|
SquallStrife posted:So, everyone knows about using tilt-shift to make life-size things look tiny... Beyond using a macro lens or extension tubes, put the camera at a low angle to the subject so you're either looking at it straight on or you're looking up at it. Perceived eye level greatly influences the viewer's sense of relative size.
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 04:23
|
|
is go
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
The reason that tilt-shift works so well is because people for some reason intrinsically know what shallow DOF macro photography looks like and associate it with tiny things, even though most people dont know what DOF or Macro means. There is no visual effect that we associate with images of huge things, mainly because images of huge things generally approximate our field of view, assuming we're back far enough. I think Dr. Cogwerks is right, its all about perspective. Make it look like the image was shot from a tiny viewers perspective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 04:41
|
|
|
Phat_Albert posted:The reason that tilt-shift works so well is because people for some reason intrinsically know what shallow DOF macro photography looks like and associate it with tiny things, even though most people dont know what DOF or Macro means. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 05:18
|
|
|
Light and DoF are really important. How light interacts with something small is very different when compared to something large. It's all psychological
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 08:19
|
|
|
I figured as much, I just thought there may have been some trick that someone crafty had come up with. Thanks for the advice guys, I'll be sure to give it a shot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 10:10
|
|
|
phootnote posted:would it be illogical to go from 450d to a 40d? i think i want something more substantial....
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 11:33
|
|
|
psylent posted:I went from the 350D to the 7D so... ehhh I went from a Rebel XT to a 7D :P But I had been rolling with the XT for close to 3 years. phootnote - doooo it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 15:56
|
|
|
The thing is that on a really close subject you'll need a ridiculously tight aperture to get decent DoF.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 16:09
|
|
|
Also, while this will depend on the particular thing you are photographing, it doesn't work nearly as smoothly to make small look big when photographing things like model cars or similar, because on a small object the level of detail will be suspect when it's being treated as a large object.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 17:29
|
|
|
The main thing would be to meticulously set up your subject in terms of models and make sure the detail holds up. There's some neat lego photography that looks good enough that you forget about the scale. --> http://laughingsquid.com/snow-scenes-of-star-wars-legos-on-hoth/ The only obvious clue to scale is just that everyone knows what lego guy's size is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 17:37
|
|
|
        
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 17:47
|
|
|
haha, yeah. That's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:02
|
|
|
ogopogo posted:I went from a Rebel XT to a 7D :P But I had been rolling with the XT for close to 3 years. Me three. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 18:10
|
|
|
Phat_Albert posted:There is no visual effect that we associate with images of huge things Scale But that requires thinking about the image you want to make instead of buying a lens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 19:28
|
|
|
Do any of you guys sell images to stock/microstock websites? Which one(s) are the best? I created an account on shutterstock and istock because it looks like most people have good luck with things there. I'm not exactly sure what I'm planning to try, but I figure I may as well make a few attempts at making extra cash through those types of sites.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 20:32
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:Do any of you guys sell images to stock/microstock websites? http://www.microstockdiaries.com/ I've been reading this for a while, pretty good site.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 21:27
|
|
|
jackpot posted:[Images of small things that don't look small] Holy hell! That's exactly what I'm talking about! I guess this is something you could achieve with focus stacking, maybe? SquallStrife fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Mar 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 06:46
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:The main thing would be to meticulously set up your subject in terms of models and make sure the detail holds up. Those shots are awesome. Thanks for the link!
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 07:40
|
|
|
SquallStrife posted:Holy hell! That's exactly what I'm talking about! Do it in-camera, find a macro lens that'll stop down to like, f64 or something absurdly tiny. Or get a short telephoto lens (50mm or so) so the DOF won't be so narrow. You'll need to get really close to your subject though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 09:52
|
|
|
(This is camera-gear specific enough that I'm asking here rather than in the Hiking Megathread in W&W, but I'm happy to re-post over there if it's needed.) I've really been getting into backpacking lately. Short 2 or 3 day weekend hiking trips where you carry all your gear (tent, sleeping bag, whatever) in your backpack. I've got some really good packs designed for carrying my hiking/camping crap with me, but I'm struggling to find a good way to carry my camera, which is a Nikon D80. I tend to carry a spare battery or two, and a couple lenses with me. Those pack easy enough, but I want to keep my camera readily accessible for any shooting I might want to do. My hiking packs all have hip belts, so any kind of camera bag/holster/whatever that's designed to clip to a belt tends to not work. The only place I can really put one is directly over my crotch, but that's not very comfortable. Backpacks don't work, since I've already got a bigass hiking pack on, and just wearing it around my neck is difficult since the camera tends to swing freely and bash into stuff if I'm not careful. What are my options here? Anything I've overlooked? Maybe something I can strap to my chest, or something designed to attach to a backpack's shoulder straps?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 20:27
|
|
|
Have you checked out the super dorky photo vests? It seems like your running out of space on your body. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/buy/Vests/N/4289358074
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 20:48
|
|
|
You might consider an R-strap: http://www.blackrapid.com/product/camera-strap/rs-4/ I use mine pretty frequently and it works well. I just tried it with a backpack on, and it was a little awkward, but I'm pretty confident that if you spend some time fine-tuning the adjustments with you and your pack it would work fairly well. The only problem I can think of is that it will bounce around against your hip a little as you hike, but I can't think of any system that would prevent that at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 20:51
|
|
|
Your camera is small enough that you should be able to wear it around your neck all day and not feel it. That said, some bags are made to have the camera clip on to the shoulder straps so you may want to look into one of those or you could even jerry-rig something to do just that. The more common approach is to set up a camp and then go out and about to take photos with a camera bag made for hiking (can carry a day's worth of water, food, maybe spare clothes) but if that's not an option, then I would just suck it up and pack your lenses between clothes (provided you're not hiking with a 300mm+ f/2.8 lens) and try to find some way to attach the camera to the shoulder straps of the bag. I hiked the Napali Coast in Hawaii with a bag not designed for hiking or camera gear and it was fine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 20:58
|
|
|
Think Tank modules might fit on your hip belt, depending on how it's configured on your particular packs.
