|
RizieN posted:having a very small wedding at some Mosque Best of luck. As everyone has said, make sure you check with the mosque about their photo policy, make sure your clients have valid expectations of what you're going to provide them, and for the love of all that is good and plentiful in Odin's beard, turn your focus beep off.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
This is kind of random, but if you're into landscapes and cinematography, the (very) strange movie Rubber has a lot of great shots. I found myself saying frequently, I would be very proud of that shot. http://www.rubberthemovie.com/ The film itself is odd, but I liked it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 02:47
|
|
|
Munkaboo posted:So I took some volleyball pictures for a sports league in the DC area and they liked my pictures enough that they would like me to do some for other leagues (to pay me). Empty quoting because nobody gave me any advice 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 04:35
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:This is kind of random, but if you're into landscapes and cinematography, the (very) strange movie Rubber has a lot of great shots. I found myself saying frequently, I would be very proud of that shot. I saw some crappy movie with Salma Hayek where she played a photographer that did large format landscape photos.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 06:58
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:This is kind of random, but if you're into landscapes and cinematography, the (very) strange movie Rubber has a lot of great shots. I found myself saying frequently, I would be very proud of that shot. I saw the trailer for that at my local indy theater Friday, and man, I like creativity and setting new boundaries, but that movie looks stupid as hell. I was a pretty easy audience at the time too. Is the movie exactly how the trailer makes it look or is there more to it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 13:59
|
|
|
Munkaboo posted:Empty quoting because nobody gave me any advice Judging by the size of that venue and how professional it all looks, I'd say $50 is probably the max you could expect. Does the sports league make money any way? If it's just a bunch of people playing for free I doubt they'd want to pay anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 14:15
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:This is kind of random, but if you're into landscapes and cinematography, the (very) strange movie Rubber has a lot of great shots. I found myself saying frequently, I would be very proud of that shot. I watched Barry Lyndon entirely because of this article, so the great deep focus landscape shots came as a nice surprise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 14:57
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:I watched Barry Lyndon entirely because of this article, so the great deep focus landscape shots came as a nice surprise. In film school I had to break down a scene from a list of films, which all sucked, so I asked my prof and I was allowed to do Barry Lyndon. While the class wanted Mise-en-Scene (whats in the scene/what you see) most of my analysis was on the cinematography and imagery, but I still got an A+ Stanley Kubrick is killer because he started out as a photographer, and he was such a loving perfectionist that everything had to be just right or else gently caress it. Hence his beautiful images, and the infamous story of firing the lovely actor and just hiring the real Drill Sergeant in Full Metal Jacket. Sorry to rant about things you probably already know, I just loving love Kubrick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 16:35
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:I watched Barry Lyndon entirely because of this article, so the great deep focus landscape shots came as a nice surprise. I love that movie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 17:07
|
|
|
Say I want to take a lot of closeups of a drawing and then stitch them together for a really high-res picture. How should I set up my canon s90 to get max sharpness and the least amount of lens distortion?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 18:16
|
|
|
Prathm posted:Say I want to take a lot of closeups of a drawing and then stitch them together for a really high-res picture. Zoom in as far as you can without going to digital zoom. If you go wide, it'll make stitching the photos together a little trickier because of the distortion at the edges.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 18:19
|
|
|
HPL posted:Zoom in as far as you can without going to digital zoom. If you go wide, it'll make stitching the photos together a little trickier because of the distortion at the edges. That's what I figured, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 18:32
|
|
|
Also probably use the macro setting so you can focus as close as possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 02:35
|
|
|
Make sure you are as close to perpendicular to your image as possible. You don't want it distorting your image because your lens was angled
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 17:14
|
|
|
I'd recommend taping it to a wall at eye level and supplying bright (but not too bright), even light.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2011 17:54
|
|
|
Sorry if this has been asked but I've been put in charge of resizing and compressing tons of huge 10 mb photos to put on the internet. Is there a program I can do this in a huge batch with quickly?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 01:14
|
|
|
Lightroom would be my program of choice. You can load all of the pictures into the Lightroom catalog (like the library in iTunes) then export them all at a lower resolution. Lightroom will save them as new files where you specify. You can do them all as a batch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 01:22
|
|
|
Irfanview is free, runs in Windows, and has several batch functions including resize. I've never tried it with 10mb files, but it handles 3-4mb just fine. If you have Lightroom, you can import the photos, then export them and specify filesize and / or pixel limits in the export menu.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 01:25
|
|
|
Photoshop batch resizes with some options too, no clue how speedy it is compared to others though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
I think you would have to load all of them into PS before batch resizing them (which could suck depending on how many we're talking about).
