|
Dren posted:It would be helpful if you could post some of your shots and point out some things you would like to improve about them. Sure. I'll preface all of this with "I have no idea how to photography", so some of these problems may well be my setup or technique. All the following images were resized, but not color or contrast adjusted. I always have to fiddle with colors/curves in photoshop to fix the white balance. Unless otherwise noted, these images were taken in a lightbox with around 300 watts of direct 5500k daylight spectrum bulbs, and another 300 watts of ambient daylight bulb in the room itself.   Depth of field is always an issue. Miniatures basically have to be parallel to the camera or else something is always out of focus. I can move the camera back obviously, but then I need to crop more and noise becomes more of an issue.  I'm not sure the proper term for this...chromatic vignetting? Especially if I'm trying to shoot on a white background, the edges of the picture take on a distinctly off-color. In this photo there is a red "vignette" around the image. Or perhaps its a blue halo around the miniature? I thought it might be an optical illusion, but photoshop confirms that the color actually changes.  General noise and grainyness. The whites and shadows on the skin are much smoother in real life than in the photo.  Lastly, I would eventually like to take close-up photos where the miniature is illuminated by a single diffuse light (about 12-15 inches away), set against a black backdrop that is 30-50 inches away. The technique is supposed to give you a nearly-pure black background and a well illuminated figure. My camera cannot focus on the miniature at any reasonable distance, and the image is always overexposed. I can control shutter speed + ISO on my camera but not aperture, so the camera always tries to "fix" my shot regardless of how I tweak it.  Same idea, but sitting on a black background inside of a lightbox. Funnily enough, this was my best shot of the series because I turned off all the external lights and simply used ambient lighting. Still overexposed 
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
I think a DSLR would be good at what your are trying to do. A mirrorless system would work just as well but maybe harder to find cheap macro stuff for. If you want to get in cheap a Nikon D3200 and 18-55mm can be had on KEH.com for 380 dollars. This wouldn't be true macro but the 18-55mm focuses pretty close so you can probably do without it for awhile. Then next get a 35mm 1.8 and a set of macro extension tubes. If you want to take the macro further while still giving you a great general photography lens in the 35mm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Does imgur always strip out the exif data? I'm trying to figure out what's going on with these photos, but just eyeballing them I'd say jpeg compression is killing some of the detail. Shoot in raw if you can. Depth of field can be mitigated if you stop down the lens, you'll probably need a lot more lighting though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
Yeah you definitely need a camera that can take a better lens. I would suggest going for a cheap, second-hand DSLR and then splurge a bit extra on a good macro lens. You don't need a high-end body, since the shots are static so you can compensate for worse ISO performance by using low ISO and extending shutter times since the camera will be mounted on a tripod (right?) I'd suggest something like perhaps a Nikon D3000 or D3100 and e.g. the Nikkor DX 40 mm f/2.8. That one can be had for quite cheap from new too, and will work perfectly on any Nikon DSLR, but you can also look for older F-mount macro lenses which may be better quality but may not be able to auto-focus or offer metering on the low-end bodies. Again, lack of AF and metering wouldn't be a massive problem since you can focus and adjust exposure manually when shooting static scenes like this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Does imgur always strip out the exif data? Whoops, that may have been my fault when resizing in photoshop. Here are the original jpegs: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/386461/miniature_photos.zip Alas, both of your suggestions are impossible on my camera: no aperture control, and it only shoots in jpeg. I have it set at the best "fine" level, but who knows.  