|
I keep all my catalogs and smart previews on my SSD and my photos themselves on a 7200 RPM drive. Machine has an i7 and 32 gigs of RAM. Lightroom could be a little snappier but it's much better than my old machine and when I had my photos on a network drive across a wifi link. Side note: I think I need to turn off smart previews or at least move them to my HDD. They are taking up like 17 gigs and I don't store any pictures on external drives so I have no use case for them. I left them on not realizing how much space they would require.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
I just bought two 4tb Wd Red drives with the intention of making a NAS to hold all my photos but now I'm reconsidering figuring out a system where my "working" photo sets sit on a local drive and then I archive after editing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Dren posted:I keep all my catalogs and smart previews on my SSD and my photos themselves on a 7200 RPM drive. Machine has an i7 and 32 gigs of RAM. Lightroom could be a little snappier but it's much better than my old machine and when I had my photos on a network drive across a wifi link. Sup Lightroom database and previews on SSD buddy! I also sync it via Dropbox, so I can use the smart previews on my (color calibrated, of course) laptop and do some editing outside of my place so that I don't feel like a complete social misfit. That said the other big benefit for me, as a film shooter, is that smart previews load a lot faster than my scans which can be 0.98Gb in size for color 6x9 scans. It allows me to assess image quality and do some quick edits while the actual file loads in the background. Also smart previews are large enough (2560pixels long side) for basically all but the most demanding web-exports.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
When I take photos with the sun just out of frame, I sometimes get a yellow spot on the photo like the one below. It's definitely due to the sun (which is just out of frame to the upper left), and I could see it when taking the photo. I guess it's some sort of internal reflection within the lens, right? What should I be doing to avoid getting this sort of thing? I'm just using the kit 18-55mm lens on my Nikon d5100. Would a lens hood help? Do better quality lenses not have this sort of problem?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
It's called lens flare, it's caused by the vagaries of lenses/glass and every lens will theoretically do it with the right positioning. A lens hood can help, as can a filter, but by far the best thing to do is avoid composing shots that induce lens flare whenever possible. Someone who knows more than me (everyone) feel free to correct me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
DorianGravy posted:When I take photos with the sun just out of frame, I sometimes get a yellow spot on the photo like the one below. I posted a couple pages back or maybe in the nikon thread about having lens flare issues with the same lens. Apparently it's super bad for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
My experiences with my nikon 15-88 have led me to believe that it's super bad at everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
 Can anyone tell me what in the christ is going on with Lightroom? These photos have been edited and cropped but LR spastically decides when to convey that info to me or not. This isn't a big catalog, and happens with multiple catalogs as well. I'm on version 5.7.1. Maybe a bit nitpicky and ADD but it somewhat slows things down. EDIT: I guess they are called badges. iSheep fucked around with this message at 10:21 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
Who are your preferred external hard drive manufacturers?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
My job is now using me as their photographer. New doctor starts? I do their linked-in/website/facebook headshot. New marketing materials? I shoot and edit to send to the printer. I want to broach the subject of payment with them. What's a reasonable price for a headshot? For shots for marketing materials?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
Phummus posted:My job is now using me as their photographer. New doctor starts? I do their linked-in/website/facebook headshot. New marketing materials? I shoot and edit to send to the printer. I want to broach the subject of payment with them. What's a reasonable price for a headshot? For shots for marketing materials? if they can get the milk for free what makes you think they wanna buy the cow???? edit: and how would it make you feel if someone was giving you free milk and then took that free milk away? part of you would understand, but the other part is mad that you aren't getting no more free milk
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
They're already paying you dude. If you're taking photos at work on work hours it's hard to justify asking for more pay. Are you using a company camera or bringing in your own? Of course you can always decline and say the photography tasks are preventing you from getting your real job done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:They're already paying you dude. If you're taking photos at work on work hours it's hard to justify asking for more pay. Are you using a company camera or bringing in your own? Of course you can always decline and say the photography tasks are preventing you from getting your real job done. You could use that to justify making employees do anything though. If he was hired for something and then they get him to do something else, the wage should change to reflect the actual value of the work being done. I mean if I'm hired to run a cash register and then am made to do the entire store's finances on my downtime, I'm going to ask for a raise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
