|
It looks like Lightroom does not have camera profiles for my K-70 (DNG files) which am just now realizing. Is there some way to get them or do I just have to accept the Adobe Standard one, which I don't really like all that much? I don't know much about camera profiles but is there a plugin for LR or a totally different piece of software I need?
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
In Lightroom, when exporting 1 and 1 image instead of say a bunch at once, is it possible to get it to recognize the sequence parameter and/or "be smart" and number a photo with the next number in the sequence, if i use the "export with previous" option? I am creating a photo album of my daughter and am going back and forth between folders in my library and exporting 1 and 1 photo, and i have to go into the export dialogue manually and enter the next number in the sequence, which i wouldn't mind not having to do. If i have the custom name in the export menu as e.g. "Photo album 01" or "Photo album {sequence 01}" then both of those makes lightroom try to create an identically named photo if i "export with previous" Ineptitude fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Oct 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Why do you export them one by one? Make a collection and export them all from there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
I just wanted to avoid not adding more tags or similar to the photos. I already have a pretty large and unwieldy library (that's on me) with loads of tags and ratings and picks and whatnot and i don't want to complicate my library further with collections (plus i don't really know how collections work)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
They're easy and you can delete it once you've exported all the photos for the album if you don't want it around. You don't need to add more tags to your photos. If you turn it into a target collection (right click it when you've created it) you can add photos to it by just pressing B. That way you can quickly make a collection (think of it is an album) from different folders. It also fixes your exporting issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 10:00
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:I just wanted to avoid not adding more tags or similar to the photos. I already have a pretty large and unwieldy library (that's on me) with loads of tags and ratings and picks and whatnot and i don't want to complicate my library further with collections A collection is basically an album. You can put pictures into one or multiple collections simultaneously to make organisation and batch handling easier. It has no effect on the images other than that. If you edit an image, then those edits will appear in all the collections where the image exists because there's still only one instance of the image in your catalogue. If you are using Lightroom, you really should be using collections to organise your photos anyway, it's the central system for file organisation. Make them by subject, by event or by month/week/etc as you prefer. It's easier to find photos afterwards rather than searching through the big list of every single picture in the catalogue. Even if you are narrowing your results down with a filter, I'm going to guess that you probably have a lot of pictures with identical tags (your daughter's name), having another way to subdivide those by time or event will help a lot. You can create a smart collection that will include all the images that have tags or settings defined by you as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
Thanks! It sounds like i am somewhat using tags the way you use collections. I have a big hierarchy of tags, so my photos have tags with who is in it, what time of year it was taken, what type of photo/photoshoot it was, as well as tags for wether or not the photo has been printed or if i want to print it in the future, who it is printed for (grandparents in case of my kids, portfolio for my "best stuff") etc. Additionally, all photos are neatly arranged into folders in windows, according to year and date taken, with long descriptive names of the folders. I can very quickly find exactly the photo i am looking for either with tags or simply browsing to said folder, which is why i have never looked into collections. If i understand you correctly in that i can quickly browse through my library and sort of like put my photos on the "clipboard" (the collection), then export from the collection then delete the collection again then that actually sounds quite useful and i will do that the next time!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
You understand correctly. Godspeed!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:
The specific functionality for this in Lightroom is called 'Quick Collections'. It's specifically for an ad hoc group of images that you want to handle in a batch. You can only have one quick collection at a time, but you can export some or all of the contents of that quick collection to a regular collection if you want.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
I use star ratings and filters to export stuff. Only stuff rated five stars is eligible for export, so I turn on filters to match, select everything that pops up, and hit the export button. Collections are the "right" way to do it but I don't take enough pictures to need that kind of structure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
I use star ratings within collections to select images for editing. 1 star for images that are going to be part of a composite. 2 stars for stuff to delete because it's out of focus or has other technical issues. 3 stars for stuff that's technically ok but is too similar to other photos that I'm going to work on or isn't otherwise interesting enough. 4 stars for everything that is going to get edited. 5 stars for anything I want to mark for separate export for some reason. I do a rating pass after importing then set the filter to 4 stars or more to cut out all the cruft.