|
Not a tripod, but I've flown with a monopod a few times, and they only notable reaction I've ever gotten was one TSA photo nerd who wanted to chat gear and all I wanted to do was get on my plane and sleep because it had been a really long week okay?
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 05:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
The few times I've traveled with a tripod I've had to check it in as an oversized piece of luggage, because I only travel with a carry on bag. The security guy said that it could be used as a weapon, so into the hold it went.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 06:41
|
|
|
I have a newbie question. I've think I have rudimentary understanding of the relationship between ISO, shutter speed, and aperture now. However, after learning the theory, I'm led to believe that there is a correct exposure for any given situation -- anything else would result in underexposure or overexposure. In fact, cameras seems designed around the fact that there is a right or wrong answer. Aperture Priority allows you to adjust aperture, but not shutter speed; because for every desired aperture, there is a correct shutter speed. Vice versa for Shutter Priority. Obviously your potential permutations of "correct" exposures is impacted by the physical aspects of the lens like the focal length (maybe adjustable, maybe not), being fast/slow, and so on. You can go into Manual Mode if you want, but you're liable to overexpose or underexpose if you aren't careful. So what I'm trying to ask is, what's the purpose of all this? If there are right and wrong answers, why isn't it simplified (like the meter on my camera where the arrow should be at 0 and not +1 or -1). Is all this solely to give the cameraman more control over shutter speed and depth of field? Under what circumstances would you want to over or underexpose your shots? Posts like Trambopaline's in the DSLR newbie thread, for example, really confuse me. He said "now the plan looks more like buying a 35mm f/2 and a 85mm f/1.8," however, the 85mm is both longer and faster (either aspect giving more liberty with DOF)... so why buy the 35mm at all? I must be missing something, otherwise the only lenses for sale would be 300mm with f/1.2 or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 07:19
|
|
|
zmcnulty posted:So what I'm trying to ask is, what's the purpose of all this? If there are right and wrong answers, why isn't it simplified (like the meter on my camera where the arrow should be at 0 and not +1 or -1). Is all this solely to give the cameraman more control over shutter speed and depth of field? Under what circumstances would you want to over or underexpose your shots? There are some times when you don't want the "correct" exposure as indicated by your meter. Sometimes it's the only way to get a shot. Lets say you're shooting a stage and you don't have a fast enough lens to get a shutter speed that will freeze the action of your shot. If you take the correct exposure, you're going to get a blurry subject. So you'd rather get the stopped action and try to recover it in post. Of course, the ideal situation is to use the right lens, but that's not always an option. Another reason you'd want to over/under expose is when you're photographing a landscape scene with a high dynamic range. If you expose for the sky, your ground is too dark. If you expose for the ground, your sky is blown out. So you can use bracketing to get over/under exposed shots and try to merge them together in post. Another reason why manual necessary is if you're shooting with studio lighting. You can only meter the scene when the flashes fire. You can't use your camera meter before the shot because when you take the shot your lighting/exposure is going to change. So you have to dial in what the correct exposure is going to be when you take the shot. zmcnulty posted:Posts like Trambopaline's in the DSLR newbie thread, for example, really confuse me. He said "now the plan looks more like buying a 35mm f/2 and a 85mm f/1.8," however, the 85mm is both longer and faster (either aspect giving more liberty with DOF)... so why buy the 35mm at all? Different focal lengths have different fields of view, which means they're suitable for different types of shooting. zmcnulty posted:I must be missing something, otherwise the only lenses for sale would be 300mm with f/1.2 or something. Other than such a lens being enormous and cost prohibitive, you couldn't use such a lens if you're trying to take pictures of your friends at a party (unless the party is on a football field). TheAngryDrunk fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Nov 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 07:40
|
|
|
