|
Disregard. Sorry.
Bape Culture fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Sep 17, 2011 |
#
?
Sep 17, 2011 15:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
Are there any quality photography magazines/publications I could subscribe to? Obviously, I could browse Flickr, 500px, etc., and I know professional photographers have their own websites, but I'm really interested in a print source of good photography. Any recommendations?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 00:26
|
|
|
ThePopeOfFun posted:Are there any quality photography magazines/publications I could subscribe to? Obviously, I could browse Flickr, 500px, etc., and I know professional photographers have their own websites, but I'm really interested in a print source of good photography. Any recommendations? It depends on what you're after. I've picked up copies of Photo Technique, Aperture, and B&W and liked them, but they're all pretty different. I'd say most photo magazines are gear centric and kinda crap though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 04:41
|
|
|
If you're into fashion/portraiture there are some good magazines but most photo centric magazines are mostly shills for gear. The best way of finding really good photography is to make and effort and really build up a good list of people to follow on flickr or 500px.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 11:56
|
|
|
RSS is great for this, too. Lots of great blogs like BOOOOOOOM, Flak Photo, Burstoid, but does it float, touch puppet, and many, many more. This will get you the broadest, most customizable view of photography today, in whatever area you're interested in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 12:39
|
|
|
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 Normally a GND ius used because the sky is to bright to expose the foreground properly. You can do the same thing in Photoshop but you'll have to take at least 2 exposures. One for the sky and one for the foreground, and then combine them in PS.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 22:45
|
|
|
scottch posted:RSS is great for this, too. Lots of great blogs like BOOOOOOOM, Flak Photo, Burstoid, but does it float, touch puppet, and many, many more. This will get you the broadest, most customizable view of photography today, in whatever area you're interested in. I was on touch puppet!  But yeah, print is honestly lagging behind a lot with regards to photography. Especially non-fashion stuff. I'd love there to be publications that were just curated awesome photography of all types.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2011 22:49
|
|
|
I picked up the June/July issue of Photolife on my way through my local airport a couple of months ago. It's Canadian, and pretty local in many ways, but it's got lots of general-photography stuff. The issue I've got is "Wilderness Landscapes", but there's also an article about indoor flash photography, a photoessay on demolition derbies, a few other articles on various topics (waterfalls, birds in flight, small wildlife like rodents), and some gear reviews (plus plenty of ads, of course). One of the gear reviews is for GIMP. I dunno about the rest of you, but I enjoyed it - it was perfect for reading on an airplane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
scottch posted:BOOOOOOOM, Flak Photo, Burstoid, but does it float, touch puppet, and many, many more Everyone should subscribe to all of these, they rule. Calikartel is also good for fashion. As far as print mags go I think Wired is one of the best for photography and design. Bon Appetit, Saveur, and Donna Hay (Australian) are all great for food. Fortune has been doing consistently awesome portrait stuff recently. There's a lot of great editorial photography out there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 04:45
|
|
|
brad industry posted:....Calikartel is also good for fashion.... Holy crap, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 14:49
|
|
|
Conscientious is another really good one that I recently found. Film is not dead it just smells funny is bloody spectacular too, should have included that in the first list. I just noticed Burstoid hasn't been updated since July though.  Oh and American Suburb X cannot be overlooked. Best collection of photography essays and interviews on the web.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 14:58
|
|
|
British GQ has been putting out some surprisingly decent editorials. They had a really nice Testino retrospective a few issues ago. The only problem with most men's magazines is how awful the articles are. Wired is definitely my favourite in terms of general content though I'm kind of disappointed that there hasn't really been a push to have an upmarket unisex magazine but I suppose it's hard to sell that to advertisers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2011 15:33
|
|
|
Since we're on the subject any good place to look for inspiration when it comes to taking pictures of bands/group of people ?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:The only problem with most men's magazines is how awful the articles are. Wired is definitely my favourite in terms of general content though The irony is that the king od lad books, Playboy, tends to have really good writing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 04:50
|
|
|
tarepanda posted:The irony is that the king od lad books, Playboy, tends to have really good writing. Having had a subscription to Playboy for 7 years, I can say with confidence that pretty much the only time any of the nude pictorials have interesting photography are when they have guest celebrity photographers. Otherwise it's uninspired though technically well-executed glamour photography. That said, I often like their portrait for their 20Q section and their fashion pictorials are usually decent at worst.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 05:40
|
|
|
I'd say playboy has much better photography - retouching especially than the lower tier women's magazines (cosmo etc.) - that being said I haven't really looked too much at the pictorials consistently. In the UK at least it seems like the editorials between Elle and GQ are essentially interchangeable. This summer Elle had a Rosie Huntington Whitely story and then the next month GQ had one - they could have easily been reversed and nobody would have noticed. I think Esquire US has a very high standard of photography too. Unfortunately the lower tier men's magazines like Zoo, Nuts, and FRONT in the UK just have plain old lovely photography for the most part
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 13:17
|
|
|
One of the mags that has surprised me with its amount of gorgeous shots and high print quality is Surfing. It comes up for free in the free magazine deals thread a lot, too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 14:53
|
|
|
Hope this is the right place for this, but I'm in the process of making a photo collage for a piece in my apartment. Most of the pictures are in different ppis and pixel sizes so are coming out in different sizes. To get them the same size I've been using GIMP to rescale the pictures based on the ppi to print at the desired size output. However, I since noticed there's a "Set Image Print Resolution" option that adjusts the ppi to print at the desired size. Is there a noticeable difference between adjusting pixel size or adjusting ppi in terms of the overall quality of the final product? Am I better off doing this one way rather than the other?