copen posted:I think a DSLR would be good at what your are trying to do. A mirrorless system would work just as well but maybe harder to find cheap macro stuff for. If you want to get in cheap a Nikon D3200 and 18-55mm can be had on KEH.com for 380 dollars. This wouldn't be true macro but the 18-55mm focuses pretty close so you can probably do without it for awhile. Then next get a 35mm 1.8 and a set of macro extension tubes. If you want to take the macro further while still giving you a great general photography lens in the 35mm. nielsm posted:Yeah you definitely need a camera that can take a better lens. Great, thanks for the suggestions! I'll look into these cameras and lenses, see what fits my budget. Looks like there are plenty on KEH, amazon, etc so picking one up shouldn't be hard. Definitely using a tripod, so longer exposures will be fine. And I'm ok if it isn't "true macro"...I just want "better macro"  As long as I can get reasonable detail I'll be happy.I've been reading about the mirrorless cameras for a few hours, I have to say they are intriguing. The Sony NEX-5N w/18-55mm is a similar price range as the D3200 on KEH, and it looks like there is a (small) range of macro lenses, extension tubes and adapters. I feel like I would use a more compact mirrorless day-to-day more often than a larger DSLR. Decisions decisions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
You'd be surprised what a decent compact with a small sensor can do for depth of field. Get something you can control for 100$ and it will probably do the trick for the task.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
If you want to dial in your light something that can interface with off-camera flash is probably a good idea. Otherwise, like No Gravitas said, stepping up to a canon S90/95/100 and shooting RAW would make a pretty big difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
These are 300W continuous lights (as in not flashes), right? If they are I have two questions. One, why is the camera not detecting white balance correctly? A static scene with one type of light source should be easy-peasy for auto white balance to figure out. Maybe these lights aren't giving you a nice even 5500K. Two, what is going on that is making a lot of those shots look underexposed? I think you'd do well to get a nicer camera. Which camera that ends up being is up to you. You could probably get the job done with a higher end point and shoot like the canon S90/95/100. Those allow you to shoot full manual and RAW. You'd get better control of your exposure and depth of field from shooting full manual. You'd get the ability to correct white balance in post from shooting RAW. Plus, point and shoot cameras tend to be good at macro thanks to their small sensors. A macro lens for a DSLR will cost a lot more than a point and shoot body. A DSLR with a macro lens would certainly work too. Also, have you looked into using focus stacking to solve your depth of field problems?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 02:01
|
|
|
Dren posted:These are 300W continuous lights (as in not flashes), right? Yep, its a set of three CFLs. The bulbs are "5500K Alzo CFLs" (http://www.alzodigital.com/online_store/joyous-light-full-spectrum-light-bulb-27w.htm) which I snagged off Amazon. Absolutely confused about the white balance too. I've tried all the white balance settings on my camera (including the manual one where you use a bounding box to set a white balance) and none of them look right. I can't find the specs for the bulb, so maybe they aren't as true as claimed? Or maybe it's just my camera? I thought it was bizarre that I had to manually fix the color balance in Photoshop each time. I have not heard about focus stacking, but after a quick google, that looks very interesting. I'll do some reading and see if I can recreate the effect. Thanks everyone for the input...looks like getting a nicer camera isn't a crazy idea. Off to research and make my wallet lighter
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
Focus stacking seems like such an unnecessary process when a better camera that will let you manually set exposure and shoot raw should solve your problems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
Dren posted:These are 300W continuous lights (as in not flashes), right? It's actually a thing with fluorescents and the way they cycle. You can't see it with the eye, but the camera can pick it up if shutter speeds are faster than the cycle. Some dude posted these on the Canon Rumors forum: http://www.guyrhodes.com/photo/flicker_lapse.gif http://www.guyrhodes.com/photo/wb_experiment_large.jpg http://www.sportsshooter.com/guyrhodes/wbtests/pages/3.html I noticed it when I used fluorescents for lightbox shots but never knew what it was. I just thought it was weird that I had to do WB corrections on different shots with the exact same setup and lighting. Turns out the light isn't actually constant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
Cheaper CFL bulbs do that - you can really see it when you pop over to video mode and set it to 24p, cheap bulbs will flicker like crazy. Pretty sure it's a 60hz cycle too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