zmcnulty posted:I have a newbie question. I've think I have rudimentary understanding of the relationship between ISO, shutter speed, and aperture now. The meter is a guide, but not a be-all, end-all thing. Some scenes will throw off the meter, like a scene that's mostly in shadow, or mostly in light, or surrounded by a ton of green. In those cases, you'd purposely expose either under or over in order to make sure your subject is correctly exposed. Second answer: Because a 300mm f/1.2 would be horrendously expensive and I don't want to stand back like a bajillion feet in order to get the same viewing angle as a 35mm. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 07:40
|
|
|
zmcnulty posted:So what I'm trying to ask is, what's the purpose of all this? I can think of two answers to your question: 1) It is quite easy for your camera to be fooled and incorrectly calculate the correct exposure. e.g. the metering system assumes that it is looking at a neutral scene (18% grey) - but if you are looking at a snow scene, it sees bright white and so thinks the scene is brighter than it actually is and so it underexposes. In this case, you need to use the photographers brain to correct for the camera's incorrect assumptions. 2) Not all the scene has the same 'correct' exposure and only the photographer knows what are is the one that needs to be correctly exposed. e.g. person standing in front of a shadowed wall, in an area of light: What should the camera expose for? The dark wall, or the bright face? That is an artistic decision and so one you need a human for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 07:41
|
|
|
Thanks for the answers fellas. I hope I don't sound like I'm trying to refute your points or make everyone shoot in Auto all the time, just trying to make sure I'm not missing something important. TheAngryDrunk posted:Another reason you'd want to over/under expose is when you're photographing a landscape scene with a high dynamic range. If you expose for the sky, your ground is too dark. If you expose for the ground, your sky is blown out. So you can use bracketing to get over/under exposed shots and try to merge them together in post. Indeed, I forgot about this, my camera even has this bizarre feature to do HDR automatically. TheAngryDrunk posted:Another reason why manual necessary is if you're shooting with studio lighting. You can only meter the scene when the flashes fire. You can't use your camera meter before the shot because when you take the shot your lighting/exposure is going to change. So you have to dial in what the correct exposure is going to be when you take the shot. Ah, see it would help that I've never tried any studio shooting. TheAngryDrunk posted:Different focal lengths have different fields of view, which means they're suitable for different types of shooting. Is there a guide for this kind of thing somewhere online? For example I take a crapload of pictures of flowers, but not so many of people. Is there a rule of thumb that says like "smaller objects = smaller focal length" or something? TheAngryDrunk posted:Other than such a lens being enormous and cost prohibitive, you couldn't use such a lens if you're trying to take pictures of your friends at a party (unless the party is on a football field). So when someone says they want to buy a 50mm lens or 25mm lens or whatever, are they saying this primarily because they want that field of view provided by the lens, or is there some other consideration? Besides cost and physical aspects, as you highlighted. In this case, the speed of the lens is a compromise, right? Casull posted:The meter is a guide, but not a be-all, end-all thing. Some scenes will throw off the meter, like a scene that's mostly in shadow, or mostly in light, or surrounded by a ton of green. In those cases, you'd purposely expose either under or over in order to make sure your subject is correctly exposed. spog posted:1) It is quite easy for your camera to be fooled and incorrectly calculate the correct exposure. e.g. the metering system assumes that it is looking at a neutral scene (18% grey) - but if you are looking at a snow scene, it sees bright white and so thinks the scene is brighter than it actually is and so it underexposes. That sounds like a technical limitation. Let's say, one day, someone develops a metering system that matches the metering capability of a human eye 1:1. I can understand some exceptions where you want to exceed the human eye (extreme HDR and such), but for general photography, would you say the need for under/over exposure is inversely correlated to the capability of metering systems? Why hasn't anyone developed metering systems with like 4000 metering points (ala Xbox Kinect, albeit for a different purpose)? spog posted:What should the camera expose for? The dark wall, or the bright face? That is an artistic decision and so one you need a human for. Is this what it comes down to? Since I am sort of wondering what cameras will be like in 50 years. zmcnulty fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Nov 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 08:37
|
|
|
zmcnulty posted:
No. Rather, there are a number of things to consider. Instead of focal length, focus distance, which determines how large the object is on the sensor/film. quote:
