|
8th-samurai posted:It will probably be okay as long as you were shooting negs. A third of a stop is nothing to film unless you were running slide film. But I was shooting a white wall w/center metering so I'm thinking it underexposed it anyway. Oh well.
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2010 13:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
spog posted:option A - create a new catalog on the first computer, add/edit the photos, then copy that catalog file to the 2nd computer and open it. it should find the duplicate RAWs and apply the edits to them. For now, since all I care about is this one shoot (a wedding) I've created xmp files for everything; since they're so small that's the fastest way I know of switching between computers. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2010 15:41
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I have a stupid question. Tshirt Ninja posted:I got assigned Annie Lebovitz to mimic as a photo project. On B&W film. No composites. I also can't light subjects individually due to my complete lack of studio lighting. Any ideas to what light I should try to take this in?  http://www.npg.org.uk:8080/annieleibovitz/exhib.htm You can also ghetto rig indoor lighting with a $8 few clamp-mount work lights from Home Depot, 150W bulbs, and silicone baking mats for diffusers. It gets really hot but it works.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2010 17:40
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:But I was shooting a white wall w/center metering so I'm thinking it underexposed it anyway. Oh well. Third of a stop wouldn't have been enough anyways. Meter averages to middle gray so to get a white wall white you need to overexpose what your meter says by 2-4 whole stops depending on what value of white you want. Learn the zone system  quote:No lighting means outdoor shots. Stretch a large sheet to some kind of wood or PVC frame and build a 4x8 V-flat for fill. Pick a good time of day and you're 90% of the way there technically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2010 21:42
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Stretch a large sheet to some kind of wood or PVC frame and build a 4x8 V-flat for fill. Pick a good time of day and you're 90% of the way there technically. Dumb Question time: What are v flats and how do you use them? I googled and saw a v shaped board used to flag light. http://www.zarias.com/white-seamless-tutorial-part-1-gear-space/ here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2010 22:32
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Third of a stop wouldn't have been enough anyways. Meter averages to middle gray so to get a white wall white you need to overexpose what your meter says by 2-4 whole stops depending on what value of white you want. Yeah, actually, just started reading about it. It looks interesting. Took me long enough...
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 00:24
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Dumb Question time: What are v flats and how do you use them? I googled and saw a v shaped board used to flag light. http://www.zarias.com/white-seamless-tutorial-part-1-gear-space/ here. I don't know why he is using doors as flags (WTF?) but you can buy 4'x8' sheets of foam core that are white on one side and black on the other. You tape two together to make a hinged 'V'. They have a million uses and are probably the most used thing in studio. You can use them as large fills/flags, bounce heads into them, etc. Most pro rental places carry the foam core, if not check production or film expendable houses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 01:33
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Or he could find a rock band, sit them in a green room or tour bus, get them trashed on booze and coke, and just take pictures of how wasted they get. It's what got her famous. No special lighting or composites required. She, and this is not out of the question. I'll keep you updated. I've got a ghetto foamcore V-flat, but it's a really huge pain to use, so I think I'm just going to do this naturally, maybe with some diffusers and that's it. I'm going to attempt one group shot of 5 people, one John and Yoko emulation, and one portrait a la Miley Cyrus, for the comedy. Then I also get to do Helen Levitt, which is considerably easier. Going to do these: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 01:35
|
|
|
I haven't had a DSLR or even a compact since last year when I discovered my 400D had unrepairable fine-focusing problems. At the time I had no money to replace it so I just sold it and moved entirely to film. Looking around Amazon.co.uk to get back into digital, and there are 3 plausible combinations that come to about the same price
Main uses would be available light in bar/club conditions, headshots and walkaround B&W photography. I would hope to get some good use from ISO 6400. Any perspectives from Dorkroom? Zegnar fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Nov 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 01:57
