|
Does anyone here use a SSD or a RAID 0 as a PS scratch disk?
brad industry fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Jan 3, 2011 |
#
?
Jan 3, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
I'm using my SSD for PS scratch and Windows swap disk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Yes it's anecdotal but I've overhead this conversation enough to conclude that basically everyone "in the know" formats their cards regularly. Well I'm most definitely not 'in the know' but I've never formatted any of my SD cards and have never run into any image corruption issues like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
I'm in the middle of acquiring a 50mm f1.8 from craigslist and the guy said that he has a UV filter on it. On the advice of everyone here I'll be removing the filter, but since I'll have it anyway, are there any situations were it might come in handy? I'm sure it's cheap as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 00:52
|
|
|
Kiri koli posted:I'm in the middle of acquiring a 50mm f1.8 from craigslist and the guy said that he has a UV filter on it. On the advice of everyone here I'll be removing the filter, but since I'll have it anyway, are there any situations were it might come in handy? I'm sure it's cheap as hell. Poor weather/environmental conditions such as a sand storm, heavy dust, maybe snow/rain. There are times they are a good idea but are not needed all the time or everyday use.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 00:58
|
|
|
Kiri koli posted:I'm in the middle of acquiring a 50mm f1.8 from craigslist and the guy said that he has a UV filter on it. On the advice of everyone here I'll be removing the filter, but since I'll have it anyway, are there any situations were it might come in handy? I'm sure it's cheap as hell. Shooting in dusty/sandy conditions, or if you are near sea water. Worst time to use it would be at night.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 00:58
|
|
|
A cheap UV filter might come in handy if you ever feel that your photos are too sharp or you're tired of getting sufficient light for a proper exposure. e: Or environmental seal for a non-joke answer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be sealing the most sealed part of the lens anyway? Re: format vs delete. I usually format because it's one click less than delete all and takes about the same amount of time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
Formatting is super easy on (sufficiently advanced) Nikons, so I just do that all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
Ola posted:Wouldn't it be sealing the most sealed part of the lens anyway? Not if you have a Tamron 17-50mm. Great lens but holy hell build quality is poor. Re: format/delete I thought we were all using card readers anyway? I just use the Windows move command instead of Copy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 01:46
|
|
|
dissss posted:Re: format/delete I thought we were all using card readers anyway? I just use the Windows move command instead of Copy. But we're encouraging formatting to reset the filesystem, something that moving files won't do. It has nothing to do with whether you're using a card reader or the camera to read the card over USB.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 01:50
|
|
|
Ola posted:Wouldn't it be sealing the most sealed part of the lens anyway? I'd rather wipe snow or dirt off of a somewhat-disposable UV filter than off the front element of my lens. That's the only time I ever bother with a UV filter though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 02:00
|
|
is go
|
Kiri koli posted:I'm in the middle of acquiring a 50mm f1.8 from craigslist and the guy said that he has a UV filter on it. On the advice of everyone here I'll be removing the filter, but since I'll have it anyway, are there any situations were it might come in handy? I'm sure it's cheap as hell. Ola posted:Wouldn't it be sealing the most sealed part of the lens anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 02:12
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:But we're encouraging formatting to reset the filesystem, something that moving files won't do. It has nothing to do with whether you're using a card reader or the camera to read the card over USB. Just curious, but has anyone ever heard of a problem caused by the filesystem? I've seen many of the half-corrupt images (like posted previously) and they were all solved by replacing the card reader, rather than formatting. That said, I tend to format, but then I also have a rock to keep away the tigers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 05:39
|
|
|
I'm not sure where formatting would help, unless one of the devices is corrupting the filesystem. I suppose there could be the rare bug that causes that, but it seems like by now all the gear would have perfect FAT drivers. Edit: I suppose imperfect card contacts, cosmic rays, wear leveling algorithms, or just degradation of the card over time could corrupt a block (be it part of the image or filesystem) and cause screwed up images. In that case, reformatting would clean up a jacked up filesystem. GWBBQ posted:Most (all?) weather sealed lenses need a filter to complete the seal. Isn't that just a Canon thing? And doesn't the same rule of "you get what you pay for" apply for UV filters? If you get a cheap one as a sacrificial lens, you end up with (somewhat) degraded image quality. If you spend a hundred on a nice filter, then you're not going to want to let it get damaged. Ninja Rope fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Jan 4, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 09:06
|
|
|
zapateria posted:I'm using my SSD for PS scratch and Windows swap disk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 09:16
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:If you put it on a film camera. The super telephotos don't need a filter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 15:37
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:The super telephotos don't need a filter. Mine actually has a "filter" built into the front, the manual says it may be removed in certain situations if you notice ghosting. I am guessing it is removable incase it breaks etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
Ninja Rope posted:Edit: I suppose imperfect card contacts, cosmic rays, wear leveling algorithms, or just degradation of the card over time could corrupt a block (be it part of the image or filesystem) and cause screwed up images. In that case, reformatting would clean up a jacked up filesystem.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 21:30
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Mine actually has a "filter" built into the front, the manual says it may be removed in certain situations if you notice ghosting. I am guessing it is removable incase it breaks etc. That's weird. Would it affect weather sealing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 21:40
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:That's weird. Would it affect weather sealing? I would guess it would, there is rubber around it. I have never removed or had a need to really. I am pretty sure it is solely there to protect the exotic glass behind it. I think the manual states it is for environmental protection and it is much cheaper to replace than the true front element.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:With regards to wear levelling, do CF cards have any type of driver ICs or is it completely up to the camera/PC what blocks they access ? If they are dumb devices then I would expect formatting to wear out CF cards more quickly since you keep writing to the same blocks, UNLESS Nikon/Canon/etc. have a good algorithm in place to prevent that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 22:07
