|
If the full image is sharp at 100% the crop is sharp at 100%, but being sharp at 100% is a much stricter condition on a modern digital camera than the kind of results you get with the hand holding is fine at 1/focal length rule. If you hand hold a 20mm on a pentax q (~100mm equivalent) you are going to have trouble consistently getting acceptably sharp photos at 1/20s, but won't have the same problem at 1/100s, just like a 100mm on a full frame camera. So in practice we should include the crop factor in to the rule of thumb.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 04:37 |
|
|
My dumbass brain just thinks about it in terms of zoom. IF you’re more zoomed in, then slight hand movements move the view more, and thus you need a faster shutter speed to account for that! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
And I chimp. "oh that came out blurry, well let's speed up the shutter to fix that"
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
Fools Infinite posted:If the full image is sharp at 100% the crop is sharp at 100%, but being sharp at 100% is a much stricter condition on a modern digital camera than the kind of results you get with the hand holding is fine at 1/focal length rule. I don't have the pentax q, so I can't comment, but are you sure the difference is caused by the crop factor, not the difference in pixel size? I'm sure there are situations where the Sony A9 would give perfectly sharp images, while the A7R4 would reveal motion blur, not because of a difference in crop factor (they are the same), but because of the higher resolution of the A7R4. CodfishCartographer posted:My dumbass brain just thinks about it in terms of zoom. IF you’re more zoomed in, then slight hand movements move the view more, and thus you need a faster shutter speed to account for that! Crop =/= zoom. If you crop a full frame image by 10x, you are not zoomed in 10x. Crop is more like looking through a straw - you only change the field of view, not the resolution (area covered by pixel).
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
The rule of thumb is generally to include crop factor, but obviously you adjust it based on your own needs. If anything, I go faster shutter speed whenever possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
Cropping and changing focal length give the same composition, expect for differences in depth of field (and the flaws of the individual lenses), and are effectively the same thing. The 1/focal length rule is not about sharpness at 100%, which will of course require different stability needs resolutions for the same sensor size. An acceptably sharp image is one that appears sharp at the intended viewing size, which for most photos is about the same angular view, e.g. you bring a small print closer, or stand back from wall art. So the relative size of blur motion compared to the total size of the image is what matters, and cropping increases the relative size of that blur. Landscape photographers are probably the only ones who need the extra resolution, because landscapes are typically viewed closely to see the detail, and definitely do require higher shutter speeds/better stabilization than hand held at 1/focal length rule indicates, almost always some kind of tripod setup.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
Holy GRAP you guys are gooning it up! It's just a frickin' rule of thumb, not a Law of Physics. Wolfs, hopefully we haven't totally scared you away with this nonsense. Please have a look at your EXIF data and give us a number to derail the silliness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Holy GRAP you guys are gooning it up! It's just a frickin' rule of thumb, not a Law of Physics. I take responsibility for the derail and I am legitimately sorry. theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Nov 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
Shot in the dark time... I use lightroom for printing on an Epson p800, and every once in a while a print will come out looking like it is missing an entire colour. Restarting lightroom fixes the problem each time (so far), but I print a huge amount so this is not a great solution. Anybody have a clue what could be happening? Example below
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Shot in the dark time... Are you using print preview when this happens? For some reason, with Epson drivers this causes double profiling. Took me way too much ink and paper to figure out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Are you using print preview when this happens? For some reason, with Epson drivers this causes double profiling. Took me way too much ink and paper to figure out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 22:17
|
|
|
I ended up printing through Canon's Print Studio Pro plugin because on a Mac the print settings would not always grab everything from Lightroom. It's definitely a different interface than Lightroom but I've come to like it because everything is there in one spot instead of having to jump between different tabs/screens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
What's causing the vertical bands in this photo? Probably unnecessary info, but: It's Ektar shot on a K1000. Developed in a local lab and scanned by me (a noob). I'm aware of some of the other issues and their causes (the dust and vignette) but if anyone has other tips that would be great as well. I think I shot this at F18 or so and diffraction made it not as sharp as it could have been? Would be nice to know whether that is correct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
Can you see those marks on the negative and do they line up with the sprocket holes? If they do, they're surge marks which is a catch all term for a number of different issues where chemistry movement through the sprockets causes inadequate (or overly abundant) development/fixing in those areas. Usually because of aggressive agitation. I can't imagine that happening with lab developed film unless they're doing it by hand in a daylight tank and the tech believes film should be shaken like a martini. Most labs use a minilab machine where the film is run through a continuous track of rollers at speed fixed to leave the film in the chems for the proper amount of time. If you don't see those marks on the negative then you done messed something up while scanning. If you do then you need to ask your lab what the hell they're doing (and get a refund and replacement roll). Sauer fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Dec 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 04:15
|
|
|
Yeah through a loupe on a light table I don't see it in the negative. They do seem to be lined up with the sprocket holes. I think it's likely that I'm blowing it while scanning, because I'm struggling with that in other ways as well. Maybe I'll take it back to the lab and have them scan it so I can have a point of comparison. It's Mike's Camera, which is a decently large chain on the West coast, so I doubt he's going 007 on it. It's showing up on most if not all the shots on this roll...
