|
Viginti Septem posted:Hm. I don't feel I ever have to force myself to take photos, but I AM consciously aware that the first few shots of any shoot are probably going to be trash and/or uninspired. second to last photoshoot I did, the best photos of the whole event was from the very first pose all went downhill from there
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
xzzy posted:I'd read up on the capture one restrictions before buying into that. How big of a deal would this be for my case? I shoot on either a GoPro or like an OM TG7 and it’s mostly (deep) underwater, to the point where I’m doing major color grading to get a decent outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2024 07:55
|
|
|
Is there a sort of reverse photo search that can be applied to Photos library or Flickr? Basically, where I have a photo, and I search for identical or similar pictures in my archives. Because I have like 50,000 pictures, and finding stuff in there is really hard, unless I know exactly when it was taken. But I have some copies of photos at hand, and I want to see the context in which they were taken, and be able to grab the original files.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2024 05:48
|
|
|
Peggotty posted:Are there any good resources on learning how to b/w? I love black and white photos and looking at photobooks and b/w photos that other people took but my own ones always suck (moreso than my colour photos, that is). I'm not sure where to start other than just shooting. But then the raw always has colour info anyway and more often than not, I find that my photo works better in colour. How are you getting from digital color to B&W, are you using a mode on your camera that automatically dumps a monochrome jpg? some sort of monochrome preset in your editor? My suggestion is to load up a few of your favorite color photos and a few more of those b&w with color raws you were disappointed by into photoshop or gimp or what have you and play with the channel mixer for a few hours. There's a reason everyone in the B&W film era carried a bag of color filters around all the time and you're going to understand it. shame on an IGA fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Feb 7, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2024 05:46
|
|
|
Anyone know of any resources on the optical part of lens adapting? I'm not so worried about the physically mounting part, that's relatively easy. But things like accounting for flange distance and image circles and focal distance are a lot more nebulous to me. I've found bits and pieces around the internet but not really a coherent explanation. I've done this a LITTLE bit in the past by playing with some random laboratory lenses I found at a thrift shop once and brute forced it by moving the glass up and down a tube until it focused, so I assume the general answer is "any lens can be made to work as long as it doesn't need to be inside the camera body" but I guess I want to be able to demonstrate that with math.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 18:21
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Anyone know of any resources on the optical part of lens adapting? I'm not so worried about the physically mounting part, that's relatively easy. But things like accounting for flange distance and image circles and focal distance are a lot more nebulous to me. I've found bits and pieces around the internet but not really a coherent explanation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-hIFIHay9I the third lecture in a whole free course https://sites.google.com/site/marclevoylectures/schedule including downloads of the slides and applets to explain various bits, this one's on focusing https://sites.google.com/site/marclevoylectures/applets/gaussian-lens-formula joat mon fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Feb 9, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2024 18:43
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:How are you getting from digital color to B&W, are you using a mode on your camera that automatically dumps a monochrome jpg? some sort of monochrome preset in your editor? Yeah I put my camera in black & white mode, mostly just to see b&w on the camera screen, but I shoot RAW and edit in lightroom, so it doesn't actually make any difference to the actual picture. And then when I do the editing I usually notice that it looks better in colour (which is just one click away). shame on an IGA posted:My suggestion is to load up a few of your favorite color photos and a few more of those b&w with color raws you were disappointed by into photoshop or gimp or what have you and play with the channel mixer for a few hours. That's a great idea, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 10:03
|
|
|
Peggotty posted:And then when I do the editing I usually notice that it looks better in colour (which is just one click away). Wrong
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 13:23
|
|
|
Peggotty posted:Yeah I put my camera in black & white mode, mostly just to see b&w on the camera screen, but I shoot RAW and edit in lightroom, so it doesn't actually make any difference to the actual picture. And then when I do the editing I usually notice that it looks better in colour (which is just one click away). Have you tried some landscapes with puffy white clouds, blue skies, and a filter so red it would put Stalin to shame?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 15:52
