|
I got stopped by security when I brought a camera through. She wanted to know what sort of telephoto lens I used but she lost interest once she found out that I shot nikon instead of canon.  I was waiting for the person I was traveling with to get through security, so she was just chit chatting while I waited
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
The N-word should be a one-way ticket to Gitmo. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 19:47
|
|
|
Never had a problem, no matter how much gear I was carrying. In Oman they had to check with a supervisor that I was allowed to bring in camera gear, but I guess that's because it had been banned previously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
I got taken to a private room search for having medium format gear on me, where the 120 roll of Astia I was carrying triggered something in their bomb sniffing machine. That was fun, about the same as the time I was flying one way with armored pants and no luggage (to pick up a motorcycle). tl;dr astia is made from BOMBS
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Last time I took film through airport security, I was taking some Fuji 3200B pack film through and asked if I could take it out of my bag before it was x-rayed. The guy said "oh, it's fine, these don't affect films used today." I told him that under 1600 ISO that's true, but this film was 3200 ISO and I'd rather take it out. He told me 3200 ISO film didn't exist and it would be fine, and put it through the x-ray. The film was fine, but I was pissed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:I got stopped by security when I brought a camera through. One day I hope I'll have a similar discussion with airport security as Bill Bailey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uTDzsTZNFY
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
The worst part was that the lens was a Tamron, so she could have gotten it anyways (it was the lovely cheap tamron though, not the nicer VC). No harm in the end I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
Hahahah my mom's old SLR from the 70s, some Nikon thing always comes up as radioactive whenever they randomly test it for some reason. No one really cares about it too much, luckily.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 05:26
|
|
|
Man_of_Teflon posted:I got taken to a private room search for having medium format gear on me, where the 120 roll of Astia I was carrying triggered something in their bomb sniffing machine. That was fun, about the same as the time I was flying one way with armored pants and no luggage (to pick up a motorcycle). Those loving chemical sniffers trigger on everything I swear. I've gotten a half dozen bottles of contact lens solution confiscated because they contain peroxide. Of course fuckers, that's how you prevent pink-eye!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 05:37
|
|
|
HookShot posted:Hahahah my mom's old SLR from the 70s, some Nikon thing always comes up as radioactive whenever they randomly test it for some reason. Probably the glass in the lens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
HPL posted:Probably the glass in the lens. Yup, some of the coatings have some radioactive treating (i'm too lazy to look it up). Is that like crossing the beams with an backscatter machine?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
Ah cool, she never actually knew why it came up as radioactive, so now I can tell her!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
What should I do to handle images where different light sources are visible, causing different white balance settings to be needed for different parts of the image? I recently ran into this on some night photos with a halogen floodlight filling the nearby scene and softer orange city lights lighting up the landscape and sky in the distance. So far, I have gotten away with just desaturating the ugly orange, but I suspect there may be something I am missing that would bring a better result.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
EssOEss posted:What should I do to handle images where different light sources are visible, causing different white balance settings to be needed for different parts of the image? Process the photo twice at different color temps, then overlay and mask in photoshop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
Alternatively, if it's possible, you can put coloured gels on your flash to make all the light the same temperature.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
Sodium lamps are horrifically warm so I wouldn't try to balance to them, best to balance to whatever light is falling on your subject them mask/correct the other areas. I wish more places would use metal halides, they might be green but at least they're a reasonable temperature.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
The problem with sodium is that the emit in a very tight wave band, which makes them impossible to correct.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Yeah, there's absolutely no correcting a low-pressure sodium vapor lamp because its entire spectral output is one tiny stretch of yellow: High-pressure you can correct really poorly because it covers more of the spectrum, but does it in a totally discontiguous, uneven, exaggerated way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
HookShot posted:Ah cool, she never actually knew why it came up as radioactive, so now I can tell her! To be specific there's a chance that the lens was doped with thorium to improve it's optical properties 
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
I have a weird problem. I just bought a new computer, and while working in photoshop, I noticed something: a photo I had previously edited on the old computer, when imported in the new PS computer, looks WAY too blue, the colours are not right at all. I compared the photo from the browser, with the one in Photoshop, and they are way too different. I have no idea why that is happening - both are the same colour space (sRGB), both are the exact same image. The colour settings in PS are sRGB, just like the old computer. On the old one, both the browser image and the PS image look the same. Edit: I hosed around with the gamma, and now they almost match  . Colour spaces weeeeird.
