|
Cyberbob posted:Where's the best generic "retouching skin" tutorial? I don't know about generic or the best, but I like the look of this one: http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1170442 And part II details a technique I saw described better elsewhere but have long since lost the link; using a blurred layer and then selectively returning details via high pass filters of varying radii: http://dgrin.smugmug.com/Tutorials/Beyond-Basics/Skin-Retouching-Tutorial-Pt-2/1169397_i62L4/2 Which could be used to either subtly smooth skin or create horrible abominations.
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2010 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
So I finally got Lightroom 3, and it now imports my video files automatically. I'd rather have them go to a separate video folder, but I can't seem to find a way to do it? Has anyone else figured it out? I don't want the video files getting imported into my photo folders.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 17:05
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:As the article says, 10-14 for human eye (not that measurable, really). The Nikon D3x is supposed to have 12.8 (per DXO). That's 91.4% of the highest estimated human eye. Seems like it's kind of an apples and oranges comparison when you factor in how the eye actually works and how we perceive things. Looking at the dynamic range in a two dimensional print is obviously vastly different than your vision's field of view and how the eye and brain filter and focus on information.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
My boss hired me to shoot a 2 day event that the company is doing, sort of like a conference and social get together. Going to be at a restaurant and a baseball game. I have a d90, so im thinking of renting a nikon 24-70 for the event and just using that. Will that work fine? I have a 12-24 wide angle and a 80-200 telephoto but nothing in the middle cept my 18-105 kit lens. It should be fine for low restaurant level lighting without use of flash right? Ive never used this lens before. Saint Celestine fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Jul 31, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2010 05:21
|
|
|
2.8 is really only fast enough for indoor daytime shots. Indoor shots with nighttime lighting will either need a massive ISO bump or a flash.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2010 14:53
|
|
|
bobfather posted:2.8 is really only fast enough for indoor daytime shots. Indoor shots with nighttime lighting will either need a massive ISO bump or a flash. I have an SB-600 that I plan to use. Still trying to get used to how to use flash so it dosent make their face all white. Bouncing works but sometimes theres nothing to bounce off of. How do you make direct flash more natural looking? I have a diffuser already, dosent help much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2010 02:09
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:I have an SB-600 that I plan to use. Still trying to get used to how to use flash so it dosent make their face all white. Bouncing works but sometimes theres nothing to bounce off of. Shoot in manual, meter for the background and then reduce your flash exposure compensation until you get natural looking results.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2010 13:48
|
|
|
Dunno if the DR discussion is over, but keep in mind that whatever output medium you use also has to meet that level in order for it to match what the human eye sees. The only way I can see it working properly is with LCDs that don't yet exist that can blast sun-level light while completely blacking out other sections, or some kind of transmissive media that you can just hold up to the light to view properly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 07:56
|
|
|
I've been reading a bit, and had a question about the F-stop's listed on lenses. Example: quote:Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro for Canon autofocus When it mentions maximum aperture, does that mean that say at 17mm, I would not be able to set my camera to F1.8? Or does it mean that there is some sort of loss of data/sharpness/whatever when pushed to a larger opening?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 21:51
|
|
|
Abnegatus posted:When it mentions maximum aperture, does that mean that say at 17mm, I would not be able to set my camera to F1.8? Correct. You're not setting your camera. You're setting the lens at that aperture. And the physical limit for that lens is f/2.8.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2010 21:58
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:Correct. You're not setting your camera. You're setting the lens at that aperture. And the physical limit for that lens is f/2.8. Yeah, and at 70mm the maximum aperture is only 4.5. If you have a camera body with an electronic link to the lens your aperture controls will compensate for this automatically as you zoom in. Older cameras won't be able to and you'll have to rely on the guide printed on the lens barrel (if it has one). This is a good example of why constant-aperture zooms are so desirable and why some people avoid the whole question in the first place and stick with primes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2010 00:30
|
|
|
Abnegatus posted:When it mentions maximum aperture, does that mean that say at 17mm, I would not be able to set my camera to F1.8? Or does it mean that there is some sort of loss of data/sharpness/whatever when pushed to a larger opening? 17mm: f/2.8 - pretty good 50mm: f/3.5 - still decent 70mm: f/4.5 - kinda slow And by the way your camera will do this automatically; like if you're at 17mm and the camera's set on Av (aperture priority) and f/2.8, the f stop is automatically going to go up as you zoom further out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2010 14:51
|
|
|
So I might be able to see the Aurora Borealis tonight I was thinking about testing my ability to take night shots... Is there any site/good pointers I can use to get the best possible exposures? I know I'm looking for wide-open aperture with a long exposure time but any guidance helps as this is my first time night shooting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 01:12
|
|
|
The only pointer I can offer is to compose your shot then use the self timer feature to actually open the shudder so that you don't shake the camera. That, of course, requires a tripod or the like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 01:19
|
|
|
Aaaaand it storms like loving crazy tonight. Curse you god 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 04:55
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:The only pointer I can offer is to compose your shot then use the self timer feature to actually open the shudder so that you don't shake the camera. That, of course, requires a tripod or the like. If you shudder, you're gonna shake, I'm just sayin'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 05:50
|
|
|
*sigh* It was a really long day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 16:15
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:The only pointer I can offer is to compose your shot then use the self timer feature to actually open the shudder so that you don't shake the camera. That, of course, requires a tripod or the like. Also use the mirror lockup and close your viewfinder if your camera has those features.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 17:07
