|
After all this talk I will probably shoot in RAW because it seems like a "better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it" scenario.
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Shoot in Raw+Jpeg!  Seriously. Quick thumbnails, raws available if you messed up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Alpenglow posted:Shoot in Raw+Jpeg! After dicking around with a practice shoot yesterday, shooting ~200 shots in RAW, it didn't take long to dump them and do a batch convert to JPG, and from what I can tell, the quality is exactly the same as shooting jpg. Edit: Also shooting Jpeg I can get about 40 shots in my buffer in high speed continuous. Shooting raw is 13, not too shabby and I would likely not need more than that for what I am doing currently. However shooting raw and jpeg and that number becomes 6. That's a bit concerning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
JPEGs are lower quality, always. That's just called "compression".
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
RAW makes a difference when you need to boost exposure, recover shadows and highlights, change WB, process colors, etc. Your test demonstrates that if you don't plan on processing your photos, then shooting straight to JPG will save you lots of time and disk space.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
snappo posted:RAW makes a difference when you need to boost exposure, recover shadows and highlights, change WB, process colors, etc. Your test demonstrates that if you don't plan on processing your photos, then shooting straight to JPG will save you lots of time and disk space. Other than severely blown highlights you can usually squeeze a stop or so of adjustment out of any of those things, and if you need to fix it by more than a stop, your image probably has bigger issues than what format it's saved as.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Respect for those good enough to get it right in the camera all the time. Plenty of my photos have these bigger issues you speak of, and I'm thankful for the latitude that RAW gives me. Sometimes I botch the exposure like a dipshit, or I intentionally shoot a high contrast/back-lit scene that I know in advance will need a giant shadow boost. Sometimes I need a faster shutter speed in low light and I underexpose because my aperture and ISO are already maxed. The nice thing about RAW is that you can see what you did wrong, learn from your mistake, and still end up with a worthwhile image. edit: sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
dukeku posted:JPEGs are lower quality, always. That's just called "compression". It's also called "bit depth!" I've taken perfectly exposed photos where there was nasty posterization in the sky in the JPEG. RAW (or TIFF in the case of film scans) for me, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Made my first mistake already. Somehow despite looking at the Nikon-compatible Tamron 70-300 on KEH several times, when it came time to order I inexplicably chose the Pentax one. So now I have to return it. Fortunately, the Nikon one is even cheaper, so I picked up a couple additional necessities I'd held off on. Got that one out of the way early at least. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
ScienceAndMusic posted:After all this talk I will probably shoot in RAW because it seems like a "better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it" scenario. The other day I was digging through an old laptop and found my photo library from my time in Uganda. I'd done RAW conversions with the software available at the time, around 2006, and back then I was pretty pleased with the results. I decided to throw one of the old shots into a current package (DxO Optics in this case, I'm trialling a couple) and the difference is staggering. I pulled detail out of the shot I never even knew existed, the old conversions look like dogshit in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
RAW: Cuz i got it wrong the first time 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Musket posted:RAW: Cuz i got it wrong the first time MUSKET: Wrong the first, last and every time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
I wish I could emptyquote both those posts at once. EDIT: I was already strongly considering emptyquoting Musket's post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Musket posted:RAW: Cuz i got it wrong the first time RAW: cuz i can't afford a lens with that kind of colour rendition and contrast built in 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 10:09
|
|
|
I wish I always had ideal shooting conditions or time to adjust my settings to get things right the first time! Unfortunately, wildlife (particularly birds) don't work on that sort of schedule. So RAW is needed. I don't always need to make big adjustments to the pictures, but I do often enough that I cannot imagine being tied down to JPEG. Use what works for you I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
I'm getting an old Canon DSLR from a friend for free as my first non-P&S camera since I mentioned I was thinking about getting one and he offered since he hadn't used it in years. I haven't seen it yet, but from what he told me ("It's an old Canon Rebel something or other, 8 megapixels I think"), I think it's a Rebel XT/EOS 350D. Anything I should know about that particular model? It may have a slightly scratched mirror and need a new battery, but it'll do for getting my feet wet before dumping hundreds on a newer camera, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
