rough rule of thumb. If you have a steady hand or can brace against something you can go lower. Also, if you are hopped up on coffee you might need to go higher :p
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 21:31
|
|
|
King Nothing posted:Over in the Canon thread they're talking about how your minimum shutter speed should be 1/focal length for...maximum sharpness I guess? How does this apply to P&S cameras? My S90's lens is 6.0-22.5mm, which is a 28-105mm equivalent in 35mm. So if I'm fully zoomed out, does that mean I should aim for a 1/28th second minimum shutter speed? Does the f-rating of the lens matter at all? Generally when people use this rule, they are already shooting 'wide open' at the largest aperture because there isn't enough light. The sharpness you're referring to is the steadiest an average person can hold the camera still while taking the picture. Your're S90 should also have some image stabilization built in. On my Fuji p&S, that IS makes a good bit of difference in low light.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 21:45
|
|
|
Can anyone tell me what James Day doing to make his portraits look like this? Click here for the full 630x619 image.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 01:51
|
|
|
Hard rim lights, some kind of really direct, frontal light source (looks like it might be two umbrellas on each side). Then digitally really clean color correction and probably some kind of high pass to bring out detail / up contrast.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 01:56
|
|
|
kill your sons posted:Can anyone tell me what James Day doing to make his portraits look like this? Why would you want to emulate that? It looks like horrible face masks flattened out on a scanner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 17:52
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Hard rim lights, some kind of really direct, frontal light source (looks like it might be two umbrellas on each side). Then digitally really clean color correction and probably some kind of high pass to bring out detail / up contrast. thanks brad poopinmymouth posted:Why would you want to emulate that? It looks like horrible face masks flattened out on a scanner. very constructive, thank you
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 18:27
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Why would you want to emulate that? It looks like horrible face masks flattened out on a scanner. because, like, dave hill, man
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 19:37
|
|
|
Do you guys not look at photos outside of the internet or something, James Day rules / is not a gimmick like Dave Hill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 19:50
|
|
|
brad industry posted:James Day rules Um. Yes. Wow. I have to admit, I was a little put off by his portraits at first, but his still life is unbelievable. It definitely doesn't hurt that his website is slick as hell, too, and is one of the few I've seen that actually feels like it supports the work instead of just surrounding it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 20:09
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Do you guys not look at photos outside of the internet or something, James Day rules / is not a gimmick like Dave Hill. He might have nice work in other areas, but those are pretty awful portraits of very unattractive men. The incomplete rim light on the guy on the right blocked by the left guy's head is sloppy, the lighting itself is flattening their faces for no discernible reason, and that neck beard is atrocious. *edit* Looked at his site, and I can't stand any of his portraits. The lighting is all over the place and doesn't seem to work with the faces, and you claim it's not a gimick, but almost everyone follows the same overbright rim light formula. I find it really hard to look at or appreciate as portraiture. *edit2* lol, it even has crazy topaz adjust look to a lot of them of oversharpened halos attempting to bring out more detail and micro contrast. I'm not seeing it, this look like really bad portraiture that uses the same look and processing regardless of facial features, ie, just like Dave Hill. (bad) poopinmymouth fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Feb 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:He might have nice work in other areas, but those are pretty awful portraits of very unattractive men. You never speak that way about Thom Yorke again!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 21:50
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:You never speak that way about Thom Yorke again! Nor of David Byrne! (That is David Byrne right?)
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 21:54
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Do you guys not look at photos outside of the internet or something, James Day rules / is not a gimmick like Dave Hill. I saw his photos in an Audi mag a while back... while technically very good, they just wern't appealing to me at all.. edit: they're all on his website. edit 2: I guess that's what makes photography an art. I'm sure many people would say comments similar to mine above with regards to Martin Schoeller's work, which I hold in the highest regard Cyberbob fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Feb 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 08:26
|
|
|
I wouldn't like his portraits if they were painted. It's one of those cases where the process doesn't matter, I just don't like how it looks... His Dove photos look okay, and I also think his still lifes are quite awesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 09:54
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:I saw his photos in an Audi mag a while back... while technically very good, they just wern't appealing to me at all.. You know I went to google Martin Schoeller and he's got a greyed out link for downloading and viewing his portfolio on the iPad already. The Future
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 16:23
|
|
|
What is that kind of photography called that makes everything look like really finely detailed scaled models? Sorry if thats vague.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 03:35
|
|
|
Mr. Clark2 posted:What is that kind of photography called that makes everything look like really finely detailed scaled models? Sorry if thats vague. tilt shift WELL SURE IF YOU WANT TO GET ALL SCIENTIFIC ABOUT IT! VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV squidflakes fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Feb 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 03:35
|
|
|
scheimpflug principle 
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 07:25
|
|
|
Mr. Clark2 posted:What is that kind of photography called that makes everything look like really finely detailed scaled models? Sorry if thats vague. 'Making of a smaller government'  http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/4311870364/
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 12:14
|
|
|
What's the deal with Ken Rockwell? I know that almost every photo hardware related google search leads to his site and it seems like he is universally hated around here. Why?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 16:13
|
|
|
nerdz posted:What's the deal with Ken Rockwell? I know that almost every photo hardware related google search leads to his site and it seems like he is universally hated around here. Why? Here is the secret- Ken Rockwell is a huge troll. He says a couple reasonable things, then a bunch of outrageous things. He has been around since the dawn of internet pixel peeping, so he gets great search results- which means he makes bank off of site hits and referrals. He does poo poo to make everyone get pissy and link to back to the silly things he says. There was an old page on a former version (or current, who knows!) of his site that basically said this much and it is all a huge joke.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 17:10
|
|
|
What's the general consensus on SmugMug? I currently have a Flickr account, but recently I've grown to hate the site and barely use it anymore. My subscription is up soon and I want to find something better. All I'm really looking for is a reliable, useable, and aesthetically appealing site to store/display photos — and preferably one without a retarded social networking feel to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2010 01:19
|
|
|
Eutheria posted:What's the general consensus on SmugMug? Then smugmug is definitely your best bet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2010 01:46
|
|
|
Eutheria posted:What's the general consensus on SmugMug? SmugMug is awesome and it is worth every penny. But you can save half the pennies for your first year! Use coupon code "FLICKR" for 50% off!