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
spf3million posted:I think you would have to load all of them into PS before batch resizing them (which could suck depending on how many we're talking about). Nah, File > Scripts > Image Processor (This is CS4)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 01:59
|
|
|
I use irfanview to batch resize. Handles 50mb or whatever the gently caress RAWs so should eat 10mb jpegs all day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
spf3million posted:I think you would have to load all of them into PS before batch resizing them (which could suck depending on how many we're talking about).
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
Thanks guys ! Ifranview worked fine. Now to figure out how to get 500 photos on facebook without the upload crashing :S Any advice?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 02:30
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Even in CS and CS2 you can select a folder as the source for a batch action rather than the currently open images.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 02:37
|
|
|
Phiberoptik posted:Thanks guys ! Ifranview worked fine. Now to figure out how to get 500 photos on facebook without the upload crashing :S Any advice? Batches of 50-100 should be fine. I've never had the thing crash.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 03:34
|
|
|
If you'd said "put on facebook" instead of resize we could have told ya to just use the Lightroom trial with the facebook publishing plugin 8(
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 09:08
|
|
|
Does anyone know of a camera store in Berlin where I can find a good range of 120 film?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 11:01
|
|
|
Camera Broke Edit: Oh its back alive, thank you camera gods. Rockybar fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Apr 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
Ballistic Photon posted:Does anyone know of a camera store in Berlin where I can find a good range of 120 film? I would be all over this as well. E: just wrote and asked a guy I know, watch this space. E2: "In the main train-terminal (Berlin HBF), level 1, by the Goverment quarter/Regierungsviertel-exit." Prathm fucked around with this message at 18:07 on Apr 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2011 20:40
|
|
|
I'll look into that, but I found exactly what I was looking for at a store called Fotoimpex. They have the best selection of film I've seen so far in any store I've been to in any country.
Sound Insect fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Apr 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2011 01:57
|
|
|
I've been wondering about this for awhile. As far as I can see the manual doesn't mention it, but what is this thing on the side of my 430EX?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
tuyop posted:I've been wondering about this for awhile. As far as I can see the manual doesn't mention it, but what is this thing on the side of my 430EX? Did one of the strap holders break off?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 17:54
|
|
is go
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Did one of the strap holders break off? Nah I removed a little plastic tab to reveal it. http://www.photoanswers.co.uk/upload/2566/images/canon%20430ex.jpg If you look at this, you can see the plastic tab on the right side close to the back where the controls are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
tuyop posted:I've been wondering about this for awhile. As far as I can see the manual doesn't mention it, but what is this thing on the side of my 430EX? Page 4 of the manual says it's a bracket fitting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2011 19:34
|
|
|
Oh, duh. I didn't pay attention to the part name and thought I was looking at the side of a strange-looking camera, not a flash. Shoe-mount screw looks vaguely like a setting dial from the side. I should get more sleep.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2011 03:19
|
|
|
Slightly odd question: Now that everyone and their dog has a half decent slr or compact and most people with more than a passing interest in photography know about the rule of thirds, is the rule of thirds method of composition going to become cliche and over used and do we all need to be looking for a new way to make our photos fresh and interesting? Or is that one aspect that will pretty much always be right and it's other areas of our photos that we need to play with and adjust to find something new and interesting? I am aware there is probably not a right answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 13:52
|
|
|
EvilRic posted:Slightly odd question: Yes, absolutely. There are so many rules and they are so widely disseminated that if everyone followed them it'd all be cookie cutter. However it is important to understand why they are rules and when you break them, you do it with purpose. This might not apply to RoT as much as other "rules" but yeah, experimental is the name of the game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 14:00
|
|
|
I agree, but Rule of Thirds works like rhyming. It's an inherent property that triggers in our brains that makes it more appealing. I'm not saying that it should be 100% observed or that even if it became the norm that other methods wouldn't also be appealing or stand out, but it's not going away. It's not like a magical post process that makes things unique and then once everyone does it that makes it just cliche (*cough*HDR*cough*) but it's satisfying a center in your brain that has nothing to do with culture. RoT will always have it's benefits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
It really should be called "The Guideline of Thirds" rather than the rule since it is by no means follows the definition of a rule. I think it just serves as a beginner's tool for working on their composition. Eventually once you have your eye for what looks good you can throw all the "rules" out the window.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2011 18:06
|
|