|
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0240804619 Check out the simplest cameras you can make, then you might get a good grasp on how cameras work 
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
single-mode fiber posted:You think you're joking, but... No jokes here (even if it's relegated to my lame and boring shelf of textbooks) 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
What is it about photography that attracts scientists and engineers?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
I set these up and then got too lazy to think of a punchline so someone else please pitch in~
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
I can't wait to get home so I can post a picture of my Dean Koontz collection.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
The 50 Shades trilogy is basically about a photographer losing out a girl to a billionaire. Commerce triumphs over Art. The rest is a middle aged woman trying to write chatlogs for people she has no frame of reference to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
LuisX posted:What is it about photography that attracts scientists and engineers? got a problem with it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
LuisX posted:What is it about photography that attracts scientists and engineers? Drawing takes more innate skill than set aperture push button.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
I have a Kindle, troglodytes 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
lol if your textbook library isn't worth more than your cameras.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
At the risk of touching on the tired creativity vs. technical prowess debate I think photography as a hobby is appealing to people from a engineer/scientific mindset because you're dealing with cool machines with defined technical aspects that you have a lot of control of. There's definitely nothing wrong with that as a hobby. Photography is super wide. For every engineer obsessing about bird sharpness there's a mom taking pictures of flowers on P. Nobody is doing anything wrong until they open a fan page and try to sell workshops
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 10:59
|
|
|
There's a whole Quora thread about this, for what it's worth: http://www.quora.com/Why-are-so-many-computer-engineers-also-photographers?share=1
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 11:02
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:got a problem with it? No, I got a M.S. in Computer Science, and another photographer that I know also went for a technology degree as well. I find this fact interesting and something that I have noticed lately. I am probably falling into the correlation != causation fallacy. In other news, a colleague of mine got their photo used without the photographer's permission. This happens all the time (no surprise there), but now people are defending the company that used the photo in the first place: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151824985761861&set=a.10150616692721861.380805.251061411860&type=1&theater¬if_t=like Top comments-> 3rd reply or so, thread with 8+ replies. Do people really think just because a photo is on FB its acceptable to use it at will?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
LuisX posted:Do people really think just because a photo is on FB its acceptable to use it at will? If I remember the privacy policy correctly, Facebook certainly feels it is 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:If I remember the privacy policy correctly, Facebook certainly feels it is Careful now, this is a slippery slope!  
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
I'd be checking the privacy policy carefully, along with Twitter's, as it's surprising how much you give up by posting shots on the internet via those two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:I set these up and then got too lazy to think of a punchline so someone else please pitch in~ The joke and punchline is Enders Game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Spedman posted:I'd be checking the privacy policy carefully, along with Twitter's, as it's surprising how much you give up by posting shots on the internet via those two. Yep. Social Media has to make its money some how. Especially now that its publicly traded stock and those ticker numbers rule the day. Free, not free service.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Musket posted:Yep. Social Media has to make its money some how. Especially now that its publicly traded stock and those ticker numbers rule the day. Free, not free service. That classic quote: If you're not paying for the product, you are the product.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
Generally a lot of the concerns photographers have with social media TOS are overblown. It seems every four months there's some change and every photographer instantly thinks google or facebook are going to sell their terrible photographs as microstock. Most of the phrasing is built around being able to display the photos an individual uploads to other users and create thumbnails. Of course because their lawyers are writing it, it's vague and fairly non-specific. They could absolutely be improved but there's no need for the photoblogasphere to scaremonger for page views. I believe the images FB uses for internal advertising are more profile pictures - so then pages promote posts it appears on a feed as "Oh your friend Hank Facebook users likes the Skittles fanpage" I wish tumblr was more of a thing because general the reblog/repost mechanism is so good for preserving attribution which is the main thing to keep a hold of posting work online. I think shared posts generally do poorly on Facebook's page rank meaning that pages run by people with some degree of social media knowledge are posting images rather than sharing, and in those situations all you're left with is a "hey tag me please" if they don't. Or report as DMCA violation which FB is actually pretty good about. I hope you're all glad I didn't abbreviate social media as SoMe for this post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I hope you're all glad I didn't abbreviate social media as SoMe for this post. This is bannable as of now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:No jokes here (even if it's relegated to my lame and boring shelf of textbooks) This reminds me that I need to get back my copy of Hecht's Optics I lent to a friend. Also, I got angry seeing that Intro to Solid State book. gently caress I hated that class.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
