|
I don't think anyone here is actually implying that seeing in black and white as cheating, but it certainly doesn't help someone develop tonality. Unless you have the viewfinder glued to your eyes during any shoot, being able to notice light and dark and the way it affects a shot is an important thing. And anyone who photographs anything dynamic knows, seeing it immediately can make the difference in getting the shot or missing it entirely. Oh, new page in a gear thread, let's stay on topic a little. Need a bellows for your camera? Ever consider just making it? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taQAM4i33OI This one is for an air pump but the concept is the same. rcman50166 fucked around with this message at 04:51 on May 16, 2013 |
#
?
May 16, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
True Purists don't look at their shots. Ever. Shoot, then hand the camera to a flunky and go home to await the call to the awards show.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Fake Ken Rockwell posted:Not seeing color in the viewfinder is equivalent to training wheels? Really? You aren’t allowed to have a viewfinder to check framing, nor ground glass/a rangefinder to focus with. You have to frame and focus by instinct.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
Fake Ken Rockwell posted:Not sure what focal length has to do with this but i'm a 28mm/50mm/85mm prime kit guy myself, wouldn't have it any other way. I agree, or I do a 35 or 50 single-lens kit. My point is that this forces you to really consider perspective as an element of your composition, which involves being able to see relatively what area your lens can take and how that relates to where you are standing. Fake Ken Rockwell posted:Not seeing color in the viewfinder is equivalent to training wheels? Really? At the point where you can eyeball a reasonable perspective, contrast, composition, and preferably the exposure as well, yes. Seriously here, if you can't see the contrast and composition you want, how can you do more than guess at what shot you want to take? I'm not trying say you should do it any particular way, but if you don't see a good shot and how it should be made, how do you take it? You can complain all you want about how it's elitist to not have to "chimp to check the exposure" but it is really not necessary given film/modern digital latitude and it's an incredibly useful skill to be able to see how you want to place the shot on the zone scale. At a minimum it gives you the ability to do a sanity check on the meter, which is valuable. Someday you may be frantically dialing an exposure to take a grab shot that freaks out your camera's meter and you will be glad you know sunny f/16. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:34 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:You aren’t allowed to have a viewfinder to check framing, nor ground glass/a rangefinder to focus with. You have to frame and focus by instinct. This is a brand new world to me. I am so glad I left /r/photography to come here, its like being trained by ra's al ghul.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:You aren’t allowed to have a viewfinder to check framing, nor ground glass/a rangefinder to focus with. You have to frame and focus by instinct. Thats called shooting with a Rollei 35, FYI. 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
Fake Ken Rockwell posted:What about chimping to check exposure? Are we not allowed to look at histograms either? Where does it stop? For what it's worth, using tools for drawing is entirely different than using tools for photography. You could theoretically take months to finish a drawing, offering you endless opportunities to use tools to enhance the process. As someone who works as a drawer and painter, I appreciate that photography can give me an image in fractions of a second. It's really quite something to be able to go from concept to finished work in the space of a couple of hours. But that comes with its own drawbacks. There are real physical limits on how long you can spend taking a photograph except in very unusual circumstances.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
I am a minimalist. The only things I need to make art is your mom and a bottle of scotch. (Art is what I call sex with your mother BTW)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:I am a minimalist. The only things I need to make art is your mom and a bottle of scotch. Pathetic. Relying on a crutch like Scotch is the sign of a poseur.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 05:10
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Pathetic. Relying on a crutch like Scotch is the sign of a poseur. Look man I don't set your mom's rates, complain to her.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
Fred Miranda Jr posted:EVFs and LCD screens suffer from being pixelated. An optical viewfinder has as much detail as the lens and your eye can resolve, so you can tell EXACTLY what's in focus. Very important when using f/1.2L lenses. Thats exactly not right at all. I can focus nbd at 1.2 with Fuji's EVF no pixel problems and full detail and sweet, sweet bokey. Such it Trebek 
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
casa de mi padre posted:There are real physical limits on how long you can spend taking a photograph except in very unusual circumstances. I once sat with a shutter open for 7 hours. It was rather boring. I actually read a book.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
Musket posted:I once sat with a shutter open for 7 hours. It was rather boring. I actually read a book. What book? No true artist reads anything but the finest animes while taking long exposures.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
Fred Miranda Jr posted:so you can tell EXACTLY what's in focus. Very important when using f/1.2L lenses.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 09:52
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:What book? No true artist reads anything but the finest animes while taking long exposures. True artists would have read lots of books beforehand, so they could visualise the story without having to open the book.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 10:42
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Peaking is a much more reliable focus aid than a giant viewfinder. Look at this guy that hasn't used a 4x5. Focus peaking? I'll just get my giant gently caress off loupe and peak whatever the gently caress I want.  spog posted:True artists would have read lots of amazon book reviews beforehand, so they could visualise the story without having to open the book. I have rectified your statement.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 11:53
|
|
|
Can anyone suggest a decent third party wide open 24mm prime with EF mount? The options I know of right how is Sigma and Samyang, and both seem to have kind of significant drawbacks (excessive softness and/or vignetting). I'm like a Canon 24mm/1.4, but I'm not Rockefeller.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 12:11
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:What book? No true artist reads anything but the finest animes while taking long exposures. http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Tribe-Collected-Stories/dp/0345541324/ref=pd_sim_b_12 Close enough?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 15:08
