|
HPL posted:I've changed lenses in the middle of a wildly violent mosh pit full of sweaty people and still not got a fingerprint on my sensor. He wanted to taste the forbidden fruit.
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
When I'm in the pits, I finger my sensor.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Beige posted:The D3100 doesn't have that unfortunately. Thought it was worth a mention just in case. Sounds like your body has a front focus issue if it's consistent across lenses
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
HPL posted:I've changed lenses in the middle of a wildly violent mosh pit full of sweaty people and still not got a fingerprint on my sensor. It was definitely a "holy poo poo did I really just do this" moment. I've done plenty of lens swaps over the years, but this time I was trying to keep both lenses' rear elements facing down, swapping their caps, while my naked camera was resting in the crook of my arm. It started to slide down and I tried to steady it with my ring and pinky fingers on my left hand, and one of them just grazed the edge of the sensor. Basically I was so concerned about dust (being on a trail in the middle of the woods) that I was trying to do everything too fast, while standing up, with a camera bag that was too small. I wasn't even sure that I had fingered the sensor until I held it up in the sun and saw the print. The only way there's still any poo poo on my filter would be that some of the oil didn't get completely wiped up by the swab. If that's the case, I can just take one more swab to it, but I guess I'm just a little paranoid about the eclipse fluid. Like, I'm worried that there might be some kind of protective substance on top of the low pass filter that the eclipse will damage.... But that's crazy, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Beige posted:The D3100 doesn't have that unfortunately. I just did the exact test with my D5100 and I have the same discrepancy between live view and the viewfinder (both images I was focusing on the black rectangle left of the number 0): Viewfinder:  Live view:  That said, I've never had any suspicion the focus was off with my camera. I am wondering if it's just the software confused by the tightly packed rectangles. If I focused on the URL block in the middle of the page, I have no focus problems using the viewfinder: 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
You nerds need to hit perpendicular focus targets, with the ruler laid next to it. Not aim at the ruler.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You nerds need to hit perpendicular focus targets, with the ruler laid next to it. Not aim at the ruler. Is there a good guide for doing this? I think there might be a bit of fine tuning I could do, but no point messing with it if I don't know 100% what I'm doing in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Just use a thick standing book or something. You just need to make sure you're hitting the right target, which is 90% impossible if you're aiming at target almost parallel to the LOS. Also repeat the test a few dozen times at different focus distances before you touch your micro adjusts.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:It was definitely a "holy poo poo did I really just do this" moment. I've done plenty of lens swaps over the years, but this time I was trying to keep both lenses' rear elements facing down, swapping their caps, while my naked camera was resting in the crook of my arm. It started to slide down and I tried to steady it with my ring and pinky fingers on my left hand, and one of them just grazed the edge of the sensor. Basically I was so concerned about dust (being on a trail in the middle of the woods) that I was trying to do everything too fast, while standing up, with a camera bag that was too small. I wasn't even sure that I had fingered the sensor until I held it up in the sun and saw the print. Wait, are you sure you got crud on your sensor, or did you touch the mirror? I have to set my camera in "clean the sensor" mode to even see the sensor. Crud on the mirror doesn't affect image quality, just what you see through the viewfinder. Or are you talking about a mirrorless, non-DSLR camera?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
When I adjust the ISO while looking through the viewfinder of the 5D Mark III, the exposure indicator in the viewfinder is stuck at the middle. Instead of the needle moving on the indicator, it's stuck at the middle and the flash icon is visible. Is there a way to set it so the viewfinder shows me how changing the ISO would affect the exposure? I want my camera to tell me when I have the proper exposure while I rotate through my ISO settings. How do I do this?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