|
|
|
The D5000 won't autofocus the f/1.4D lens. Personally I think you are best off with the D90 kit you outlined. Find the cash for a used 20mm f/2.8 and you have a nice light fast kit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 02:41
|
|
|
I would opt for the D90 over the D5000 just for the sake of having a better body. What's your actual budget? You can also consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, which is a little more expensive than the 50mm 1.4 you're looking at. It all depends on what focal range you're happier with. So I'd say D90 for body, the rest either what you can budget for or save up and purchase each individually as you can afford them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 02:44
|
|
|
Tshirt Ninja posted:She, and this is not out of the question. I'll keep you updated. Do a copy of that shot of Demi Moore preggers, but with a fat guy instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 02:47
|
|
|
Thanks for the tips 8th-samurai posted:The D5000 won't autofocus the f/1.4D lens. Oops didn't realise, that's an extra £75 for the G. Why would anyone ever buy a DSLR without a focus screw then? Might as well get a bridge camera. quote:I would opt for the D90 over the D5000 just for the sake of having a better body. What's your actual budget? You can also consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, which is a little more expensive than the 50mm 1.4 you're looking at. It all depends on what focal range you're happier with. Budget is about £900 including a memory card and a bag. The 30/1.4 is very nice, I hadn't considered that - though I would be a little nervous with Sigma of getting a 'bad copy'. I could only really afford it coupled with the 500D, so I suppose it's a trade off between wider aperture/worse high ISO performance. Zegnar fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Nov 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 02:57
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Third of a stop wouldn't have been enough anyways. Meter averages to middle gray so to get a white wall white you need to overexpose what your meter says by 2-4 whole stops depending on what value of white you want. So what zone would it fall into? VII for the wall and V for an expected 20% gray reference ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 03:32
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:So what zone would it fall into? VII for the wall and V for an expected 20% gray reference ? The wall would have been a VII and the camera would have set a shutter speed to bring it down to V. One shift in zone = 2 stops, so it would have gone down two zones or 4 stops. My 1/3 increment wouldn't have made enough difference even if I had flicked it in the correct direction. Edit: Since it was a white wall getting a decent amount of light it might have even been at a VIII, so it's really going to be underexposed. Mannequin fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Nov 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 05:51
|
|
|
Zegnar posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 10:44
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:... I was always under the impression that there were two stops between zone V and zone VII - not 4.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 15:41
|
|
|
one zone = one stop one stop = twice as much light / half as much light two zones = two stops = 4 times as much light
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 17:32
|
|
|
Zegnar posted:Main uses would be available light in bar/club conditions, headshots and walkaround B&W photography. I would hope to get some good use from ISO 6400. Any perspectives from Dorkroom? I find my D90 is OK at 3200 with the new noise reduction in LR3, but I like to stay under 2000 to be safe. I don't have a 30 yet, but I love my 35 and 85. The 85 kills for portraits. Lensrentals.com is selling a used D90 for $550. http://www.lensrentals.com/buy/nikon-d90-serial-number-3148010
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 20:45
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice all - I'm going for it! I have had really bad experiences with refurbished and used kit in the past so I am doing things properly and going to a Nikon accredited shop in central London. Final shopping list Nikon D90 Body £628 Nikon 35mm 1.8G £161 Nikon 50mm 1.8D £91 Hoya 52mm UV Filter £11 ea Sandisk 8gb 15mb/s £12 I hope this is the right choice! It's awful nervy AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I find my D90 is OK at 3200 with the new noise reduction in LR3, but I like to stay under 2000 to be safe. I don't have a 30 yet, but I love my 35 and 85. The 85 kills for portraits. Yeah I have adjusted my expectations a bit on that front. I figure that 3200 with LR3 NR should be as usable as 800 ISO was on my old 400D though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 22:13
|
|
|
Skip the UV filters
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
Yeah, get a hood for the 35 if it doesn't come with one (85 comes with a screw-on).