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Anyone have any tips for making sure eyes are in focus when using a manual focus lens? It's really hard for me to tell even at close distances because eyes are so reflective - even using the live view screen I can't always tell if the eyes are as sharp as they need to be for a portrait shot (plus my vision isn't the best anyway). Should I just be literally measuring the distance and focusing to that when I have the opportunity? I'm using a cheap 50mm lens on a barebones crop-sensor body so there's no auto-focus unless I use the kit lens, and the detail / photo quality using that is definitely noticeably worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Anyone have any tips for making sure eyes are in focus when using a manual focus lens? It's really hard for me to tell even at close distances because eyes are so reflective - even using the live view screen I can't always tell if the eyes are as sharp as they need to be for a portrait shot (plus my vision isn't the best anyway). Should I just be literally measuring the distance and focusing to that when I have the opportunity? Use a smaller aperture? Unless you're shooting macro the eyes should usually be in focus if the rest of the face is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Anyone have any tips for making sure eyes are in focus when using a manual focus lens? It's really hard for me to tell even at close distances because eyes are so reflective - even using the live view screen I can't always tell if the eyes are as sharp as they need to be for a portrait shot (plus my vision isn't the best anyway). Should I just be literally measuring the distance and focusing to that when I have the opportunity? What body? Nikon will have a focus indicator even for manual focus lenses, and most mirrorless bodies should have focus peaking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Anyone have any tips for making sure eyes are in focus when using a manual focus lens? It's really hard for me to tell even at close distances because eyes are so reflective - even using the live view screen I can't always tell if the eyes are as sharp as they need to be for a portrait shot (plus my vision isn't the best anyway). Should I just be literally measuring the distance and focusing to that when I have the opportunity? Focus on the eyelids, rather than the eye itself and you have a nice, contrasty line to aim at
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
polyester concept posted:What body? Nikon will have a focus indicator even for manual focus lenses, and most mirrorless bodies should have focus peaking. I'm pretty sure that Nikon's autofocus system is more lax in manual focus mode, it'll give you the green dot when you're not bang on still.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Buy an autofocus 50mm. I too have bad eyesight and can't always nail manual focus in marginal light (even with focus peeking) and mist effective thing you can do is take your eyes out of the equation. Luckily 50mm af lenses can be cheap and mediocre lens that's in focus will make a much better portrait than an amazing lens that's focused on someone's earlobe by accident.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
If the viewfinder is good then you shouldn't have problems with practice, even wide open. If you are trying to do it with a manual focus lens on a dslr then you can either change the focusing screen to something better suited for manual focus like on a 5D or stop down because so many dslr cameras have dark, small and lovely viewfinders compared to older film bodies. When I was still shooting my 5D I changed the focusing screen and that helped a lot but it still wasn't as nice as my Pentax ME Super, Canon AE-1 and other older film bodies. Those viewfinders are just great. Now I shoot mirrorless though and focus peaking is king for manual focus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
It's a Nikon D3300, the viewfinder is tiny as poo poo so I've been using the screen. I don't think focus peaking is a thing on the budget line. I'll definitely try going down a stop or two, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Ah ok. Can you zoom too 100% on that screen? Without zooming on a screen it will be all up to luck to get eyes in focus with manual focus without focus peaking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 07:51
|
|
|
rio posted:Ah ok. Can you zoom too 100% on that screen? Without zooming on a screen it will be all up to luck to get eyes in focus with manual focus without focus peaking. Ah, I didn't even think about that - I think I could zoom in on the eyes in live view and dial it in that way. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
Yeah that's a standard way to do it - be wary that your zoom control probably goes past 100%. On my 7200 I think it highlights the frame green when it's at full, and that's where you should stop. Obviously if you're shooting with very wide apertures at distances that only give you a slither of focus, you need to ensure your lens is calibrated (which you can't do in camera on your body, it'll need to be sent away), and need to be aware of your own movements as well as your models. I'd also be shooting way faster than the standard 1.5*focal length rule for min shutter speed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
It's easy to get lost in pixel-peeping. At some point, you're going to run into limits on sharpness at the intersection of shutter speed, ISO, and aperture. Eyes are a very high standard to shoot for, so it's easy to find those limits. You stop down a bit, and your shutter speed drops to the point where your subject shows motion blur - even with the camera on a tripod, a person is going to be constantly moving at least a little bit. So you crank up ISO to bring the shutter speed up, and you find sensor noise. Open up the aperture again, and you find your lens is fuzzy all the way through the plane of focus because it's simply not capable of maximum sharpness only half a stop away from wide open. And so it goes. There are three ways to solve this. 1. Buy a better lens and/or camera. 2. Grow some apathy and stop getting disappointed when zoomed in to 250% 3. Practice, skill development, technique, expertise. Option 1 takes money, option 3 takes (lots of) time and hard work, option 2 just takes a few deep breaths. Alcohol helps, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
I've got a crop sensor and want a decent low light carry around lense... 35mm or 50 generally I'm outside and doing pics of nature and or pics of my kids.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
50mm f/1.8. It is dirt cheap and fine for 95% of everything you'll want to do at that focal length.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
