|
Lamb of Gun posted:They have an option to upload in high-resolution and it takes a little while to upload this way. I usually do this all the time for client previews and personal photos alike, unless it's some bullshit picture. Yeah I know, I tick this option too. RangerScum posted:They have changed the algorithm or something because yes, they look even worse now. It's kind of a bummer, now I can't show off pictures as well. Hmm, I just exported a picture that I had already uploaded in the past twice, once in 720px and another 2048px. Uploaded them both and opened all three versions to compare and the newly uploaded ones do look like poo poo compared to the one I had uploaded a year ago. It also seemed like the 2048px version looked better than the 720px version, so no matter what Facebook does some kind of compression. I mean my audience on Facebook are friends and family and they think everything I take a picture of is great but I just can't get over the lovely mess Facebook turns my pictures into. 
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 08:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
I've been uploading to Google+, making the albums public and just posting a link from Facebook. Most of the same people end up commenting anyway as they're almost all Gmail users and are signed in anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 10:38
|
|
|
Yeah I noticed facebook uploads being worse. One theory is they're pushing people to use the high res ones so when they unveil an integrated printing service there'll be more high res ones up. If I have anything I really want to show nicely I put a link to posterous in the comments.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2011 20:32
|
|
|
Went back 3 pages and can't find anything - is there a thread for taking indoor photos of staged houses? Anyone got any hints? I muddled my way through with a crop-body, a 30mm prime and a rented 10-22mm using natural light (it was a well-lit house with lots of windows) but now I am getting a bunch of requests and want to have more of a handle on it before I start charging money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 15:07
|
|
|
Why are 8x12 frames so hard to find? Or at least harder to find than one would expect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 16:53
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:Why are 8x12 frames so hard to find? Or at least harder to find than one would expect. Because you should be matting your photos, you filthy swine!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
Yeah frame sizes correspond to paper sizes, not film formats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 19:06
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Yeah frame sizes correspond to paper sizes, not film formats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 20:34
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Because you should be matting your photos, you filthy swine! I wish there were a thread on matting, because that's some sort of dark wizardry to me. Matting adhesive? Special heating presses? No clue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 20:34
|
|
|
The printing place I use offers mounting on various PVCs and stuff which I think might look nice for non-standard stuff. Otherwise get an ikea frame and get a custom mat made for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Because you should be matting your photos, you filthy swine! It's just that I was at a store a little while ago and wandered through the frame section. There were a bunch of frames (whole thing ended up being 11x14, I think) matted for 8x10 photos, but there was nothing (matted or un-matted) that was made to display an 8x12 photo. Was at another store just the other day and saw the same thing. Thought it was odd, that's all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 21:31
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Otherwise get an ikea frame and get a custom mat made for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 22:02
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:Why are 8x12 frames so hard to find? Or at least harder to find than one would expect. ChrisVPhoto on Flikr posted:35mm as a format originated back from the days of movie film. 35mm was originally introduced before 1900 and came from movie film stock, rather than being a still photography invention. So the short answer is 8x12 frames are harder to find because 8x12 prints are far less common than 8x10 prints.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 23:02
|
|
|
Gallery wrapped canvas - eliminate all framing issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 23:07
|
|
|
My boyfriend's parents are selling their house and his mom asked me to take some pictures of it. The widest I've got is the 17-50 2.8. I'm going to try to get there during the morning so that it's nice and bright - they've got a ton of big windows, which is nice. Is that going to be enough, do you think? I've got a tripod I'll bring as well. I don't think they're looking for omg woot_fatigue type photos, just nicer ones than they've got right now, which are quite dark and grainy and do not do the house justice at all. I'd be into renting something if I absolutely could not get away with 17mm (I'm on a Canon crop), but money is really tight for me this month and I think they would rather take a slight hit on the wide side than pay for a rental themselves. Edit: Also, Alctel, since you seem to have done this very recently, do you have any tips that you came across that would be helpful for another beginner? CarrotFlowers fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Sep 13, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 23:48