Molten Llama fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Mar 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 21:12
|
|
|
Does anyone have a generic model release in pdf or doc format? How about one for a band? I'm looking to start shooting people and bands, but want to have myself covered in at least some fashion in case someone comes back at me
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 21:49
|
|
|
Thanks for the tips, everyone. That R-Strap looks promising. Time to find a store with it in stock and play around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 22:08
|
|
|
slartibartfast posted:Thanks for the tips, everyone. That R-Strap looks promising. Time to find a store with it in stock and play around. I have never found a store that even knew what the R-Strap was. I wish you the best of luck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:I have never found a store that even knew what the R-Strap was. I wish you the best of luck. Yeah, I only found out about it because my buddy had one and I got to play with his.  Also never seen one in stores.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
I've got the Optech Pro Loop strap. It's a strap where instead of going around the strap mounts with a buckle, you loop the strap on itself and it creates an attachment point that's a lot freer than a convention strap. http://optechusa.com/product/detail/?PRODUCT_ID=23 The only problem I have with it is that it's too short for some strange reason. I guess the fine people at Optech must have short arms or something. If you look at the spec table, it says maximum length is only 43" when the regular strap is 51".
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 22:56
|
|
|
slartibartfast posted:Thanks for the tips, everyone. That R-Strap looks promising. Time to find a store with it in stock and play around. I love the R-strap, but I ordered it online. It makes so much sense, especially the heavier your camera gets. I backpack also, and I really haven't found a good way to have a dslr out. So what I do is I pack it up at the top in my backpack if it's a hard hike, and only take it after camp is set up, or if I'm meandering and I want to take photos while I wander, I actually just keep it in my hand, because it's the least annoying way to carry it for me. And then keep important bits like lens/batteries clipped to the side of your backpack in a small bag or in the water bottle holders.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 23:38
|
|
|
I've run my neck strap under the chest buckle for my backpack to keep it from swinging around. All it takes is undoing one buckle at chest level and you're ready to shoot. A wrist strap can be handy too if you're using a smaller lens. For attaching my camera bag, I just loop it onto the loops on my backpack. It's a pain to get to for a lens change and awkward, but it's secure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 23:41
|
|
|
Well... there is always the Cotton Carrier http://buy.cottoncarrier.com/product_p/600ccv.htm
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2010 23:45
|
|
|
The only thing I've found that I like is carrying it in my hand with a wrist strap. Otherwise, it's in the backpack. I've tried a few around the neck, straps crossing behind the back and hanging in front methods and it just bounces around too much. I've yet to try attaching it to a monopod/walking stick and hiking with it on the stick which I've heard of some people doing...
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2010 00:06
|
|
|
At what temps do I have to worry about condensation in the lens when coming from outdoors to inside? I just bought a Canon 100-400mm and am paranoid about this now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2010 07:57
|
|
|
Depends on the temperature and humidity in the warmer environment and the temperature in the cold environment.  If the colder temperature is below the dew point of the warmer room, water will condense out of the air into liquid on the surfaces when the water in the air comes into contact with the cold surface (at least that's how I understand it).I don't know any rules of thumb though. If your house it relatively dry and around 70F, I'd say you'd probably be fine coming inside when it's >40F (huge guess). If there is snow on the ground, I personally put my camera in a bag and squeeze out all the air while it warms up. FYI, I had a lens fog up when I stepped outside in Florida out of the air conditioned hotel room, so it works both ways. e: found this link http://www.dpcalc.org/. Move the red bar to your house temperature, then change the %RH (the relative humidity inside your house) to see its affect on the dew point (the temperature it has to be outside to get condensation when brought back inside). Granted, your lens has to be outside long enough to get to that outside temperature, so a quick in and out, you might be ok. spf3million fucked around with this message at 08:39 on Mar 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2010 08:31
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:At what temps do I have to worry about condensation in the lens when coming from outdoors to inside? I just bought a Canon 100-400mm and am paranoid about this now. When going from dry cold to warm moist, while in the cool area, put the camera in a plastic bag (preferably sealed, like a gallon ziplock, and let it come up to temperature in the bag.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2010 13:08
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:At what temps do I have to worry about condensation in the lens when coming from outdoors to inside? I just bought a Canon 100-400mm and am paranoid about this now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2010 13:31
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:When going from dry cold to warm moist, while in the cool area, put the camera in a plastic bag (preferably sealed, like a gallon ziplock, and let it come up to temperature in the bag.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2010 14:12
|
|
|
It really sucks when you're running the AC in your car on a hot, humid day before you get out to shoot. The only thing I've found that works in that situation is to rely on rolling the windows down to cool off and keep the temp/humidity difference from fogging up my lenses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2010 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 00:40 |
|
|
I also save pretty much every silica gel packet I find and have a few stuffed into each lens / body compartment in my bag.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2010 19:16
|
|