So I recently acquired three Tamron 2x teleconverters and a 300mm prime lens that are older than I am but holy poo poo if they're not beautiful pieces of kit. If I stack them how poo poo are my moon photographs going to be and is it worth sending them off to a lens refurbisher to make sure they're spotless? I'm of the opinion I'll get some weird fuckery going on in the pictures purely because the teleconverters will magnify even the most minor bits of crud on the sensor or in the lens. e: lol, poo poo. 300*2*2*2*1.5 = 3600mm equivalent focal length on a Nikon DX. It's going to look poo poo, right? Theophany fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Theophany posted:So I recently acquired three Tamron 2x teleconverters and a 300mm prime lens that are older than I am but holy poo poo if they're not beautiful pieces of kit. If I stack them how poo poo are my moon photographs going to be and is it worth sending them off to a lens refurbisher to make sure they're spotless? I'm of the opinion I'll get some weird fuckery going on in the pictures purely because the teleconverters will magnify even the most minor bits of crud on the sensor or in the lens. I think the bigger issue for you is going to be shutter speed. I know the moon is crazy bright, but you're losing 6 stops of light from those teleconverters and the moon moves really fast. I'll be curious to see the result for sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:50mm f/1.8. It is dirt cheap and fine for 95% of everything you'll want to do at that focal length. D or G? D is probably around $50-100 less.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
If you're looking to do astronomy photography at those focal lengths, you really need to invest in a tracking mount. Or get good at adjusting your tripod head every few seconds. As for resulting image quality, it might work. The moon may give decent results but if you have an interest in capturing planets, you'll want a telescope. A brief explanation I found with a quick google: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50206140
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
tater_salad posted:D or G? D is probably around $50-100 less. You won't be able to use autofocus with the D on your 3300 because it requires an autofocus screw in the body (only 7xxx series and up have this), so you need the G. You may also find that the 50mm is too tight on a crop sensor especially for kids indoors, so go with the 35 G
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
polyester concept posted:You won't be able to use autofocus with the D on your 3300 because it requires an autofocus screw in the body (only 7xxx series and up have this), so you need the G. I've got a d7000 so not a 3300. Most of what I do is outside I've got my 28-80 or whatever the kit is for inside if I need it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Whoops, confused your post with the other guy. You could get the 50 D then and you wont miss out on anything except maybe a bit of autofocus speed and it'll be noisier. I still recommend the 35 though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
I initially had the 35 on my list because with the crop it'd be 50mm, but was wondering if that was too wide for most of my outside stuff. I guess I need to do the tote my camera around and use 50mm and 35mm for a day or two. The 35 is oddly more than the 50, but I can only find the 35 in G. Mostly I want a decent carry around fast lense I welt to take some pictures of light up poo poo in the woods and even with iso set to 2000 I had to use sub 1/100 shutter speeds to get a decent exposure. tater_salad fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
I always bring this up, everyone loves the 35mm but when I had the 50g and the 35 I had more fun with the 50. I found the 35 sat both not wide enough and too wide at the same time. I replaced the 35 with the (good chunk more expensive but lovely) sigma 18-35mm which gave me the extra wide end I wanted to while keeping a 1.8 fixed aperture. I pop the 50 on still every so often, but if I've got the space that's when the 50-150 comes out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Get the Nikon 40mm Macro. Super sharp and you can get really really close if you want to. For some reason people only ever talk about the 35mm and the 50mm and totally ignore the 40mm. Is it because it is designated a macro lens? You don't HAVE to shoot macro with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:A TC will degrade image quality somewhat -- I have no idea how the tamrons are or what effect stacking 3 of them will have. The moon is also very bright. I shoot it at 1/400 at ISO100 and F8 on my 600mm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 10:43
|
|
|
Caryna posted:Get the Nikon 40mm Macro. Super sharp and you can get really really close if you want to. For some reason people only ever talk about the 35mm and the 50mm and totally ignore the 40mm. Is it because it is designated a macro lens? You don't HAVE to shoot macro with it. F 2.8 vs , 1.8 maybe
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
Ineptitude posted:The moon is also very bright. I shoot it at 1/400 at ISO100 and F8 on my 600mm.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I know the moon is very bright (in fact, I said this as well in the text you quoted from me). But take off 6 stops of light from the same setting you use and you are in trouble. The moon is so fast in the sky anything less than 1/200 is probably going to really kill sharpness, which means (at best) you need to shoot at 1/200, F8, ISO 3200 to get the same exposure. Not exactly ideal, and that's not accounting for the loss in image quality from stacking 3 teleconverters. Yeah indeed you did. I have no idea what i read, but it wasn't the word "bright", welp. 1/100 is fine for moon photography, slightly depending on focal length, so this scenario could be 1/100, F8, 1600 ISO. Probably won't see the effect of 1600 ISO at all with all those teleconverters, they will do plenty a fine job of crapping up the image. I have a great white and even that one makes noticeably worse images with just a single teleconverter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
Ineptitude posted:I have a great white and even that one makes noticeably worse images with just a single teleconverter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2017 22:36
|
|