|
Why can't you just put the lens on infinity, isn't infinity the proper setting after like 50 meters or so? Honest question.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Why can't you just put the lens on infinity, isn't infinity the proper setting after like 50 meters or so? Honest question. Not all lenses have a hard stop at infinity, and not all lenses have a focus scale on them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Not all lenses have a hard stop at infinity, and not all lenses have a focus scale on them. Also the hard stop is not necessarily infinity (see earlier post about slightly-past-infinity focusing).
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
If you wanted to play with MF, stop it down to f/11-16 and do hyperfocal focusing, then you can get nearly everything in focus and be set up for doing star trails too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
Thanks for all the replies. It is a clear night here tonight so I am going to give these methods a try and see which works best for this location (rural mountains). edit: The zoom and focus method works very well for me, though that was with a 70-300. I'd imagine I'll be doing more of these shots on my 15-85, so I'll still have to give that a try. But hey, at least I know I can start to get some of these shots in focus. Thanks everyone. mclifford82 fucked around with this message at 08:46 on Mar 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
So a friend of mine hit me up recently about doing an article or two for her fledgling blog about techniques for getting good dog photos, and give me an excuse to get some of my own dog pics out. Don't really think I want to cover gear outside of maybe the limitations of cell phones (flash, slow shutter speed) but instead focus on composition and lighting. Things like filling the frame, getting down to your pet's eye level, shooting on cloudy days vs sunny-as-gently caress-holocaust days, red-eye vs a dog's tapetum lucidum and so on. Maybe cover the photography differences between a phone, point-and-shoot and a DSLR but I haven't touched a P&S in a few years so I don't really know where they stand in terms of quality or shutter lag anymore. Anything else you'd cover if you were writing up something like this?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
mclifford82 posted:What is the best way to obtain focus when going for shots of stars or even star trails? I've tried it a few times, and the camera can't find enough contrast to autofocus. Going with manual focus just produced blurry results. Also, is there a certain focal length best suited for such shots?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
I think someone long ago posted a picture where 5 dogs spread out in a field were all looking straight at the camera. His secret: "OMG OMG! THROW THE BALL! THE BALL!!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
I need some advice. I lent my Tamron 17-50 to my dad, and he dropped it. Here's the damage:  What are my options? Is it repairable? Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
Gonna need some more pix where we can see the front and side at the same time, the glass near the damage, etc. It could just be a busted filter ring in which case epoxy that poo poo back together and just don't use filters, but it's hard to tell from that pic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Here's another - There's no damage to the glass, just the plastic ring.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
Does it still function entirely correctly on focus and zoom? Because honestly unless you use filters a lot it might not be worth sending in for repair.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
Everything seems to work fine. I'll give the epoxy a try. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
Hixson posted:Everything seems to work fine. I'll give the epoxy a try. I didn't say to just blast it with epoxy, just that it's something to consider if you don't give a poo poo about the resale value and don't want to mount filters or a hood on it. If any of those things aren't the case, take it in to the store and see if they can do a better job.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
Just screw on a UV filter and its metal ring will hold the rings together. Don't need to epoxy it and ruin it for future filter use. Not to toot my own horn, but I'm selling a Hoya UV filter that fits on the Tamron 17-50 for real cheap here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3125105&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=138#post412938081 INTJ Mastermind fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Mar 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 05:10
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:Just screw on a UV filter and its metal ring will hold the rings together. Don't need to epoxy it and ruin it for future filter use. Not to toot my own horn, but I'm selling a Hoya UV filter that fits on the Tamron 17-50 for real cheap here: I have a couple I tried screwing on. They don't want to stay on tight. I think If I'm careful I can glue it and not mess up the threads. If not, that's fine too. I'm not all that worried about resale value. I just don't want it to break more. I appreciate all the suggestions! Hixson fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Mar 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
I've had a crack in an old 17-50mm before in the exact same area. As far as I can remember, the front element of the lens is attached inside the barrel and doesn't actually touch that plastic; that ring is only there for a filter and the hood. If you can, put on a UV filter and carefully snap on the hood and leave it in place. Those two together should be able to hold everything tight in place without permanently (epoxy or glue) loving with anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 08:21
|
|
|
Hola, gently caress-up-and-drop-your-lens chat. I hadn't even got through my first roll on my lovely new 4.8lbs of steel and Portra when it went tumbling, plummeted about 5ft and hit the solid brick foyer... lens first. Body appears to be fine - a tiny scuff on the edge of the finder, but the prism still works, shutter still fires, back and prism both comes off and on easily, shutter curtain (looks) undamaged. The lens, on the other hand, is bad news bears. Aperture ring is fine, communicates with the body, etc. Glass is fine too. But the focus ring is jammed - presumably because the entire barrel now sits on like a 30 degree angle.  80mm of fuckup-013.jpg by alexbeare, on Flickr  80mm of fuckup-008.jpg by alexbeare, on Flickr The front of the barrel is also bashed in pretty badly in two spots, which I could live with since I don't really shoot with filters ever.  80mm of fuckup-002.jpg by alexbeare, on Flickr  80mm of fuckup-003.jpg by alexbeare, on Flickr (Weirdly, AF still kind of works - only slightly less shittily than normal - even though I can't manually turn the ring) So, how hosed am I exactly? Any chance it is repairable for $nonridiculous? Or even repairable at all? Since I am in Australia, it would almost definitely involve sending it overseas somewhere which adds an extra $100 roundtrip. I seriously can't afford a replacement, even if I could find one  IT WAS HIS FIRST WEEK ON THE JOB (also: dust your desk, slob) BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Apr 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2013 13:01
|
|
|