1st AD posted:Cheaper CFL bulbs do that - you can really see it when you pop over to video mode and set it to 24p, cheap bulbs will flicker like crazy. Pretty sure it's a 60hz cycle too. I remember having read about this now. You can get around it by having a shutter that is a multiple of 60 Hz though, right? I believe that is the case. Once again, a nicer camera that would allow shutter speed to be specified might help solve the problem. Focus stacking still might help even if the camera can set its aperture. Though I suppose he could do a super long exposure w/ f/22 and probably be ok.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
I've seen TV shows shot on RED cameras where the set designers used a practical bulb in something like an over the stove light and that nasty flickering is there - I'm not sure you can ever be rid of it, so manually setting your exposure (or fixing it in raw) are going to be better bets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
I would like to get a recommendation for a lens for my DSLR. I have a Nikon D50, and for as long as I've had it I have just been using the 28mm-80mm lens that it came with. I don't have any complaints about that lens, but I would like to get something with a smaller profile, as well as something that goes past f3. I meant to do this ages ago, but I kind of fell out of photography and now I am taking more pictures again (due to having a kid) I am befuddled by my choices. I am nervous about buying something online that doesn't fit my body, or wandering into a camera store and getting taken because I don't know what I really need. To summarize: What you are looking to buy: A prime lens for my D50, either a 35mm or 50mm with f<2.0 or something. Budget: I would like something under $100, but I am not sure if that's reasonable. I am spending all my money on raising kids, so really the cheaper the better! Your photo gear you already have: A Nikon D50, with the stock 28-80mm lens. What you plan on using your purchase for: Mostly taking pictures of my family and my kid, inside and out. What you find limiting about what you have now: The 28-80mm lens is a little bulky when I am trying to wedge it into a diaper bag or into a backpack full of kid stuff. I also find myself in a situation where the available f-stop (3.3?) isn't really low enough for interior photos without using the flash, and the flash always distracts kids from what I'm trying to photograph them doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 05:24
|
|
|
The 35/1.8 DX.
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 06:11 on Nov 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 06:03
|
|
|
Normally I don't buy into all the jerking off over this lens (although I own one and like it a lot), but in this case it's objectively the correct answer. Also if it's the 28-80 I'm thinking of, it's 3.5-5.6. It's actually a great lens provided you have enough light, so don't throw it out or anything. I love mine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 06:24
|
|
|
Yeah the 35 is the correct lens for the uses you listed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
I'll throw one more vote on the stack. Buy it and don't look back. Fantastic optics, great price.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 08:13
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:Normally I don't buy into all the jerking off over this lens (although I own one and like it a lot)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 09:30
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:A fast sharp and reasonably priced normal for dx users, how can it not be popular? It's a hell of a great lens, if you need that sort of thing. Personally they were always described as pretty much entirely mechanical in term of problem fixes, and not cheap ones at that. Of course, also, mine has never been in service for any reason, and it's not like I baby it. SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 10:46 on Nov 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 10:44
|
|
|
Well that was easy! Thank you! SoundMonkey posted:Also if it's the 28-80 I'm thinking of, it's 3.5-5.6. It's actually a great lens provided you have enough light, so don't throw it out or anything. I love mine. No, definitely keeping that lens. It's the only one I have used for years and has been really great. It's just falling a little short on my new kid-picture needs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2013 14:12
|
|
|