bobmarleysghost fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Nov 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2012 18:27
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:I have a weird problem. I just bought a new computer, and while working in photoshop, I noticed something: a photo I had previously edited on the old computer, when imported in the new PS computer, looks WAY too blue, the colours are not right at all. Did you get a new monitor with it, or are you using the same one? Is it properly calibrated, either way? That's a big piece of the color management puzzle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
My girlfriend is writing a book and much of it takes place in San Francisco. Given that, and given that I have taken pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge from Alcatraz, the ferry, etc she was hoping to use one of them on the cover. I've tried looking up info but found one blog that seemed to indicate that there is a $2000 fee for using a picture of the bridge commercially, but not a lot of info to back that up. Does anyone have experience with pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge directly, or other landmarks that to me, would seem to fall under fair use?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 05:30
|
|
|
Anyone have a favorite method/utility for fixing EXIF taken dates? One of my cameras resets the date every time the battery goes flat, and it screws with Picasa. Tips welcome!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
WildFoxMedia posted:I've tried looking up info but found one blog that seemed to indicate that there is a $2000 fee for using a picture of the bridge commercially, but not a lot of info to back that up. There is a permit and associated fee required for taking pictures of/from the bridge on the bridge. You can take and use a picture of the bridge from public land (including the non-land of the briny deep, I suppose) until the cows come home. Molten Llama fucked around with this message at 08:24 on Nov 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2012 08:09
|
|
|
I know this question has probably been done to death, but maybe I can get some education on effective focal length vs. perspective. I've heard that even as effective focal length changes (say, a 24mm lens becoming a 36mm lens on a 1.5x crop body), perspective doesn't change as the only thing that changes perspective is distance to subject - but since that lens offers greater magnification on a crop body, you'd move back to maintain the same framing... doesn't that mean that, effectively, perspective does change with effective focal length? I guess what I'm getting at is... if I want a ~35mm focal length look on a 1.5x crop body, should I get a 24mm lens or a 35mm lens?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I know this question has probably been done to death, but maybe I can get some education on effective focal length vs. perspective. 24mm is what you want. A 1.5x crop from a FF 35mm is what you'd get from a 35mm on a crop body, so you'd have to move backwards. To get the same view in the same spot with a crop body, you'll need the 24mm because you'll be taking a 1.5x crop out of the 24mm full view, which is what a FF 35mm view would be like.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 05:33
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I know this question has probably been done to death, but maybe I can get some education on effective focal length vs. perspective. When people say "perspective" they mean DOF and magnification for a given subject distance. You changing the FOV (by stepping back) doesn't change the properties of the lens. So when you say "35mm look" do you mean FOV or apparent DOF and magnification? The short answer is like alkanphel said buy a 24mm. Frankly anyone confused about perspective and focal length won't notice any of the differences especially on the short end of the scale (focal length and capture medium wise)
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
red19fire posted:Did you get a new monitor with it, or are you using the same one? Is it properly calibrated, either way? That's a big piece of the color management puzzle. I'm stuck using the laptop monitor. Not ideal, but better than the old monitor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 06:55
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:When people say "perspective" they mean DOF and magnification for a given subject distance. You changing the FOV (by stepping back) doesn't change the properties of the lens. So when you say "35mm look" do you mean FOV or apparent DOF and magnification? The short answer is like alkanphel said buy a 24mm. Let's see if I can put this in a coherent way... you know the crazy look that a 10mm ultra-wide gives, exaggerating the distance between points in the scene? If I slapped that lens on a m4/3 camera, making effective focal length ~20mm, will I get the crazy 10mm exaggeration between points in the scene or the less extreme 20mm version? Does my question even make sense? Thanks for taking it slow for me. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 07:00
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Let's see if I can put this in a coherent way... you know the crazy look that a 10mm ultra-wide gives, exaggerating the distance between points in the scene? If I slapped that lens on a m4/3 camera, making effective focal length ~20mm, will I get the crazy 10mm exaggeration between points in the scene or the less extreme 20mm version? Does my question even make sense? Crazy exaggerating is due to close focusing on something with a wideangle. YOu could get the same perspective as a 10mm with a 20mm if you took the photo from the exact same spot but the scene would have different things in it due to FOV. Makes sense? All changing the sensor does is crop the image.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 07:06
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Crazy exaggerating is due to close focusing on something with a wideangle. YOu could get the same perspective as a 10mm with a 20mm if you took the photo from the exact same spot but the scene would have different things in it due to FOV. Makes sense? All changing the sensor does is crop the image. Ahhh, that makes sense. Thanks a lot, alkanphel and 8th-samurai.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 07:08
|
|
|
The ultra-wide-angle look is strongly related to the field of view, which is a short way of saying "all the stuff that's in frame". Smaller sensors are called "crop sensors" (smaller than a standard frame of 35mm film, which is a rectangle 24x36mm) because they effectively crop the centre of the image. So there are fewer things in frame. The "crazy exaggeration" is (to my eye) mostly based on the juxtaposition in the picture of two objects that are far apart in horizontal distance; they're close to the edges of the picture. Crop to the central 2/3 of the picture and you lose all those close-to-the-edges elements from the picture. Anyways, that's how I see it. Others can probably explain it much better. \/\/\/ As I suspected, others can do it better. Thanks. ExecuDork fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Nov 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 07:11