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
I've got a piece of dust on my sensor that won't come off with blowing or swabs, what the hell do I try next? Second, I got an N80 from Keh, and the viewfinder is blurry/out of focus. The diopter adjustment does adjust it a bit, but it doesn't get anywhere near sharp. It also seems like the least-blurry point doesn't necessarily agree with the distance on the lens. That is, if I focus with a different camera and get 1m, from the same place the N80 viewfinder image might appear least blurry with the lens set to 1.2m, although it's not consistent and might just be error on my part because there's no clear in-focus point. Normally I'd just return/exchange it but it was discounted to $12 because of "sticky surface" so return shipping would be a wash vs. just keeping it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2011 21:53
|
|
|
So apparently Google Chrome is terrible with colour management and some recent images of mine have been looking like dogshit on it. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2011 14:40
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:So apparently Google Chrome is terrible with colour management and some recent images of mine have been looking like dogshit on it. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 00:45
|
|
|
So for (relatively) cheap, I can develop my own 35mm film and then just use a negative scanner to get digital copies on my computer, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
Yes. Before you ask (most people do, I did) - those little dedicated 35mm negative scanners are garbage. Don't bother. Get a high-end flatbed with the light in the lid that lets it shine through negatives and other transparent media.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Export them only in sRGB color space? I think that's all Chrome can handle whereas Safari and Firefox can handle more. I just use the save for web in Photoshop and tick the "convert to sRGB" box. Yeah I figured it out! I was exporting in pro photo :s
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 08:55
|
|
|
I want to streamline my workflow on my computer and have it so that once I export my photos into jpegs into their respective folder on the hard disk, I can then keyword and find them using some type of database program. I would also like the same to happen to my original raw files I take off my camera's card and import via lightroom to a folder. Is this too much of an ask for finding a database program that does this? Someone chuck me a general name for the type of program I'm looking for (not Explorer hurr), plus some program titles and I'll be happy to investigate further.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 09:15
|
|
|
Auditore posted:I want to streamline my workflow on my computer and have it so that once I export my photos into jpegs into their respective folder on the hard disk, I can then keyword and find them using some type of database program. I would also like the same to happen to my original raw files I take off my camera's card and import via lightroom to a folder. Isn't this all stuff that you can do with LR?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 11:14
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Yes. Before you ask (most people do, I did) - those little dedicated 35mm negative scanners are garbage. Don't bother. Get a high-end flatbed with the light in the lid that lets it shine through negatives and other transparent media. Cheap 35mm dedicated scanner < good flatbed scanner < expensive 35mm dedicated scanner.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2011 21:56
|
|
|
So I bought one of those EMF confirmation chips from Big_Is, only to find out it front focus confirms like a mother. I can adjust it from 0-31, says the FAQ. I tried 00, 01, 15 and 31. All still front focus. What's the deal?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 01:27
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Yes. Before you ask (most people do, I did) - those little dedicated 35mm negative scanners are garbage. Don't bother. Get a high-end flatbed with the light in the lid that lets it shine through negatives and other transparent media. Like Clayton said, a "real" dedicated 35mm scanner is actually best way to go. You can get older ones for $200-300, which you may want to consider if you're not planning on shooting 120 anytime soon. Downsides: potentially needing a SCSI card or Windows (if you're a Mac/Linux user) to use it. edit: Most of us go with an Epson V500/600, which is what I did, and it works fine. edit2: developing your own B&W is pretty easy, and C-41, while requiring more steps/toxic chemicals and tighter temperature control, is also pretty viable at home. E-6 is supposed to be a bit more of a PITA, but I still read about people doing it. When I lived in the US, I did my own B&W, took color C-41 to my local minilab (less than $2.50/roll develop only), and sent out all my E-6/C-41 in 120 or 4x5. Now that I'm in Japan, I might start doing my own C-41 since it's like $7-8/roll to mail it out, and about $3 to DIY it. Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Sep 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 04:09
|
|
|
What's the best way to handle shooting sports outdoors when it's completely overcast and white/grey AND your subjects are wearing white t-shirts? It's ridiculously hard to get a good exposure that doesn't result in the sky getting blown out or the faces being way too dark.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 06:56
|
|
|
Bring a gigantic flash or throw a graduated ND filter on your lens to darken the sky.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 07:03
|
|
|
Flash is a no-go since it's sports, so I guess I'll have to try to find a graduated ND filter for my 70-200...