Field of view, primarily. Then, within that focal length, there are better/faster lenses. quote:
Less to do with metering, more with the dynamic range of the film/sensor. The human eye can also NOT meter everything within a scene at the same time to be "correct." Look at a scene with deep shadow and bright light together, you get one or the other clear.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 08:57
|
|
|
zmcnulty posted:So when someone says they want to buy a 50mm lens or 25mm lens or whatever, are they saying this primarily because they want that field of view provided by the lens, or is there some other consideration? Besides cost and physical aspects, as you highlighted. In this case, the speed of the lens is a compromise, right? People generally choose a lens length based on their need for a) field of view or b) magnification. So, if you need to shoot indoors, the field of view is the most critical aspect since you need to fit in as much as possible, with as little distortion as possible. Magnification is not an issue. If you shoot birds, you need as much magnification as possible and FOV isn't really a major factor. Of course, as FOV and magnification are inversely proportional, it is two sides of the same coin. quote:That sounds like a technical limitation. Let's say, one day, someone develops a metering system that matches the metering capability of a human eye 1:1. I can understand some exceptions where you want to exceed the human eye (extreme HDR and such), but for general photography, would you say the need for under/over exposure is inversely correlated to the capability of metering systems? Why hasn't anyone developed metering systems with like 4000 metering points (ala Xbox Kinect, albeit for a different purpose)? It is still the limitation that the camera designers can only assume that you are shooting a standard, neutral type of scene and so the meter must react accordingly. Snow will always be underexposed because reality differs greatly from the standard scene that the assumptions have been based on. There are only 3 solutions to this problem: 1) human overriding of the camera (exposure comp) 2) informing the camera that the scene is snow (by choosing a specific mode) 3) intelligent camera that can recognise the scene as snow and meter accordingly. 3) may be possible in the future to a limited degree, but machine intelligence is still going to get it wrong...what if you take a photo of a baker covered in flour and it thinks it is a snowman? Chances are, it will stil not be 100% right Nikon currently have 1,005 metering points: http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/technology/d-technology/autofocus/01scene/index.htm It is hard to imagine that any more are required to meter correctly. EDIT: torgeaux posted:The human eye can also NOT meter everything within a scene at the same time to be "correct." Look at a scene with deep shadow and bright light together, you get one or the other clear. dammit, I wish I had mentioned this point too: the human eye does not have a super, super wide dynamic range...rather your brain is very clever at processing the image so that the area of interest is the one that is exposed for. Sure, it beats the camera sensor, but if you hooked a human eye up to your computer (yeuck), it still would have not have the same dynamic range that you think it has. spog fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Nov 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 09:03
|
|
|
zmcnulty posted:Is there a guide for this kind of thing somewhere online? For example I take a crapload of pictures of flowers, but not so many of people. Is there a rule of thumb that says like "smaller objects = smaller focal length" or something? It might help if you thought of focal length as "zoom" or "magnification". A 300mm lens (on a crop sensor) would be like having a 10x magnifier on your camera. If you wanted to take a picture of a flower with a 10x magnifier you'd have to be pretty far away from the flower. However, if you wanted to take a picture of a boat out on the ocean it's going to be a lot harder to get close to it so having 10x magnification might make sense. Lenses with a shorter focal length are generally easier to make and more popular, so its affordable to purchase a fast and clear lens. On a crop sensor, ~35mm is rather like what a person would see, so if you were to use a 35mm lens the distance you would stand from the object you're photographing is about as far as you would stand if you were just looking at it, so it's a pretty good choice for an all-around lens. You can run your camera in "auto" mode, but it would take a lot of technology for the camera to know if what you're photographing is moving quickly and needs a high shutter speed or if the picture would look better with a shallow DoF to separate the subject from the background, etc. If you're using a digital camera than I'd recommend shooting everything in manual mode until you really understand how everything works. Frame and meter out what you think would look good and then take a picture and review it. Try the same shot at a larger and then smaller aperture (and change the shutter speed when appropriate). Even if the camera had a sensor that could properly detect the huge dynamic range the eye and brain can "see" it could never tell the actual subject of every photograph or the "best" way to frame it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 09:07
