|
The one where he’s shooting out the passenger side is there closest to what I’m looking for but not it.
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 04:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Is the 70s photographer that took large (or medium?) format flash colour photos of drivers he is passing, taken from his passenger side window?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 05:19
|
|
|
I spent some time trying to track that one down but couldn't remember the name. Those photos rule.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 05:43
|
|
|
Found him, Andrew Bush, with the help of instantman(?) https://www.jacksonfineart.com/artists/andrew-bush/ 
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
Potentially silly question: I'm looking at getting the FujiFilm 27mm pancake lens. There are two versions. One without an aperture wheel, so all aperture stuff is done with the front/rear wheel on the camera body, and one with the aperture wheel (and some weather proofing) that's about £200 more if bought new, compared to getting the earlier version second hand Is there any real benefit to having an inbuilt aperture wheel? Is it just so you can have it set and ready to go? I am ridiculously new at Having A Nice Camera, and, if I'm being honest with myself, partly just want to buy something to try and keep the sadness at bay for 25 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2022 16:40
|
|
|
Flint_Paper posted:Potentially silly question: I'm looking at getting the FujiFilm 27mm pancake lens. There are two versions. One without an aperture wheel, so all aperture stuff is done with the front/rear wheel on the camera body, and one with the aperture wheel (and some weather proofing) that's about £200 more if bought new, compared to getting the earlier version second hand The earlier version is out of production, which is probably why it's so cheap on the second hand market. The benefit to having an aperture ring is mostly for the 'analog feel', it harkens back to old film cameras where you had discrete aperture rings/shutter speed dials that you had to set manually, no auto modes. Personally, I think it's part of the fun of Fuji cameras, and if you're just messing around with it as a hobby and you're not on a tight budget or anything you'd probably get more enjoyment out of having more dials to twist and turn and feel like you know what you're doing. The weather resistance is a nice bonus too if you have a body that also has that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2022 03:30
|
|
|
I've mostly migrated to Capture One over the last few years, but I still have some old catalogs from my D70 and x100s days that I only have in Lightroom 5. I need to update my LR5 computer to a version that will no longer run it, so I'm trying to figure out the best way to preserve the edited states of those old photos. C1 has a LR catalog import, but it isn't able to copy all develop settings (at least it doesn't for me), just some, so the end results aren't really the same as what's in LR, and I'm not going to go through the pain of going through all these old photos to try to get the editing in C1 to match LR. My first and perhaps the most obvious idea is to just export everything as full-res JPEGs, but I'm wondering if it would maybe be a better idea to do TIFFs or something else. I believe doing TIFFs would take a ton more drive space, but get better results if I ever wanted to go back and do more editing. But might thoughts with the JPEGs is even if future editing wouldn't be great, I'd at least have those as a reference to use when re-editing in C1 (in the extremely rare chance that I actually go back to these photos for more editing). Is JPEG the way, or is there a compelling reason to go with something else?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 00:17
|
|
|
Splinter posted:I've mostly migrated to Capture One over the last few years, but I still have some old catalogs from my D70 and x100s days that I only have in Lightroom 5. I need to update my LR5 computer to a version that will no longer run it, so I'm trying to figure out the best way to preserve the edited states of those old photos. C1 has a LR catalog import, but it isn't able to copy all develop settings (at least it doesn't for me), just some, so the end results aren't really the same as what's in LR, and I'm not going to go through the pain of going through all these old photos to try to get the editing in C1 to match LR. My first and perhaps the most obvious idea is to just export everything as full-res JPEGs, but I'm wondering if it would maybe be a better idea to do TIFFs or something else. I believe doing TIFFs would take a ton more drive space, but get better results if I ever wanted to go back and do more editing. But might thoughts with the JPEGs is even if future editing wouldn't be great, I'd at least have those as a reference to use when re-editing in C1 (in the extremely rare chance that I actually go back to these photos for more editing). Is JPEG the way, or is there a compelling reason to go with something else? Depends on how much space you have I would Export edited versions to HQ full res JPEGs Keep the RAW files In Lightroom export sidecar files, XMP and keep these with the RAW files just in case. If you ever want to re-edit you can use the JPEG as a reference when you edit the RAW again in C1. If you ever need/want to switch back to LR you will have the XMP files. https://photofocus.com/photography/automatically-generate-xmp-files-in-lightroom/
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2022 09:19
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Depends on how much space you have Wouldn't just keeping the LR catalog files allow me to switch back to LR in the future as long as I still have the RAWs? When I've migrated LR to a new computer in the past I did so via copying the catalog file.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2022 02:21
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice about the Topaz stuff. Thought I'd share the results. These are just screenshots I took throughout the editing process, and a really compressed final result. I shot this at ISO 1250 on a Canon 90D (50mm at f/2.8) Original - exported to like 2048  100% crop  After some minor tweaks in Topaz DeNoise  Don't know how it'll render but here's the denoised copy  After a run through Topaz Sharpen  The end result! Here they are as full-sized jpegs if anyone wants to scan closer for whatever reason. https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjAatc7
