|
toggle posted:Question for Z9 folks... Did you figure this out yet? I have the Ninja V as outboard monitor for video and it works fine for me. Record to card internally at 4K N-Log H265 10-bit, in 50 or 100fps depending. I set the HDMI output to 1080p, output range "Auto", output shooting info "Off". Works fine. The Ninja blanks out if I set HDMI output resolution to 4K (2160p). I had a Z6 II with Prores RAW via HDMI enabled. (Sold it after I got the Z9) I could record 4K ProRes Raw 422 on the Ninja with that setup. But my understanding, which may be incorrect, is that the Ninja only can ingest plain 444 HDMI in 1080p, possibly 2160p30.
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2023 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
frumpykvetchbot posted:Did you figure this out yet? I just did! The issue was I had the HDMI output set to 2160p instead of 1080p. Now it's all good, a perfect combination!
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2023 00:52
|
|
|
https://petapixel.com/2023/02/21/popular-instagram-photographer-revealed-as-ai-fraud/ This should've been immediately suss when he was saying he was shooting these with nikon 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2023 21:14
|
|
|
“It takes an enormous amount of effort to take AI-generated elements and create something that looks like it was taken by a human photographer,” he says. “The creative process is still very much in the hands of the artist or photographer, not the computer.” Sure mate
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2023 21:37
|
|
|
the idea of setting out to fool people, then admit it, then try to reclaim artistic validation is so wonderful
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2023 22:49
|
|
|
Which is worse, that tool, or this crap. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yujDMEbREU (It's that tool. But this made me feel bad too.) Also I... never stopped using a camera, or SD cards. Christ
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2023 23:17
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:“It takes an enormous amount of effort to take AI-generated elements and create something that looks like it was taken by a human photographer,” he says. “The creative process is still very much in the hands of the artist or photographer, not the computer.” We have a goon in Trad Games doing this, with fantasy pics, and I'd say the effort they're making and documenting in this post is significant. I predict that in ten years, using an AI as a tool as part of a creative process for artwork that is called "photography" or sits adjacent to it will be considered not much differently than using Photoshop was after the 1990s - it was controversial at that time, but mostly by people who considered themselves "traditional" photographers resenting the ease at which their difficult manual darkroom processes were being done by clicking a button and letting Adobe do the work. e. I don't think that excuses that guy intentionally misleading people about the existence of their photographic subjects as real humans, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2023 23:30
|
|
|
pwn posted:Which is worse, that tool, or this crap. didn't watch the video yet but a student showed up in class the other day with an old canon something or other pns from like 2002. pretty sure it was a retro thing bc the same student also has a discman. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Feb 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 04:37
|
|
|
I have 3-4 2003-2012 cameras in the junk drawer. Someone give me Z9 money for them, please.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 07:05
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:We have a goon in Trad Games doing this, with fantasy pics, and I'd say the effort they're making and documenting in this post is significant. Creating images like this is fine, I don't resent what he does at all ( although passing it off as photography is sleazy). But it's not photography. It's more akin to digital art if you have to find an existing comparison. Is it art? Errrr hard one. If you had a photographer taking pictures and someone else editing them, is the editor the artist? I think most people would say no. Now if the editor is giving the photographer strict instructions on what to photograph and then editing them, that's a bit more blurry. I suppose the closest thing to it might actually be magazine editor. Magazines like Vogue look at hundreds of photos they have asked photographers to take, they select the ones they want and add extra editing on top. Its a lot of work but I've never heard people refer to them as artists. Maybe they should be 
Mega Comrade fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Feb 23, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 08:38
|
|
|
It's getting close to that esoteric argument about how you view photography - are you making a photo or taking a photo I'd be more likely to attribute an artist label to a photo editor for a large magazine before giving that label to the guy typing in 45 keywords into a prompt text box and picking the best result to post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 19:30
|
|
|
