|
InternetJunky posted:For professional printing check out Bay Photo (if you're in the US). I've had a lot of prints done from them. I've heard Bay Photo come up a lot in my research about prints. I guess I'm pretty lucky that they're local to me, though they're only open during the week, so I'll have to figure out when I can swing by to check out some examples of prints in person.
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:42 |
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:This has not been my experience at all, unless you consider 4-5 8x10 prints every other month "a lot" of prints. It's also been an order of magnitude cheaper than comparable quality lab prints. For me it's economical to still print myself, but I'm selling a fair bit so I'm well past the break-even point. If I were just starting out and not sure my stuff was going to sell I'd probably just farm it out to a print shop until I had a better sense of my sales.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
One thing to keep in mind with inkjet at home is that unless you have a constant need to print and can keep a steady stream of use, you can run into inks drying out causing you even more cost overhead. For pro sites, I have had really good experience with MPix this year - so much so that I've switched over to them full time for anything I need done. I shot a friend's "Christmas Time Family Photos" and was able to get her cards and 8x10s printed and shipped quickly, cheaply, and with really good quality. They also protect the hell out of your photo prints in shipping, and that care / extra effort really is what did it for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I don't really know what you mean with the craigslist reference but it looks like a good printer and it would cost me about $500 to get it and a set of ink. Bay Photo has kind of crazy prices on 8x10 art prints, but my local printer does them for $10, so for me the breakeven point would be past 50 prints, at which point printing myself starts to save money. Maybe it's due to a difference in printers we use, but it's ridiculous how many wasted prints I get out of my R2000 due to dried ink nozzles, ink running out mid-print, printer just screwing up and aborting the print mid-way. All of that really eats into any savings from self-printing. Those printers are often bundled with cameras and people sell them unopened on Craigslist for $150. Bay Photo, like many other online print labs, only takes 8-bit files so the quality can be pretty bad for anything with subtle gradients (most of my work). I do agree that it's not worth investing in a printer at any price unless you know you want prints now and in the future. I've also had no problem with inks drying out. I do run a cleaning cycle if it's been more than two months since I last printed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Thanks everyone, I'll probably check out Mpix again, since I did have success with them in the past. I just sent off for a few cheap prints to check the quality and color correction. I'm remembering now, last time I just did batches of the economy prints that weren't corrected for printing since it was just a vacation photo dump and the savings made sense. Do you guys normally do any special processing before sending away to a lab, or just let them do that on their end? I'd imagine you'd need to calibrate for whatever printer and paper they're using, but I don't think you get that information. Again, the biggest concern is trying to match what I see on screen to what comes out of the printer. Do Mpix, Bay Photo, etc. do this as part of their "color correction" process? The questions about home printing were more curiosity for the long term after my inevitable and amazing success leads to me selling huge volumes of prints  . I have a visceral hatred for inkjet printers for occasional home use, so I'm in no rush to buy one.
LogisticEarth fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
I've had great results from Mpixpro (prints and framing), WHCC (prints), and CG Pro Prints (canvas). I'm using WHCC by way of my personal Smugmug site now. My complaint against them via Smugmug is that there isn't as big a variety of options through Smugmug as I've seen from Bay Photo or EZ Prints. Quality is good. I know WHCC and Mpixpro will let you do test prints, which is awesome. Mpixpro even let me redo test prints for free when I got a new monitor and calibrated it. Can't speak for Bay Photo or EZ Print.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
What exactly did Matt Granger do in this video to the example photos ? (e.g at 1:31). The light conditions where he is doesn't look particularly good for tack sharp photos that "pops" but his image certainly pops. (there is probably a better term for it) While i am fairly new to photography and have lots to learn i am surprised at how different my photos look. My compositions are fine and exposures correct but my photos don't pop like that. I can't imagine its my gear as it is "the best" (full frame and L-glass) so the problem is somewhere behind the camera. Ineptitude fucked around with this message at 21:59 on Nov 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
He's messing with sliders in Lightroom to get that look. So research getting a copy of Lightroom if you don't have it yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:i am fairly new to photography xzzy posted:So research getting a copy of Lightroom if you don't have it yet. Word of caution, if you jump in too quickly and start using Lightroom before you've learned a decent bit about photography you might start using it as a crutch and create a difficult habit to break.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
xzzy posted:He's messing with sliders in Lightroom to get that look. Thanks  Im not THAT new though, and while i have been focusing on composition and choosing the correct camera settings so far i have been gradually doing more and more messing around with sliders in Lightroom, particularly the last few months. My manipulation of sliders doesn't create photos like that however which is why i am interested in knowing more specifically what it is he did to the photos to make them look like that, as it is a visual style that appeals to me. I am not even able to explain what it is about the photo that makes it "pop". I am tempted to say it has higher contrast but using the contrast slider in Lightroom doesn't make photos look like that at all. Its not separation of subject from background either as that little Pinocchio figurine isn't all that much in focus and the camera was at 45 degrees to the scene.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
I'm interviewing for a job next week designing a new kind of camera for bio-medical use. I'm thinking of reviewing optics and all that before I go in. I pulled out my old physics book and the descriptions are just terrible. Anyone have any good resources video/text online that discusses the physics of optics?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Scientists really haven't figured out how optics works, it's all guesses at this point. You might find some books claiming theories but so far there is no scientific consensus. Good luck on your quest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
huhu posted:Word of caution, if you jump in too quickly and start using Lightroom before you've learned a decent bit about photography you might start using it as a crutch and create a difficult habit to break. What
