|
Counter point: Contax t2
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:If you're paying more than $10 for a 35mm point&shoot you've done something wrong. Here's a Canon Sure Shot for $10 that does everything that other camera does and more.  Sweet
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:If you're paying more than $10 for a 35mm point&shoot you've done something wrong. Here's a Canon Sure Shot for $10 that does everything that other camera does and more. There's plenty of great 35mm P&S that cost more and are worth more than that. Like the Olympus XA series, Canon QL-17s, etc. On another note - what happens if you cancel the card that's paying for your monthly Creative Cloud subscription, considering there's a yearly commitment?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Radbot posted:There's plenty of great 35mm P&S that cost more and are worth more than that. Like the Olympus XA series, Canon QL-17s, etc. Both of your examples are rangefinders, not point & shoots.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
35mm point-and-shoots are (with the exception of some true stand-out cameras) semi-disposable fun. Buy that Pentax if you can shrug and write off the cost as a trivial nothingness. For me, that threshold is around $10, so that Pentax ain't for me. Whatever 35mm p&s you end up with, batteries are ALWAYS something you buy online - never buy a battery in a bricks-and-mortar place unless you're on vacation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Both of your examples are rangefinders, not point & shoots. XA3 is point and shoot. You can zone focus but really it is a point and shoot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
deaders posted:XA3 is point and shoot. You can zone focus but really it is a point and shoot. You're right. I read "XA" and not "XA series" 
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Radbot posted:On another note - what happens if you cancel the card that's paying for your monthly Creative Cloud subscription, considering there's a yearly commitment? You can preempt that and change it somewhere in your setting, I believe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Does anyone have any experience with any print on demand zine publishing services? I'd like to put together a collection of some of my work in something that's not overly garish and do it in a way that won't leave me completely destitute.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
elgarbo posted:in a way that won't leave me completely destitute. Don't sound like a zine to me. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
elgarbo posted:Does anyone have any experience with any print on demand zine publishing services? I'd like to put together a collection of some of my work in something that's not overly garish and do it in a way that won't leave me completely destitute. I use Magcloud (bought by Blurb now). It's fine. But I just make a little zine and sell like 20 copies so I don't really have any high expectations. You could find a cheaper way of doing it if you just wanted a traditional zine, cheap paper/b&w, that sort of thing. Magcloud is more polished, it's full colour and can have perfect binding. Edit: I see now that this is the Photography thread, so chances are you don't want to go the cheap route lol.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Is there any reason to shoot in Adobe RGB if you're not printing, and is there any reason to shoot in sRGB if you do intent to print?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I use Magcloud (bought by Blurb now). It's fine. But I just make a little zine and sell like 20 copies so I don't really have any high expectations. Rad, I'll check Magcloud out. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
I've used magcloud and it's more "magazine" quality than presentation quality; the paper is thin and the print quality doesn't exactly pop. Depends on what you're looking for I guess, but I suppose it doesn't hurt to try out Magcloud. IIRC it was something like 20 cents per page and I vaguely remember something about free samples and not needing to order a bunch at a time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Is there any reason to shoot in Adobe RGB if you're not printing, and is there any reason to shoot in sRGB if you do intent to print? My understanding is that sRGB is a smaller colourspace (more lossy?) 
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Is there any reason to shoot in Adobe RGB if you're not printing, and is there any reason to shoot in sRGB if you do intent to print? Would you show Helen Keller a black and white print? More information is always better in photography.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Leviathor posted:More information is always better in photography. edit: Also unless you've gone out of your way to ensure that your workflow is set up properly for Adobe RGB (including calibrated pro monitors that support that color gamut), just stick to sRGB. Hobbyists really shouldn't worry about it and just work in sRGB -- anywhere you post photos will just convert to sRGB anyway and leave you wondering why your photos look weird. Leave Adobe RGB to professionals who actually know why they're using it. Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Aug 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
rawrr posted:My understanding is that sRGB is a smaller colourspace (more lossy?) Not more lossy, literally less colors. You will have more saturated colors (especially in the greens), just like an srgb photo appears more saturated than when converting it to CMYK. The problem is that very vew people will be able to see your amazing photo of a summer lawn as you intended, because most people (99.9%) have srgb monitors. And when you print, it will convert to CMYK which gives you even less saturation. Working in adobe rgb will give you some more headroom in the gradients etc before converting it down, just like doing gradients in 16bits/channel or 32bits/channel before dropping down to 8bits. (but like mentioned above you will need a very expensive monitor, have it calibrated and maintained properly and know how to work with color and printer profiles) Edit: I guess the advantages of taking pictures in srgb is that it's smaller in file size if you take jpeg shots, but you should be using RAW anyway which will contain all the color info. Another advantage is saving a little time by not having to convert to srgb when you output your jpegs. KinkyJohn fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Aug 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 07:15
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:Not more lossy, literally less colors. You will have more saturated colors (especially in the greens), just like an srgb photo appears more saturated than when converting it to CMYK.  They both have the same number of colours, the difference is the range that they can cover. But as you say, best to stick with sRGB unless you have your own CMS workflow and printer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 10:56
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:you should be using RAW anyway which will contain all the color info. How does this work? Doesn't RAW still have to record colors in a digital format?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