|
|
|
ive had problems with red filters and digital sensors. i was surprised. the camera generally meters quite low, and the filter has a dramatic effect on sharpness. using a B+W filter, too, so it's not a quality thing. thankfully software does a great job as long as you don't get too carried away
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 16:00
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:Have you tried some landscapes with puffy white clouds, blue skies, and a filter so red it would put Stalin to shame? This lacks the stalin filter (conversion is all done in lightroom) but I got everything else and it's no contest which one is better. Those crisp clouds are all eye candy.   (I hate it on my computer monitor but when it gets chosen by the screen saver on my TV to display nice and big it makes me feel good)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 16:36
|
|
|
xzzy posted:This lacks the stalin filter (conversion is all done in lightroom) but I got everything else and it's no contest which one is better. Those crisp clouds are all eye candy. Heck yeah!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 18:53
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:ive had problems with red filters and digital sensors. i was surprised. the camera generally meters quite low, and the filter has a dramatic effect on sharpness. using a B+W filter, too, so it's not a quality thing. thankfully software does a great job as long as you don't get too carried away Is it possible that the issue was the Bayer sensor? A red filter will basically rob green and blue pixels of data, so it can take on the appearance of lost resolution because the raw editor will still try to interpolate the data for those green and blue pixels. I have a monochrome sensor and a deep red filter produces amazing results with zero loss in resolution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 19:45
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Maybe this? Also, this didn't answer my question directly but it got me looking up the right terms so now I'm a little smarter and got the answer I needed. So thanks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 19:55
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:Is it possible that the issue was the Bayer sensor? A red filter will basically rob green and blue pixels of data, so it can take on the appearance of lost resolution because the raw editor will still try to interpolate the data for those green and blue pixels. I have a monochrome sensor and a deep red filter produces amazing results with zero loss in resolution. yeah it might be, i gotta be honest i don't educate myself much anymore to the technical specifics of sensors, but i think every color sensor has one right?? it's an a7riv. i was pretty disappointed; i had a massive filter set like 15 years ago for a mamiya and it was great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 19:58
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:... every color sensor has [Bayer matrix] ... The Sigma Foveon is one exception I am aware of.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
I had a fun weekend last weekend. At an event and literally 1 minute before it starts my main lens decides it's not going to autofocus anymore. It was the start of a 3 day event where I was the sole photographer. I got a lot of practice manually focusing shots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 20:24
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:The Sigma Foveon is one exception I am aware of. If you want to be nitpicky the X-trans Fuji uses isn’t a Bayer filter either but it acts in a similar fashion. The Foveon is a different beast entirely. Interestingly some pixel shifting cameras use their tech as a workaround to get more accurate color than the Bayer filter sensors will normally give you. They will shift the exposed images around so each resulting pixel will have been exposed with all three filter colors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 20:46
|
|
|
Now I’m reading about how to remove it Interesting stuff I can pay some $1000 or so it myself with some solvents. I’m familiar with delicate use of chemicals at work… …. I’ll have to read more
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 21:09
|
|
|
JAY ZERO SUM GAME posted:Now I’m reading about how to remove it I paid someone $2.5k because the guy doing it for $1k was moving and so not accepting work. $2.5k guy screwed up my sensor, and I had to file a dispute with paypal to get my money back, but I never recovered the cost of the body. I ended up getting a Leica Q2M instead, which I hated on paper, but it has turned out to be an amazing camera.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2024 21:17
|
|
|
I don’t need reasons to buy that, stop
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2024 01:43