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2010 06:26
|
|
|
Can someone tell me why images in lightroom/photoshop look cooler (bluer) in program than when exported? It seems that when I export an image in any color space, the images are much warmer. When I export images AdobeRBG and view them with a program that doesn't correct color space (so if i view AdobeRBG color space jpgs in sRBG) the images look exactly likr they do in lightroom... what the hell Oh, when I reimport the JPGs and view them in lightroom, they look right. I thought lightroom was supposed to handle all this crap
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2010 08:22
|
|
|
Eutheria posted:What's the general consensus on SmugMug? With Friedl's LR2 plugin it becomes a 2-click breeze to toss stuff online.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2010 10:51
|
|
|
Eutheria posted:What's the general consensus on SmugMug? There are also some programs out there to suck all your current stuff from flickr to smugmug.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2010 15:07
|
|
|
notlodar posted:Can someone tell me why images in lightroom/photoshop look cooler (bluer) in program than when exported? It seems that when I export an image in any color space, the images are much warmer. I had some similar, really weird problems. I fixed it by re-installing my monitor color profile.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2010 17:37
|
|
|
Tziko posted:I had some similar, really weird problems. I fixed it by re-installing my monitor color profile. It seems if my system default color profile is sRBG everything looks right, but if it's the Huey profile (or anything else) it doesn't. Maybe it's time for a lightroom reinstall?
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2010 18:23
|
|
|
notlodar posted:Hmm... I tried this and it didn't really work, but it did do.. something. I know Photosohp has a setting for Collor Settings (Edit > Color Settings) where you can change the profile it uses. Not sure about Lightroom, but things in it look right to me when exported.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2010 19:59
|
|
|
Kazy posted:I know Photosohp has a setting for Collor Settings (Edit > Color Settings) where you can change the profile it uses. Not sure about Lightroom, but things in it look right to me when exported. Lightroom uses Prophoto RGB internally if I remember, and you can choose the color profile you want when you export. Lightroom converts the color space when you export - but if you are viewing non-sRGB color-spaced images in a non-calibrated program after export, they can look funny (basically the non-colormanaged programs assume everything is sRGB). That's sort of the way its supposed to work. And yes, if other people aren't using color managed browers or whatever, and you use non-sRGB images, the images will look a bit off, and there's no real way to fix it (aside from using sRGB and hoping they calibrated their monitors).
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2010 08:14
|
|
|
I was too lazy to reinstall and just set my computer's default color space to sRBG and let the huey handle the rest... Everything looks fine in everything now...
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2010 09:53
|
|
|
So my master's program will be having a 10 year reunion, and since I'm the guy with the nice camera and we're over budget, I've been designated as the photographer of the two day event (unpaid...and I probably won't even get to participate in the sack race!) Anyway, in addition to being nervous about this and figuring out a gameplan since I've ever really done one photoshoot for my friends, I need to find a site that will allow me to post photos so that the alumni can just log on to a public album and buy prints if they choose. Has anyone had experience with something like Snapfish? I was thinking this since it lets you pick out which site you want the photos developed so that'd be up to them. Any other suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2010 01:20
|
|
|
Pretty sure that'd be like 3 clicks in smugmug if you don't mind them grabbing a slice. Password-protect a gallery and allow prints, done.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2010 10:47
|
|
|
getting the correct exposure is the best way to go, but would it be a better idea to have a photo overexposed or underexposed to fix later?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2010 14:01
|
|
|
Underexposed - It's much easier to recover details in an underexposed photo than one blown-out by highlights. And logically, the closer you get to the correct exposure, the better you'll be able to recover details in the underexposed bits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2010 16:16
|
|
|
On the flip side, if you're shooting at extremely high ISO to salvage low available light, noise will be worse in shadows than highlights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2010 16:21
|
|
|
phootnote posted:getting the correct exposure is the best way to go, but would it be a better idea to have a photo overexposed or underexposed to fix later? This is always a tough battle, but really the answer depends, when you have a wide dynamic range of a given scene. I've generally better luck increasing exposure in post, rather than pulling it back down. If the scene is really dark like an indoor bar, I will try to push my histogram values towards the right without clipping because if you underexpose an overall dark scene it will be noisy in the shadows when you bump it up in post, like Bobthecow said. But, as I recently found out with snow photos, if the scene is overall bright, underexposing ~1 stop is beneficial to preserve all the easily blown highlights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2010 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 14:49 |
|
|
I think it's better to overexpose without clipping. When you bring shadows up, you get nasty noise you have to deal with. When you overexpose you don't get any quality issues. Also I just wanted to post to say I finally got my gear insured. I went with Metlife for renters and got the standard insurance for the stuff in my apartment with replacement value riders for my camera gear and laptop. I got about $4000 coverage for my camera and $2500 for my computer gear for commericial use. I'm paying something like $370 a year total. Well worth it IMO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2010 22:10
|
|