These shoots typically happen outside of my normal work hours, and are a new thing. They hired photographers before, asked me to shoot a headshot for a new guy when the regular photographer couldn't make it, and liked the shot. Just curious what a reasonable rate would be if I were shooting for someone outside my own employer and then I'll discount from there. They understand that it is outside my usual work tasks and should be compensated somehow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:You could use that to justify making employees do anything though. If he was hired for something and then they get him to do something else, the wage should change to reflect the actual value of the work being done. I mean if I'm hired to run a cash register and then am made to do the entire store's finances on my downtime, I'm going to ask for a raise. You're right, I should have said if he's being paid less than a part-time photographer, or being asked to come in outside his normal hours, than he should ask for some money. People sometimes overestimate how much photographers actually make, and I was assuming he was in some sort of decently paying healthcare job already. To reverse your analogy, if the company accountant is asked to man the cash register when business is slow, it doesn't make sense for him to ask for more money since he's being paid much more than a register attendant already.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Phummus posted:These shoots typically happen outside of my normal work hours, and are a new thing. They hired photographers before, asked me to shoot a headshot for a new guy when the regular photographer couldn't make it, and liked the shot. Just curious what a reasonable rate would be if I were shooting for someone outside my own employer and then I'll discount from there. They understand that it is outside my usual work tasks and should be compensated somehow. So if you want to keep shooting for them, ask for the same or a bit less. If you don't want to do it anymore, insist on being paid more than the other guy. Realize that doing any of the above could put your job in jeopardy as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:So if you want to keep shooting for them, ask for the same or a bit less. If you don't want to do it anymore, insist on being paid more than the other guy. Realize that doing any of the above could put your job in jeopardy as well. If that puts your job in jeopardy, you need to find new people to work for anyways. They'd be doing you a favor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
This might be a bit vague but I'm wondering what's up with the colors in these pictures? How are such strong colors achieved? Is it some delicate balance of Lightroom sliders to get it just right? Film? Fancy lenses? https://flic.kr/p/q96KZy https://flic.kr/p/qSTVTZ https://flic.kr/p/e4oC83
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
I mean I don't know about everyone else but if something isn't in my job description or related to the work I do I, push back. They hired me to do a certain job, and if I'm off doing things not related to my job, the job I hired in for isn't getting the attention it needs. It's kinda like robbing Peter to pay Paul for the company. If you're doing in your off time for free, you're being had. I'd stop immediately and work out some payment scheme. You're not doing pro bono work for charity organization, you're giving up your valuable free time to some company so they can save a few bucks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
huhu posted:This might be a bit vague but I'm wondering what's up with the colors in these pictures? How are such strong colors achieved? Is it some delicate balance of Lightroom sliders to get it just right? Film? Fancy lenses? I'm not sure what you mean by "strong color" but the colors don't stand out to me in any of those. The first one works because of contrast, the other two are pretty boring to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
huhu posted:This might be a bit vague but I'm wondering what's up with the colors in these pictures? How are such strong colors achieved? Is it some delicate balance of Lightroom sliders to get it just right? Film? Fancy lenses? The second one definitely looks like it's been VSCO'd
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Saw this on the Amazon front page: Is that an Olympus 35RD? Edit: On closer examination, pretty sure it's a Trip 35: 
404notfound fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Jan 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 05:12
|
|
|
dakana posted:The second one definitely looks like it's been VSCO'd Crush the blacks, crush the whites, vignette
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
404notfound posted:Saw this on the Amazon front page: What is the taillight-looking thing around the lens? Is it a built-in flash?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:42