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:I paid someone $2.5k because the guy doing it for $1k was moving and so not accepting work. $2.5k guy screwed up my sensor, and I had to file a dispute with paypal to get my money back, but I never recovered the cost of the body. I ended up getting a Leica Q2M instead, which I hated on paper, but it has turned out to be an amazing camera. How did you like the Q2M? I’ve always loved the idea of a B&W only camera and it slightly scratches the itch, especially since if bought used I could theoretically lose very little money if I didn’t like it overall. I heard avoiding slightly underexposing to avoid losing highlights was the way to go
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 07:50
|
|
|
adnam posted:How did you like the Q2M? I’ve always loved the idea of a B&W only camera and it slightly scratches the itch, especially since if bought used I could theoretically lose very little money if I didn’t like it overall. I heard avoiding slightly underexposing to avoid losing highlights was the way to go
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 15:17
|
|
|
adnam posted:How did you like the Q2M? I’ve always loved the idea of a B&W only camera and it slightly scratches the itch, especially since if bought used I could theoretically lose very little money if I didn’t like it overall. I heard avoiding slightly underexposing to avoid losing highlights was the way to go I like it. For context, I wanted a weather-sealed monochrome and I was going to pair it with a 28 mm lens for a trip. So the Q2M made the list. And after the monochrome conversion dude hosed up the sensor on my A7R3 conversion, the Q2M was next in line. Things that I did not like on paper: - Fixed lens. While I did not mind being married to 28 mm, the Q1 had imperfect weather sealing, and some users had reported dust getting past a seal and landing on the sensor. And since the lens is fixed there is no way for a user to clean the sensor. Q2 users did not report this issue, still I was worried. - When shooting against the sun at certain angles, you will see a nasty pattern (from sensor reflections?) in your image. It can be minimized by using wider apertures or by recomposing. I reviewed my keeper images from previous trips and concluded that I typically compose in less challenging light, so that this would not be an issue. Once the camera was in my hands and I had gotten familiar with it, including how it meters, it was a joy to use. The only issue I saw, and perhaps this is universal among most electronics, is that the batteries did not like the cold temperatures. This is not surprising, Leica is very clear about the lower temperature limit where the camera operates, and I knew I was going to be using it outside of that range (I was trying to summit Denali). The good news is that warming up the batteries in my pocket for 10 minutes restored operation for the full day. The camera earned a permanent place in my rotation, and I intend to bring on my second summit attempt (the trip in 2023 ended at 16300 ft because of lousy weather above us). The most under rated feature in my opinion is the leaf shutter; I just love how quiet it is. If I could change one thing about it, I would love an option that would add a 3x tele extender. I would use it more often than macro mode. Overall, highly recommended if you buy used.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2024 15:42
|
|
|
I was curious what everyone recommended for online storage/sharing of images. I've been looking at Flickr/Smugmug, Shootproof, and Pixieset primarily but it seems like the latter two would really only benefit me if I wanted to sell prints, which I'm not opposed to but not necessarily looking for at this point. Photography is a hobby and my primary creative outlet right now, not a side hustle. I have Google Photos and I have Instagram, but I would prefer something that doesn't compress them and that would be easily accessible without having to use another app. The only potential use for expanding out to selling prints is I just took a bunch of pictures at my nephew's kids soccer tournaments and I can see parents wanting to buy prints off that, or selling prints of the dogs I photographed at Dog Mardis Gras to the dog owners, stuff like that. At most that's how I'd utilize it and right now that's less important to me than just having an easy way to host/share my stuff. EDIT: I have used Lightroom in the past and know it has some online gallery integration, but I already bought DXO Photolab 7 a few months back and don't necessarily want to pay for a second set of editing tools (even though Photolab exports to Lightroom) but I'm not necessarily opposed to it if it's decent for what I want to do. Stunt Rock fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Feb 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 16:25
|
|
|
Stunt Rock posted:I was curious what everyone recommended for online storage/sharing of images. I've been looking at Flickr/Smugmug, Shootproof, and Pixieset primarily but it seems like the latter two would really only benefit me if I wanted to sell prints, which I'm not opposed to but not necessarily looking for at this point. Photography is a hobby and my primary creative outlet right now, not a side hustle. I have Google Photos and I have Instagram, but I would prefer something that doesn't compress them and that would be easily accessible without having to use another app. I use Adobe's stuff since I have a LR+PS subscription. It's pretty slick and easy to just toss stuff online and make it easily accessible. But yeah, if you aren't wanting to use LR as your editing/organizational platform it'd be silly to spend $ on that option.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 17:04
