|
Most phone/ipad/laptop screens are pretty good these days too, much better than CRT or early LCD days. Calibrate for your screen/printing and don't worry about it. If their screen is bad, your photos will still look better to their bad calibration adjusted eyes. I know someone that keeps max setting night mode on 24/7 on their phone, nothing you can do for those people.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
Those types of people are also used to their monitor situation (24x7 night mode  ), so a good photo will still stand out to them
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:15
|
|
|
Concur with all those statements. Calibration is important when going from your monitor to prints. Other than that, you're at the mercy of how the other people have their monitors set up. So, don't even fret. Just focus on working towards consistent edits and growing your knowledge of editing. Even though I have a color-calibrated monitor and I work fairly hard to get images out that will look good to the masses, even when pros go to print their images there is tweaking that needs to be done. Different paper types have different color profiles and printers have their own spin on color and brightness. The most perfectly calibrated image may still require tweaking later to print right. Lightroom has the Print module which attempts to show you how your image is going to look on certain papers and you can make adjustments to the image before printing. You're never going to find the "right" settings to cover all use cases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
I always tell myself that anyone who really cares enough to look critically at a photo and contemplate it probably has their poo poo calibrated, and anyone who doesn't have their poo poo calibrated probably doesn't care. So I calibrate and make it look good there, and am content that it looks fine to anyone who matters and everyone else can stuff it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 21:27
|
|
|
Viginti Septem posted:I don't think prosumer or pro have disappeared. Leica Q2/Q3 come to mind, lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 01:41
|
|
|
Calibrating is important even if your viewers display isn't calibrated. Your viewers displays will be all over the place. You want your file colors to match your intention when editing so it will look as close to as you intend on as many screens as possible. If say your monitor reds are significantly off and you compensate for that with your color grading, your image will look more off on more displays than if your red was accurate. It'll look off to those with calibrated displays, those who's display is off but still has accurate red (by chance) and those who's red is off in the opposite direction as yours, and only look right to those that have a similar red issue as you. If your red is accurate, it will look right to the first two groups, and less wrong to the 3rd group. Only the 4th group won't get as red of a red. The other aspect is people with non-calibrated displays will in a way get used to their poor calibration. Even if their reds are off, every image that contains red has the red off in the same way, so they still recognize that all those images look red. But if you've made your red more orangish or something to compensate for your bad red calibration, it'll stand out to them as not fully red. This is the same idea as audio mixing. If you mix on speakers that have intentionally boosted bass (for instance), you'll mix your bass too low and it will a) sound weak for everyone that doesn't have bass boosted speakers, and b) also sound weak to people listening on bass boosted speakers, because your bass will sound normal while everything else they listen to will sound boosted (which to them will feel normal). Also IIRC out of the box delta e is actually generally decent on many popular smart phones these days, which is how a lot of people are probably viewing your photos.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 08:11
|
|
|
adnam posted:Leica Q2/Q3 come to mind, lol Leica in general seem to fit more into the 'luxury goods' market than the photography market and I suspect that is entirely by design.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 09:59
|
|
|
RillAkBea posted:Leica in general seem to fit more into the 'luxury goods' market than the photography market and I suspect that is entirely by design. Luxury Prosumer  Having said that the Q-series cameras are pretty amazing. Lens/package is beautiful and the images are gorgeous. I can also buy a Kia for the same price but you know, priorities.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 18:02
|
|
|
I wasn't really trying to come up with a way to categorize all cameras, just lamenting the lack of a convenient term for "prosumer and above cameras that are not also phones" type gear. It was easy before mirrorless, you said DSLR and everyone knew what you meant. Even though DLSR wasn't even a good catchall and we got along just fine calling stuff rangefinders too. I guess in a few more years it'll just be "mirrorless" and anyone using a DSLR can be dumped into the vintage category along with those SLR holdouts. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 18:31
|
|
|
Another part of it is the squish that's happened between the bottom end (phones, cheap P&S) and high end pro cameras. There's still a gap, but it's smaller than ever, so all the stuff in the middle is more tightly lumped than before. A high end point and shoot vs a low end mirrorless is a lot closer than in the DSLR days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 19:27
|
|
|
Leica culture can be as annoying as the culture around weed/vaping, but I will give Leica credit for making monochrome cameras, and I will never hesitate to recommend the Q2M to anyone wanting a weather-sealed monochrome camera with a banger 28 mm lens ... ... but only because I tried to be smart by buying a second-hand A7R3 (as I already had a separate body and lenses in that system), had it converted to monochrome, only for the vendor to gently caress it all up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 03:25