"Is this art" is essentially a semantic question about a word with broad and sometimes vague definition, and while I actually love semantic discussions, I think for most people it's not really fruitful. A better question might be "who deserves credit for this thing of value" and in that case, everyone involved in making it deserves some credit. Whether their efforts were "creative" or "artistic" or not implies that creativity is worth more reward or credit than just plain or "uncreative" hard work, and I disagree with that premise and think it has been a very harmful notion for a very long time. Of course we can disagree about weather a particular thing has value, and to the point here, the value of a thing can be dependent on whether or not it took effort to make, because while we may or may not fully agree on the relative value of creativity vs. "noncreative" work, most people can agree that productive effort has some value regardless. So what I'm getting at is that if you make interesting pictures and it took some effort, that's valuable regardless of the nature of that effort. However, if you lie about how you made something and the way you actually made it took much less effort, you can reasonably expect people to be miffed about it because you attempted to claim reward (social reward at least) for effort you didn't actually provide. I suppose it's a form of "stolen valor." We don't like it when people lie on their resumes, even if they turned out to be good employees. Don't claim you took these amazing photos if actually you didn't, even though you spent effort getting an AI to make them/modifying AI-generated images, because you and I both know you were seeking, and received, social acclaim based on false premises.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 20:41
|
|
|
Yeah I can get on board with that. I'm not sure I would budge on it being photography though. Talented artists have been drawing 'photograph realistic' images forever, but we don't call them photographers or those images photographs. I'm not sure why some AI image creatives/artists (or whatever term we settle on) are trying to claim it is except as you suggest, stolen valor. The dude in your link seems to be putting in 10x the effort most of them are but is honest about what he's doing, having fun and producing cool images while doing it. And I see nothing wrong with that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2023 21:03
|
|
|
Kiev, Ukraine says all you need to know about the guy. "Teehee, i didn't say this is a photo i shot in ukraine, i just put the words "kiev, ukraine" next to the image." Stolen valor is an apt term, as AI "art" is scraping (read: stealing) billions of other people's actual art to frankenstein together. Where the line is between a computer using stolen images and any artist being influenced by everything they've seen is another discussion, but I would wager the extent of this guy's post production contribution is removing the midjourney watermark pwn fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Feb 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 01:27
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:Yeah I can get on board with that. I agree with you, in that "photography" is a technical term with a definite meaning. Creating imagery through other means isn't photography. pwn posted:Kiev, Ukraine
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 02:07
|
|
|
I was really interested in AI art a while back, now it just angers me. I think, mostly, because most people are using it as their own creation. It's a creation from a computer. It doesn't matter to me if you fed it an image you drew, took, painted, whatever, you're essentially the paintbrush here and not the artist. The artist is the computer. You're not signing that piece of art yourself, you're showing off what a piece of code did. People will argue semantics that Lightroom or Photoshop use AI to help color grade, remove an object, fix a blown out sky, but we're not talking about that here. We're talking wholesale generated art, there is a difference IMO. Maybe that will be blurred at some point and I will just throw my arms up and shout at clouds. Taking it a step further to traditional 3D generated art. I would call that art because you're doing 90% of the work creating the meshes, the coloring, setting the lighting. The computer renders it. I am struggling with this, but I feel like the fact the end user, or maybe even a team of people, are still the artists here because they're guiding the entire process to a specific result. There are plugins that can render water that can't be done by hand, but I feel like you're not seeing 3D artists claiming this is their creation. I feel like I need to get stoned to think it through without looking like a hypocrite. Or, more likely make me even more confused. Philthy fucked around with this message at 15:14 on Feb 24, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 15:05
|
|
|
I’ve seen things like serial music carted out in defense but it’s the humanity and that’s ephemeral. gently caress who cares who owns its output when wholesale theft is its input.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