I hope you guys are ready for a full on sperg-a-thon, because I need some advice. I've been in gear buying paralysis for a year due to not being able to commit to a single system. I need a new camera(s), but my problem is I want it all. I used to have a Rebel T3i, which I recently sold, and bought a 5D mk1. This got me in a moderate amount of trouble with the old lady, since I can't shoot video anymore (I have kids that do things that we occasionally want to record I guess, and an iPhone won't cut it at an xmas concert). So now I'm under orders to get something to shoot video. Ok fair enough. I really have been planning to switch to Nikon from Canon due to the better sensors for the past year or so (but still keep the 5D because ~classic~). That being said, I'm reluctant to drop 4-5k on switching systems because of the money (of course) but also, I'd lose the ability to easily adapt cool lenses I own (screwmount stuff, OM/K mount stuff, etc.) So one option I thought of was with the new Fuji XE-2 because of the better autofocus. [x] legacy compatibility [x] first party lenses that kick rear end [x] sweet image quality [x] video (barely) [x] AF good enough for kids soccer [x] the price is right [ ] full frame [ ] wireless TTL flash (shut up i like it) [ ] yeah the first party lenses rule but they are pricey and no cheap third party options like the more established systems Next up, Nikon D610 setup [x] ridiculous selection of well priced first and third party lenses [x] sweet image quality [x] good video [x] AF better than good enough [x] Full Frame [x] wireless TTL [ ] expensive as all hell (cheap lenses balance this out somewhat) [ ] no legacy glass (other than F mount so not a total loss) Next I guess I could stay with Canon (6D i guess??) [x] ridiculous selection of well priced first and third party lenses [x] good video [x] keep existing flashes [x] AF good enough [x] Full Frame [x] wireless TTL [x] moderate legacy lens compatibilty [ ] good image quality but some compromises vs Nikon WRT dynamic range, shadow noise etc [ ] thanks to Canon taking features I really like out of the 6D i may be "forced" to buy a 5Dmk3 which would be expensive [x] let's be honest here, the moderately priced L glass is really good value compared to Nikon What I shoot: Kids Video of kids a half dozen gigs a year maybe using remote flash, triggers etc Landscapey, environmental MrBlandAverage/Patrick Joust type bullshit budget: honestly I don't even know anymore, photography has introduced a disconnect between myself and sane financial decisions i have problems Mightaswell fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Nov 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 18:44
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:I hope you guys are ready for a full on sperg-a-thon, because I need some advice. If it helps, I just sold off my m4/3 gear and have been debating what I want to do as well. I bought an x-e1 and returned it due to the lens being defective. Overall it was pretty nice in my limited experience and the video wasnt as bad as I thought it would be. I am tempted to move into medium format, but I barely print anything. I also looked at some old photos from my nikon d40 and was surprised how decent the quality was (in daylight at least). I think most options available are pretty great and it just comes down to what feels best and how often you use the features. I still am tempted to grab a x100.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
How much are refurb D600's? I'd say that's a cheaper option than the D610 and iirc there aren't any real differences.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
The stocks of refurb D600's dried up fairly quickly up here in Canada (I should have jumped on one @ 1499), but as recently as this past lunch hour, I saw a camera store with some left over retail D600's for $1799. For a $200 price difference, I'd rather just get the oil free shutter with the quiet mode and better weather sealing of the D610 though. ~IRC~ told me to flip a coin between a Canon 5D2 or an XE-2.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Pretty sure the refurbs don't have the oil issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Hmmmm...may be worth importing one if that's the case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Stick with Canon, I find it super useful being able to swap lenses between bodies. And borrow from friends, especially when shooting the same gig
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:I hope you guys are ready for a full on sperg-a-thon, because I need some advice. I would also look at the Pentax K-3. You won't get a huge amount of legacy glass outside of M42/K mount stuff, but most people are considering it to be the best APS-C DSLR on the market. It has improved autofocus and much improved video. The only major issue is that it's not full frame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 03:06