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 07:10
|
|
|
I'm looking for a MACRO lens for my Nikon D80. All I have now is the DX 18-105mm 1:3.5-5.6G ED. I find that I am constantly going for close up shots of technology at home or things outdoors and that I am finally ready to buy my second lens, so it should be a lens that takes great macro photos. At first I was going to use this money to sell my D80 and upgrade to a D90, but as much as I would love video I think (with only owning one lens in my kit), the few improvements the D90 makes would not be worth as much to me as a new lens would that focuses on the kind of photography I am into, and that if I really wanted a new body I should be saving up for a D7000 instead (feel free to confirm / deny my suspicion). I am going to buy used (scanning craigslist constantly for a good price to pop up). I am open to other manufactures but kind of feel a piece of mind with a Nikon lens and I am willing to pay a small premium for it. At first I was going to get the older AF Micro 60mm f/2.8D (didn't think the AF-S warranted the price increase?) which was only $250-300 used, but now I am thinking I might be better served shelling out for the 105mm (possibly even the newer VR model for about $700-750 used, and yes I know VR doesnt really come into play when taking macro shots as most people seem to suggest focusing manually). I started thinking 105mm because I've been reading that with 60mm you often block out your own lighting trying to compose the shot. Something that bothered me however was that its hard to manually focus for macro shots with this lens because it causes the framing of your shot to be off every time you focus. I've had my D80 for 2 years now but I am still a total noob, so really, thanks for any advice. Vulcan fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Sep 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 07:22
|
|
|
I know 0 about photography, but I have a decent DSLR camera that I use to take pictures of athletes training at my facility. I want my pictures to look like this and was wondering what type of settings I need to do to make them, be black n white with that much contrast (not sure if thats a camera setting or editing program) and be blurry enough to show the motion, but still capture faces and objects as well. Here are some examples of what I'm looking to create:   
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 14:27
|
|
|
Maybe 1/50 handheld with you moving and tracking the motion as you hit the shutter button. Your camera may have a black and white mode; otherwise you can do it in Photoshop/Lightroom or a specialized program for black and white processing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 14:31
|
|
|
Alfalfa posted:I want my pictures to look like this and was wondering what type of settings I need to do to make them, be black n white with that much contrast (not sure if thats a camera setting or editing program) and be blurry enough to show the motion, but still capture faces and objects as well. Looks like second-curtain sync'd flash and a slow shutter speed to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 14:44
|
|
|
Vulcan posted:I'm looking for a MACRO lens for my Nikon D80. All I have now is the DX 18-105mm 1:3.5-5.6G ED. I find that I am constantly going for close up shots of technology at home or things outdoors and that I am finally ready to buy my second lens, so it should be a lens that takes great macro photos. It doubles as a nice portrait lens, though in some cases it's almost too sharp.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 14:56
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Looks like second-curtain sync'd flash and a slow shutter speed to me. Yep it's this. You need a slow shutter speed and a flash to freeze the action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 15:00
|
|
|
An acquaintance/co-worker of mine has asked me to take her engagement photos. Now, I take pictures purely as a hobby, though I try to understand what I'm doing at least a little bit. However, I've never really done anything like this - a "formal" session where I have to give people directions and such. I think I'm okay at capturing fun candid moments, but this is a little different. She's got a ton of ideas already - locations, things they'd want to do, etc, so that's good, it's going to be pretty active. I've never met her fiancee but this girl is really bubbly and expressive so hopefully that part won't be so bad. Now, I don't have a whole lot to work with in terms of gear - I'm a student and like I said, I do this purely as a hobby and don't have a ton of cash to spend. Here's what I've got to work with: Canon T1i the 18-55 kit lens, but I just ordered the Tamron 17-50 50mm 1.8 Canon 55-250 a $10 tripod polarizing filters speedlite 270EX some other dumb cheap gimmicky stuff She also wants to compensate me. Now, she's a grad student and I'm a junior at the same university (that's how we know each other, we're both essentially RAs). I would be totally fine with doing this for free, but if she insists... what is a reasonable price? Finally, here are a few of my better photos. they're all straight out of the camera. http://www.flickr.com/photos/52232177@N04/6062402846/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/52232177@N04/5682213417/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/52232177@N04/5682781786/ (I know there are SO many things wrong with this one but I love moments like these, and I'd like to get better at capturing them effectively) I have about three weeks to sharpen my skills, so - any and all suggestions are very much appreciated!
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
Pianist On Strike posted:She also wants to compensate me. Now, she's a grad student and I'm a junior at the same university (that's how we know each other, we're both essentially RAs). I would be totally fine with doing this for free, but if she insists... what is a reasonable price? Nothing. Think of it simply - if you gently caress up or produce work that isn't to her expectation if you did it for nothing - "oh hey, he did it for free that's fine. not the end of the world" but if they're 50 bucks or whatever out then they feel cheated and wronged and you ruin a friendship and or working relationship. Has she seen your work? does she honestly know your skill level? Or do you think in her mind that she might be jumping to a conclusion of your skill level just because you have a dSLR. I hate to sound like a dick but honestly money changing hands changes a lot - do it for a meal or something if you must.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2011 01:51
|
|