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:What is the taillight-looking thing around the lens? Is it a built-in flash? It's the selenium cells for the internal lightmeter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:Crush the blacks, crush the whites, vignette Sell to brides, print money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 07:24
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:It's the selenium cells for the internal lightmeter. I learned something today! Unrelated: what actually causes chromatic aberration? lovely and/or old lenses seem to do it more. My gut tells me that at longer zooms, with lenses that have physically lengthy housings, the slight misalignment of the lenses makes it happen through refractory magic. What actually makes it happen? Is there a way of stopping it mechanically? I have no fear when it comes to dismantling poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
huhu posted:This might be a bit vague but I'm wondering what's up with the colors in these pictures? How are such strong colors achieved? Is it some delicate balance of Lightroom sliders to get it just right? Film? Fancy lenses? You can make colors stronger by increasing the vibrance or saturation sliders in lightroom. If you want to target a specific color, you can increase the saturation of that color in the HSL panel. There is really no trick to it. Just don't go overboard. The red in that last photo looks unnatural. If your photos look faded out, you might get more pleasing color tones by simply increasing the contrast.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Unrelated: what actually causes chromatic aberration?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:You can make colors stronger by increasing the vibrance or saturation sliders in lightroom. If you want to target a specific color, you can increase the saturation of that color in the HSL panel. There is really no trick to it. Just don't go overboard. The red in that last photo looks unnatural. If your photos look faded out, you might get more pleasing color tones by simply increasing the contrast. I already know of these sliders but as I use them I don't get nearly as great a feeling a satisfaction with the color as with those photos. I guess there's nothing more than continuing to practice and experiment to get the right feeling in the image.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 08:46
|
|
|
You're not getting anything from it either because it broke the magic some. Processing like that always looks better when someone else does it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 09:01
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Different wavelengths refract slightly different. Lens design jumps backwards through hoops to mitigate this as much as possible. The bending of light as it passes from one material to another (air -> glass) is dependent on wavelength; wavelength is colour (well, it's the hue component of how humans perceive colour). Long telephotos tend to be more vulnerable to CA because the light passes through lenses (i.e., the actual curved pieces of glass inside a SLR lens) that focus different wavelengths to slightly different focal lengths. This is true of all lenses that use a telephoto lens formula, but shows up more at really long focal lengths because a 1% difference in focal length for blue vs. red light is inconsequential at 50mm but produces a significantly different depth of field for each end of the visible spectrum at 500mm. In other words, that bird might be in focus for red but out of focus for blue, or in focus for green (the middle of the spectrum and the light human eyes are most sensitive to, thus most sensitive to blurriness at wavelengths near (roughly) 500nm) but out of focus for both red and blue - this leads to red and blue highlights around high-contrast edges such as a black bird against a bright white sky. Lens coatings cut down on CA by selectively bending different wavelengths to a different degree at the glass/air interface. A given coating might have little or no effect on red light, but bend blue light a bit more or less to help line it up with the red light. Old supertelephoto lenses, like my Takumar m42 500mm f/4.5 are very prone to big CA because they are old enough to not have much in the way of lens coating and the material science of glass fabrication for lenses has come a very long way in the last 50 years. Plus, it doesn't matter as much for black-and-white film, partly because most B&W film is sensitive to only a part of the visible spectrum. Dismantling and re-aligning an old lens might be useful and clear up a range of problems, but it's not going to eliminate CA. Pedantic aside: "zoom" and "long focal length" are not synonyms. An ultra-wide zoom, like the Sigma 8-16mm is just as much a zoom lens as the "Sports Telezoom" Sigma 70-200mm. A long telephoto prime, like a 500mm is not a "more zoom" lens, it's a prime lens with a long focal length.