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2022 21:29
|
|
|
I have an elderly Nikon mount Sigma 100 f/2.8 Macro lens. The focus ring has suddenly stopped rotating properly - there is some play but it seems to hit hard stops after maybe 15° of rotation. With a bit of force you can get past the stop and it'll again move between two points of its rotation, although I found that out by accident and don't plan to repeat it. Any ideas from that vague description what could be wrong and how to address it? I typically use the lens with an adapter and manual focus, but fitting it to a Nikon body and using AF doesn't help.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2022 14:27
|
|
|
I ordered some JJC lens cases and couldn’t be happier with them. Seem really well made and fit the lenses perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
I'm back to photography after a long hiatus and would like to improve my workflow and organize a few years worth of old catalogs from LR 7 onward into a new catalog. I know a complete how-to regarding good practices for naming and organization is out of the scope of a simple thread reply, is there a course or expert SA likes I can watch? I've been Youtubing but the quality is hit or miss, mostly using Phlearn and Rocky Mountain school of photography channels to get up to speed. Are those decent or do guys have other recs? I hate post-processing and realize most of my photos end up buried on a hard drive somwehere instead of actually being printed or worked on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2022 21:20
|
|
|
Do you ever get the itch to try out a different system for kicks? Sometimes I find myself missing the DLSR and the feel of its mirror mechanism, even if I have a pro-grade mirrorless camera. Or looking at compact point-and-shoots for that "just shoot" vibe. I feel like it's another effect of GAS but also a different set of tools could lend another perspective in my photograph? (I'm leaning on the former though)
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 03:49
|
|
|
What about your photography makes you feel like you need another tool to jolt it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 04:16
|
|
|
using a different tool which forces you to take photos in a different can certainly be inspiring but so can just trying to take photos differently with your existing equipment or reading about photography or looking at art or any number of other things that are free
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 11:57
|
|
|
Lily Catts posted:... for kicks? ... GAS ... It's GAS. I would much rather keep my $$$ and spend my time on hobby activities - going out to shoot. New systems make sense when they offer something that your existing gear can't do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 14:28
|
|
|
Lily Catts posted:Do you ever get the itch to try out a different system for kicks? Sometimes I find myself missing the DLSR and the feel of its mirror mechanism, even if I have a pro-grade mirrorless camera. Or looking at compact point-and-shoots for that "just shoot" vibe. I feel like it's another effect of GAS but also a different set of tools could lend another perspective in my photograph? (I'm leaning on the former though) As much as it galls me, try more phone photography. I am forcing myself to do more quick shooting with my phone on shots I think, "I'll have to come back and shoot this" with my "real" camera. The worst that happens is it cements the idea for the shot later, sometimes I like the result as is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 15:03
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:using a different tool which forces you to take photos in a different can certainly be inspiring but so can just trying to take photos differently with your existing equipment or reading about photography or looking at art or any number of other things that are free for sure. from their post i gathered that they don't need a new tool, but are in a stalemate with their photographic growth, something is missing, and they're trying to fix that by buying gear. i agree with you, they should look at all kinds of art, all kinds of photography, listen to/read interviews with photographers (plenty of those around), etc, that's more worthwhile for moving one in a good direction than a new camera.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2022 17:42
|
|
|
The only good lens I have is a 135mm and sometimes I think it'd be good to buy a shorter lens but then I think nah gently caress that, stick to your guns and learn to make the 135mm work in every situation possible, anything else is admitting defeat. And the end result is that I take a lot of portrait photos that are mostly heads but drat they look good
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 05:36
|
|
|
I'd argue the fov is something you'd want variety in. 135 is very tight, I'd find it very limiting if that was my only option. The body - DSLR vs mirrorless vs whatever - is irrelevant if you have the same equiv fov, no need to buy it (unless you know how the new tool will actually help you - be it more control or other features)
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2022 15:26
|
|
|
I just realized i don‘t know the answer to this. If i like the subject separation/depth of focus of say a 100/f2.8 lens which other fl/aperture combos would produce the (roughly) same result? Are the ratios the same, i.e. a 200/f5.6 or do you go 1 stop down ?(i.e. 200/f4)
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 00:04
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:I just realized i don‘t know the answer to this. I am not a rocket lensist, but a quick run through some online depth of field calculators reveals that if you double focal length, you need to stop down 4 full stops to get the same depth of field: double focal length, quadruple stops. So, 100/f2.8 would have the same depth of field as 200/f11(4 stops lower) or 400/f45(8 stops lower). Of course, the amount of the background you can see will change dramatically as you zoom in, so your composition might have to change as a result, but the included background should stay the same 'blurriness' compared to the subject.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2022 03:04
|
|
|
My wife owns an art gallery and we've been using my X100V for everything-- lightbox photos, interior exhibit shots, opening night crowd shots etc. and it's done well. I feel like it might make sense to get a different camera so we can swap a wider lens on there (and I guess other lenses?) but I'm not really sure. I'm having a hard time quantifying what I'm missing right now and how much "better" the photos will actually be. Any thoughts on this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2022 16:39