|
|
|
Stitch photos together for a panorama.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:Why are 8x12 frames so hard to find? Or at least harder to find than one would expect. Hell if I can find a square frame of any size here in Japan. My Hassie shots 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 23:54
|
|
|
Make sure they clean the place very well. Having poo poo laying around the house is unappealing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Hell if I can find a square frame of any size here in Japan. My Hassie shots Have you checked rakuten shops?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Hell if I can find a square frame of any size here in Japan. My Hassie shots Album frames?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 01:59
|
|
|
Am I the only one who does not try to fit into standard print sizes? When I finish an image I just crop it to whatever I think looks best, and then order a custom mat/frame to fit. Don't really like the idea of trying to stuff something into a fixed ratio just because it makes it easier to find a frame. I can see that not being a stellar idea if you intend to make a lot of prints or sell them though. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 08:53
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Am I the only one who does not try to fit into standard print sizes? When I finish an image I just crop it to whatever I think looks best, and then order a custom mat/frame to fit. Don't really like the idea of trying to stuff something into a fixed ratio just because it makes it easier to find a frame.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 10:12
|
|
|
With the zone system and correctly metering and exposing, how important is an external spot meter? I'm an amateur and I don't really plan on going pro at any point soon, I just want to take good photos for myself for the time being. Will switching from the spot meter mode in my camera (D5100) to an external one make a vast difference in correctly exposing? or is it not really worth it until I consider upgrade to a full frame with a big collection of lenses, etc?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 11:26
|
|
|
Has anyone used extension tubes like these ones? http://www.ebay.ca/itm/Auto-Focus-Macro-Extension-Tube-CANON-EOS-EF-EF-S-/250844649962?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a678199ea According to the description the apature should work since it has contacts, I am not sure what it means by the last bit though 'except when combined with electronic flash AE unit'
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 13:27
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:My boyfriend's parents are selling their house and his mom asked me to take some pictures of it. The widest I've got is the 17-50 2.8. I'm going to try to get there during the morning so that it's nice and bright - they've got a ton of big windows, which is nice. Is that going to be enough, do you think? I've got a tripod I'll bring as well. I don't think they're looking for omg woot_fatigue type photos, just nicer ones than they've got right now, which are quite dark and grainy and do not do the house justice at all. You may be ok with the 17mm, if you can though I'd try to rent a wider one from somewhere, it's not too much. Bring the tripod though, I found it helped a lot, and I also bracketed everything (often I found the more overexposed shot to be better). A flash would also be recommended. Like I said though, I'm new to this as well so I can't offer much more help
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 13:36
|
|
|
Alctel posted:Has anyone used extension tubes like these ones? Yes. I had an official canon one, and I loved it. If it has the electronic contacts, it just works everything the same. I liked it because I didn't want true macro, but did want to get closer, and it was lighter and smaller than a dedicated macro lens. Works great with the nifty/fifty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 14:43
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Yes. I had an official canon one, and I loved it. If it has the electronic contacts, it just works everything the same. Great stuff, I'm going to stack with the Canon 100mm
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 14:49
|
|
|
Alctel posted:You may be ok with the 17mm, if you can though I'd try to rent a wider one from somewhere, it's not too much. Bring the tripod though, I found it helped a lot, and I also bracketed everything (often I found the more overexposed shot to be better). A flash would also be recommended. Like I said though, I'm new to this as well so I can't offer much more help We'll see how generous I'm feeling that day...probably stick with the 17 though. Also, unrelated: a photographer on my facebook is attending a workshop put on by Mike Colon, whose work I really like. However, I was looking at the description of this workshop he is putting on and he says: "Images will be collected by Mike Colon and submitted to publications on behalf of the group. If any images are chosen by publications, proper photo credit will be given to each photographer featured." What does that mean? I assume you still have full rights to the shots you take, right? And this is just like a "bonus" chance at being published? Is this common for workshops? And how do you feel about workshops in general? I like the idea of having a styled shoot ready for you to take pictures, but the entrance fee is a little steep. I mean, I don't plan on doing one anytime soon since it's just a hobby of mine, but I am curious what others think.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 17:12