|
|
|
nvm
adnam fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Jan 5, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2024 23:45
|
|
|
Another question from me. For those that do event photography and sell individual photos from the event, how much do you charge?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 00:24
|
|
|
Tsietisin posted:Another question from me. Depends heavily on if it's digital/prints and personal/commercial use. What kind of uses are you looking at?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 01:08
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:Leica culture can be as annoying as the culture around weed/vaping And have you seen their stereo lineup refresh?  These are the ugliest microscopes I have ever seen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 02:12
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Depends heavily on if it's digital/prints and personal/commercial use. What kind of uses are you looking at? I have someone that is wanting me to photograph their LARP event. It would be to offer the attendees the opportunity to buy photographs taken at the event. There would be a mix of photographs taken during regular play and potentially some studio type shots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2024 09:23
|
|
|
Booked a gig for a stand up event this Friday at a micro brewery taphouse. Anyone have any tips or starter guides on how to shoot stand up based portraits?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 16:16
|
|
|
Slotducks posted:Booked a gig for a stand up event this Friday at a micro brewery taphouse. Are you looking for composition tips, gear suggestions, etc? I'd start with a search on Google and/or Flickr for "stand up comedian" and just start saving photos that you think work well. Once you have a bunch, examine why you liked them, find some common themes/lighting choices/angles and then write those down somewhere so that during the shoot you have them as a reference. Also, maybe you tell each comedian why you are there so that they aren't thrown off
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 16:43
|
|
|
Slotducks posted:Booked a gig for a stand up event this Friday at a micro brewery taphouse. Are you shooting them as they perform? Gigs tend to be dark and you often cannot use flash which means a fast lens and decent low light performance are needed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 16:58
|
|
|
Slotducks posted:Booked a gig for a stand up event this Friday at a micro brewery taphouse. If you can get permission, having a remote flash would be ideal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 17:49
|
|
|
blue squares posted:Are you looking for composition tips, gear suggestions, etc? I'd start with a search on Google and/or Flickr for "stand up comedian" and just start saving photos that you think work well. Once you have a bunch, examine why you liked them, find some common themes/lighting choices/angles and then write those down somewhere so that during the shoot you have them as a reference. Also, maybe you tell each comedian why you are there so that they aren't thrown off Hell yeah - exactly what I was looking for. I'll be meeting everyone on the bill before hand and I actually booked it with the MC so I think everyone will be clear on intent and everything like that. I'll dive into the googler a little bit later jarlywarly posted:Are you shooting them as they perform? Gigs tend to be dark and you often cannot use flash which means a fast lens and decent low light performance are needed. Thankfully my current hobby is Concert Photography so I've got a 35mm f1.8 and a 24-70 f.28 I can use throughout. Phew torgeaux posted:If you can get permission, having a remote flash would be ideal. I just got one of thems for Christmas that'd be sweet if I could figure out where to put it that doesn't immediately flash their eyeballs. Much to think about!
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
Slotducks posted:Hell yeah - exactly what I was looking for. I'll be meeting everyone on the bill before hand and I actually booked it with the MC so I think everyone will be clear on intent and everything like that. I'll dive into the googler a little bit later Also think about the audience. The paying(?) customers are there to watch comedians and have fun. A flash will be very distracting for them too, and if you fired it off more than very occasionally it could ruin the show.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 19:00
|
|
|
Slotducks posted:Hell yeah - exactly what I was looking for. I'll be meeting everyone on the bill before hand and I actually booked it with the MC so I think everyone will be clear on intent and everything like that. I'll dive into the googler a little bit later Try to get more of the setting and audience in most shots and frame them around the comedian if possible. If you get tighter shots of just them, it'll likely just look like someone giving a TED Talk. If you can get people laughing/clapping while the comedian smiles, that's the money shot they want, especially if you can get it from the side so you see some of the audiences faces while still getting the comedian in profile. I wouldn't go with flash, it'll be too harsh straight on (and distracting if you bounce) and make it look less like a comedy club and more like a theatrical performance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
