|
it kind of looks like posterization to me
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Huxley posted:They seem to drop a touch at the creases of the door, so probably not a camera or monitor issue. What was behind you? Looks like a guardrail or fence, maybe. Yeah, looks like a wall or fence. You can see huhu's reflection in the middle of the door as well, very faintly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Huxley posted:They seem to drop a touch at the creases of the door, so probably not a camera or monitor issue. What was behind you? Looks like a guardrail or fence, maybe. I flipped through some similar pictures and it looks like a bunch of horizontal lines of different colors painted on the opposite building are creating weird reflections.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
 ... drat. dakana fucked around with this message at 04:03 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
That's not that bad for pro repairs of main components. Wait til you get an estimate like that just to fix a lens worth maybe 20% more new.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
I just learned that using a tripod for video can help reduce the size of the compressed video due to the reduced amount of deltas between frames. It seems obvious now but my mind is still blown.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
dakana posted:
What camera model is that for? I think I might have need for a new mirror box on my 5D2 but I'm not sure that my shutter count accurately reflects the number of actuations the shutter has cycled (i.e. it may have been replaced when Canon refurbished it before and the counter not reset). I wonder if they can tell what the real count is with their fancy diagnostic tools. I've had a service ticket and padded shipping box sitting in my room for a while now. Just need to get around to sending it in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
You'd think canon would have a record of what the shuttercount was when it came in, to tell someone no if they try claim warranty or whatever on a camera they've used to death after it was refurbed. You'd also think they'd replace it too so they have 0 risk of the camera coming back in a month but well. They'd probably have to in Australia to have some defense with our really good consumer law, but well, America.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:What camera model is that for? I think I might have need for a new mirror box on my 5D2 but I'm not sure that my shutter count accurately reflects the number of actuations the shutter has cycled (i.e. it may have been replaced when Canon refurbished it before and the counter not reset). I wonder if they can tell what the real count is with their fancy diagnostic tools. This is my 5D3. I declined the repair and decided to just wait until it actually breaks to replace those parts. I've got a 6D for backup so I'll be fine if it breaks in the middle of a paid shoot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Yeah all the pros I've known just rode their stuff into the ground. Replacing something you have a hot spare for just because it's over its mtbf is pretty wasteful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Two considerations in my situation: a) if I have to send it in for the mirror box, I might as well get the shutter replaced at the same time, *if* the real count is actually that high; b) Canon will stop servicing the 5D2 someday, I assume. Before long it will be a 10 year old camera, and currently I have no intention of replacing it as the RAW image quality is just fine (ooc JPEG not so much but whatever).
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Where is the best place to get your photos printed onto larger formats? I suspect doing this at a Staples/Kinko's is not the optimal place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Define larger. Either way, I've always had great experiences with Costco photo printing services if you don't want to put much research into other labs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Define larger. Either way, I've always had great experiences with Costco photo printing services if you don't want to put much research into other labs. Wall hanging large? I'm figuring large format printers aren't cheap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
The camera store where I get my film developed also does gallery prints, prints onto canvas or aluminium and so forth. My girlfriend also got a bunch of her photos printed onto large canvas frames as Christmas presents, she went through an online printing service that does business cards, etc. Helen Highwater fucked around with this message at 01:13 on Mar 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
I used to get my large stuff printed from Nations Photo Lab before the Canadian dollar poo poo itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Dudeabides posted:Wall hanging large? I'm figuring large format printers aren't cheap. Yeah, Costco can do some relatively big stuff while you wait. I don't know what their maximum is but I've seen stuff around 30x20.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
Dudeabides posted:Wall hanging large? I'm figuring large format printers aren't cheap. Big prints seem to get dramatically more expensive if the short side is more than 36 inches, in my experience. Blowing up a photo more than 36 inches long side usually results in noticeable pixels, though whether or not that matters is up to taste & subject matter. Spend the money and print whatever you've got really large, like 8 x 12 FEET, then tell us about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Speaking of printing, i have been printing some of my own shots using web based print services and been happy with both the prices and results (~$70 USD for a 40x60 cm canvas) A little while back me and my wife bought this gift certificate for a family portrait session at a local photographer, mainly to learn how to do it ourselves. The photo shoot was so cheap [~$30 USD) we figured it would be worth it regardless. Once the photographer had selected the photos he wanted to show us we had a session where we got to view the photos on a big screen and look at printing options. We were absolutely blown away by the ludicrous prices the studio charged for prints. Literally 20 times more expensive [~$1500 USD for a 40x60 canvas) than the print service we have been using so far (which is one of the more expensive print services even) I realise part of the prices difference is the photographer recouping some of his costs from the photo shoot and i was prepared for a price difference but not for that extreme difference. Is this just how it is or are the prints done at studios like this better, somehow? Better print quality or something? Even with using our own photos the studio charges 10 times what the print service does.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 11:13
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:Speaking of printing, i have been printing some of my own shots using web based print services and been happy with both the prices and results (~$70 USD for a 40x60 cm canvas) That's the old standby business model, cheap sittings and expensive prints. Personally I hate it and encourage my clients to make their own prints.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 11:38
|
|
|
Has anybody actually got one of those Fracture prints done?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 11:43
|
|
|
What is a decent DPI for prints? Is there a DPI you wouldn't bother printing at for a standard picture frame sorta size? No more than 12" on the long side sorta thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
300 dpi is pretty much the standard for something you'll be looking at directly in front of your face (like a magazine) or wall art that you can walk right up to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:That's the old standby business model, cheap sittings and expensive prints. Personally I hate it and encourage my clients to make their own prints. I hate it too and refuse to play the game. I'm sure I could be making more money upselling on print packages and making complicated rules for add-ons, pose limits, etc, but jesus christ that's just tiring to me. Pay for my skills and style and print your own stuff, or go through me entirely a la carte with a modest markup to pay for my time fulfilling them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