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 06:19
|
|
|
I’m getting back into photography after a few years off. Going to Paris for New Years. I currently have a D3200 and a bunch of lenses with it. My question is whether the D3200 is still a decent crop camera or have things progressed so much that it is worth it to buy an upgrade (assuming the cost isn’t too high). I’d still like to use my current lenses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2019 07:02
|
|
|
beergod posted:I’m getting back into photography after a few years off. Going to Paris for New Years. Is it deja vu, or a crosspost?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
XBenedict posted:Is it deja vu, or a crosspost? cross post, sorry!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 07:38
|
|
|
I use Capture One 11, and I usually process my images to jpg. In pictures with very gradual color gradients (think red to blue during a sunrise), jpg images show harsh transitions, so I switched to png. Pngs look great on the web and when I open them with windows photo viewer. However, when I take that same png and set it as a desktop background image (Win7), the color is different from what I see in C1, web, and windows photo viewer. What is happening? jpg (highest quality): great colors in photo viewer, desktop, and web, but compression artifacts png (highest quality): great colors in photo viewer and web, no compression artifacts, bad colors as desktop background Google suggests that desktop background does not care about color profiles, but it still does not explain why the jpg looks correct when the png does not, even though they look identical in photo viewer. Alternatively, is there a way to get rid of harsh color transitions in jpgs? theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Dec 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:I use Capture One 11, and I usually process my images to jpg. In pictures with very gradual color gradients (think red to blue during a sunrise), jpg images show harsh transitions, so I switched to png. Pngs look great on the web and when I open them with windows photo viewer. However, when I take that same png and set it as a desktop background image (Win7), the color is different from what I see in C1, web, and windows photo viewer. What is happening? The harsh colour transitions are because jpegs have a lossy compression, so you're losing some of the interstitial colour information in colour transitions. PNG uses lossless compression (like TIFFs) so you get all of the original image data. The desktop wallpaper PNG looks different to the one in photo viewer, because Windows applies automatic lossy compression to any wallpaper image that's not a jpeg.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 05:33
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:The harsh colour transitions are because jpegs have a lossy compression, so you're losing some of the interstitial colour information in colour transitions. PNG uses lossless compression (like TIFFs) so you get all of the original image data.  I should have stayed with b/w photography.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 06:11
|
|
|
Export at high quality (90% or higher) and make sure you're saving in sRGB, it'll minimize the problem as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2019 14:58
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Export at high quality (90% or higher) and make sure you're saving in sRGB, it'll minimize the problem as much as possible. I've tried them all (png vs. jpg, sRGB vs. AdobeRGB vs. embedded camera profile), and I am not 100% happy with any solution. Edit: I'll just let it go and forget about windows getting the background right. As long as it looks fine on the web and prints well, I am ... ok. theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Dec 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2019 01:08
|
|
|
I keep getting targeted ads for Mastin Labs presets. They look nice but they look ridiculously overpriced at $500 for a couple of film emulation presets. Anyone have experience with those?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 06:03
|
|
|
That’s a lot of money to spend on something where there’s doubts you can even copyright the media. Not sure it would be the end of the world if you coincidentally made the same fader adjustments as one of these expensive packs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2019 07:07
|
|
|
So this was an interesting conversation that came up within the group I work with... When exactly did off camera lighting modifiers become 'a thing'? We were talking about a possible photo project that drew influence from photography from the 1920's up until the early 1940's. From my own study it seems a lot of the early work was with unmodified lighting. So I wasn't quite sure where more controlled lighting came into existence. I could potentially use Google but I wasn't sure how to phrase things to get the answers I want. And my own observations about unmodified lighting could be wrong but I really have no clue about how to figure own what happened and when. Any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 05:44
|
|
|
Like, reflectors and stuff? I bet that goes back way past photography. I’d imagine painters and sculptors would’ve made good use of lamplight, etc. bounced off a mirror or something to light a model/subject in a certain way. If that’s the case then it’d be reasonable to think that the earliest photographers picked it right up from the get-go. This is just a quick thought that popped into my head, so it could be nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 11:39
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Like, reflectors and stuff? I bet that goes back way past photography. I’d imagine painters and sculptors would’ve made good use of lamplight, etc. bounced off a mirror or something to light a model/subject in a certain way. Well I was thinking more like umbrellas and soft boxes, along with regular use of diffusion materials. Companies like Profoto, Elinchrom, and Broncolor didn't start up until the late 50's at the earliest. Nikon didn't introduce their strobes until the late 60's. The one reference I'm finding for Canon only refers to the EOS flash system that came out in 1987. So if I had to make a guess if any photographer before the mid-50's wanted more controlled lighting maybe they were using lights commonly used by movie studios? Or they got really creative in other ways that I'm not finding documentation for. EDIT: looking into movie lighting of that era helped quite a bit. Diffusion scrims were certainly a thing, though the hard lighting techniques were more of a style change for the 1940's.So that translated into photography as well. Explains why I was so thrown off when trying to figure out when modifiers that we use today came about. ReverendHammer fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Jan 1, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2020 22:05
