|
It differs per country/state, look it up for where you live. In the US you're pretty much fine as long as you're on public ground (even shooting into private property). read this if you shoot in the US
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 14:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
Also remember just to be nice and courteous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 14:38
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Also remember just to be nice and courteous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 14:57
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:It differs per country/state, look it up for where you live. In the US you're pretty much fine as long as you're on public ground (even shooting into private property). Yeah, that looks like a good thing to keep stuffed in your camera bag. I'm in the US, Florida to be specific. Now that i think of it, it probably is private property. They have roads and sidewalks, but those might be maintained by them. So i guess it's a bit different than walking down a sidewalk and photographing some house to the side. Still going to try it, just going to go early in the morning which is a good way to avoid people. Never underestimate how much damage old white people can do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 15:37
|
|
|
Nameless Dread posted:Never underestimate how much damage old white people can do. Most (semi-)gated communities are private property. It's why they're allowed to gate them in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 15:53
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:This only counts for cops. Rent-an-rear end in a top hat can get told to stick it. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Just because you CAN tell someone to stick it doesn't mean that's the most efficient way to go about what you're after.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 17:53
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Just because you CAN tell someone to stick it doesn't mean that's the most efficient way to go about what you're after. Yeah, exactly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
Cops can always stick a disorderly/obstruction/resisting arrest charge on you, and it getting dropped won't get you out of lockup. On public ground, rent-a-piggies can't do a goddamn thing to you. There's no reason to antagonize anyone, and if you shoot for a living and need to get poo poo done sure, be nice and compliant. In my own time I've stood my ground every loving time, because those wannabe brown shirts on power trips need to be checked. evil_bunnY fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Oct 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Cops can always stick a disorderly/obstruction/resisting arrest charge on you, and it getting dropped won't get you out of lockup. oh yeah, nothing annoys me more that little people that have a little bit of power. But if you're going in and out of a place I'd rather be like "hey buddy I really appreciate that your job is to watch over this place but I only need another 2-3 minutes and I'd really take it as a huge favor that you're letting me do this and I won't bother you again" give 'em a verbal rimjob and be on your way rather than spending 20 minutes getting into a hostile interaction. My secret fantasy is to get actual permits for location shoots just to brandish at people trying to make me move along.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
Nameless Dread posted:So, is there any good source for legality in regards to photography in public and private property? A lot of things i want to photograph are in places i'd have to trespass, which i do sometimes. But a lot of times i'm not sure if it's trespassing or illegal, or i get hassled by someone who thinks it is even when i'm clearly not. If it is private property, then they can ask you to leave. If you shoot their property from public property, you are within your rights. If you are shooting private property and ever want to sell it, you'll need a property release.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:oh yeah, nothing annoys me more that little people that have a little bit of power. But if you're going in and out of a place I'd rather be like "hey buddy I really appreciate that your job is to watch over this place but I only need another 2-3 minutes and I'd really take it as a huge favor that you're letting me do this and I won't bother you again" give 'em a verbal rimjob and be on your way rather than spending 20 minutes getting into a hostile interaction. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
Here's a dumb question. While trying to figure out what's wrong with my otherwise mint Canon AV-1 (for those curious or maybe in the know, why does the light meter needle shoot to the top as soon as I press the shutter half way and doesn't respond to a change in lighting conditions, rendering the aperture priority camera useless?), I was playing around with my FD lenses (two 50mm, one 28mm, one 200mm) when I realized I don't understand what the second pin (to the left below) is used for.  When locked in to the right, it makes the viewfinder go dark (at smaller apertures) and bright (and larger apertures). What is this used for?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
Is it a DoF preview? I have seen them on cameras but not on lenses, what you are describing sounds like it though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
Manual aperture control for stop-down metering. When it's locked, you're changing the aperture as you turn the aperture ring, instead of telling it what to set the aperture to when you release the shutter. Smaller aperture lets less light in, so it's darker. edit-- oh, yeah, DOF preview too
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
nemoulette posted:Here's a dumb question. Edit: Argh, beaten. mystes fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Oct 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Manual aperture control for stop-down metering. If I only I could figure out what's wrong with the meter, I want to use this baby so bad. (sorry for the big image, don't know how to remove image attachments) widunder fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Oct 9, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
It's also used, as others said, for depth of field preview. Manually stopping down the aperture will show everything that will be in focus as actually being in focus. But also, the function is for use with older cameras that may not be able to meter correctly unless it's manually stopped-down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 19:19
|
|
|
nemoulette posted:That makes sense. I don't get the use for it though, what is the functional difference between of the aperture being set when you press the shutter versus looking through the viewfinder before? So you won't under/overexpose?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 19:20
|
|
|
Thanks guys!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
nemoulette posted:That makes sense. I don't get the use for it though, what is the functional difference between of the aperture being set when you press the shutter versus looking through the viewfinder before? So you won't under/overexpose? Also it's much eaiser to focus with a nice bright fiewfinder, and at the largest aperture opening the subject will snap into focus well, then when it's time to take the picture the camera will stop down for you and allow you to get all your DOF.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
Have you got new batteries in the AV-1? Batteries that put out the wrong voltage will lead to weird meter readings, as will old batteries (which put out unpredictable and weird voltages). Also check the battery terminals inside the camera (if you can), a bit of corrosion (sometimes shows up as pale-green and rust-like) in the wrong place will mess with the meter, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Have you got new batteries in the AV-1? Batteries that put out the wrong voltage will lead to weird meter readings, as will old batteries (which put out unpredictable and weird voltages). Also check the battery terminals inside the camera (if you can), a bit of corrosion (sometimes shows up as pale-green and rust-like) in the wrong place will mess with the meter, too.