So you give your clients the digital files when you are done shooting? How does your business model work? If your income is entirely the shoot, wouldnt you look a lot more expensive than the "standby business" ? They are not upfront with their pricing in a sense so they look cheap. Once the client is sitting in their studio with the photos they took on a big screen and a price list for prints it is a lot easier to for them to open their wallet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
Not sure if this is a photography or post-photography question or a mixture of both, but the gist is that I have a few rolex homages that I'm trying to make some product photos for, and am struggling to get them to look more like how a professional watch site's photos would look. I've been able to take some like this so far, shot on a Nikon D70s --  What I'm trying to go for, though, is a cleaner, brighter look. Here's an example from Rolex's homepage, but most watch brands have photos that look like this --   They look almost cartoonish, which is making me thing they're heavily post-processed (and shot by a much, much better photographer than me), but I'm still not sure where to start with getting my photos to look closer to these. Any advice?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Buy, borrow, rent, or build a softbox. Petapixel has a DYI guide: http://petapixel.com/2014/10/07/diy-create-simple-softbox-20-less/ So do lots of other sites. Get a white background and spread your light source (your flash) out with a big diffuser. If you want a dark background, use (obviously) a black surface, and if you place it far enough away from your subject, bokeh will take care of the dusty fabric for you. Keep the softbox, though - one big difference between your photo and the examples you show is that there are some harsh shadows in your image. Spread out your light and those will go away.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
GenJoe posted:Not sure if this is a photography or post-photography question or a mixture of both, but the gist is that I have a few rolex homages that I'm trying to make some product photos for, and am struggling to get them to look more like how a professional watch site's photos would look. The images you posted are likely renders out of rhino which is why they look heavy handed. A lot of product shots are renders now. As far as emulating it goes, your best would be to use a soft box and shoot through a hole. In order to light highly reflective materials you have to light whatever it will be reflecting and not the object itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
GenJoe posted:Not sure if this is a photography or post-photography question or a mixture of both, but the gist is that I have a few rolex homages that I'm trying to make some product photos for, and am struggling to get them to look more like how a professional watch site's photos would look. here u go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GblMRN039K0
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
GenJoe posted:Not sure if this is a photography or post-photography question or a mixture of both, but the gist is that I have a few rolex homages that I'm trying to make some product photos for, and am struggling to get them to look more like how a professional watch site's photos would look. I would also adjust the time so that the hands aren't obstructing any text.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
Step 1 with watch photography: set the time to 10:10:35.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:Step 1 with watch photography: set the time to 04:20:00 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Has anybody actually got one of those Fracture prints done? I got some for my wife for an anniversary present. They're pretty slick in design but all of mine had a serious yellow cast to them. Which isn't nice when you've got white wedding dress as the focal point. I called them up, they refunded me in full and told me to keep them. So we put them on the wall on in our stairwell where the light sucks and you can't really tell that the colors are hosed. They said they were updating their machines and that it might be better in the future, so maybe I'll try again somewhere down the line. We do get compliments on them; they look cool. Unrelated: I finally got a dslr for christmas after all these years, and immediately hooked up my non-AF lenses to it. Uh, I suck at manually focusing without a split ring. Any advice?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
PFlats posted:I got some for my wife for an anniversary present. They're pretty slick in design but all of mine had a serious yellow cast to them. Which isn't nice when you've got white wedding dress as the focal point. I called them up, they refunded me in full and told me to keep them. So we put them on the wall on in our stairwell where the light sucks and you can't really tell that the colors are hosed. Depending on the DSLR, use live view or focus peaking, maybe? Or learn hyperfocals?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
I signed up for Lynda to watch some of their Photoshop tutorials as i figure its about time to make my photo editing a bit more advanced (Been using Lightroom for a couple years, and only that) The tutorial keeps harping on about Adobe Camera Raw and how i should use that, and even has a chapter mentioning the LR -> ACR -> PS workflow (so its not like the tutorial is saying to not use LR) but fails to mention what makes ACR different from LR. Apparently LR is used for organization, ACR for developing raws and applying histogram/color edits and PS for photo editing. What does ACR bring to raw development that LR does not? The guy hosting the tutorial literally said "Use ACR, i don't have time to explain why so just trust me on this" I don't feel i am experienced enough to debunk this and am inclined to use ACR but i would rather not as i already have LR and am used to using that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 11:34
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:I signed up for Lynda to watch some of their Photoshop tutorials as i figure its about time to make my photo editing a bit more advanced (Been using Lightroom for a couple years, and only that) ACR uses the same engine as LR so its almost the same thing, just minus the organisation ability of LR. I normally only use ACR if I'm opening a RAW file directly in PS (almost never), otherwise I always adjust it in LR first then send it to PS from there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
I organize/edit all my shots in LR and only move to PS if I need the extra utility to do something that's beyond the toolkit of LR.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
What's the defect in this photo called? I thought it was chromatic aberration, but none of the other examples I've seen online look anything like it. https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/95909424@N04/25800176402/in/set-72157666171805445/
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
Phone posted:What's the defect in this photo called? I thought it was chromatic aberration, but none of the other examples I've seen online look anything like it. It's a stray reflection in the lens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:11 |
|
|
Dumb Lightroom question: Is it possible to title individual photos from the Develop tab? I know you can rename as a batch when you export and you can edit the filename and add a title in the Library tab, but is there a way to do it per file in the Develop tab? I ask because I'm running LR on a dying MacBook Air and switching tabs sometimes takes a while. It would be handy to be able to apply some adjustments and rename all in the same scene if possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2016 16:39
|
|