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:I hope you guys are ready for a full on sperg-a-thon, because I need some advice. Are you comfortable with adapting manual focus (or dealing with slow-ish zooms) for still? Video? Want super cheap? If so you could consider the NEX. I'd think seriously about a used D600 or something too. The Pentax K-3/5 isn't bad if you're comfortable with the expansion potential of that system. There's no expansion to full frame, but the midrange crop prime library is better developed than Canon or Nikon. The zoom library is better on Nikon. Of course you can get 3rd parties on most systems. And the high-end Pentax bodies do offer weather-sealing, in body IS, astro tracker, etc. Canon's crop library is poo poo, their FF library is kinda expensive, and their bodies are falling behind Nikon. The Canon Thread: Don't Buy A Canon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:Stick with Canon, I find it super useful being able to swap lenses between bodies. And borrow from friends, especially when shooting the same gig Point well taken :P. HolyDukeNukem posted:I would also look at the Pentax K-3. You won't get a huge amount of legacy glass outside of M42/K mount stuff, but most people are considering it to be the best APS-C DSLR on the market. It has improved autofocus and much improved video. The only major issue is that it's not full frame. I actually considered the k-3 briefly, due to all the points you mentioned. However I really don't want to go back to crop DSLR. Mirrorless is a bit different because the advantages of the smaller sensor is amplified by dropping the mirror etc. I really like the k-3 though. I recommend it to anyone who whines about Nikon not making a d400. Paul MaudDib posted:Are you comfortable with adapting manual focus (or dealing with slow-ish zooms) for still? Video? Want super cheap? If so you could consider the NEX. The whole reason I went from the T3i to the 5d is that Canon (and Nikon) really give no fucks about their crop customers. And yeah I adapt some lenses already because I own bodies/lenses from like 5 different manual focus 35mm systems. I'm a bigger fan of the Fuji stuff than the Sony stuff though. I'm probably gonna do what carrotflowers and IRC told me and stick with canon though. I'll wind up with an xe-1 for vintage lens fuckery eventually I bet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
HolyDukeNukem posted:You won't get a huge amount of legacy glass outside of M42/K mount stuff Is there anything worth buying that isn't in M42/K mount?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:I'm probably gonna do what carrotflowers and IRC told me and stick with canon though. I'll wind up with an xe-1 for vintage lens fuckery eventually I bet. That's the horror of Canon. It's the mirrorless of DSLRs. You can adapt all kinds of manual poo poo to it  Handle a Pentax 35/3.5 or a Nikkor 105/2.5 and then put it down, it's hard. Especially when long-term yes, Canon gives no fucks about crop. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Nov 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Is there anything worth buying that isn't in M42/K mount? Canon made some pretty legit stuff in FD (135 f/2, 85 f/1.2, 50 f/1.2) but its hard to adapt to DSLR. Then theres Zeiss stuff in C/Y of course.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Is there anything worth buying that isn't in M42/K mount? Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5 That's basically it though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 06:38
|
|
|
I am considering grabbing a manual 85mm lens. I currently have a few Minolta MD lens so I leaning towards grabbing a minolta. The lens will be used on a mirror less body and potentially a minolta 570. The rokinon 85mm looks nice also, and its not 30 years old. I might also buy a focal reducer/speed booster. I am tempted to grab the knock off since edge sharpness is usually not that important in photos when I am adapting glass. Aslo $120 is cheaper than $400. daspope fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Nov 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Anyone here have a Cokin filter set? Specifically graduated ND filters? I can see myself using them a lot for landscaping, but I'm not sure how practical they are. Anyone have experience with them? Comments, regrets? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/387434-REG/Cokin_CH250_Graduated_Neutral_Density_Filter.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
Can anyone tell me what mount this is? I have a "Vivitar 75-205mm 3.8 MC" lens, which I thought was compatible with Minolta MD/MC mounts and adapters. However, this definitely does not fit into the MD adapter that I have. I'm assuming the mount is actually something else? I tried to look at the mount image guides and honestly can't tell what it is. Halp?   (BTW, thanks to everyone that helped with my previous camera questions. I ended up with a NEX-5n...really enjoying it so far. I had this old lens laying around and got an adapter for it, which is the current source of my troubles) Edit: Some better photos:  
polyfractal fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Nov 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:12 |
|
|
polyfractal posted:Can anyone tell me what mount this is? I have a "Vivitar 75-205mm 3.8 MC" lens, which I thought was compatible with Minolta MD/MC mounts and adapters. However, this definitely does not fit into the MD adapter that I have. It does look a lot like Minolta MD/MC. Maybe it's a Contax/Yashica mount?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 21:34
|
|