|
|
|
I understand KEH has gotten less conservative in their rating over the last 5 years. Has anyone bought "Bargain" grade stuff from them lately? If so, how honest of a rating was it? Was it mostly cosmetic wear that did not impact function in any way?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
p0stal b0b posted:I am not a rocket lensist, but a quick run through some online depth of field calculators reveals that if you double focal length, you need to stop down 4 full stops to get the same depth of field: double focal length, quadruple stops. So, 100/f2.8 would have the same depth of field as 200/f11(4 stops lower) or 400/f45(8 stops lower). It feels like the number above are wrong, or maybe i am using the wrong terminology. I mostly use my 85mm F1.4 and 300mm F2.8. If i frame the same subject the same way with each lens the 300 has a much more obvious subject separation than the 85. The results i get from the 300 are much better (or at least i prefer them more) but it is a cumbersome lens to use. I need to be far away from the subject and need to walk further to reframe than with the 85. I am looking for an alternative to the 300 that produces the same results and was curious what specs my potential lens would need to have to be similar to the 300.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 09:46
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:It feels like the number above are wrong, or maybe i am using the wrong terminology. Possibly a very hard/impossible to get aperture at 85mm like f/1, there's a reason medium telephotos are used for portraits when people want separation. Fastest 135 you can find. The ultra rare Canon 200 f/1.8, slightly less rare 200 f/2. Some sort of rare manual only or xray lens adapted, like Kubrick. Other options are make sure the background is far away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 10:05
|
|
|
I use a Sigma 135mm f/1.8 and the separation is extremely good. I like it A LOT It's the only lens I bother using, especially for portrait. The end result is too good to bother with anything else for my uses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2022 10:20
|
|
|
What wet sensor cleaning kits are people using? I want to buy a kit with reusable wand over which one fits changeable cloths. Most shops are selling wasteful single use cleaners.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
If you don't find anything (I got no suggestions) a box of kimwipes and a cut up credit card will work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
Are you the same person who told me I could fast charge my phone in the microwave?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2022 23:58
|
|
|
No but that's a genius idea and I'm off to try it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2022 00:01
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:I just realized i don‘t know the answer to this. I think you will need a 200/2.8 if you want to maintain the same magnification of the subject. At 10 feet a 100mm lens at 2.8 will give you around 0.5 for DOF. If you shoot a 200 you will need to step back to 20 ft to get the same framing and then you will need 2.8 to get the same .5 ft DOF.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2022 10:39
|
|
|
Someone talk me out of buying the Peak Design travel tripod. I need a tripod that's a bit more compact than my Manfrotto 755CX3 and easy to deploy. The Peak Design travel tripod looks good but I'm sure that it has its weaknesses and I sure as poo poo ain't trusting the sponsored YouTubers to give the real info on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 00:01
|
|
|
I'm sure it's fine, all the PD stuff is pretty reliable. The main issue with light tripods is vibrations, the thinner the legs (which is a function of how many segments it has) the more it's gonna shake the camera in wind or passing traffic or whatever. Will you notice this 99% of the time? Probably not. But pixel peepers care about that stuff. edit - maybe not the most effective talk you out of it speech ever, sorry. but they do make good stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 01:27
|
|
|
For the price of the pd you could buy an actually good tripod, like the gitzo
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2022 03:16
|
|
|
DxO is having a black friday/whatever sale, if you want to get out from under adobe's boot If you don't need LR's library management and bulk processing tools, I've found DxO Photolab to offer superior image quality and noise control; like not even close. that's as a 15+ year LR user
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2022 15:16
|
|
|
Yeah I've been using them a couple years and took the opportunity to upgrade from PL4 to PL6. The raw processing, optical corrections and noise reduction are the best I've used, and the editing tools are getting pretty decent with the new control lines stuff. Not perfect by any means (library management is a big weak spot), but along with Affinity Photo, which also has a decent discount at the moment for their 2.0 release, I'm pretty happy not using any Adobe software at all. e: The Topaz suite mentioned upthread is also on sale at the moment. I borrowed a license from a friend to try out an older version and the sharpening package is pretty good if you've got a bit of unwanted motion blur or just missed eye focus on a wildlife shot. Not sure I'd buy it even at the discounted price, but in some cases I guess $60 to save a near-miss photo is a great deal. big scary monsters fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Nov 26, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2022 20:08
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:DxO is having a black friday/whatever sale, if you want to get out from under adobe's boot edit: \/ \/ \/ Nice!!! Everything else had switched to the subscription model by the time I was old enough to afford it. Super happy to buy this! Corla Plankun fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Nov 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2022 05:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Corla Plankun posted:Is this a buy-it-once thing or does dxo do the same "license" bullshit as everyone else in the creative space? Buy it and it's yours.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2022 05:35
|
|