Anyone know how to recalibrate an Epson V370 (or any epson scanner) scan head? I have an Epson V370 Photo with the dreaded Epson Purple line that shows up in every photo I scan. The V370 doesnt have the little calibration spots on the platen like the bigger units do, so I took it apart to clean the actual scan head (whether this worked or not, or was a good idea remains to be seen). Anyway, to get at the head, I had to move it by hand from the spot where it was parked. I only moved it a couple inches during the cleaning. I had every intention of moving it back, but forgot to do it, and reassembled the scanner. Now when I turn it on, it goes through its calibration song and dance, which involves moving the scan head back and forth, except now it moves the head until it bumps up against the scanner frame, and it then spins the drive motor in the belt for a second before erroring out with a red light. If I take it back apart and move the head out, no matter how far I move the head, the scanner moves it back home, grinds its gears and errors out. I cant get into the Epson software to recalibrate it because it says it cant communicate with the scanner (I assume the scanner wont talk to the PC when its errored out). How can I get this thing to recalibrate itself?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 03:38
|
|
|
My assumption would be that there is a limit switch at the end of the travel of the scan head that isn't being hit, so the scanner never knows when it's home. Maybe that got unplugged or moved, but it's just an educated guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 03:43
|
|
|
Hmm, you may be right. I’ll take it back apart and look for something like that
Beve Stuscemi fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Jan 10, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 03:58
|
|
|
Well, you were right, there was an optical limit switch at the end of the travel. Taking the scanner apart and putting it back together seems to have fixed it 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 05:11
|
|
|
That's electronics engineering baybee
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 05:22
|
|
|
It did not fix the dreaded purple line, however, but I assumed that might be the case. Fr*ckin Epson
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 14:56
|
|
|
did you clean the bottom of the glass bed? Those lines are usually calibration errors caused by dust
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2024 23:49
|
|
|
Yeah at this point I’ve cleaned the top and bottom of the glass as well as the scan head. I guess my only remaining option is to try to clean the top lamp? I can’t imagine it’s that though I’m starting to think it may be dead pixels on the sensor
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 00:53
|
|
|
I just recieved a voightlander vitoret that I thought was going to be a rangefinder, but it's an even older model that I guess needs an external rangefinder (no dot or prism just a straight viewfinder). Until I get one of those, is it finally time to learn about hyperfocal stuff/zone focussing and get real good at estimating distances or is attempting to use it futile? I guess I can just stop down as far as is reasonable and use infinity focus? I gotta start researching impulsive ebay purchases better lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2024 23:03
|
|
|
You can get really good at estimating distances pretty quickly, I've shot a lot of zone focus cams and they're fun
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 00:09
|
|
|
i've been reading up on zone focus and yeah it can't hurt to give it a shot, seems like a cool skill to develop. I'll check some fomapan in it and see how it goes!
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2024 01:35
|
|
|
Practiced doing a bit of zone focussing on my d40 with a manual lens and was surprised how manageable it is. I've started taking some shots with the vitoret, seems very satisfying, all works perfectly mechanically but it will be interesting to see how the lens is. While it's kind of my fault for putting 400iso film in it (all I had on hand), how would you guys go about taking shots in full sunlight if the fastest shutter speed you have is 1/125? I've taken some at 16 and 22 to see the difference once they're developed but I can't imagine the lens will perform well at 22. According to sunny 16, the light meter phone app I tried, and common sense they'll be over exposed as hell in the aus summer sun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 23:38
|
|
|
Yeah, you really need an ND filter to bring it down one or two stops
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2024 23:54
|
|
|
i've been noticing a huge blob/smearing/??? when i take photos of lights at night with a nikon Z 40mm f/2.0 lens. (i don't have any other lenses to test it with). when you correctly expose the image, large, bright sources of lights (e.g. big neon signs), exhibit this huge halo effect where they blur into a single amorphous blob of light. at f/2.0 it's dreadful and you can't see anything, at f/4 onwards it's still quite bad. you can only actually make out the light source if you massively underexpose the rest of the image. its seems much worse than just blown highlights - if the highlights were blown, you'd still be able to see the shape of the light source? normal light sources that aren't insanely bright seem fairly fine. is this something that you can fix with correct exposure, is the lens hosed, or is it just a design flaw/limitation of the lens? a few images (ignore the noise from the insane ISO 20000, this was purely for expediency) f/2.0  :  f/4:  underexposed: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2024 12:27
|
|
|
That's glare/bloom, you have a scene with huge dynamic range so the bright light is overexposed and glaring and blooming glare from the optics and bloom on the sensor. You can solve it a bit by using HDR techniques.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2024 15:28
|
|
|
Yeah, I think you just need to choose if the subject is the milf sign or the tower, and then expose for that. The underexposed one is still too open for the foreground imo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2024 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
The what sign? 👀
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2024 23:25
|
|