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Also use the mirror lockup and close your viewfinder if your camera has those features. I have a rebel xsi do I have these features?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 19:37
|
|
|
flyboi posted:I have a rebel xsi do I have these features? Do you have an instruction book?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 20:05
|
|
|
flyboi posted:I have a rebel xsi do I have these features? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 20:53
|
|
|
Is there a good book specifically on landscape photography? I've got "understanding exposure" and "the photographer's eye" which are pretty good but I'd like something more specific and most of what I shoot is either forests or bugs or bugs in forests.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 21:22
|
|
|
Painless posted:Is there a good book specifically on landscape photography? I've got "understanding exposure" and "the photographer's eye" which are pretty good but I'd like something more specific and most of what I shoot is either forests or bugs or bugs in forests. This is pretty good: https://www.langtoninfo.co.uk/showitem.aspx?isbn=1906372853 It's hard to find, but here's a link you can get it from. You might be able to get it elsewhere. It's more of a hybrid magazine/book type thing, but it has a lot of good info.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 21:47
|
|
|
Thanks, that sounds good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2010 21:58
|
|
|
I've discovered that I really like taking lightbox shots, but I'd like to take it to the next level. I have a small PVC lightbox with a posterboard back right now, but I'd like to scale it up and make a larger studio backdrop so I can take seamless shots of larger things like motorcycles and whatnot. I've been inspired by this: http://www.bikeexif.com/suzuki-rk67?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Bikeexif+(Bike+EXIF) You can see in the second shot, based on the reflections in the bikes paint that these were shot outside in some sort of giant lightbox/studio backdrop scenario. How does one go about replicating the setup to do this? I can weld, so fabbing up a frame for this isnt the most horrible thing on earth. What do you use for a backdrop, where do you find something that huge and perfectly white? Any suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2010 05:19
|
|
|
Zach Arias has a small how-to on building such a setup using white seamless. http://www.zarias.com/white-seamless-tutorial-part-1-gear-space
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2010 13:57
|
|
|
What are the differences between Lightroom and the Camera Raw feature in Photoshop? And for anyone who has both, what do you generally use Photoshop for that you can't/don't like to do in Lightroom?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 22:54
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:what do you generally use Photoshop for that you can't/don't like to do in Lightroom?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 22:58
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:What are the differences between Lightroom and the Camera Raw feature in Photoshop? And for anyone who has both, what do you generally use Photoshop for that you can't/don't like to do in Lightroom? I typically don't enter Photoshop until I'm ready to export, and even then only if I need to do a high pass sharpening. Also any time I'm going to be altering something major in the photo, that's Photoshop. If it's just cropping, straightening, tonal adjustments and curves, sensor or film dust removal -- that's all Lightroom. Spot adjustments are amazing in Lightroom as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 22:59
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:What are the differences between Lightroom and the Camera Raw feature in Photoshop? And for anyone who has both, what do you generally use Photoshop for that you can't/don't like to do in Lightroom? I just made the switch from Adobe Camera Raw to Lightroom 3. Basically Lightroom can do everything ACR can do, and a bit more. I switched to Lightroom for the better photo organization and some other workflow specific features. My favorite right now is the before and after layout. And just like ACR, anything being worked on in Lightroom can be opened immediately in Photoshop if more advanced editing is needed, and then brought back into Lightroom to export.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 23:02
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:What are the differences between Lightroom and the Camera Raw feature in Photoshop? And for anyone who has both, what do you generally use Photoshop for that you can't/don't like to do in Lightroom? I basically only use lightroom for management and a little bit of colour correction, curves, cropping and stuff like that, and even then very rarely, usually on photos I dont care about or want to get a general idea of what I want. Other than that all my editing is all done inside photoshop, I just prefer to work within layers and for me you have a much finer control of the image in photoshop than you do in lightroom.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2010 23:07
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:What are the differences between Lightroom and the Camera Raw feature in Photoshop? And for anyone who has both, what do you generally use Photoshop for that you can't/don't like to do in Lightroom? Photoshop lets you do all the sorts of pixel-level editing that is much more difficult to do in Light Room. For example, retouching, spot toning, cloning, dodging/burning, etc, are either possible or much easier in Photo Shop than in Light Room.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 00:01
|
|
|
If you like shooting landscapes masks come in handy, which Lightroom won't give you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 02:08
|
|
|
scottch posted:If you like shooting landscapes masks come in handy, which Lightroom won't give you. Lightroom has masks. They're not as powerful as Photoshop, but they're there.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 02:20
|
|
|
I don't believe there's a way to blend different exposures, unless I'm mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 03:36
|
|
|
scottch posted:I don't believe there's a way to blend different exposures, unless I'm mistaken. That is true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 03:43
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:That is true. That he's mistaken? I'm pretty sure you can adjust exposure in lightroom with a mask. Well like that adjustable brush tool thing in lightroom. Paragon8 fucked around with this message at 10:48 on Aug 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 10:44
|
|
|
Lightroom doesn't have a way to blend 2 different exposures. You can always toss an exposure comp mask, but not a blending mask with another frame.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 10:50
|
|
|
oh okay, gotcha.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 11:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 10:23 |
|
|
LR is much faster for editing a lot of images, you can blast your way through an entire day's shoot in a single sitting. Plus, non-destructive editing
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 11:45
|
|
