|
squidflakes posted:Alright! This could open up a whole new wave of lovely boring pictures made "interesting" because of the WOAH! HIGH DYNAMIC RANGE! You won't even have to have photoshop to make that tree look like its JUST SO AWESOME! It has the possibility of giving good photographers higher dynamic range to get rid of clipping. A very very good thing.
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:42 |
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:It has the possibility of giving good photographers higher dynamic range to get rid of clipping. A very very good thing. How would it work with any sort of lighting equipment?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 17:13
|
|
|
The same way it would with natural light?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 17:23
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:It has the possibility of giving good photographers higher dynamic range to get rid of clipping. A very very good thing. Ahhh, that is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 17:23
|
|
|
It's in camera HDR, not tone mapping
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 19:27
|
|
|
notlodar posted:It's in camera HDR, not tone mapping  HDR I think this could either be really useful or really worthless. Like every new whizbang they bring out...
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 19:38
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:
ANYTHING EVER I think this could either be really useful or really worthless. Like every new whizbang they bring out... And I can't really use a feature like this for my photos so bah. And humbug.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 20:47
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:And I can't really use a feature like this for my photos so bah. And humbug. You've never taken a shot with so much dynamic range that you have to choose to either blow highlights or lose shadows?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 01:12
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:
whizbang
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 01:52
|
|
|
I wonder how they're planning to keep an acceptable level of contrast. It's great if you can individually adjust each pixel to exactly the correct exposure, but then you will end up with something that is entirely gray. And you can't just save it as an HDR file and call it a day, either, because eventually your output medium isn't going to be able to handle all the data, and you will have to TONE MAP Anything that increases the dynamic range of a given pixel is great, but I'm seriously questioning if this is the right method.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 01:58
|
|
|
Good thing its just a patent and not a concept made by some fuckshit industrial designer or else I'd have to get really mad
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 02:19
|
|
|
There's also the limited dynamic range of output media to consider. e: Oh I see.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 02:55
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I wonder how they're planning to keep an acceptable level of contrast. It's great if you can individually adjust each pixel to exactly the correct exposure, but then you will end up with something that is entirely gray. This is pretty much what happens when i digitize negatives...
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 03:50
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:There's also the limited dynamic range of output media to consider. Yeah, but if you're the type of photographer that enjoys a lot of post, having workable pixels is pretty convenient, even if you're still outputting it to a jpeg or a print.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 12:16
|
|
|
Anybody tried SnutterSnitch yet-- I might cancel my connection kit and get an eyefi if it works well enough. My kit probably wont ship for another week or two anyway. http://itunes.apple.com/app/shuttersnitch/id364176211?mt=8
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 14:21
|
|
|
A subject of one of the most famous photographs ever passed away on Sunday
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
How funny that we were just talking about that photo a few days ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 22:24
|
|
|
Wow, holy poo poo, if any of you guys own an iPad (iPhone too, but I think it's probably less useful) go buy TouchRetouch. Content aware fill on the iOS, and this poo poo works about as well as it. e: Actually after playing with it, it's slightly worse than Gimps version of it content aware fill, but I was impressed because my first two tries with it were extremely impressive. Still worth $1 to try it out though, it's pretty interesting. Shmoogy fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Jun 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 22:36
|
|
|
I made the mistake of buying an issue of Shutterbug at the newsstand the other day. Ignoring the crappy photos and ad-"reviews" what really annoyed me is that they have a 2 page ad for "Broadway Photo" in the middle of the magazine. Of course the editors are not responsible for their advertisers, but come on.. a well-known bait and switch scammer targetting naive photographers and you give them space to do it? Shame on them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 22:45
|
|
|
If you haven't looked at Broadway's website lately, go do so. https://www.bwayphoto.com It is a loving riot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 23:47
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:I made the mistake of buying an issue of Shutterbug at the newsstand the other day. Ignoring the crappy photos and ad-"reviews" what really annoyed me is that they have a 2 page ad for "Broadway Photo" in the middle of the magazine. Of course the editors are not responsible for their advertisers, but come on.. a well-known bait and switch scammer targetting naive photographers and you give them space to do it? Shame on them. I wrote to Popular Science once complaining about the ads in the back pages -- some of it is cool stuff like plans for ultralight helicopters, but every month there are tons of ENZYTE NATURAL MALE ENHANCEMENT and ATHENA PHEROMONE 10X ads in the back, and I thought that was at odds with the intent of a science magazine. Their response? "Yeah, we know. The company that owns us runs the advertising department completely separately from the editorial department. They aren't located in the same building, they don't talk to us, and they basically pick whatever raises the most money."