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:With regards to wear levelling, do CF cards have any type of driver ICs or is it completely up to the camera/PC what blocks they access ? If they are dumb devices then I would expect formatting to wear out CF cards more quickly since you keep writing to the same blocks, UNLESS Nikon/Canon/etc. have a good algorithm in place to prevent that. CF cards do wear leveling internally, or at least the vast majority do. You can't really do wear leveling outside of the CF card due to fact the filesystem must have certain data at certain locations for interoperability. That is, host devices expect different parts of the filesystem to be at the same location on every connected device, so any wear leveling has to be done invisible to the host device. The host device could wear level the placement of files within allocated blocks of the filesytem so parts of files get placed all around the card rather than in the same location over and over, but that wouldn't help for parts that have to be in the same location every time (like the FAT). If a host implemented its own wear leveling it would then need to be aware of the underlying technology behind the connected storage device. If it placed parts of files randomly across the filesystem to insure you did not over-wear a single block it would have dismal performance when used with mechanical media (like a microdrive). I don't know that you can query the underlying storage method from the CF device anyway, so it would be a best effort to determine which wear leveling algorithm to implement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:I would guess it would, there is rubber around it. I have never removed or had a need to really. I am pretty sure it is solely there to protect the exotic glass behind it. I think the manual states it is for environmental protection and it is much cheaper to replace than the true front element. I bet you could make a pretty penny making "optically neutral protective filters" to compete with UV filters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
Those are called clear filters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
I understand that using wide angle lenses for portraits is probably a bad idea. However, is there an advantage of say using 200mm vs. 50mm ? My books here say telephotos are more flattering but the accompanying before/after shots look almost identical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
The longer the focal length the more the image subject is "compressed" I believe. I would imagine after a certain length that his effect would not as noticeable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
Also, at the same aperture (say, f/2.8) the background will be more out of focus at 200mm than 50mm, if that's an effect you're going for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 22:58
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:Also, at the same aperture (say, f/2.8) the background will be more out of focus at 200mm than 50mm, if that's an effect you're going for. It really just magnifies the background more. Which makes it appear to be less in focus. There was a cool series of examples shot with an Alf doll and the space needle but I can't find it. Does anyone have a link to what I'm talking about? FAKE EDIT: Here's one that explains it with a truck and a barn instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
Wooten posted:It really just magnifies the background more. Which makes it appear to be less in focus. There was a cool series of examples shot with an Alf doll and the space needle but I can't find it. Does anyone have a link to what I'm talking about? Gremlin doll and some other tower actually  http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
Heads up: Aperture just got a price drop down to $80. I don't have Lightroom and have only bren using iPhoto/NX View/Elements for some sort of ghetto workflow. Is Aperture worth it at this price? I know it locks up metadata ih a database but assuming it leaves the EXIF alone I think I can live with that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 19:30
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:I understand that using wide angle lenses for portraits is probably a bad idea. However, is there an advantage of say using 200mm vs. 50mm ? My books here say telephotos are more flattering but the accompanying before/after shots look almost identical. For outdoor portraits, 200mm can be really neat*, but it'd be a huge pain in the rear end to shoot anyone in a more confined space with that. 85mm and 135mm are the more typical "portrait" lengths. e: *forgot a word, apparently Dr. Cogwerks fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Jan 6, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 20:36
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:For outdoor portraits, 200mm can be really, but it'd be a huge pain in the rear end to shoot anyone in a more confined space with that. 85mm and 135mm are the more typical "portrait" lengths.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:For outdoor portraits, 200mm can be really, but it'd be a huge pain in the rear end to shoot anyone in a more confined space with that. "So that's a 100% crop to show off how sharp the lens is?" "No, that's the entire photo."
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 21:14
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:Ignoring the convenience factor, would there be an advantage of a 135mm over 85mm? Background looking more blurry due to compression was already mentioned, but would it affect facial features in any noticeable way ? With a side by side comparison, probably, but one or the other would be fine. 135mm would compress and flatten the face a little more. 85mm lenses seem to have faster glass available, 135mm lenses seem to be easier to find cheap and used. Consider crop too, 85mm would probably be the more versatile one on a crop body.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 21:28
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:Ignoring the convenience factor, would there be an advantage of a 135mm over 85mm? Background looking more blurry due to compression was already mentioned, but would it affect facial features in any noticeable way ? I have a 135 f2 L which I love. I got it used for 1/4 the price of the 85 1.2 and find it focuses much faster and gives essentially the same performance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2011 21:55
|
|
|
Focal length comparison. http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 00:05
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:Gremlin doll and some other tower actually Mogwai, dude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 00:30
|
|
|
I'm trying to figure out how to get my name on my photos for a slideshow without using a watermark. Would placing it in a black border work alright? How do you guys do it when the situation arises?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 01:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
I'm worried that I'm becoming my family's go-to photographer when I'm around, and something similar is happening at work. At the department christmas party, it was announced early in the evening that since I clearly had the nicest / largest camera there, I was the event photog. On christmas day, similar story. Now my coworkers are bugging me for the party pics, and my mom wants me to email her the christmas pictures ASAP. The problem is, I still basically suck at this and I'm frankly not very happy with many of the pictures I took - I keep blowing focus, or miss-judging the boundaries of my depth of field, or not paying attention to what's in the background behind my subjects (e.g. my uncle's hands behind my cousin's head, or trees / poles / doorframes coming out of people's heads). Given I can't reshoot these event photos, does anyone have any suggestions for a quick-and-dirty cleanup procedure that goes some way to hiding these issues? Is there a mask technique that blurs or darkens backgrounds without making the photo look really dumb? I don't have Lightroom, but I plan on getting it sooner-or-later so this might be the issue that pushes me over the edge on that purchase.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2011 01:37
|
|