|
|
|
Edmond Dantes posted:I want to start using an old 70-200 Nikon lens my dad had on my Canon T2i; any adapter brand/model I should be on the lookout for? Sorry to insist, but any input on this? The lens is an old one, so it doesn't have autofocus. Cheers.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
Not now nerd, we are discussing the finer points of the Star Wars EU ITT. Just buy any old EF to F mount adapter on Amazon.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
Edmond Dantes posted:Sorry to insist, but any input on this? The lens is an old one, so it doesn't have autofocus. Sorry to insist, but buy an adapter and try it out.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:What book? No true artist reads anything but the finest animes while taking long exposures. My sister gave me Army of Darkness: Ash Saves Obama for christmas; I have plans for some long exposures, I need to remember to take this with me. I don't think it'll last 7 hours, though.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Can anyone suggest a decent third party wide open 24mm prime with EF mount? The options I know of right how is Sigma and Samyang, and both seem to have kind of significant drawbacks (excessive softness and/or vignetting). I'm like a Canon 24mm/1.4, but I'm not Rockefeller.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
I don't take pictures. I memorize a scene and people have to read my mind to see it.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
HPL posted:I don't take pictures. I memorize a scene and people have to read my mind to see it. Every time I try this the only thing people end up seeing is hosed up nudes.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Every time I try this the only thing people end up seeing is hosed up nudes. All my scenes include hosed up nudes already. Otherwise, what's the point of taking the photo?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Edmond Dantes posted:Sorry to insist, but any input on this? The lens is an old one, so it doesn't have autofocus. Any of the 10-15 dollar adapters on amazon or ebay are going to work just as well as any other one, so just go to town.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Any of the 10-15 dollar adapters on amazon or ebay are going to work just as well as any other one, so just go to town. fotodiox
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
I just bought a used Tamron 17-50/2.8 (Nikon version, built-in motor, no VC), partially thanks to Dorkroom suggestions. I'm very pleased with its optical quality so far, but contrary to what I've read, the focus ring turns quite easily in AF mode. Is it supposed to have full-time MF override, or is it broken/am I breaking it as we speak? Sorry if I'm asking this in the wrong place, I'm rather new to actually posting here.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Ag Bengip posted:I just bought a used Tamron 17-50/2.8 (Nikon version, built-in motor, no VC), partially thanks to Dorkroom suggestions. I'm very pleased with its optical quality so far, but contrary to what I've read, the focus ring turns quite easily in AF mode. Is it supposed to have full-time MF override, or is it broken/am I breaking it as we speak? The sample I have handy here acts the same way. I'm not sure if it's good for the lens, but the lens isn't broken.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
Ag Bengip posted:I just bought a used Tamron 17-50/2.8 (Nikon version, built-in motor, no VC), partially thanks to Dorkroom suggestions. I'm very pleased with its optical quality so far, but contrary to what I've read, the focus ring turns quite easily in AF mode. Is it supposed to have full-time MF override, or is it broken/am I breaking it as we speak? It does not have MF override.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
Ag Bengip posted:I just bought a used Tamron 17-50/2.8 (Nikon version, built-in motor, no VC), partially thanks to Dorkroom suggestions. I'm very pleased with its optical quality so far, but contrary to what I've read, the focus ring turns quite easily in AF mode. Is it supposed to have full-time MF override, or is it broken/am I breaking it as we speak? Like musket said, the lens does not have MF override. This means don't turn the ring in AF. While it will move and not necessarily break, feedback into a nonactive servo will damage it. This is in any application of micro motor gear servos, not just photography.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Can somebody tell me why ND filters have such stupid numbering systems? Also why is it so hard to find an 8-stop ND filter? I gave up and bought a cheapo variable-ND just to play with because apparently manufacturers like to confuse me.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Can somebody tell me why ND filters have such stupid numbering systems? Also why is it so hard to find an 8-stop ND filter? Because physics. It's the same reason iso and aperture numbers are pretty dumb if you don't think about it but make wonderful sense if you think too hard about it. e. seriously, nd filter numbers correspond to aperture reductions, so it's got that same oddball numbering.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Can somebody tell me why ND filters have such stupid numbering systems? Also why is it so hard to find an 8-stop ND filter? The Goja cheap set comes with an 8 stop filter: http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Neutral-Density-Filter-Compatible/dp/B00867PFZY/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1368735147&sr=8-6
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
That I'm sure introduces some awesome color casting.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
Pfft, that's what all those sliders in Lightroom are for!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
ND8 (typically, i have never seen these specific filters before) is not an 8 stop, it's 8x less light, so it's a 3 stop. I have an ND400 -- that's about 8.5 stops. Fake Ken Rockwell fucked around with this message at 21:51 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:The sample I have handy here acts the same way. I'm not sure if it's good for the lens, but the lens isn't broken. Wasn't the 17-50 the lens that everyone had problem with 'slop on the focus ring' and it turned out to be a defect that would sooner-or-later cause the front element mounting to disintegrate, and everyone got super paranoid and sent their lenses back to tamron to repair? I know that I was worried about it (I don't have a 17-50, but do have a 70-300 and the flaw was with a whole lot of tamrons). A google search does show up some suggestion that it was that lens... but at the same time the focus ring is not clutched, so you're directly turning the AF motor, and need to be sure it's actually slop rather than just the motor turning.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 19:17 |
|
|
Bob Socko posted:I used to own the Sigma. Though it was crummy at f/1.8, it improved significantly at f/2. Still nothing jaw-dropping, but defintely useable.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 22:12
|
|