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Scientists really haven't figured out how optics works, it's all guesses at this point. You might find some books claiming theories but so far there is no scientific consensus. Good luck on your quest. Sometimes you guys give the best advice. Dren posted:What huhu fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Nov 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
huhu posted:I'm interviewing for a job next week designing a new kind of camera for bio-medical use. I'm thinking of reviewing optics and all that before I go in. I pulled out my old physics book and the descriptions are just terrible. Anyone have any good resources video/text online that discusses the physics of optics? http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mechanical-engineering/2-71-optics-spring-2009/
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
huhu posted:
Would like to know how to use Lightroom to transform poo poo pictures into good pictures. I have a hard drive full of poo poo that could do with some of this magic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
elgarbo posted:Would like to know how to use Lightroom to transform poo poo pictures into good pictures. I have a hard drive full of poo poo that could do with some of this magic. X Ctrl+backspace
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
huhu posted:I'm interviewing for a job next week designing a new kind of camera for bio-medical use. I'm thinking of reviewing optics and all that before I go in. I pulled out my old physics book and the descriptions are just terrible. Anyone have any good resources video/text online that discusses the physics of optics? Sounds like someone wants to spend the weekend reading Hecht.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
elgarbo posted:Would like to know how to use Lightroom to transform poo poo pictures into good pictures. I have a hard drive full of poo poo that could do with some of this magic. http://vsco.co/film
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Sounds like someone wants to spend the weekend reading Hecht.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Sounds like someone wants to spend the weekend reading Hecht. Hecht yeah! Now I use it as a monitor stand: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
I've always liked this look/style of photography (the second one in particular) and I'm curious how it's achieved. Obviously Lightroom or similar is used in post, but does the photographer apply some sort of filter on top and/or mess with curves?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Butt Savage posted:I've always liked this look/style of photography (the second one in particular) and I'm curious how it's achieved. Obviously Lightroom or similar is used in post, but does the photographer apply some sort of filter on top and/or mess with curves? vsco
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Butt Savage posted:I've always liked this look/style of photography (the second one in particular) and I'm curious how it's achieved. Obviously Lightroom or similar is used in post, but does the photographer apply some sort of filter on top and/or mess with curves? here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/380dlhv90kvhxh7/thatlook.lrtemplate?dl=0 also, vsco
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Butt Savage posted:I've always liked this look/style of photography (the second one in particular) and I'm curious how it's achieved. Obviously Lightroom or similar is used in post, but does the photographer apply some sort of filter on top and/or mess with curves? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
You guys are the best. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
How do you make water not look poo poo? I know 1 method is to use a very long exposure and ND filters but what about if you want to photograph someone waterskiing at a lake in full sun. I was using a polariser already because I knew it would be super glarey but it just looks ugly in all my photos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:How do you make water not look poo poo? I know 1 method is to use a very long exposure and ND filters but what about if you want to photograph someone waterskiing at a lake in full sun. Set up a tripod on the back of the boat that the person is being towed from and take a long exposure, duh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Sounds good
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
Photographing waterskiing is less like shooting a long exposure of a waterfall and more like shooting action / sports photos of a person who happens to be on a lake. So, very high shutter speeds to freeze action (big sprays of water, goofy expressions on their face, water dripping from protruding organs). Or panning shots, shutter speed around 1/100s and bursts of shots taken as the subject zips past you, continuously moving the camera. Unless you're going for that dreamy long-exposure look, in which case, yeah, lots of ND and a tripod. On shore, and then go crazy with the post-processing (and convert to B&W for extra ART points).
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
I don't even know why I mentioned ND filters, I blame being tired as hell after a day at the lake and making the connection in my head to good looking water. I slept for a solid 13 hours right after that post. I was at 1/1000+ the entire time, but I'll try going down and upping the iso a bit next time and seeing if the extra blurriness on the water makes it look nicer. I have to be at ~400mm equivalent so it should be a good challenge to see if i can get them non horribly blurry when I pan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
You're going to need to pretty much max out your shutter speed because you're shooting a randomly moving subject from a randomly moving vehicle. If you're shooting in daylight, don't worry so much about cranking up the ISO. Noise doesn't usually show up so much in well-lit scenes plus noise reduction software is really good these days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Just checked the exif from the only time i ever took wakeboarding photos from the back of the boat, was shooting 1/2500 and everything turned out super sharp. hth. As for the water being ugly, try a larger aperture so it blurs out or go somewhere with pretty blue water.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
This is a shot in the dark, but has anyone here with an Epson R2000 or similar printer tried off-brand ink cartridges? I bought an InkOwl set of replacement cartridges and ink for the R2000 and just installed them, but I think something has gone horribly wrong. The ink cartridges hold about 13ml of ink. After running 3 cleaning cycles as directed, I tried printing two 8x10s but they came out with blobs of ink on them, so I ran a couple more cleaning cycles and now my ink cartridges are empty. I don't really have a sense for how much I should be able to print with 13ml of ink but I would hope it's a lot more than a few test pages and two 8x10s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Think this is a me gently caress up or a lab gently caress up? First image on the roll, and the only one that's messed up like this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
You hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Hmm... I was struggling to get the film to take up, but I didn't think it actually unwound at all. Ugg.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Oh hey teddy Roosevelt island that place is cool
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 06:42 |
|
|
Dren posted:Oh hey teddy Roosevelt island that place is cool 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2015 01:18
|
|