|
|
|
zmcnulty posted:That sounds like a technical limitation. Let's say, one day, someone develops a metering system that matches the metering capability of a human eye 1:1. I can understand some exceptions where you want to exceed the human eye (extreme HDR and such), but for general photography, would you say the need for under/over exposure is inversely correlated to the capability of metering systems? Why hasn't anyone developed metering systems with like 4000 metering points (ala Xbox Kinect, albeit for a different purpose)?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 09:11
|
|
|
Appreciate the responses once again. I'm beginning to understand the purpose of so many different lenses. torgeaux posted:Field of view, primarily. Then, within that focal length, there are better/faster lenses. torgeaux posted:Less to do with metering, more with the dynamic range of the film/sensor. The human eye can also NOT meter everything within a scene at the same time to be "correct." Look at a scene with deep shadow and bright light together, you get one or the other clear. Yeah, now that you mention it I guess it's sort of obscured by peripheral vision. spog posted:If you shoot birds, you need as much magnification as possible and FOV isn't really a major factor. Ninja Rope posted:It might help if you thought of focal length as "zoom" or "magnification". A 300mm lens (on a crop sensor) would be like having a 10x magnifier on your camera. If you wanted to take a picture of a flower with a 10x magnifier you'd have to be pretty far away from the flower. However, if you wanted to take a picture of a boat out on the ocean it's going to be a lot harder to get close to it so having 10x magnification might make sense. This is the core of what I was trying to figure out, thanks. That's why sports photographers always carry around those battle cannons. But why aren't adjustable zoom lenses more popular? Are they a "jack of all trades, master of none" kind of thing? Since most times I see people talking about lenses there's a single number for the focal length rather than a range. They tend to suck at the higher/lower ranges? spog posted:Snow will always be underexposed because reality differs greatly from the standard scene that the assumptions have been based on. There are only 3 solutions to this problem: Right, my Face Recognition thing sometimes picks up patterns in my wallpaper. I will be interested to see how GPS comes along too; for now it's not much more than a gimmick that lets me plot my pics on Google Earth. Might be interesting to incorporate GPS info into some actual capture modes. Ninja Rope posted:If you're using a digital camera than I'd recommend shooting everything in manual mode until you really understand how everything works. Frame and meter out what you think would look good and then take a picture and review it. Try the same shot at a larger and then smaller aperture (and change the shutter speed when appropriate). Even if the camera had a sensor that could properly detect the huge dynamic range the eye and brain can "see" it could never tell the actual subject of every photograph or the "best" way to frame it. Been trying to. On that note, is there any advantage to using higher ISOs? Jacking mine up to 6400 or whatever seems like a last resort for when I can't get enough light through adjusting aperture and shutter alone (and my hand isn't steady enough). I've heard that for HDTV there's a calculation for detail vs. appropriate viewing distance, dictating that the detail of 1080p is lost if you're more than X feet from a screen of Y size (so you will be fine with 720p). Is there something similar for ISO? Like if you're rescaling down to 1280x1024, noise shouldn't be noticeable at ISOs of 6400 and lower? Obviously this would depend on things like compression scheme if I shoot in JPEG rather than RAW. Any general guidelines though? TheLastManStanding posted:You completely missed the point on what a meter does. It simply says how much light is present (which has nothing to do with contrast, range, or hdr). Stand alone meters are extremely advanced, but will always underexpose snow and over expose dark photos. To avoid this they would have to have some cognitive understanding of the scene so that they could make the decision to adjust the photo to a high key or low key setting. Many cameras now days have 'creative modes' which do just this; You select the snowman setting or half moon setting and the camera adjusts appropriately. I was under the impression that a meter (the one my camera uses, not standalone) was for measuring how much light is present at several different points in a given frame. Then sending that info to the processor so it can determine if there are over or under-exposed areas, trying yield a single EV value that tells me if "overall" the picture is under or overexposed. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Is that not what it's for? If you have the meter taking so many different readings, would it be plausible for the camera to adjust the ISO point-by-point? Or do they already do this; it must be named "dynamic ISO" or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 10:33