widunder fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Oct 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
So after getting into a photography rut and kicking myself out of it by shooting three rolls on my Nishika, I've decided I want a film camera because I like it for snapshots. Obviously I'm considering getting a Pentax ME or ME Super, but are there any other cameras in the <$100 price range that I should be looking at? Bonus points if it's easy to get lenses for them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
Aren't most older film slrs much, much less than 100 bucks nowadays? The lenses should be cheap too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
change my name posted:Aren't most older film slrs much, much less than 100 bucks nowadays? The lenses should be cheap too. Yeah, most of them seem to be, I just don't want anyone recommending a Hasselblad or anything.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
Check out the minolta super T. I have one with a 58/1.4 and 135/2.8 that I found at my grandpa's house that I like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 06:36
|
|
|
HookShot posted:Yeah, most of them seem to be, I just don't want anyone recommending a Hasselblad or anything. Get whatever can mount lenses you already have. I'm a fan of canon FD stuff to keep "brand synergy" with my other gear, the AE-1 is a classic but i love my Nikon FM2 as well. It's really pretty unfortunate that a lot of the cheap EOS film bodies kind of suck. whereismyshoe fucked around with this message at 06:41 on Oct 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 06:39
|
|
|
As far as I can tell from my semi-inept handling of various 80's-era SLRs, the differences are pretty minor and mostly come down to personal preferences and shooting style (and battery requirements). I learned basic photography on a Minolta X-700, so I tend to shoot in aperture priority rather than shutter priority; the Canons of that era, such as the AE-1, have shutter priority. Of course, you can always shoot in manual unless you get a "consumer" model, like the Pentax ME (non-super). Google any camera that shows up on your local Kijiji (you're in Calgary, right HookShot?), between Wikipedia, Camerapedia, and various enthusiast sites you'll be able to figure out which features are available. Watch out for idiots who don't realize that paying $500 for a camera in 1984 in no way is justification for asking $400 for that camera in 2012. Something with a little extra, like a non-kit lens or a nice bag, is probably worth holding out for. The AE-1 I sent around the world (it's currently stuck in New York, but I'm optimistic it will get moving again soon) cost me $100 and came with a Vivitar Series 1 70-210 (which is a very nice lens, in my opinion) in addition to the two primes, and a very fine aluminum case. Sometimes you can get a few rolls of (expired) film on a deal, too. Keywords I use when browsing my local Kijiji: Pentax Canon FD (omit the FD and you'll get endless ads for 5-10-year old digitals) Konica Minolta Yashica Contax Film I like to try common misspellings, too, you can find some interesting deals by looking for "Pantax" or "Minotla" or "Cannon"
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:As far as I can tell from my semi-inept handling of various 80's-era SLRs, the differences are pretty minor and mostly come down to personal preferences and shooting style (and battery requirements). I learned basic photography on a Minolta X-700, so I tend to shoot in aperture priority rather than shutter priority; the Canons of that era, such as the AE-1, have shutter priority. Of course, you can always shoot in manual unless you get a "consumer" model, like the Pentax ME (non-super). Cool, thanks for this! Kijiji is definitely my local, I'm in the Vancouver area. I'll have a look there for sure and try and find something I like!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 01:00
|
|
|
Do most people shooting full manual also shoot with manual white balance? Or does it not really matter that much because of the capabilities of post processing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 02:12
|
|
slardel posted:Do most people shooting full manual also shoot with manual white balance? Or does it not really matter that much because of the capabilities of post processing? I do. If I'm outdoors under sunlight I'll usually have my WB at around 5600K, if indoors or outdoors at night under artificial light around 3200K. These make pretty good starting points so there's less work to do in post WB related. If it can be done in-camera, why not? Another advantage of manual WB is that if you're shooting a series of photos all your shots' WB will match. If you have it set on auto, it could vary from shot to shot, which would mean more time in post making them all match. Although I guess it probably doesn't matter too much if one does it or not (if shooting raw of course). It's entirely probable I only do it as a leftover from my film days because it's what I'm used to.