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I learned something today! Index of refraction is wavelength-dependent, so different colors of light bend to different extents when they pass through the lens elements. This is why you can split white light into a rainbow with a prism; red light bends more than yellow which bends more than blue, etc. So the true focal length of the lens is different for different colors of light. Unless you can arrange for the focal plane to be closer or further away depending on the wavelength of light coming through the lens, you're not stopping it mechanically. You could stop it by, you know, building a lens with a bunch of different elements and coatings in order to try to make the refractive index as constant as possible across a the range of visible wavelengths, but that ain't gonna be cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Lens coatings cut down on CA by selectively bending different wavelengths to a different degree at the glass/air interface. A given coating might have little or no effect on red light, but bend blue light a bit more or less to help line it up with the red light. Old supertelephoto lenses, like my Takumar m42 500mm f/4.5 are very prone to big CA because they are old enough to not have much in the way of lens coating and the material science of glass fabrication for lenses has come a very long way in the last 50 years. Your explanation is excellent, except this part; lens coatings have no effect on CA. They are entirely there to reduce internal reflections that cause flare. The way to mitigate CA is to use different types of materials in the individual lenses. A common technique is to cement two types of glass together, with different amounts of dispersion, called an achromatic doublet. Wikipedia explains it well. But basically, there is no way you are fixing the CA on your lens, unfortunately. Modern software has gotten quite good at editing it out though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Pedantic aside: "zoom" and "long focal length" are not synonyms. An ultra-wide zoom, like the Sigma 8-16mm is just as much a zoom lens as the "Sports Telezoom" Sigma 70-200mm. A long telephoto prime, like a 500mm is not a "more zoom" lens, it's a prime lens with a long focal length. Oh yeah I know that, it's just that because I thought it was an issue stemming from mechanical misalignment of the lenses, the physically longest lenses, which have the front-most elements on the longest 'pivot' would be most prone to it. On my 70-300 it's quite easy to move the innermost tube assembly when it's at full extension because, presumably, the little slider bushes and stuff were built to a budget. All really interesting stuff! So I take it more expensive lenses are more expensive (partly) because they have fancier glass composition that attempts to mitigate CA? Slavvy fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
Thanks for the correction, ShadeofBlue (and nice username / post topic combo). Yes, better glass composition that helps reduce CA is part of what makes expensive lenses expensive. CA is worse at wide-open-aperture, and building lenses with big apertures (like f/2.8 or wider) is more difficult and therefore more expensive. This is especially true for really long lenses, because the aperture diameter is (approximately) equal to the front element diameter, and that "f/number" is the ratio of the focal length divided by the aperture diameter. So the aperture diameter at f/2.8 on a 50mm lens is 17.86mm, but is 107mm on a 300mm lens. My 500mm f/4.5 has a front element about 112mm across, which is a huge and heavy piece of glass - and given that every piece of glass has to be flawless, it's easy to see that lens prices go up exponentially with the diameter of the largest part. Presumably Pentax (or whoever the parent company was back in the day... their corporate history is very confusing) looked at what happens when you make a really fast (large aperture) big supertele and decided f/4.5 should be fast enough for anybody. There are other complications that go with wide apertures on lenses, and that's just one factor that drives lens prices. As you've found, overall build quality is another important factor - my Takumar was also built to a (severe) budget, and the years have not been kind to it. Fortunately, it's so old and simple even an incompetent clumsy person like me can deal with the minor issues. Most of the parts of my lens are held together with setscrews that press into notches on the next layer inwards; some of these got loose and my lens got a bit rattly. It only took 10 minutes to tighten it back up, though occassionally the aperture ring still gets a bit off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
I've also noticed that ancient thrift-shop lenses that go for around 60 bucks on ebay (totally manual in every way) with alloy bodies seem much sturdier and more precisely made than my technologically fancy electronic marvels. I really, really like the feel of metal lenses and it's a shame that getting that type of design but with modern functionality requires organ donation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
gently caress me I want to loving vent. Just trying to manage and backup my lightroom catalog into a newer drive yet everything takes forever. I have mini-catalogs by year from 2007-2014 and it's brisk enough. But then there are missing files dangling all over the place. Exporting one giant catalog takes freaking forever and sometimes the program crashes already. God drat it, if I'm paying for Creative CC might as well have a better digital workflow + catalog workflow as well. ARRRRGGG  Man, I might just shoot myself in the head and buy some 3 TB SSD and deal with it or something
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 08:42
|
|
|
Hopefully LR6 fixes that bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Hopefully LR6 fixes that bullshit. Everytime I hear of a new LR release, I can't help but remember that it is owned by adobe, so at some point, it will get hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 12:56
|
|