|
|
|
zmcnulty posted:I've heard that for HDTV there's a calculation for detail vs. appropriate viewing distance, dictating that the detail of 1080p is lost if you're more than X feet from a screen of Y size (so you will be fine with 720p). Is there something similar for ISO? Like if you're rescaling down to 1280x1024, noise shouldn't be noticeable at ISOs of 6400 and lower? Obviously this would depend on things like compression scheme if I shoot in JPEG rather than RAW. Any general guidelines though? 1) That sort of rule of thumb is dependent on your camera, because each camera has different amounts of noise at the same ISO. Reviews will tell you that a given camera can make prints of x size at y ISO, or that a given ISO is usable for screen viewing, and then you work from there. 2) Yeah that is what a meter does, but for many scenes there is no "single EV value" that yields "correct" exposure for the entire scene, as the range between the darkest and lightest parts is too wide. Exposure compensation allows you to choose which part of the range you want to be "correct". 3) Nope not currently possible. This is essentially what people do when they merge several exposures with HDR though - using masking in Photoshop, you'd choose to use photo 1 for the sky and photo 2 for the ground of the same scene.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 11:12
|
|
|
Welp, made it past the tub stacking authority with my tripod. Still got one more flight to go before Mexico though. I brought my tripod case (which I keep my nano lightstand and compact umbrella in anyway) and shoved it in my carry on incase something goes wrong and I have to check it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 16:20
|
|
|
spog posted:dammit, I wish I had mentioned this point too: the human eye does not have a super, super wide dynamic range...rather your brain is very clever at processing the image so that the area of interest is the one that is exposed for. Sure, it beats the camera sensor, but if you hooked a human eye up to your computer (yeuck), it still would have not have the same dynamic range that you think it has. Yea we were arguing about this before and people still insist that the eye is some amazing physics defying device that has infinite dynamic range. I think peoples brains are too good at making them think that their eyes are better than they really are. quote:This is the core of what I was trying to figure out, thanks. That's why sports photographers always carry around those battle cannons. But why aren't adjustable zoom lenses more popular? Are they a "jack of all trades, master of none" kind of thing? Since most times I see people talking about lenses there's a single number for the focal length rather than a range. They tend to suck at the higher/lower ranges? For a few reasons: Cost - I'm sure a lot of people would love to have a 200-500 2.8, but well, that's going to be expensive. As the length increases, it gets exponentially more expensive to keep a fast aperture. I work for a good sized newspaper (not a photographer), and we have a lot of awesome lenses: Multiples of 600mm f/4, 300mm f/2.8, 200-400mm f/4, and a whole bunch of 24-70 and 70-200 lenses. Even for us though, a single lens that expensive just isn't really feasible. a 600mm f/4 Nikon is like $10,000, and a 200-400 f/4 is about $6000. In the end its cheaper (and way more portable) to just carry two or three cameras with lenses attached: a 70-200, a 200-400, and a 600 would cover just about everything sports related, and a 24-70 and 70-200 is what most photographers carry to normal news coverage. Size - Again, as the length increases, keeping a low aperture makes the lens exponentially larger. A 600mm f/4 is a pretty beefy lens, a 200-400 f/4 is nearly as big. If you get any longer/faster with a zoom you end up with one loving huge lens. mobby_6kl posted this awesome picture of the above lens (I don't know where he saw it): 
subx fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Nov 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 17:46
|
|
|
That thing better shoot rockets too. If won the lottery, I'd probably be content with a mere 400mm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 17:58
|
|
|