If you're shooting a portrait with a 50mm lens on a crop sensor, would you get the same distortion effect that you would with a roundabout-85mm lens on a FF camera, or would you get the distortion of a 50mm lens with the effective focal length of an 80-ish mm? I'm trying to figure out what determines distortion. I think it's actual distance from the subject so I'm guessing you'd get an effective 80mm distortion?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:If you're shooting a portrait with a 50mm lens on a crop sensor, would you get the same distortion effect that you would with a roundabout-85mm lens on a FF camera, or would you get the distortion of a 50mm lens with the effective focal length of an 80-ish mm? Are you talking barrel distortion, or something else?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Are you talking barrel distortion, or something else? I mean whatever we decided this is: http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:I mean whatever we decided this is: Yes, that is caused by distance to the subject.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
I'm ready for IR
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:I'm ready for IR You're ready for Geordi LaForge vision, judging by the stuff you showed us before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
joelcamefalling posted:Hola, gently caress-up-and-drop-your-lens chat. I don't like being the bearer of bad news but I had an old lens with somewhat similar impact damage (loving Chinese adapter failed) that I had a pro shop take a stab at fixing late last year. If the focusing helicoids are hosed up it seems to make things really iffy; they tried over a few weeks and weren't able to tap it back into shape, wound up not charging me the original $150 estimate, although I was out round trip airmail to the US. Then again, I don't know the specifics of your lens, maybe it's an easier fix. Probably only something a pro could answer, I'm afraid. You could try to sell it for parts/as-is and hope you recoup enough to partially fund buying another one (I'm often surprised what busted stuff goes for), or keep an eye out for a donor with bad glass, although that'd probably require a professional to do the swap. Sorry 
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2013 05:51
|
|
|
What's a good place to get laser-cut pinholes? Preferably cheap. I'm gearing up for a build-your-own-camera-workshop next month for World Pinhole Day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Prathm posted:What's a good place to get laser-cut pinholes? Preferably cheap. eBay, and 'good' barely even matters, luckily it's really easy to laser-cut a single hole in a piece of metal then bolt it to a body cap. (Or just make one yourself)
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
Prathm posted:What's a good place to get laser-cut pinholes? Preferably cheap. Got a link to some instructions (to lazy to google via phone)
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
Ropes4u posted:Got a link to some instructions (to lazy to google via phone) But not "to" lazy to write a post via phone? Here are some instructions I wrote on my phone just now. 1) get a light tight box 2) put light sensitive material on one side of the inside of the box 3) make a really small hole on the opposite side of the box 4) put the box in front of something cool
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
I have a ton of digital photos on a bunch of DVD-ROMs, but I'm getting sick of the mess. Is there a better way of archiving a bunch of personal photos, these days (ie. high-capacity thumb drive, SD card, etc.)? I do have dual-layered DVDs, but know that I'll just run into the same issues later.
melon cat fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Mar 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
melon cat posted:I have a ton of digital photos on a bunch of DVD-ROMs, but I'm getting sick of the mess. Is there a better way of archiving a bunch of personal photos, these days (ie. high-capacicty thumb drive, SD card, etc.)? I do have dual-layered DVDs, but know that I'll just run into the same issues later. Amazon Glacier. A hundred gigs is costing me slightly over a dollar a month.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Can I have some general tips on photo printing? I do a lot of resizing and cropping before I convert to JPG. I wanted 5 by 7s printed and my jpgs were cropped even further my costcos printing software and some of them look like poo poo. Should I export the raws out of Lightroom in a certain way? I'd rather just resize the image slightly so it prints without any of the image actually being cropped out. The ones that aren't hosed through the cropping look amazing. I'm going to print my stuff constantly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 10:13
|
|
|
beergod posted:Can I have some general tips on photo printing? I do a lot of resizing and cropping before I convert to JPG. I wanted 5 by 7s printed and my jpgs were cropped even further my costcos printing software and some of them look like poo poo. Do all your postwork at fullsize, then crop to your desired AR, then export at the exact highest resolution and filesize of the printer you are using (generally 240-300ppi, jpeg, though some places will take TIFF). Find out if there is a crop that needs to happen at the printer, and if so, resize to just below it, then use 'canvas size' (in PS, dont know what it is in LR) to add a white gutter to the 'print size' you are submitting. If the printer provides it, softproof with their ICC profile at your monitor's lowest brightness, and if they provide the option (they should) tell them not to alter your image before print.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 10:17
|
|
|
Another pinhole-question: I've been toying with the idea of making a camera to fit a sheet of 9.5"x12" photopaper and doing some portraits. However, depending on focal length and pinhole-size, it comes out to about f500-800. I have access to 3 pretty large studio-flashes. Could that be enough to get a exposure time of about 5 sec. or less?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
Prathm posted:Another pinhole-question: Flash exposure depends on the flash power, the aperture, and the ISO. Figure out the ISO of your paper and the power of your flashes and that should tell you if your flashes are powerful enough to do the job. I'm guessing the answer is no, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
Prathm posted:I have access to 3 pretty large studio-flashes. Could that be enough to get a exposure time of about 5 sec. or less? Assuming the subject is static, you could just fire the flashes over and over until you get as much light as you need. Depending on what studio flashes they are you may be able to get off 3 flashes in 5 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Ilford just came out with an 8x10 pinhole camera. That might be something to look at.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
I'm reading up on various lenses, particularly fast lenses. A fast lens when compared to a slow lens, if they've got the same or similar qualities otherwise, just has the option of a few more f-stops, right? As in, the fast and slow lens both set at f/4 will need the same shutter speed to get a decent exposure and the advantage of the fast lens is simply being able to open it wider when that suits your conditions or your needs. edit: VVVVV Thanks very much, both of you. Hydrocodone fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Mar 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:09 |
|
|
Yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2013 00:40
|
|