Arcsech posted:I'm getting an old Canon DSLR from a friend for free as my first non-P&S camera since I mentioned I was thinking about getting one and he offered since he hadn't used it in years. It's old as hell but it'll most certainly be enough to get you started.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Arcsech posted:I'm getting an old Canon DSLR from a friend for free as my first non-P&S camera since I mentioned I was thinking about getting one and he offered since he hadn't used it in years. I learned on my sister's old XTi/400D which is pretty similar. Looks like they take the same batteries, and I was able to pick up a third party one for her's for like $20. It will do most of the stuff a newer DSLR does, so you can definitely learn and have fun with it. Besides taking my sister's old XTi out for taking regular photos, it was also fun doing long exposure stuff, and I could drive it with a laptop to make shots for time lapse videos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
I was trying to explain the exposure triangle to a friend, and came up with the following analogy. Is this a dumb analogy or does it make sense? Exposing for a photo is like filling a bucket with water from a hose. When you fill the bucket to the brim, you have a properly exposed photo. The shutter speed is how long you let the hose run, and the aperture is the water pressure/how quickly water flows through the hose. A higher ISO is like using a smaller bucket. If you don't get enough water in the bucket, then your image is too dark, and if the bucket overflows, then it'll be too bright. (And then I tried to explain the effects of changing each, but I think I lost them.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
I just tell photonoobs to use their light meter and to aim for the neutral middle part.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
I've recently got a Nikon D7000 for christmas and now I'm trying to learn how to use it. Mostly that means I read books, look at other people's photos (some cool stuff on this forum) and make time every week to explore the area around me and take shots. Anything else I should do as a newbie photographer? As for books, I've already read Understanding Exposure and I've got my eyes on The Photographer's Eye and Art & Fear, as well as The Art of Photography and Design! although these two seem hard to come by in Europe and cost between 50 and 120€. Also, any good sources or techniques on learning how to work with light? I know it's a big part of photography but I still have a hard time anticipating and exploiting natural light. I don't know how to use a flash and I have no idea how I'd set up a lighting situation in a studio. There's an exercise in Bryan Peterson's book which I think goes "Pick a nice spot and go there on different times of day every week for a whole year and take a shot of north, south, east, west", but that sounds a little excessive?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Sounds like a horrible waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Sounds like a horrible waste of time. Sounds like something interesting to do once in a while if you happen to remember, but it sounds needlessly long and tedious as a learning exercise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Entenzahn posted:I've recently got a Nikon D7000 for christmas and now I'm trying to learn how to use it. Mostly that means I read books, look at other people's photos (some cool stuff on this forum) and make time every week to explore the area around me and take shots. Anything else I should do as a newbie photographer? As for books, I've already read Understanding Exposure and I've got my eyes on The Photographer's Eye and Art & Fear, as well as The Art of Photography and Design! although these two seem hard to come by in Europe and cost between 50 and 120€. Do what every xmas camera gotter does, Start a 365 photo project.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
I guess I'll drop it then. It's probably for the best. Burglaries happen in this neighborhood and it leaves a bad impression when some dude runs up to the same spot every weekend, takes a shot in every direction and runs off.Musket posted:Do what every xmas camera gotter does, Start a 365 photo project. Oh God no. I'm already doing a book-reading challenge thing I can't have that many deadlines. But I will try to go out and shoot for a few hours at least once a week!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
By all means, find a way to play with light that lets you figure out the effect on X of changing Y. Learning to use a flash is mostly a matter of actually using it and seeing what happens. Several hours per week of photo-fun will get you past the steep early part of the learning curve in short order, start posting your stuff in the Dorkroom.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
Officially got ~*~my first DSLR~*~. It's a Canon Digital Rebel. No modifiers on that. It's so old it came with a 64 megabyte compact flash card - good thing I already have an 8GB one to replace it with. But it'll let me get a feel for taking pictures with exposure settings that I can actually control, which I think will be really fun. Now the question is, do I buy more lenses for this one and be relatively stuck with Canon, or do I pick which system to go with and replace the body before getting new lenses? The Nikon D3300 that's coming out soon and the Pentax K30 both look really sweet. Arcsech fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Everything ever looks really sweet when you have an original digirebel. Doesn't mean you shouldn't stick with it for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Everything ever looks really sweet when you have an original digirebel. Doesn't mean you shouldn't stick with it for a while. Oh yeah, I'm gonna be sticking with this and the kit lens it came with for a bit until I'm sure I want to drop more money on it. The question is more "Is it worth it getting myself entrenched in the Canon ecosystem for the sake of this oldass camera, when I probably would have gone with Nikon (or Pentax) if I had to buy new?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