Extenders provide a lot of flexibility for sports shooters as well. If you've got a 70-200, 300/400, and 1.4x and/or 2x extender, you've suddenly got a LOT of options for focal length with only two lenses/bodies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 18:03
|
|
|
xzzy posted:That thing better shoot rockets too. It shoots rockets of loving awesomeness. Also I'm pretty sure I would never want to carry around a 35lbs lens. No thanks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 18:04
|
|
|
zmcnulty posted:So when someone says they want to buy a 50mm lens or 25mm lens or whatever, are they saying this primarily because they want that field of view provided by the lens, or is there some other consideration? Besides cost and physical aspects, as you highlighted. In this case, the speed of the lens is a compromise, right? One fairly important part that's not been touched on yet is perspective. Wide angle lenses (short focal lengths) make nearby objects seem bigger and far away objects seem smaller, while telephoto lenses (long focal lengths) bring objects closer together, making the image seem flatter. Sometimes you want to stand a bajillion feet away because of the way perspective works with long lenses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 18:21
|
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:One fairly important part that's not been touched on yet is perspective. Wide angle lenses (short focal lengths) make nearby objects seem bigger and far away objects seem smaller, while telephoto lenses (long focal lengths) bring objects closer together, making the image seem flatter. Sometimes you want to stand a bajillion feet away because of the way perspective works with long lenses. I thought of that too, but that's quite a bit more advanced than he really cares about I think. Even some of the most experienced photographers have trouble with perspective and making it work to their advantage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 18:28
|
|
|
subx posted:mobby_6kl posted this awesome picture of the above lens (I don't know where he saw it): It's from this field report with that lens. Besides a few sample shots, it also has a photo with the model sitting next to this lens, and it seems to be about as big as the girl's torso  Regarding extenders, as I understand, while (say) doubling the focal length, they also halve the maximum aperture, so for this same lens 200-500 f/2.8 becomes 400-1000 f/5.6... which is as fast as my kit lens at 55mm  . Speaking of which, is it possible to use more than one at the same time? F/11.2 at 2000mm still shouldn't be too bad for daytime shooting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 20:01
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:It's from this field report with that lens. Besides a few sample shots, it also has a photo with the model sitting next to this lens, and it seems to be about as big as the girl's torso I don't know enough to say for sure it's possible, but I think that's how it works. Extenders do affect image quality to a degree though (quality lens + quality extender aren't all that noticeable), so you may end up with a soft image or some weird effects I don't know about. Also isn't 2000mm like longer than most telescopes? What would you use that for? I'm one of the first to say there's always a need for something, but I think at that point maybe you would be better off just getting an actual telescope! How much of your viewing area would, for example, the moon take up at that length? Edit - thinking about it I would say that the camera most definitely wouldn't be able to meter (for multiple reasons) with 2x teleconverters. Manual would probably still work though, but I'm not positive focusing and zoom would be functional? subx fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Nov 22, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 20:06
|
|
|
Teleconverters affect AF performance as well, so if you're shooting in lower light, you may want to opt for the 1.4x over the 2x. If you're tracking fast movers like small birds that dart around and change direction suddenly, forget about TCs because you're going to need all the speed you can get both for shutter and AF.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 20:46
|
|
|
subx posted:mobby_6kl posted this awesome picture of the above lens (I don't know where he saw it): http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-200-500mm-Ultra-Telephoto-Canon-Cameras/dp/B0013D8VDQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1290458326&sr=1-1 mobby_6kl posted:Regarding extenders, as I understand, while (say) doubling the focal length, they also halve the maximum aperture, so for this same lens 200-500 f/2.8 becomes 400-1000 f/5.6... which is as fast as my kit lens at 55mm
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 21:42
|
|
|