Philthy posted:I was really interested in AI art a while back, now it just angers me. I think, mostly, because most people are using it as their own creation. It's a creation from a computer. It doesn't matter to me if you fed it an image you drew, took, painted, whatever, you're essentially the paintbrush here and not the artist. The artist is the computer. You're not signing that piece of art yourself, you're showing off what a piece of code did. People will argue semantics that Lightroom or Photoshop use AI to help color grade, remove an object, fix a blown out sky, but we're not talking about that here. We're talking wholesale generated art, there is a difference IMO. Maybe that will be blurred at some point and I will just throw my arms up and shout at clouds. You might be glad to know the United States Copyright Office agrees with you on this: https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-created-images-lose-us-copyrights-test-new-technology-2023-02-22/ I highly recommend reading the explanation for why the Copyright Office rejected copyright protection for these images: https://www.copyright.gov/docs/zarya-of-the-dawn.pdf Page 8 is where the discussion of copyright law comes into play. The jist of it is that if you were to give the exact same prompt to an artist to draw, that artist would hold the copyright for the resulting artwork and not you. Because the artist in this instance is AI, non-human entities cannot be granted copyright. Another example is if you entered your prompt into an image search engine the resulting images would not be "authored" by you no matter how closely they matched your artistic vision. United States Copyright Office posted:Though she claims to have “guided” the structure and content of each image, the process described in the Kashtanova Letter makes clear that it was Midjourney—not Kashtanova—that originated the “traditional elements of authorship” in the images.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 19:15
|
|
|
Philthy posted:I feel like I need to get stoned to think it through without looking like a hypocrite. Or, more likely make me even more confused. Yeah my visceral reaction ranges from "god drat this is so cool what I can do with this poo poo!" to "gently caress what is going to happen when artists just scraping by see their style ripped off everywhere while getting nothing?" That said, what would early photographers say about people taking amazing pics with their phones nowadays? Or a point-and-shoot? Or a DSLR? There used to be a ton of technical fiddling and competencies involved just in taking a photo that came out more or less in focus and then developing and printing it. Now you might take a great photo with five seconds of effort. I'm not saying there's no difference any more between an artist-photographer and a kid with an iphone, but the lines are getting more and more blurry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2023 23:32
|
|
|
Art is a human endeavor about the experience of being alive, that's just what it is. The machine filters but it lacks the kind of ingenuity that is the thing that's interesting about art in the first place because it can't offer an experience of living.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2023 22:18
|
|
|
Big score today on craigslist. D5600 with AF-P 18-55mm and AF-P 70-300G for $50. 'Autofocus is broken'
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 19:38
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Big score today on craigslist. D5600 with AF-P 18-55mm and AF-P 70-300G for $50. 'Autofocus is broken' Was that the FX 70-300 AF-P too?  I have one, it's amazing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
Wibla posted:Was that the FX 70-300 AF-P too? Nah not the expensiver one. I didn't even know there were 2 AF-P models with the same aperture specs until yesterday. I'll probably end up flipping everything. I thought I would like the D5600 but eh. It was mostly to round out a collection except it didn't really fit. I just couldn't pass up the deal. Shaocaholica fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Mar 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 20:25
|
|
|
I started with a D5600 - still have it, anticipate using it as a second body with another lens on it, haven't just got around to a situation where I need a second body yet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2023 04:48
|
|
|
 That doesn't include my D1s, broken bodies. I need to get rid of redundant D2s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2023 19:46
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:
The value of all those RRS brackets probably surpasses what the cameras are worth. Kidding of course, mostly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 08:08
|
|
|
Some older brackets are quite hard to find.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2023 23:10
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:
That's a wild collection. Do you have any D1s that work? I have been re-mastering my old photos and I was dumb enough back in the late 90s / early 2000s to shoot a lot of D1 photos in JPEG format. After all these years I still haven't quite figured out what exactly kind of screwed up colorspace those were encoded in. Sure wasn't sRGB, AdobeRGB or NTSC as some by now obscure online sources have suggested. Anyway, so I wanted to try and solve this problem so I bought a banged up old D1 on eBay that I figured I could make work well enough to shoot a couple of test color charts under controlled lighting. No such luck, the CCD is hosed. Could I trouble you to maybe take a single D1 JPEG of a flash illuminated color checker cart, with speedlite color temperature set?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2023 07:23
|
|
|
I got a very reasonable priced FTZ headed my way soon  I wonder how well my old DX lenses work on the Z30...
