|
So point at the dark area, hold down AE lock, then focus on the bikes by setting the focusing rectangle (don't know the actual term) to the widest setting so the camera auto-focuses on either side of center?
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:11 |
|
|
Slavvy posted:So point at the dark area, hold down AE lock, then focus on the bikes by setting the focusing rectangle (don't know the actual term) to the widest setting so the camera auto-focuses on either side of center? If you want it to meter on the dark area, then yes. As far as focusing, if you're trying to capture a bunch in your DOF, then you'd want to set an appropriate aperture and then focus in the middle of that distance - you can figure all that out with a DOF calculator if you can find the sensor size of your camera.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:To give you an idea of how goofy (but awesome) that thing looked at the time, this was one of its competitors. Hey, my first not-quite-a-point-and-shoot camera! Wish I had just sold a bunch of plasma and bought an OG Digital Rebel in hindsight. Or an old manual focus film SLR.  Kids these days have it easy with the price of secondhand DSLR bodies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Would you guys enter a photo contest that had this in the fine print:quote:Rights
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
But it's exposure, literally the most valuable thing you can offer a photographer!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Someone should start a new cryptocurrency for photographers called Exposurecoin.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Would you guys enter a photo contest that had this in the fine print: That seems fairly standard for a brand sponsored photo competition. The target participant is probably hobbyists who'd get a kick out of it. I have a friend who does PR for a regional branch of one of the big camera companies and she was spitballing ideas of me including "oh we could have a competition and use the winner's picture in an ad!" and I had to basically sit her down and warn her that it would tear the internet's photography community apart if a major camera company played the old "exposure is the prize!" card for an ad campaign.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Been playing around with photo combination lately (ie panoramas, HDR, etc) and would like to read up on these 2 techniques, but i dont know what to google for: What do you call it when you combine several photos "on top" of each other and keep the differences between them, to for example show the same person several times in 1 photo? (without having moved the camera) What do you call it when you combine several photos to only keep the similarities between each photo? (for example taking several photos of a tourist attraction, then removing all the other tourists when you are back home) I know both of these techniques exists, and i have heard they can be fairly automated, but i cannot figure out what they are called so that i can google up on it. Is this something i can do in Hugin? "photo fusing techniques" or similar google searches just return unrelated results or results that only match 2 key words
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
I think in either case calling it a composite is accurate and the general term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
HPL posted:Someone should start a new cryptocurrency for photographers called Exposurecoin. If the value drops can we say it's underexposed?
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2014 23:54
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:Been playing around with photo combination lately (ie panoramas, HDR, etc) and would like to read up on these 2 techniques, but i dont know what to google for: What they are probably doing in either case is bringing in the photos as separate layers in Photoshop and masking off what they want to show in the final product. It looks like Hugin is just for stitching photos together to make a panorama (I've never used it), so I'm gonna guess that you can't use it like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:What do you call it when you combine several photos "on top" of each other and keep the differences between them, to for example show the same person several times in 1 photo? (without having moved the camera) The easy way to eliminate differences (e.g. tourists from landmark pics) is to take a bunch of shots from a tripod spaced out over time. Open them in photoshop as layers and align all layers. Then merge them set to the median pixel value. The median value will eliminate any "outlier" layers which means no people. The term to google is "photoshop median stack." Combining the outliers I think would be done with layers and masks, but eliminating differences can be really easy using the median approach. If there is a way to grab the differences automatically I don't know it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
Or you can get an absurdly dark filter and take a single long exposure. As long as no one stands still you're golden.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Or you can get an absurdly dark filter and take a single long exposure. As long as no one stands still you're golden. This can lead to some really eerie effects when you've got enough
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
I am planning on going to Hong Kong in a few months and was wondering what the best thing to do for gear would be: 1. Bring my Nikon d90 and my primes and look like a tourist. Also buy extra Hawaiian shirts and a fanny pack. 2. Buy something less conspicuous like a sony nex3 or a Nikon 1, while I'm here in Canada. It wouldn't stand out and it wouldn't be that expensive. Warranty wouldn't be an issue, and I could also take it places that I wouldn't bring my dslr. 3. Buy a less conspicuous camera when I'm in Hong Kong. No warranty (or difficult to get) but it would be cheaper and I could also see if I actually wanted or needed it. 4. Some combination of these.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 08:22
|
|
|