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:As far as I can tell from my semi-inept handling of various 80's-era SLRs, the differences are pretty minor and mostly come down to personal preferences and shooting style (and battery requirements). I learned basic photography on a Minolta X-700, so I tend to shoot in aperture priority rather than shutter priority; the Canons of that era, such as the AE-1, have shutter priority. Of course, you can always shoot in manual unless you get a "consumer" model, like the Pentax ME (non-super). Going to throw another suggestion in there for the x700. I know I post about it a lot, but it's really cheap and not actually a terrible camera!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
That 70s Shirt posted:I do. If I'm outdoors under sunlight I'll usually have my WB at around 5600K, if indoors or outdoors at night under artificial light around 3200K. These make pretty good starting points so there's less work to do in post WB related. If it can be done in-camera, why not? I usually just set it to auto in camera and change it all to whatever I want in post. Chances are I'll probably change it anyway even if I set it to something in camera, and it's as easy as copy-paste to change them all in lightroom.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
HookShot posted:So after getting into a photography rut and kicking myself out of it by shooting three rolls on my Nishika, I've decided I want a film camera because I like it for snapshots. Just filling in for Mr Despair here: ME Super is all you need.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice guys! And yeah, I always shoot auto white balance. I'm lazy, I can fix it in post, and I always forget what direction the different symbols make the white balance go because I'm a dumbass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
HookShot posted:Thanks for the advice guys! Just be careful shooting auto white balance under tungsten lights some cameras use the white balance setting to adjust the meter. This can lead to over exposure of the red channel under tungsten.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 10:43
|
|
|
1. How do I get rid of shots like this, where everything close to the sky is overexposed?  I suppose I could try HDR, but that's not always possible. Maybe there is no solution. I currently have a Canon EOS 500D/ EOS Rebel T1i which does not feature the new HDR Backlight Control of the new EOS 650/ Rebel T4i. Does anyone have the new Canon and could tell me how useful this feature really is (and its usefulness without a tripod)? Thank you so much. 2. On a recent trip I was constantly switching between the Canon 55-250 IS and the 18-55 (I think) Kit lens (I'm on a budget). This was tiresome and I found this on Amazon: Sigma 18-250 mm F3,5-6,3 DC OS HSM. Would buying this be a good idea? Thanks again!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 11:14
|
|
|
lllllllllllllllllll posted:1. How do I get rid of shots like this, where everything close to the sky is overexposed? Option 1) under expose to get the sky exposed properly, use post processing to up the exposure in the ground (doesn;t work very well) 2) Bracket your shots: combine correctly-exposed sky and correctly exposed ground in Photoshop. Works well, even without a tripod, as you don't have to align the 2 perfectly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 11:23
|
|
|
A polarizing filter might help some with the sky. There's not a whole lot you can do in-camera. I had a Tamron 18-270, similar to that Sigma. It was alright. About as good as the Canon kit lenses you have. I eventually got sick of the mushiness when pixel peeping and switched over to a set of primes. Constantly changing lenses is annoying though. Most people who buy super zooms end up changing eventually as they get more serious about photography. Super zooms aren't well regarded in the Dorkroom.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 11:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
HookShot posted:So after getting into a photography rut and kicking myself out of it by shooting three rolls on my Nishika, I've decided I want a film camera because I like it for snapshots. I can't recommend the Nikon FM2 enough. It's light, gives you full manual control, it'll fire without a battery and meters up to 6400. Old Nikon AI lenses are built like tanks and joy to use. They'll work on newer DSLRs as well. That said, you can't really go wrong with most semi pro or pro 70's era SLRs. Just make sure you get something with a split prism viewfinder if you go down the SLR route. There are also a lot of fantastically built rangefinders from the late 60s that will give you a bit of a different experience from shooting a DSLR that you might be looking for. I usually look for deals first and then research the camera to see if it's something I want. It's very possible to get a fantastic film body for under $30.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 12:06
|
|
