|
TheLastManStanding posted:Did you mean to link to something else? A blue gel filter won't do anything for shooting infrared, you want an infrared filter (sometimes called a visible cut filter). I've converted an SLR and it was pretty easy. Just make sure you do it in a clean area with little dust and plenty of room to keep track of all the tiny screws. This guide calls for it: http://m.instructables.com/id/infrared-digital-camera---the-real-way/
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
Instructables posted:You will also need a lighting filter to block out all visible light except for red and longer wavelenghts. For this I am using "Congo Blue"
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:A blue filter filters everything except blue light, so I'm not sure that person understands what they did. They stacked 6 of them together, to end up blocking all visible light. You could do the same thing by using some 35mm film or just spend the money on a real filter. You say they don't know what they did but then say using all those filters blocks all visible light. Which is it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
huhu posted:You say they don't know what they did but then say using all those filters blocks all visible light. Which is it? That using blue filters will block all visible light if you use enough of them but you won't be getting the pure IR spectrum since the light will be blue/violet. IR filters are deep deep red for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Gel filters reduce the amount of light passing through them by quite a bit, so by stacking 6 of them it kind of works, but the results are poor. A red+blue filter would cut more visible light with fewer layers, a slice of 35mm film would have done it in one, and a real filter would have even better results.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Gel filters reduce the amount of light passing through them by quite a bit, so by stacking 6 of them it kind of works, but the results are poor. A red+blue filter would cut more visible light with fewer layers, a slice of 35mm film would have done it in one, and a real filter would have even better results. Edit: I'm not trying to make a perfect infrared camera, just experiment. huhu fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Mar 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
I get that this is a project thing, but if you keep an eye on ebay you can get converted full spectrum compact cameras from £25-35 from people who have bought the ones at £45 and have got bored with them or didn't have any luck "ghost hunting".
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
When people share really garish, horribly processed photos on Facebook and they end up with 100 people saying WOW OMG THIS IS AMAZING it makes my heart cry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
psylent posted:When people share really garish, horribly processed photos on Facebook and they end up with 100 people saying WOW OMG THIS IS AMAZING it makes my heart cry. And if you say you don't like it, they'll say you don't have taste or you're jealous of the likes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:18
|
|
|
psylent posted:When people share really garish, horribly processed photos on Facebook and they end up with 100 people saying WOW OMG THIS IS AMAZING it makes my heart cry. I just went through my father's old stacks of photography magazines and all the HDR guides that were published until ~2012 recommended to just crank everything up to 11. It's really depressing to see these monstrosities printed on high quality paper. I don't really care when I see them on Flickr/Instagram but seeing them printed on paper is just...ugh.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
you should try joining some local facebook photography groups if you want to see some poo poo    joined a brisbane one expecting to find similar to what you get here and well. Friends posting stuff on their facebook is one thing but these are people who dunning kruger themselves to the moon
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:you should try joining some local facebook photography groups if you want to see some poo poo And those examples are precisely why I don't join any FB photography groups. Although tbh some of them are good entertainment value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:53
|
|
|
it makes me feel better about being maybe 10% as good as the dudes in the landscape thread
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 05:56
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:Does any of it work with lightroom because thats all i have. The Nik Collections are plugins and only work with LR or PS (and ACR?) They are not standalone programs. VelociBacon posted:How is the sharpening compared to the in-software lightroom feature? A photographer friend of mine swears to the Nik sharpening module over any other sharpening software. The sharpening algorithms they use considers the final size and usage of the image and sharpens accordingly. This does require the user to know what an image is going to be used for beforehand (big canvas print, small aluminum print, thumbnail on webpage, etc) but the end result is much better. (These are his words, i haven't gotten around to using it yet) SMERSH Mouth posted:As far as I can tell, the full suite of plugins only works for PS. It looks like only the HDR plugin works with Lightroom. Maybe i am misunderstanding what you mean but when i right click an image in LR and "Edit in..." i get a long list of Nik Collection plugins (like 8?), not just the HDR one
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
My local facebook photography group are the same people as the actual local photography group and local flickr group as for once the old men with leicas got there first. One of them once gave me his old X100 and told me I was not to baby it in any way and if I managed to break it while doing photography then he would give me a Leica, I didn't baby and the only thing wrong with it after several years is the silver has rubbed off in places. Lesson learned old man, well played.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
I have never looked for a local photography group and you guys made me curious. Now I hate life.   (this one won a contest that the page hosts from time to time) 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I have never looked for a local photography group and you guys made me curious. Now I hate life. this is good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:this is good. It's street
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
There is a guy in my local Flickr group who I feel posts something good once every 50 photos. Everyone else is pretty much what has been posted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
For what it's worth, others here turned me onto the On Taking Pictures podcast. It has an associated Google Plus group (right? I know!) which I find to be good-not-great, but a worthwhile supplement to the Dorkroom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:The Nik Collections are plugins and only work with LR or PS (and ACR?) They are not standalone programs. I wonder if there's any use for Nik sharpener at all in this case. It's awesome to have, especially for printing and hopefully will play nice with film scans, but I think that for 90% of my applications Nik sharpener may just be unnecessary. I don't know for sure, though. quote:
nvm I'm actually illiterate and have never used a computer before. (The only other LR plugin I've used was initiated from a different menu and I was looking for the Nik stuff there.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:you should try joining some local facebook photography groups if you want to see some poo poo 
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
i wonder if when we all get to be really old and some new and cool thing comes in, if we will all gush over it being used terribly because compared to what we have now it's just that loving amazing. I wonder if all the eldery cavemen got super keen for a spark while all the young ones were dancing around a bonfire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:i wonder if when we all get to be really old and some new and cool thing comes in, if we will all gush over it being used terribly because compared to what we have now it's just that loving amazing. I think anything that is 'a thing' gets horribly tired and dated once it has reached its sell by date. I was watching Super8 and immediately knew it was a JJ Abrahms film cause of the godawful lens flare. Nothing that makes any kind of enhancement, other than making an image more realistic, does not age well. See also: Tilt-shift Lomo filters Selective colouring
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
spog posted:Tilt-shift
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:This is an odd oversimplification, as tilt-shift lenses have plenty of applications beyond what I assume you're referring to (the "miniature look"). Yeah and HDR technically only refers to images with high dynamic range (the opposite of what ends up in most tone mapped photos), it's the connotation that matters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
[edit: Went to the wrong tab, thought this was the gear thread. Sorry about that!] How goes the Photography world? EatinCake fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Apr 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Good. I sent that new Panasonic Lumix 30x zoom compact to Egypt with my parents for a nice holiday which is nice for it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
I booked a family photoshoot as a Christmas present for my parents, did it a couple weeks ago and just got the photos back. The experience was really good, we went for a pretty chill walk in the woods and it all felt fairly relaxed and natural with minimal posing (which is why I chose this photographer, based on their other work). The shots themselves are pretty nice; good composition and expressions, all technically sound, but drat do I hate the processing. Definite sliders to the right feel with heavy vignetting and lots of contrast - they certainly "pop" but it's like the opposite of what I do with my own pictures. Also a bunch seemingly at random in B&W with no real blacks or whites. My parents are really happy with them though which I guess is the main thing, and it was certainly an interesting experience being the subject rather than behind the lens. No question, I just wanted to complain to someone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
I'm currently shooting in the sRGB color space (RAW and JPEG) because I know that is the internet standard for photos. However, I'm planning on investing in a inkjet printer soon and I've read that for printing, its better to use ProPhoto or Adobe RGB. How should I change my workflow in Lightroom to have good exports for inkjet printing? I'm trying to read stuff up but I'm sort of getting lost and confused. Can anyone help point me in the right direction?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
I shoot Adobe I edit ProPhoto I export for web as sRGB. Never had any issues with this setup so far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
hi liter posted:I'm currently shooting in the sRGB color space (RAW and JPEG) because I know that is the internet standard for photos. However, I'm planning on investing in a inkjet printer soon and I've read that for printing, its better to use ProPhoto or Adobe RGB. How should I change my workflow in Lightroom to have good exports for inkjet printing? I'm trying to read stuff up but I'm sort of getting lost and confused. Can anyone help point me in the right direction? RAW doesn't have a color space profile in the sense you think of, you have to fit them into a color space. I just do everything in ProPhotoRGB (which is the largest color space for most applications) and then export for print in sRGB, unless you know that your printer can do ProPhotoRGB printing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Speaking of colour, is it bad to never change my white balance setting from sunny and just adjust it in post?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:Speaking of colour, is it bad to never change my white balance setting from sunny and just adjust it in post? Not sure what body you're using but why not leave it in auto? I think we all adjust a bit in post but I find my auto is usually pretty close.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
A Saucy Bratwurst posted:Speaking of colour, is it bad to never change my white balance setting from sunny and just adjust it in post? If you're shooting RAW it doesn't really matter since you can change it in post. But like what VelociBacon said, auto usually gets you close most of the time, so that saves you extra time in post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
I just take a photo of a grey card first and then use that to set WB in post later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:I just take a photo of a grey card first and then use that to set WB in post later. Doesn't always work if your scene is not in the same light.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
If you don't know what you're doing with a gray card or color passport you're going to gently caress it up. Just shoot in Auto.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 03:36
|
|
|
Some matrix meters take the color temp into account so if you use auto exposure and the wrong WB you could end up with blown highlights under some edge cases. The last time this was an issue for me was when I shot D200s, if you moved to dimmed tungsten with a sunny WB you'd blow the red channel all the time. YMMV with new bodies but yeah if you don't care use AWB.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:45 |
|
|
8th-snype posted:Some matrix meters take the color temp into account so if you use auto exposure and the wrong WB you could end up with blown highlights under some edge cases. The last time this was an issue for me was when I shot D200s, if you moved to dimmed tungsten with a sunny WB you'd blow the red channel all the time. YMMV with new bodies but yeah if you don't care use AWB. That's interesting. I've got a d200/7000/750 here I'll have to do a comparison.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2016 05:28
|
|