|
|
|
Most sharing services are pretty bad at the storage half.. they won't keep your raws or anything. So when shopping around make sure to decide if it's a backup service you want or a hosting service.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 17:08
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Most sharing services are pretty bad at the storage half.. they won't keep your raws or anything. Right now the primary needs are hosting and sharing full quality pictures. For backup I currently use a portable hard drive and in the past have used Dropbox and the like for just having a redundant backup.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 17:32
|
|
|
Flickr is your best bet
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 17:35
|
|
|
I personally would do flickr. They don't restrict image size and don't really fuss over link sharing. The main downside is image limits if you aren't paying them. For sharing specific sets of images to specific people adobe's service is actually pretty good. Zenfolio is another option, I personally have never used it but a bunch of people in my photography circles rely on it. It's not the prettiest image sharing site out there but it does the job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 17:38
|
|
|
xzzy posted:I personally would do flickr. They don't restrict image size and don't really fuss over link sharing. The main downside is image limits if you aren't paying them. I was leaning towards Flickr but wanted to double-check just in case because I have a vague memory of Flickr getting shittier or falling out of favor with people for a bit, but could not remember any specifics as to why or how long ago that was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
The only complaints with flickr is stagnation, it still has no algorithm so the only way to see stuff is find people you like or browse the explore section (which I guess is technically an algorithm, but it's a very 2005 style one). I think it's one of its biggest strengths because you only get out of it what you put into it, I like that a lot better than some doomscroll promoting routine stuffing my face with viral poo poo. I guess there's some valid issues with the cost of flickr pro but I feel like it's not that bad for unlimited uploads and no ads (for you or anyone viewing your work).
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 17:54
|
|
|
Yeah Flickr is a mediocre social network (which I see as a plus now) but still a fantastic place to just store your pics and share them directly with folks.
Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Feb 20, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 17:58
|
|
|
Stunt Rock posted:I was leaning towards Flickr but wanted to double-check just in case because I have a vague memory of Flickr getting shittier or falling out of favor with people for a bit, but could not remember any specifics as to why or how long ago that was. It's actually been going the other way since smugmug bought them off yahoo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 18:19
|
|
|
Does Amazon Prime still have unlimited photo storage? I think they support RAW uploads Flickr feels like some forgotten part of the internet but I still use it for a feed of mostly goon accounts (mostly the landscape thread)
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 18:33
|
|
|
hope and vaseline posted:Does Amazon Prime still have unlimited photo storage? I think they support RAW uploads dunno how it works for sharing, if at all. i've never bothered.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 18:37
|
|
|
flickr has been threatening to delete my photos for about two years now. They are super serious about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 18:58
|
|
Associate Christ
|
other people posted:flickr has been threatening to delete my photos for about two years now. They are super serious about it.  same
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 19:02
|
|
|
Question regarding some compression artifacts I'm seeing when family posts shared photos to Instagram. I shoot raw, process in LR and then export with long edge at 1800, dpi 300 for printing 4x6 for family and friends. I upload to Google Photo and I've noticed when they download and then share those photos on Instagram, it looks pretty fuzzy/artifact-y. I'm trying to figure out if I need to export at a larger size, run my photos through a sharpen mask or are there settings on Google Photos that I need to look at to avoid additional compression?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2024 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Yeah Flickr is a mediocre social network (which I see as a plus now) but still a fantastic place to just store your pics and share them directly with folks. If I want the true social network picture sharing experience I can hop over to Instagram where there's a misleading mobile game ad between every two or three posts. I ended up apparently having a Flickr account already that I created in 2011 so I'm just gonna use it for now and if I like it enough I'll pay for it later when I run out of free space.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2024 01:27
|
|