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2023 08:11
|
|
|
frumpykvetchbot posted:Sure wasn't sRGB, AdobeRGB or NTSC as some by now obscure online sources have suggested. It's not some random poo poo like ColormatchRGB or BruceRGB is it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2023 08:35
|
|
|
frumpykvetchbot posted:That's a wild collection. Do you have any D1s that work? Yeah I've got like 16 D1s, D1H, D1X. All in various states of disrepair but some mint copies as well. The batteries are the worst tho. I don't really do flash photography but I do have some Youngnuo flashes I could use. What should the WB on the camera be set to for the jpeg? The wikipedia page for the D1 says the colorspace is NTSC. quote:Unusual for a DSLR, the D1 uses the NTSC color space instead of the conventional sRGB or Adobe RGB color spaces. The resulting color on the D1 can be a bit unorthodox, but methods of correcting and/or compensating for the color problem are readily available. Shaocaholica fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Mar 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Yeah I've got like 16 D1s, D1H, D1X. All in various states of disrepair but some mint copies as well. The batteries are the worst tho. Amazing. I respect the dedication, and I get completism but why so many copies of any one type? quote:I don't really do flash photography but I do have some Youngnuo flashes I could use. What should the WB on the camera be set to for the jpeg? If you do use the Youngnuo, please dial WB to "Flash" -- the icon with the thunderbolt. Thanks for helping me out. quote:The wikipedia page for the D1 says the colorspace is NTSC. Yeah, several sources say that but that doesn't really seem to be actually the case. Just assigning NTSC 1953 color profile – any scale variant of it, or Rec. 601, or anything like that – just produces even worse looking colors. I have a feeling it's a wide gamut type thing, colors are generally muted. The D1 JPEGs are tagged with no particular colorspace but if you assign AdobeRGB to them the saturation looks mostly right but the hues are a little off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2023 22:14
|
|
|
frumpykvetchbot posted:Amazing. I respect the dedication, and I get completism but why so many copies of any one type? They were cheap. A lot of the batteries die of age so people with them end up selling as-is since they can't test and not willing to pay $100 for a charger and $40 for a working battery just to sell a $100 camera. And I don't mean 16 of each just 16 total lol. I snagged them for like $40 each roughly except a D1X I got for $200 because it was mint in box single owner with receipts and also got the factory buffer and firmware upgrade. In hindsight a lot of the cheap ones I got also had the factory buffer and firmware upgrade. Anyway I gotta find my colorchecker charts but I have a new one coming in but its the mini.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
I still would like a full frame body just to play with one and compare everything to my 7200, but all my lenses are DX based so even a cheap body would mean having to invest in new glass for it. Although given my poor 50-150 seems to have bitten the dust, maybe that’s a consideration.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2023 02:10
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I still would like a full frame body just to play with one and compare everything to my 7200, but all my lenses are DX based so even a cheap body would mean having to invest in new glass for it. Snag a cheap D600 and you still have 10-11mp in DX mode.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2023 02:15
|
|
|
You can get D700 for pennies. My local camera store has a D800 mint with like 800 shutter for $450.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2023 02:40
|
|
|
Both sound like fun plans, I’ll make a note of those 2 models and see what the market is like after doing some more adult responsible spending.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2023 02:43
|
|
|
I upgraded from a D300 to a D750, then spent a lot on lenses*  it's worth it!D750+24-120 is my new walkaround kit, and you can find both cheap on the used market. Then I bought a used Z30 and have a cheap FTZ headed my way so I can use my old DX optics on it. Was that worth it? Probably not, but it's a fun, small camera! *24-70 f/2.8 came with the D750, then 24-120, 70-300 AF-P, 85mm f/1.4 - all of them were good buys on the used market, thankfully.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2023 06:37
|
|
|
I'm trying to get all the DX primes Nikon and 3rd party. I've recently snagged a bunch of DX bodies to use them on including fuji.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2023 06:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
Don't discount older D primes, they can be quite good. And often cheap.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2023 07:15
|
|