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:"Images will be collected by Mike Colon and submitted to publications on behalf of the group. If any images are chosen by publications, proper photo credit will be given to each photographer featured." You may need to ask them exactly what they mean. There's not a lot of information there. It may also be optional. I like workshops in general. It's a good way to meet other photographers and nerd out for a while. If you're a beginner, you're sure to learn a bunch. And if you're more advanced, you might learn a thing or two as an added bonus. If you're solely looking at workshops from a knowledge/cost ratio perspective, they're probably not a good value. But they can be a lot of fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 18:03
|
|
|
Krelas posted:With the zone system and correctly metering and exposing, how important is an external spot meter? You don't really need to use the zone system with your digital camera; just learn how to expose correctly using spot or center-weighted average metering. Hell, just use the histogram, and bias it towards the right without clipping, then correct it when you process the RAW. That's the one thing about digital cameras I really miss after switching to film. :P
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 22:53
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Album frames? Like for vinyl? Haven't seen any, although I'll keep an eye out and expand my search to music/bookstore type places. I see a lot that are really close, but when I read the label it's 278x243 or something. tarepanda posted:Have you checked rakuten shops? Online? Didn't find any at rakuten. What would I search for in Japanese?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 01:16
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:We'll see how generous I'm feeling that day...probably stick with the 17 though. I've never heard of it related to workshops but it sounds like a bonus opportunity and an idea the photographer had to try and make his workshop more attractive. I've assisted on a couple of workshops and it really depends on what your expectations are from them. A styled shoot is great but 10 other people will be shooting it - on the other hand you do get to meet like minded people and such.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 01:48
|
|
|
This handy little manual popped up on apug today. The instructions are specific to the camera, but the composition and lighting info is rather generic and might be helpful to new photographers who happen to find themselves in orbit (obviously not via space shuttle anymore though). Might be worth putting on the front page of the thread? I know how much trouble I've had trying to correctly expose shadows of a spacecraft payload bay when the disc of a planet in direct sunlight is in the background...
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 11:57
|
|
|
I have an absolutely retarded question: Is it possible to go past infinity focus? I had a go at shooting some stars last night, so turned the focus ring on my sigma 30mm to the maximum distance. What I ended up with was bokeh stars. So I would it back a touch and it got much better. That seems really really silly?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 16:29
|
|
|
A5H posted:I have an absolutely retarded question: Yes, there's a little room past infinity on most lenses because things like the weather can influence the mechanics of where infinity is on the lens. It may not be in the exact same spot each time, so there is a little room to maneuver. I think it's also there to prevent the AF system from hitting anything too hard. TheAngryDrunk fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Sep 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 16:42
|
|
|
A5H posted:I have an absolutely retarded question: Yes, most autofocus lenses go past infinity, you need to actually check your focus or use autofocus to hit something a few hundred feet away and use that as infinity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 16:42
|
|
|
Captain Postal posted:This handy little manual popped up on apug today. I want a 120 exposure film back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 06:43
|
|
|
Should I spring for a GND filter for landscapes and whatnot, or can I properly achieve this effect in Lightroom/Photoshop? If the latter, does it have to be a RAW image and how do I do it? Thanks
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 06:49
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I want a 120 exposure film back. It'd royally suck if you ever wanted to push the film though. And you'd be buying chemicals by the barrel. Syrinxx posted:Should I spring for a GND filter for landscapes and whatnot, or can I properly achieve this effect in Lightroom/Photoshop? If the latter, does it have to be a RAW image and how do I do it? Thanks Lightroom. Develop->graduated filter tool (M). It's next to the crop, spot heal, red eye and adjustment brushes under the histogram And the graduated filter tool will limit you to ~2 stops as it'll never recover images that are over or underexposed, you need the real-deal for that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 09:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I want a 120 exposure film back. I want the Nikon F3 NASA back, but on an F3 High Speed so I can shoot the whole thing at 13fps for 9 seconds. Maybe push the film to 3200+ to compensate for the pellicle mirror, it'd be the perfect bigfoot camera!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 14:57
|
|