PushingKingston posted:This reminds me that I need to get back my copy of Hecht's Optics I lent to a friend. I was *this* close to having to grade a class taught with that book today. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Lol that is me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I wish tumblr was more of a thing because general the reblog/repost mechanism is so good for preserving attribution which is the main thing to keep a hold of posting work online. I think shared posts generally do poorly on Facebook's page rank meaning that pages run by people with some degree of social media knowledge are posting images rather than sharing, and in those situations all you're left with is a "hey tag me please" if they don't. Or report as DMCA violation which FB is actually pretty good about. Some pages are really good and those are the ones I follow, but for every site checking sources, there are ten that are full of photos with no clue where they came from.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
After all the dramas I had with people posting an edited version of my photo on tumblr, the vast majority of people on tumblr do link back to the original. There's some great stuff on there, you just need to get past the ad farms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:I've been looking at setting up a tumblr for nude photography, and the attribution thing just falls apart. Most of the active pages are trying to make money from ads, so they tend to delete the text and source links (or just save it to desktop and reupload it) so they get credited as the source for reblogs. it's not perfect but it is literally the only platform to put nipples on a social network. I really have no idea how to tumblr though. I follow some rad people and sometimes when i post something it gets a few notes. but that's basically Social Media in a nutshell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:it's not perfect but it is literally the only platform to put nipples on a social network. Just try and find tags that move fast and post stuff that people will 'get' instantaneously. If you want to post photography, make sure you watermark a low rez version (and then instagram the poo poo out of it so you've got a chance of hitting the hipster ad farms). If you want to make money don't bother with NWS stuff, Yahoo have been slowly trying to kill it off over the last year or so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
oh yeah, I'm just having fun with tumblr for the most part. it is marked NSFW which I imagine kills a lot of the searchability What are some tags you recommend?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
Photography, art, black and white, landscape, portrait, nude photography, whatever you think describes the picture. Generally just go on the search page and see what's trending. Posting anything related to Sherlock, Supernatural or Doctor Who is like cheat mode for tumblr.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:Photography, art, black and white, landscape, portrait, nude photography, whatever you think describes the picture. Generally just go on the search page and see what's trending. haha, I think that's another thing I like about tumblr is how you can easily shape your feed. I just follow a few photographers and photography things so my tumblr experience is pretty isolated
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Lol that is me. Hi 5 buddy, thanks for the defense! Edit: I just recently got into Instagram, and I am glad I did. Who would have thought that a social media site where you mainly communicate with photos would be good for photographers? Going to get a tumblr account as well LuisX fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Jan 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
One last thing of note on tumblr is to make sure you do reblog other people's stuff. Alternate something of yours with two of theirs. A lot of people will be grateful of the reblog and will check your page out purely based on that. Tumblr is great because of how it feeds back into itself, and the queue is a phenomenal idea I wish more social media pages natively allowed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Lol that is me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 14:16
|
|
|
I just got a new Pentax DA 55-300, and I think I may have gotten a bad one. Am I expecting too much from a low/midrange zoom, or does the following seem like abnormally bad focus and CA at the margins? I plan to give it a full test ride when the sun's out tomorrow but this is looking to me like I should send it back. These are 100% crops from a portrait-oriented image, no sharpening, no lens profile corrections, 300mm, 1.5 secs @ f/8, 200 ISO. Shot on a tripod at a piece of paper stretched taut. [my hosting] Center:  Right of center:  Top Left (furthest from center):  full DNG here
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
The in-depth review on PentaxForums has this to say:quote:Overall, sharpness was very good. Sharpness was compared at various focal lengths and various apertures by photographing a brick wall using these same conditions for all images. *why is always a loving brick wall? I know, grids are good for detecting barrel or pincushion distortion, but come on, bricks again?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
I have processed this and see no CA. Let me upload...  It does seem a bit soft, even after my sharpening. No CA that I can see that anyone should worry about. No Gravitas fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Well I can remove the CA and sharpen it in post, but the amount of it and the difference between the edges and center before processing seems excessive to me. I wish I had something else this long to compare identical shots with. Are you sure you don't have automatic CA removal enabled somewhere? E; well I spent the evening doing comparisons with the lenses I do have, and it does seem to have more chromatic aberration by a long shot. Hopefully I can exchange it with B&H without eating any shipping fees. I'm thinking the softer focus at the edges on my test photo above might just have been the fact that f/8 at 10' on a telephoto isn't exactly a large area of critical focus, didn't realize how narrow that would be. Remy Marathe fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Jan 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 07:23 |
|
|
I was recommended Alien Bees as good but cheap general first time studio lights, and of course now that I'm ready to pick some up I can't seem to find them on Adorama, B&H, or Amazon (only accessories come up searching for "Alien Bees"): is there something else goons recommend in the $100-200 range? Used is fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2014 11:17
|
|