It is kinda weird - I understand that color space shouldn't affect RAW files, but identical images definitely look different when shot in the different color spaces, even in RAW. I'm guessing this is because my selected color space is attached as metadata to the file, and then ACR/C1/etc. chooses that one first (but you can change it after the fact)? On another note - how do folks around here calibrate their monitors? Anyone using a fully color managed workflow, or are they more like me and get Costco to print a few versions and I just choose the one I like the most? Radbot fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Aug 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
Radbot posted:On another note - how do folks around here calibrate their monitors? Anyone using a fully color managed workflow, or are they more like me and get Costco to print a few versions and I just choose the one I like the most? I used ansel autisms' Colormunki Display and print at home using a manufacturer-profiled paper.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
Guys just think of color space as a hat your raw files wear that you can take off and put a new one on whenever you want.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
junidog posted:How does this work? Doesn't RAW still have to record colors in a digital format? Not really, because the sensor data itself doesn't contain any color - sensors capture light, they have a CFA over them to let different amounts of different colored light through to each pixel. RAW has to go through a demosaic'ing process in the converter in order to average the data together and generate a color image. So the demosaic algorithm, camera calibration profile, color space used, etc will all change those colors in their own way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:Guys just think of color space as a hat your raw files wear that you can take off and put a new one on whenever you want. Except if you try to change your hat the wrong way your pictures look all funky like somebody stole your hat and replaced it with a pink sparkly fedora
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
rawrr posted:I've used magcloud and it's more "magazine" quality than presentation quality; the paper is thin and the print quality doesn't exactly pop. Depends on what you're looking for I guess, but I suppose it doesn't hurt to try out Magcloud. IIRC it was something like 20 cents per page and I vaguely remember something about free samples and not needing to order a bunch at a time. Oh yeah, I definitely wouldn't use it if you wanted pristine prints of all your photos. It is what it is. If you want a somewhat cheap magazine with your photos in it to show people, it's great for that. If you want something to really show off your images professionally, investing in a photo book or something might be better. It really depends on what you want to spend and what quality you're expecting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I used ansel autisms' Colormunki Display and print at home using a manufacturer-profiled paper. Wow, X-Rite allows that? How cool. I know there's at least one other display calibration option out there that involves some sort of DRM/physical dongle that precludes sharing. I wonder if anyone's got one they'd let me borrow for a week (I'd donate in return!).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
KinkyJohn posted:Not more lossy, literally less colors.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Is there a best/easiest way to take photos of a store/shop front without having reflections of the surroundings in it? In this case it's a beauty salon and the street facing side is basically just huge windows, located at a moderately busy intersection facing diagonally across it. The ideal photo would also show the interior.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
Caryna posted:Is there a best/easiest way to take photos of a store/shop front without having reflections of the surroundings in it? In this case it's a beauty salon and the street facing side is basically just huge windows, located at a moderately busy intersection facing diagonally across it. The ideal photo would also show the interior. I think a circular polarizer would help cut down on reflections on glass
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Caryna posted:Is there a best/easiest way to take photos of a store/shop front without having reflections of the surroundings in it? In this case it's a beauty salon and the street facing side is basically just huge windows, located at a moderately busy intersection facing diagonally across it. The ideal photo would also show the interior. Polarizer
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
Caryna posted:Is there a best/easiest way to take photos of a store/shop front without having reflections of the surroundings in it? In this case it's a beauty salon and the street facing side is basically just huge windows, located at a moderately busy intersection facing diagonally across it. The ideal photo would also show the interior. Take it at night when the lights are on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 14:41
|
|
|
Cheers guys. Guess I'll just bite the bullet and replace that Hoya HD filter I lost recently during a house move.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Throw a brick through the window. For art.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Take multiple shots and use the parallax effect to algorithmically remove the reflection layer. http://www.techtimes.com/articles/7...your-photos.htm
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Take multiple shots and use the parallax effect to algorithmically remove the reflection layer. Think it's gotta be a video, right? 4K is gonna be awesome for this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
junidog posted:How does this work? Doesn't RAW still have to record colors in a digital format? While looking for info about Capture One I came across a great explanation of what RAW actually is and what the data looks like (more or less) and why the same images look different depending on the software used to load them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjtWf9vIiIg&t=5m53s
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Colors!* *Can't compose for poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Think it's gotta be a video, right? 4K is gonna be awesome for this. I think it is programmed to process video containers/codecs, but snapping several shots in sequence would also allow the same type of processing with a series of still images. Encode them as several frames of video with a lossless codec and throw it into an avi container.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
Caryna posted:While looking for info about Capture One I came across a great explanation of what RAW actually is and what the data looks like (more or less) and why the same images look different depending on the software used to load them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjtWf9vIiIg&t=5m53s Thanks, that was really good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2015 23:23
|
|