I was in Hong Kong + Mainland China for 5 weeks with my Canon 6D + 24-105mm last summer, and had no problems with that. I never got the impression that people were eyeballing my gear and attempt to grab it, and i am fairly cautious/nervous about these things. Hong Kong and China is fairly safe, and as long as you take normal precautions you should be fine (e.g. backpack on your belly when on the subway, dont hang it on the back of your chair at restaurants etc). The touristy areas are full tourists with big cameras with huge lenses (i saw plenty wielders of Canon 1Dx with 70-200 F2.8 lenses or similarly big setups) to the point that i would say huge dSLRs is more common than people with small cameras Captain Catapult fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Feb 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 09:04
|
|
|
Yeah Hong Kong is pretty okay, you don't have to worry too much about your gear. I went around with a Hasselblad with no issues at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
Also, you should be careful buying camera gear in hong-kong. If the shop you're in is making a huge advertising feature of 'tax-free sales' they are making GBS threads you, as there isn't a sales tax in HK to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 09:49
|
|
|
Graniteman posted:
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
StarkingBarfish posted:Also, you should be careful buying camera gear in hong-kong. If the shop you're in is making a huge advertising feature of 'tax-free sales' they are making GBS threads you, as there isn't a sales tax in HK to begin with. I trawled "all of Hong Kong" to find the best deal on Canon 6D, mainly by visiting stores found after reading multiple articles from "where to buy cheap cameras in HK" google searches. After reading like 10 articles i realised most of them kept listing the same stores, and almost every article mentioned Echo Photo & Audio as the cheapest. In my experience this was true, but Echo only sells grey import, and you only get the best delas by asking for Andrew Yip. Stay away from the big chains like Fortress, Broadway, Suning, as they are quite a lot more expensive than the alternatives. (22800 HKD for my camera) If you want the very best deal and do not care that you are buying "grey import" (no HK warranty, no paper trail) , shop at Echo Photo & Audio, and ask for Andrew Yip (16100 HKD for my camera) If you want a good deal, with HK warranty, shop at Tin Cheung Camera in Stanley Street, Central (17300 HKD for my camera), the other Tin Cheung stores wanted 19600 HKD for the same camera. I went with the last listed option, Tin Cheung in Stanley Street, and have never had any problems with my gear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 11:24
|
|
|
Captain Catapult posted:I trawled "all of Hong Kong" to find the best deal on Canon 6D, mainly by visiting stores found after reading multiple articles from "where to buy cheap cameras in HK" google searches. I know Nikon is awful about greymarket, but how is, say, fujifilm? For example, if I were to buy an X100S in Hong Kong, would it be possible to get it fixed under warranty in Canada? Thanks for the recommendations guys
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 11:52
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:I know Nikon is awful about greymarket, but how is, say, fujifilm? For example, if I were to buy an X100S in Hong Kong, would it be possible to get it fixed under warranty in Canada? I used this guide when I went to HK but take note it's 3 years old: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=635497
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
TL;DR: "Bring back the old facebook(/flickr) waah waah waah" I'm sure this has probably already been talked about so just ignore me if it has. I haven't really vented anywhere about it (1st world problems whinge coming up) I really don't like the new Flickr, and it's getting more frustrating. it is really a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". I really saw no problem with the old one other than the upload limits. It was clean and mostly efficient. The front page feed is really cluttered and awkward now. It deters me from looking at any of my contacts photos. (I dunno if you can change that at all?) The groups have always been troublesome. It has some awesome groups and discussions and poo poo but navigating through them is painful and awkward and again I just can't be bothered most of the time. I mean I don't have any solutions to these issues and I'm sure as heck I could never do a better job than them, but i didn't see any issue whatsoever with the old flickr and from memory I'm sure I enjoyed using it (mostly the front page function) seriously I spend like 5 seconds going through the feed and give up because it just all blends together in this messy collage of random photos that aren't shown in a really appealing way. it just doesn't seem like a very streamline site. it has some great features but they just get muddied up in this weird chaotic failed attempt to 'modernise'. They seemed to completely cosmetically overhaul the entire site but didn't make it any better, just more cluttered and confusing. Unless I'm missing some glaringly obvious benefits (like how I bought a subscriber account like 2 days before they announced 1tb for everyone) Anyway, that's my little rant over. Sorry to pollute the thread with my whining. Carry on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 13:45
|
|
|
I like the new front page, and for me it only shows photos of people I follow so I don't really understand your gripe about it. Posting in groups seems akin to YouTube comments.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
The level of stupidity is dependant on the group I've found. A lot of the film based ones are pretty useful for getting processing tips, with only the odd dickhead sprinkled in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
I can deal with everything but the search. I used to like to scroll through a lot of pages when I searched for specific stuff. Now I can only go as far as my ram lets me with the infinite scroll. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