benisntfunny posted: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. Most airlines let you have a carry-on and a "personal item" that should be able to fit below the seat in front of you. I do it with a medium/largish suitcase or backpack with most of my camera stuff in it for the overhead bin, and my Slingshot 200 as personal item (with a book, mp3 player, study materials, 35mm gear, sometimes netbook). Haggins posted: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. Mine's a two-section leg tripod, which necessitated removing the center column and even unscrewing the feet to get it to fit diagonally in my carry-on (which is basically right on the upper limit for carry-on size, it fits in an overhead bin pretty snugly). Most won't be that bad though. Other than that no problem, TSA guys were more interested in my Speed Graphic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 22:49
|
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:One fairly important part that's not been touched on yet is perspective. Wide angle lenses (short focal lengths) make nearby objects seem bigger and far away objects seem smaller, while telephoto lenses (long focal lengths) bring objects closer together, making the image seem flatter. Sometimes you want to stand a bajillion feet away because of the way perspective works with long lenses. Actually yeah, this is a point that I had just stumbled upon yesterday. Particularly these pages: http://www.sony.jp/dslr/community/contents/lens_share/popup/view.html http://www.sony.jp/dslr/community/contents/lens_share/popup/back.html Had some interesting comparison shots. zmcnulty fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Nov 23, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 23:39
|
|
|
zmcnulty posted:I was under the impression that a meter (the one my camera uses, not standalone) was for measuring how much light is present at several different points in a given frame. Then sending that info to the processor so it can determine if there are over or under-exposed areas, trying yield a single EV value that tells me if "overall" the picture is under or overexposed. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Is that not what it's for? Go buy a book or spend some time in a library. Then just go shoot. You're over thinking everything and getting it all wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 23:39
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:It doesn't matter if your meter looks at one point or fifty thousand. A picture shot in the snow will be bright everywhere, which to the camera seems overexposed even though it should be bright everywhere. Same thing happens on overcast days. Totally even light everywhere, so the camera doesn't know what the gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2010 23:45
|
|
|
zmcnulty posted:Appreciate the responses once again. I'm beginning to understand the purpose of so many different lenses. http://photo.net/columns/mjohnston/column57/ Mike Johnston posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 01:25
|
|
|
The one thing that fisheyes are best for is skateboarding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 02:04
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:http://photo.net/columns/mjohnston/column57/ From this I've learned that my lens is actually 28-75, not 24-75 and macro. Shows me for having my hood on backwards covering it all the time!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 02:20
|
|
|
Well the 1200mm is great for enlarging the sun   Click here for the full 1024x760 image.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2010 02:26
|
|
|
Goddamnit, Lightroom. Another "corrupt monitor profile," I swear this poo poo happens to me every six months. Every (RAW) photo I'm looking at in Lightroom has a yellow tint - even the black and white ones, they're sepia. If I right-click and open it in photoshop, the photo looks the way it's supposed to. If I do a loving printscreen and paste into photoshop, the photo is fine. I export it from Lightroom as a jpg, and the windows explorer preview is fine. But if I open it up in Windows Photo Viewer or whatever it's called, it's back to being yellow. I can never remember what I did to fix it last time, so I'll waste a week fixing this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 15:26
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:
Not for nothing, but this is probably the most interesting airplane photo I've ever seen. As someone who's not super into aircraft, seeing the same photo of jets taking off and landing does nothing for me. Dress it up nicely like this, though ---  Okay, maybe I've seen more interesting, but this is drat awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 20:41
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:
Must be a Qantas jet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2010 21:11
|
|
|
How can I get lightroom 3 to apply the "Camera Standard" profile to every picture imported? I cant seem to find an easy way to do that, although I'm sure I'm just overlooking it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2010 05:26
|
|
|