|
|
|
Just because we don’t really have a general discussion thread, I read on one of the Facebook groups people were getting good results from ‘cancelling’ their adobe subscriptions today. Seems the best deal is if you pay yearly, but I pay for the $9.99 photography pack for Lightroom/Photoshop and going through the process it gave me 60 days for free, so worthwhile enough for a minutes work. Others saw $hundreds saved. Just log into your adobe.com account, go to your package and click the cancel link. I had to click 2 or 3 ‘continues’ (the last one kinda read like it was the final decision) then it puts up a page of offers for you with the top one being the best.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 20:05
|
|
|
I came across one of their Facebook ads the other days and the comments aren't pretty. They do, however, have a host of other options for much cheaper. Overwhelming majority recommended Affinity and Gimp 2.something. Other say they're just holding onto their CS6 as long as they can.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:I came across one of their Facebook ads the other days and the comments aren't pretty. They do, however, have a host of other options for much cheaper. Overwhelming majority recommended Affinity and Gimp 2.something. Other say they're just holding onto their CS6 as long as they can. I've got education pricing, it's something like $AU3.33 per week. I also use their Portfolio for my website (in progress, but have a rough version up) so it's easier to justify the cost.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Just because we don’t really have a general discussion thread, Just FYI, the Taintchat thread is the random photo discussion thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 05:15
|
|
|
Well goddamn. I’m sure I knew that at some point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2020 05:38
|
|
|
So I'm making an art/writing zine with my friend (who is art directing) and she came up with an abstract theme (Clarity). What's your process in making artistic photography? I'm not sure how to start, honestly. Up until now I've taken photos because they look good, but I haven't really shot anything with a theme in mind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 02:32
|
|
|
Schneider Heim posted:So I'm making an art/writing zine with my friend (who is art directing) and she came up with an abstract theme (Clarity). What's your process in making artistic photography? I'm not sure how to start, honestly. Up until now I've taken photos because they look good, but I haven't really shot anything with a theme in mind. I am slow, so perhaps this will not work for you. But whenever I participate in a challenge (which has a theme), I spend at least a week just walking/driving around town, trying to find things that fit the theme. This typically gives me ~5 ideas and I then have another three weeks to try different compositions, lighting, find new things, ... . Abstract themes appear more challenging, but can be much easier because there is a lot of room for interpretation. For example, if the theme is "Diarrhea on a ski slope" and you live in a country with no snow you are screwed. But with a more abstract theme, a quick search in a thesaurus will give you an abundance of ideas. For example, for "clarity" you have: https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/clarity
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 03:19
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:For example, if the theme is "Diarrhea on a ski slope" and you live in a country with no snow you are screwed I dunno, that one seems pretty universal, no matter where you live poo poo flows downhill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2020 03:31
|
|
|
Kind of an odd question here: I currently subscribe to Adobe Creative Cloud, mostly using Lightroom CC. One of my favorite features is how the desktop application integrates seamlessly with my Adobe cloud storage (I’m pretty paranoid about storing stuff locally). Lately I’ve been thinking about switching to a free editor like Darktable, especially since I have access to (for now) limitless online photo storage via my Prime membership. The only problem is I’m trying to figure out if there’s a way to easily access my storage there and import to/export from Darktable without having to manually plonk images into folders. Ideally, I’d like to be able to open up the editor and import directly from my Amazon drive but I can’t figure out how to cut out the middle man download folder. Am I delusional here, or is there some way to do this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 04:44
|
|
|
Not as far as I know. It would be possible to write a script to do inside darktable (and add an interface), but a better solution is probably using other software to automate the syncing. I think amazon drive has a drop box style interface available if that fits your workflow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2020 05:51
|
|
|
Anyone rented an expensive lens? I called up a rental company here in the UK for a 600mm f/4 Canon IS II (yeah) for 1 week. Is it common to ask for the total value of the lens to be transferred to the company for the duration of the rental? Also I would have to add it to my insurance for destruction/theft. They want £300+vat and charges and delivery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 04:37 |
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Anyone rented an expensive lens? I called up a rental company here in the UK for a 600mm f/4 Canon IS II (yeah) for 1 week. In the US I use Lensrental.com which I've never had a problem with for cameras/lenses. https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon-600mm-f4l-is-ii It appears that they'd charge you about $360 in total (plus the delivery, tax and insurance) for a week of use with that lens so the UK company seems to be legit too though I don't know why they expect you to give them the entire value of the lens for the duration but perhaps because they don't offer insurance of their own like Lensrental does?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2020 15:18
|
|