Do you have both shutter and aperture set to specific values (both manual), or are you in aperture or shutter priority mode?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Just use a thick standing book or something. You just need to make sure you're hitting the right target, which is 90% impossible if you're aiming at target almost parallel to the LOS. Also make sure you are picking a thing to focus on that is the same size as your focus point or bigger. The camera is pretty much allowed to focus anywhere inside the box.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Splinter posted:Do you have both shutter and aperture set to specific values (both manual), or are you in aperture or shutter priority mode? This is in manual mode. When I look through the viewfinder and adjust the ISO, I'm getting the flash exposure compensation meter. I want it to show me the regular light meter, so I can adjust ISO to the proper exposure, without using flash.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Muttonchips posted:This is in manual mode. When I look through the viewfinder and adjust the ISO, I'm getting the flash exposure compensation meter. I want it to show me the regular light meter, so I can adjust ISO to the proper exposure, without using flash. The camera has a "change ISO and flash comp" button, therefore the viewfinder will always show "change ISO and flash comp" when changing ISO, not "change ISO and exposure comp". If you really just want to set ISO to move the needle to the middle, just set it the correct number of clicks by memory (it's not hard - if the needle was say 1 1/3 to the left then increase ISO by 1 1/3 stops i.e. 4 clicks on the dial assuming you left ISO changing at the default 1/3 stop steps) or just use auto ISO which does the exact same thing.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 07:55
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:The camera has a "change ISO and flash comp" button, therefore the viewfinder will always show "change ISO and flash comp" when changing ISO, not "change ISO and exposure comp". If you really just want to set ISO to move the needle to the middle, just set it the correct number of clicks by memory (it's not hard - if the needle was say 1 1/3 to the left then increase ISO by 1 1/3 stops i.e. 4 clicks on the dial assuming you left ISO changing at the default 1/3 stop steps) or just use auto ISO which does the exact same thing. Thanks! Thought about what you said and finally managed to find a solution. Turns out all I had to do was assign the "set" button to set ISO.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Excited about this
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Ric posted:Excited about this It gives me the option to install now....
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
This comes years too late. I just upload to Dropbox and use IFTTT to watch my Flickr uploads folder and upload anything new.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
I suggest it comes much too soon, and should never happen.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
'Introduce banding and compression artifact to thousands of pictures at once!'
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
 Flickr has had an uploader program for 5+ years...
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
1st AD posted:This comes years too late. I just upload to Dropbox and use IFTTT to watch my Flickr uploads folder and upload anything new. how do you deal with tagging? is it pulling it from metadata?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:'Introduce banding and compression artifact to thousands of pictures at once!'
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Beige posted:Focusing on the 0 using the liveview screen: The issue is that the focusing plane is pretty delicate, any minor deviation will cause an issue like that. Manufacturing tolerances will have their hand in this (mirror placement in this case), thus why there are shims and poo poo. Other reasons will be misalignment that could happen if you ever dropped your camera, and such. Of course, all the same applies to the autofocusing module in your camera. Thankfully there's micro-AF adjustments in a lot of camera models to deal with that. Combat Pretzel fucked around with this message at 21:44 on May 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Wait, are you sure you got crud on your sensor, or did you touch the mirror? I have to set my camera in "clean the sensor" mode to even see the sensor. Crud on the mirror doesn't affect image quality, just what you see through the viewfinder. Or are you talking about a mirrorless, non-DSLR camera? Unfortunately, it's a sony a6000. I really do try to be careful when doing things like changing lenses, but the costs of a screw up like sticking your finger into the flange back are potentially much worse when there's no mirror. So far I haven't done any additional cleaning since the initial fingerprint removal. I ... think that everything's ok, or at least I'm still getting passable image quality. I don't tend to care much about small smudges on a lens element, for example, or a few flecks of dust on the low pass filter, but the low pass filter seems like such a critical piece so close to the actual sensor that it stands to reason that even a very small amount of some foreign substance getting spread out on it would introduce additional noise and reduce image sharpness.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrdkFXsr5Us idk if its the same for mirrorless
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
So, who's this Gary Friedmann persona, and should I ever take him seriously?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