Put it in a preset, apply on import. What I'd like to know how to do is how to modify one of the included presets. The oen they supply for D90+Sig 30/1.4 oercompensates vignetting, which makes pictures look super weird unless you tone it down.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2010 10:03
|
|
|
Hi guys, I have a little project. Every year, my friend throws a Victorian Gothick Christmas party--think A Christmas Carol and Charles Dickens and all that. Everyone dresses up, and there's meat pies and decorations and all that kind of stuff. I'm doing a photo booth this year, and would like to have the photos look like they came from the late 1800s. From looking around on Flickr, it looks like the general principles are: small aperture, crank the saturation and contrast down, and a surprising amount of sharpness. I can add scratches/distressing in photoshop, and get the right color tone I'm looking for. But I'm still trying to work some other stuff out though. In terms of focal length, what would best approximate that old look on a crop sensor camera? Here's a photo: http://www.flickr.com/groups/100_years_old/pool/with/5199965987/ . Is that a classic 85mm, which means I would want to shoot with a 50? I know this probably gets goofed up by the different size formats and all that. Any other tips? How about lighting? I've got a 430ex II, an umbrella, triggers, and some other modifiers, but I think that's a bit too techy. Did indoor portraits just use available lighting? Thanks guys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2010 20:46
|
|
|
VermiciousKnid84 posted:Hi guys, I have a little project. Every year, my friend throws a Victorian Gothick Christmas party--think A Christmas Carol and Charles Dickens and all that. Everyone dresses up, and there's meat pies and decorations and all that kind of stuff. I'm doing a photo booth this year, and would like to have the photos look like they came from the late 1800s. From looking around on Flickr, it looks like the general principles are: small aperture, crank the saturation and contrast down, and a surprising amount of sharpness. I can add scratches/distressing in photoshop, and get the right color tone I'm looking for. Portraits were shot indoors with "available light", but they used windows, skylights, mirrors, and curtains to direct the sunlight. Probably a bit beyond what you want to do At any rate: big and diffuse. As far as posing, daguerreotypes and plates had really low sensitivity (around ISO 3-6 or something), so subjects would have to remain stark still for several minutes, which is why nobody looks like they're having fun in those old pictures. Studios usually had special chairs with adjustable metal brackets that locked the subject into place, positioned so they didn't show up in the final picture. I don't know if that's something you want to recreate at a party though. 50-85mm (35mm equivalent) is probably about right as far as FL. The sharpness is in part due to the fact negatives were a lot bigger back then, the enlargement factor is much less. On the material end, daguerreotypes are still unmatched by modern methods as far as sharpness  Not everything is massive DoF, Petzval lenses were around f/3-4.5, which is no small feat on large format. They produce a really distinctive spherical distortion in the out of focus area.If you want to get really in to it, you can actually pick up old brass lenses from that approximate time period on eBay for a not unreasonable sum and mount it on your camera via a drilled-out body cap. The focal length most likely would be a bit long for a crop sensor camera, but if you can scoot the camera back far enough from the sitters it should work. If you picked up a whole camera, you could even put the DSLR inside it so it would look like the old timey camera was taking the picture. I think there are a fair number of unloved folding cameras in oddball formats from the early 1900's that go for less than $100 on eBay. edit: stuff like http://cgi.ebay.com/ANTIQUE-VINTAGE-SENECA-9-FOLDING-BOX-CAMERA-/320621507458?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4aa687f382#ht_500wt_1156 http://cgi.ebay.com/VINTAGE-SENECA-...f9#ht_500wt_922 http://cgi.ebay.com/Kodak-Folding-P...a#ht_500wt_1156 http://cgi.ebay.com/Vintage-Zeiss-Ikon-207-1-4X5-plate-folding-camera-/230544332194?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35ad8355a2#ht_3965wt_1139 http://cgi.ebay.com/rare-russian-GO...d#ht_500wt_1156 http://cgi.ebay.com/Antique-Century-Camera-Co-4-5-Plate-Camera-w-Case-/250731435023?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a60c2140f#ht_890wt_1139 Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Nov 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2010 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
Does photography equipment generally get cheaper after christmas? I wanna get the 20 mm Panasonic so bad, but I'm thinking I might be overpaying for it right now...
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2010 23:05
|
|