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 23:52
|
|
|
The problem with basically all magazines is that the advertisers are the client, not the readers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 01:01
|
|
|
brad industry posted:The problem with basically all magazines is that the advertisers are the client, not the readers. Aperture is pretty good, but it's a non-profit so 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 03:10
|
|
|
I've been feeling so lovely lately about my photography. I've barely shot in the last 3-4 months, and when I do I delete 99% of it because I'm not happy with it. I'm starting to feel like all my stuff is horrible, even stuff I used to like, or have gotten lots of positive reviews about. Does this happen to any of you guys, and what do you do to get out of it? I almost just want to quit my job, pack up my poo poo and move to the other side of the country and just see what happens. (sorry this isn't very fun discussion, but I didn't really know where to ask...)
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 06:39
|
|
|
Four Banger posted:I've been feeling so lovely lately about my photography. I've barely shot in the last 3-4 months, and when I do I delete 99% of it because I'm not happy with it. I'm starting to feel like all my stuff is horrible, even stuff I used to like, or have gotten lots of positive reviews about. Does this happen to any of you guys, and what do you do to get out of it? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 07:07
|
|
|
That chart is me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 09:28
|
|
|
Yeah but... /p/ of all places? 4chan has only made me realize how much I hate people not how much I suck, I did that on my lonesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 10:27
|
|
|
Four Banger posted:I've been feeling so lovely lately about my photography. I've barely shot in the last 3-4 months, and when I do I delete 99% of it because I'm not happy with it. I'm starting to feel like all my stuff is horrible, even stuff I used to like, or have gotten lots of positive reviews about. You're probably shooting the same old poo poo over and over again. Try branching into a new field of photography.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 11:14
|
|
|
Are there any limitations on the Student editions of Photoshop/Lightroom etc? I need to buy, but I don't want to pay for them and then find they have limitations on what I can use them for, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 12:38
|
|
|
Pantsmaster Bill posted:Are there any limitations on the Student editions of Photoshop/Lightroom etc? As far as I know, only limit on the new CS5 stuff is you can only have them on one computer at a time. I think it's new policy, they took away the "can't use for paid work" from what I hear.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 12:55
|
|
|
I bought the student edition of Lightroom, and so far as I know, it's got everything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 17:19
|
|
|
That chart would be me except there's no spot for "go to school and get too busy to take photos regularly, then forget almost everything you knew".
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 17:26
|
|
|
orange lime posted:I wrote to Popular Science once complaining about the ads in the back pages -- some of it is cool stuff like plans for ultralight helicopters, but every month there are tons of ENZYTE NATURAL MALE ENHANCEMENT and ATHENA PHEROMONE 10X ads in the back, and I thought that was at odds with the intent of a science magazine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 17:55
|
|
|
Four Banger posted:I've been feeling so lovely lately about my photography. I've barely shot in the last 3-4 months, and when I do I delete 99% of it because I'm not happy with it. I'm starting to feel like all my stuff is horrible, even stuff I used to like, or have gotten lots of positive reviews about. Does this happen to any of you guys, and what do you do to get out of it? Pick something you're interested in and explore it as a long term project.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 17:58
|
|
|
pwn posted:I've went through this a lot the last few months. I hardly post anything online anymore. Reference this chart: Man that is awesome. So glad you posted this. Trying to pinpoint where I am on there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
Glass Knuckles posted:Man that is awesome. So glad you posted this. I'm going to go with:  Although, shouldn't the HDR hole go just AFTER the first tripod, not just before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 14:13
|
|
|
I don't know, for me it was before as I tried to hand hold for 3 shots, then I tried setting it down on a ledge, then said gently caress it and bought a $30 tripod. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 17:12
|
|
|
KennyG posted:I'm going to go with: Truth I'm just about on the dot too I reckon. Selling all my digital gadgets to use standard C-41 film in an old Olympus SLR and just take photos until I can take good photos.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 20:43
|
|
|
I never left 0% and I am nearing death.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:42 |
|
|
What's /p? I think I'm going to be stuck at "managed to get camera off auto mode" forever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2010 20:55
|
|