This might be a better question for the lighting thread, but since it's a newbie question I thought I'd toss it out here: I have a Canon Rebel T3i. What should my first flash be? I'd like something that I can use detached from the camera, other than that I'm not sure what I'd need as someone who is just starting. I'm much more interested in shooting people & portraits than scenery or still life, if that helps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Arcsech posted:Oh yeah, I'm gonna be sticking with this and the kit lens it came with for a bit until I'm sure I want to drop more money on it. The question is more "Is it worth it getting myself entrenched in the Canon ecosystem for the sake of this oldass camera, when I probably would have gone with Nikon (or Pentax) if I had to buy new?" For most camera systems, it's pretty easy to sell of lenses. Used lenses also tend to sell for pretty much the price you pay for them. I'd honestly stay with the canon for a bit and maybe buy one or two lenses to continue learning. Once your ready for a nicer and more capable camera, just sell everything off. You may have issues selling the camera, but the lenses shouldn't be too much of an issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:This might be a better question for the lighting thread, but since it's a newbie question I thought I'd toss it out here: Yongnuo 560 is the best way to go if you don't neeeeed TTL (you probably don't!). The the ex3 version has a wireless trigger receiver built in too, otherwise any cheap trigger will work fine for casual use.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Yongnuo 560 is the best way to go if you don't neeeeed TTL (you probably don't!). Really eh? I was reading up on it, and TTL seemed like a handy feature to have... but again, I've never used a flash before so I don't know how hard it is to get used to manual. Basically I don't want to necessarily buy the cheapest flash available and then regret it in a few months. I don't mind paying a bit more for something that will have the features I'll want down the road. But at the same time, the Yongnuo's seem like great starter flashes, rather than dropping like $300 on a Canon flash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Really eh? I was reading up on it, and TTL seemed like a handy feature to have... but again, I've never used a flash before so I don't know how hard it is to get used to manual. Even if you get a fancy TTL flash later on, having a manual flash in your kit can still be handy if you want to do a setup with multiple lights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Really eh? I was reading up on it, and TTL seemed like a handy feature to have... but again, I've never used a flash before so I don't know how hard it is to get used to manual. TTL is great if you're using the flash for on the go photography and balancing with ambient light in changing circumstance. (Just like automatic exposure metering  ) - If you're using it for portraiture in a studio, it's set and forget so it doesnt really matter. So it depends on your needs
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:TTL is great if you're using the flash for on the go photography and balancing with ambient light in changing circumstance. (Just like automatic exposure metering Fair enough! I don't really know what my needs are yet, just that I'd like a flash to mess around with haha. So perhaps the cheaper option is indeed the one to go with for now
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Fair enough! The 560 is definitely cheap. The 560EX supports TTL and is still under a hundred, so that's the inbetween option. I don't have any experience with the YN flashes though, so can't offer advice onhow well TTL works on it - others will be able to!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:This might be a better question for the lighting thread, but since it's a newbie question I thought I'd toss it out here: T3i has wireless TTL control with the first party flashes. If I were you I would get a 430EXii. They're on deep discount right now and you get all the Canon bells and whistles. It's what I did! Mightaswell fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Jan 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:T3i has wireless TTL control with the first party flashes. If I were you I would get a 430EXii. They're on deep discount right now and you get all the Canon bells and whistles. It's what I did! Interesting... when you say they're on deep discount, where would this be?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
triplexpac posted:Interesting... when you say they're on deep discount, where would this be? I guess it depends where you live, but in-store price locally here in Canada is around $269 for a 430EXII (Saneal, TCS). I see B&H has them listed for $299. Both are pretty good I guess since I paid like $350 for mine several years ago. Off camera TTL is rad as hell, especially if you shoot kids and pets. I would hold the flash in one hand and point it at a wall or ceiling and shoot with my right in M mode and let the flash sort it out. Works surprisingly well. I miss that feature now that I have a 5D with no built in wireless flash control. *edit* apparently the Yongnuo YN-565EX will do wireless TTL as well. Not to be confused with the Yongnuo YN-560 III which is a fully manual, non-TTL flash. Mightaswell fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jan 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 17:07
|
|