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 01:09
|
|
|
The 35/1.8G should have a hood included in the box.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 14:27
|
|
|
Dumbass rookie question here: When I want shots of interiors, landscapes, etc. Where exactly does the line sit between small aperture and focus point? Would I want to focus on something close by in the room/area and re-compose to the shot I want, or do I just want a small aperture and MF to infinity?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 15:13
|
|
|
Figure out your exact situation yourself, with the power of math! http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 16:00
|
|
|
If your lens has distance and DOF markings around the barrel, those are awesomely handy (and you're more likely to have them with you). This describes how to use them, and includes a formula if you don't have them and are actually willing to do that while shooting. Either way and either link, read about hyperfocal distance. I've never done math while shooting; if I've got my beautiful modern kit lens with no loving dof markers I focus on the nearest thing I want focused and stop up as high as I can :P. If I want more precise depth that's what my old primes are for. Remy Marathe fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Nov 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
Bought it today! It's a beauty - I think I've made the right choice so thanks everyone for the advice. I am doing without the 50mm, going to buy an 85mm instead. I had to put an old Olympus strap on it - all I can think when I see that Nikon strap is K-ROCK/Japanese tourist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 17:56
|
|
|
OK I should elaborate, since I don't know what the hell is going on between the following: 1: Focus on something close, have a small aperture for huge DOF 2: Small aperture for huge DOF, but just compose how I want it and MF at infinity. What exactly would focusing all the way there (or as close to it as possible) do differently?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 19:34
|
|
|
Can the area of focus be thought of as a sphere with the camera in the middle? So if I focus on an object and then recompose such that that object is in the corner of the image, that object would still be perfectly in focus? edit: Just tested this and this definitely doen’t seem to be the case up close. But the focus area definitely isn’t a plane either. Could it be plane-like up close and sphere-like further away? edit: alright question answered it seems to be plane-like all the way through. network.guy fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Nov 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 19:52
|
|
|
DJExile posted:OK I should elaborate, since I don't know what the hell is going on between the following: Focusing at infinity means that near objects will almost definitely be out of focus. If doing it off the cuff, focus in front of item you want to be center of attention, and let the DOF extend thru that point and beyond. Smaller aperture makes for more forgiving guesses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 19:59
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Focusing at infinity means that near objects will almost definitely be out of focus. If doing it off the cuff, focus in front of item you want to be center of attention, and let the DOF extend thru that point and beyond. Smaller aperture makes for more forgiving guesses. Gotcha, thanks
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 20:00
|
|
|
network.guy posted:Can the area of focus be thought of as a sphere with the camera in the middle? So if I focus on an object and then recompose such that that object is in the corner of the image, that object would still be perfectly in focus? The plane of focus is a spherical surface equidistant from the imaging surface (which will be marked on your camera with a Φ). The sphere has a large radius (of the focusing distance), so its curvature is very small and it is approximately flat for the field of view of a standard lens. In theory. Edit: For a standard 50mm lens on full frame (or equivalent), photographing a flat canvas 2 metres from the camera, the focal point will be 10-20 centimetres closer than the canvas at the frame edges Zegnar fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Nov 17, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 20:48
|
|
|
Zegnar posted:The plane of focus is a spherical surface equidistant from the imaging surface (which will be marked on your camera with a Φ). The sphere has a large radius (of the focusing distance), so its curvature is very small and it is approximately flat for the field of view of a standard lens. In theory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2010 23:26
|
|
|
Zegnar posted:The plane of focus is a spherical surface equidistant from the imaging surface (which will be marked on your camera with a Φ). The sphere has a large radius (of the focusing distance), so its curvature is very small and it is approximately flat for the field of view of a standard lens. In theory. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 09:52
|
|
|
Too much physics and not enough photography Of course the imaging surface is just that, not a point. I take it all back!
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2010 11:52
|
|
|
Will I be able to take a photo backpack and a small shoulder bag on an international flight as carry on? I've heard mixed responses about what they consider photo gear as. I might just ring thai airways as their website has nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 01:33
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:Will I be able to take a photo backpack and a small shoulder bag on an international flight as carry on? I've heard mixed responses about what they consider photo gear as. Officially, most airlines state you're allowed a single carry-on, they don't care about the contents. In practice they seem to not mind as long as your stuff fits under the seat in front of you. They get a little more pissy during the holidays because everyone is trying to bend the rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 01:58
|
|
|
You can take any electronics you want, but you'll have to take them out of the bag or have them showing so make sure you pack them in an accessible way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 02:00
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:Will I be able to take a photo backpack and a small shoulder bag on an international flight as carry on? I've heard mixed responses about what they consider photo gear as. Yes. It's like when women carry a purse and a carry on. I have personally traveled with a backpack and my camera bag internationally and within us many times.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 11:26 |
|
|
While we're on the subject, anyone have any problems with tripods? I'm going to Cancun tomorrow and I haven't flown internationally since 2002.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 05:32
|
|