East Lake posted:I can deal with everything but the search. I used to like to scroll through a lot of pages when I searched for specific stuff. Now I can only go as far as my ram lets me with the infinite scroll. Even if you don't run out of ram, the web browser will probably lock up after a dozen flicks of the mouse wheel as it struggles to cope with the layout of several hundred images.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Spedman posted:The level of stupidity is dependant on the group I've found. A lot of the film based ones are pretty useful for getting processing tips, with only the odd dickhead sprinkled in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:The front page feed is really cluttered and awkward now. It deters me from looking at any of my contacts photos. (I dunno if you can change that at all?) Have you checked out this page at all? You can set it to show one or five recent images from your contacts. http://www.flickr.com/photos/friends There's also this: http://flickrforbusypeople.appspot.com/, but it's time limited, unfortunately. (EDIT: Almost forgot about FlickrRiver. Sign in, go to My FlickrRiver, and there's an option to view all of your contacts' recent photos in way that won't cause your computer to slow to a crawl.) I don't know what else you'd want beyond that, because if you have a contact that uploads a ton of photos at once, you might as well visit their actual photostream and just skim from there. I also think the new Flickr's pretty dope. Of course, there's always things that can be improved, but it's pretty decent. I like it way better than 500px, but maybe I'm crazy. Sharizard fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Feb 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2014 22:23
|
|
|
Does anyone think these things are cheesy on gallery title cards? -literal titles -elaborate titles -shooting info(exposure, lens, film speed, etc) -camera/lens make IMO all of the above are cheesy. The only thing I really care to know is where and when. The image itself can speak to what te subject is. Unless it's really abstract then a literal title is passable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
Being pretentious is pretty much the point of an art gallery, so it makes sense that the descriptions will be part of it too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Being pretentious is pretty much the point of an art gallery, so it makes sense that the descriptions will be part of it too. What?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
I'll be entering some photos from last summer into a photo contest at the conference I'm going to in April (European Geophysical Union, Vienna, April 27-May 2, anybody else going?). They describe the judging criteria on the contest website:Imaggeo 2014 Contest posted:The judges select the finalist images taking the following points into account: I think the last part, about the metadata including the "appropriate title" is interesting in the context of this discussion about cheesiness. Also, does anybody know what they mean by "golden cuts"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Titles are for things like: "Woman performing anal sex" Buy I would actually prefer the less literal 'calm.jpg'
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I'll be entering some photos from last summer into a photo contest at the conference I'm going to in April (European Geophysical Union, Vienna, April 27-May 2, anybody else going?). They describe the judging criteria on the contest website: Probably the intersecting lines on rule of thirds or that golden ratio spiral thing? I have that being described as "golden sections".
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I'll be entering some photos from last summer into a photo contest at the conference I'm going to in April (European Geophysical Union, Vienna, April 27-May 2, anybody else going?). They describe the judging criteria on the contest website: Composing by "golden sections" rather than rule of thirds I would assume. take your rule of thirds lines and move them all a little closer to center so the inner areas are smaller than the outer ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Composing by "golden sections" rather than rule of thirds I would assume. take your rule of thirds lines and move them all a little closer to center so the inner areas are smaller than the outer ones. I thought it means that the middle is bigger than the outside sections. Let me double-check this. EDIT: Ah, I'm wrong. The middle is indeed smaller than the outside sections. My program calls this "Harmonic Means", so I'm not ever sure if this is the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
So I want to buy a tripod. What kind of weight do I need it to carry, if I'm using a Rebel t3i with a 50mm portrait or kit lens and a flash? I don't want to break the bank, but I also don't want to buy something cheapo that I'll hate. If anyone has recommendations that would be great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:So I want to buy a tripod. What kind of weight do I need it to carry, if I'm using a Rebel t3i with a 50mm portrait or kit lens and a flash? I think there's another thread just for tripod chat, the OP probably has useful information.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 15:11 |
|
|
triplexpac posted:So I want to buy a tripod. What kind of weight do I need it to carry, if I'm using a Rebel t3i with a 50mm portrait or kit lens and a flash? Budget? TBF you should throw money at a tripod. Here are some reasons why: You will hate the cheap as poo poo 40bux tripod in about 20mins. You will find yourself wasting less dollars in the long term by going balls out on a tripod now. There is no need for you to get CF or a megaspendy tripod, but a mid-priced tripod is your best bet for growth of gear + stability. http://www.mefoto.com/products/help-me-choose.aspx The Backpacker will fit in smaller bags. I can fit it in my Timbuk2 medium sized bag without any issue, and it also fits in my Kelty backpack for my hiking trips as well. I also recommend http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/655253-REG/Induro_470_010_Adventure_AKB_Tripod_Kit.html as a good tripod to start with.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2014 20:29
|
|