I have an older Fujifilm Finepix S1600 And a hair has somehow gotten under that first lens at the end. Is there any way to get it out short of tearing the camera apart?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Here's something I noticed with quite a few people I follow on Flickr. Whenever they have larger sets of a certain event or location, they're trickling the stuff at a rate of one picture a day into their accounts/photostreams. Are they trying to play various Flickr algorithms, like trying to get on Explore and such?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Here's something I noticed with quite a few people I follow on Flickr. Whenever they have larger sets of a certain event or location, they're trickling the stuff at a rate of one picture a day into their accounts/photostreams. Are they trying to play various Flickr algorithms, like trying to get on Explore and such? If you upload a bunch of photos at once, Flickr only shows you one in your home page activity feed and you have to click to see the others. Of course, whatever Flickr shows you by default gets way more views, and whatever Flickr hides behind a click by default gets way fewer views. That's why I do one at a time.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Is it worth getting a 12-28 lens at around f/4 instead of a 11-16 lens at f/2.8 if I don't already have that focal length covered? I'm just not sure how much I'd use the zoom and if its worth sacrificing getting a sharper lens for.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Whenever I upload a batch of photos - typically 20 - 50 at a time for me - I notice the views are highest for the last 5. I don't know if the most recent changes at Flickr have affected this, but up until a few weeks ago (whenever that switch was rolled out) the front page of Flickr when I logged in would be one photo from each person I follow who has recently uploaded something, and up to 4 more thumbnails embedded in that photo. I think the views on my photos were people clicking on those thumbnails or the main picture that they saw when they were on the Flickr main page. If your goal is lots of eyeballs from people who have already noticed you, then limiting your uploads to only a handful or a single photo per day makes sense. I don't know how it affects the algorithms that put together the Explore or other "everybody look at this!" features on Flickr. Thoren posted:Is it worth getting a 12-28 lens at around f/4 instead of a 11-16 lens at f/2.8 if I don't already have that focal length covered? Put it another way: how many shots are you going to miss because you don't possess a lens that covers exactly 21mm (or whatever)? 11mm and 12mm are more different than 50mm and 51mm, of course, but.... you can move and recompose, right?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Do you absolutely need every millimetre of focal length filled in by your lens collection? Or can you get by with one useful "ultrawide", one useful "wide", on useful general walkaround zoom, one good telezoom, etc.? Thanks for the advice. I ended up going with a 12-24.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
Is it cool if I ask for recommendations for photography coffee table books in this thread? I'm interested in Los Angeles or California specific books that cover a variety of subjects e.g. people, landscapes, architecture, sub-cultures in one volume. Sorry if this is the wrong place but The Book Barn didn't seem right.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Human Tornada posted:Is it cool if I ask for recommendations for photography coffee table books in this thread? I'm interested in Los Angeles or California specific books that cover a variety of subjects e.g. people, landscapes, architecture, sub-cultures in one volume. Sorry if this is the wrong place but The Book Barn didn't seem right. http://www.amazon.com/Day-Life-California-Rick-Smolan/dp/0002151626 Edit: I have the ones for America and the Soviet Union but not California. They're good
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
On account of this is a general questions thread, what are some good ways to make the most out of critiques? There have been times when someone has given me a critique and I was left with a feeling like they've pointed out all the flaws without offering a solution. What are the traits of a good critique? A bad one?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Muttonchips posted:On account of this is a general questions thread, what are some good ways to make the most out of critiques? There have been times when someone has given me a critique and I was left with a feeling like they've pointed out all the flaws without offering a solution. Don't take it personally. Just because someone gives a critique doesn't mean they have an answer on how to fix it. Sometimes a lovely photo is just a lovely photo.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Don't take it personally. Just because someone gives a critique doesn't mean they have an answer on how to fix it. Sometimes a lovely photo is just a lovely photo. "It's lovely  " sounds like a bad critique, but maybe you can critique the way I take critiques? Is there anything that can be gained from critiques like that?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Muttonchips posted:"It's lovely see what I mean?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:27 |
|
|
Muttonchips posted:"It's lovely "It's lovely" is bad critique, but "it's lovely because of this choice you made" is good critique.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 16:45
|
|