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:The ultra-wide-angle look is strongly related to the field of view, which is a short way of saying "all the stuff that's in frame". Smaller sensors are called "crop sensors" (smaller than a standard frame of 35mm film, which is a rectangle 24x36mm) because they effectively crop the centre of the image. So there are fewer things in frame. The "crazy exaggeration" is (to my eye) mostly based on the juxtaposition in the picture of two objects that are far apart in horizontal distance; they're close to the edges of the picture. Crop to the central 2/3 of the picture and you lose all those close-to-the-edges elements from the picture. This isn't true. The difference in appearance depending on focal length is called perspective distortion, and it's an artifact of the angles at which light comes through the lens, and thus the distance to the subject. Of course, if you shoot with two lenses at the same distance and then crop the resulting photos to the same field of view, you'll get the same perspective distortion. You can see the effect in portraits here: http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm This dude took the same portrait, controlled for distance, with a bunch of different lenses. a foolish pianist fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Nov 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 19:38
|
|
|
Quite a while back I posted asking about a band of over-exposure in one exposure, and was told that it was due to my camera having a horizontal-plane shutter. Is there a technical term for that band of over-exposure/light? I want to know how to avoid it, since the last few rolls of [cheap, Walgreens film] had those bands all over the drat place: Sorry for the super-rubbish photo, by the way. Also, the fact that these bands of light show up so consistently makes me worried. Do I have some sort of strange shutter lag issue, or is the problem entirely on me?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 20:12
|
|
|
Is there a light leak somewhere in your camera? The foam light seals tend to crack and fall apart when they're old, so it could be in one specific spot near the shutter, or where the exposed film is wound up. It could also be that your shutter is not completely closing, or hanging up on the last 3rd of the exposure. Open the back, and just look at it while firing at every shutter speed. I had an old rolleicord that was fine at 1/250, but would stick open for 2-3 seconds at 1/60. It turned out that the oil on old shutters gums up over time, and sitting for 20 years with the shutter cocked weakened the springs. My completely uneducated guess is that there's a tiny leak near the film area, and the band's intensity is dependent on how long you wait between winding new frames and how much ambient light is in the scene. I'm basing this on there being less banding on frames that appear to be shot in rapid succession.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
That's definitely a light leak and not a shutter issue. Check the foam seals as they are probably worn out. You can generally pick up cheap foam kits on ebay or you can just tape the camera closed while you're using it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:This isn't true. The difference in appearance depending on focal length is called perspective distortion, and it's an artifact of the angles at which light comes through the lens. Actually, ExecuDork's correct. And so are you. You are both talking about it in different ways. The strippage is related to the barrel distortion of shorter focal lengths and compression of longer focal lengths vs distance from subject. As to ExecuDork: a 24mm on a crop, you wouldn't have as much apparent barrel distortion in the image as you would on a full frame sensor, because you're limited in what the sensor records. It's just getting light from the center of the lens. This really jumped out at me when I went from crop to full frame. You can really notice the distortion in the viewfinder when panning with a 24L on a 5D and watch in real time how things distort as they approach the center of the lens. So, if you have a smaller sensor aka smaller field of view, the distortion is less pronounced between the center and the out edges of the image.  As for earlier discussion on Field of View, Depth of Field, etc.: Between a Crop and FullFrame - on a Crop, 10mm Lens doesn't magically become 20mm Lens. 24mm doesn't become ~40mm either. 35mm doesn't become 50mm. There is no extra reach with a crop sensor, just less image captured. It does not matter matter what the idiots petapixel interviews say about a crop sensor. A 400mm lens does not effectively becomes a 640mm image. It's still and image at 400mm or 50mm or 24mm or whatever focal length. Because of a Crop sensor's size it's unable to capture the full image potential of the lens. FF vs. 1.3 vs. 1.6 Crop (this is with a 50mm) If I had photoshop at work, I'd do one with a 24mm shot to show the barrel distortion in the center of the image to go along with the earlier part about barrel distortion. And again barrel distortion is greater the closer you are to your subject.  As for Depth of Field. Crop vs FF does matter and you'll have a wider DoF with a FF than you will with a Crop sensor. This is due to the aptly named Circle of Confusion (CoC = diagonal / 1500: ~0.029 for FF vs ~0.018) The tilde (~) is because there are 3 constants 1500, 1440 and sometimes 1730 according to Lensrentals) I think http://dofmaster.com uses 1440 as its constant. Lensrentals has a great write up on it: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/02/sensor-size-matters-part-2 geeves fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Nov 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
geeves posted:Lensrentals has a great write up on it: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/02/sensor-size-matters-part-2 This is a really good read if you're at all interested about the benefits of a full frame sensor. A little technical, but an easy enough read without needing to understand physics equations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:This isn't true. The difference in appearance depending on focal length is called perspective distortion, and it's an artifact of the angles at which light comes through the lens, and thus the distance to the subject. Of course, if you shoot with two lenses at the same distance and then crop the resulting photos to the same field of view, you'll get the same perspective distortion. OK, I think I'm getting it - so it's distance to subject that sets perspective and thus the "look", not focal length, right? And all different focal lengths do is allow you to change that distance to subject?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 04:04 |
|
|
Radbot posted:OK, I think I'm getting it - so it's distance to subject that sets perspective and thus the "look", not focal length, right? And all different focal lengths do is allow you to change that distance to subject? Focal lengths allow you to change the framing at a certain subject distance. A 100mm lens with have less things in the scene than a 50mm at the same subject distance on the same capture medium.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2012 05:00
|
|