|
Jupiter Jazz posted:Sure. But gear nerds don't seem to be the best photographers and this factors into why I avoided the technical aspects so long: a dislike for gear nerds. You seriously need to review your prejudices. Give me an example of good photographer and how you know they are not a nerd, they might not be a gear nerd, but knowing about aperture and stops of light is not really gear nerdery. You can be a nerd about composition, light, subject selection, poses, human interaction, it just means being interested enough in to have amassed more knowledge than most people.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
jarlywarly posted:You seriously need to review your prejudices. What I'm clearly talking about is gear and technical nerdery. On the internet you can go to any photography site or youtube channel and it's full of tech nerd garbage and camera reviews. In photography it feels like there's two schisms: people that like to shoot and people that are camera nerds. For a long time I figured not getting into the gear aspect would be a benefit but it has limited me because I need technical mastery to improve. We seem to be talking about completely different things. It's the difference between old Ted Forbes where he seemed to post passionate videos about photography and photographers and new Ted Forbes who had mostly turned into a glorified camera reviewer. Jupiter Jazz fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 21:25
|
|
|
You correctly identify that there are a lot of camera nerds that don't have a lot to say about photography, but there's an important distinction. The musical equivalents of f-stops, ISO, and shutter speed (and other aspects) are scales, chords, and articulation, not different guitar brands. They are the technical aspects of photography, not the technical aspects of cameras/gear. And just like in music, the justified lack of interested in the gearhead side of things doesn't excuse the musician from not knowing their instrument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
I find that explanation to be fairly dreary. John Mayer is a virtuoso by all accounts but his music is also extremely boring. You can only know three chords and write a beautiful song. Conversely you may be an expert at twiddling camera knobs but it's never going to matter much if it's not pointed at anything interesting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
Health Services posted:You correctly identify that there are a lot of camera nerds that don't have a lot to say about photography, but there's an important distinction. The musical equivalents of f-stops, ISO, and shutter speed (and other aspects) are scales, chords, and articulation, not different guitar brands. They are the technical aspects of photography, not the technical aspects of cameras/gear. That's the lesson I've learned is all I'm saying. The pros I know don't yap about gear and really don't talk about it at all. Then there's the gear nerds I know on the opposite spectrum and cameras and technical stuff is all they talk about. I made the beginner mistake of thinking you don't need to know the technical aspects as much if you want to shoot for a living because I just don't see them talking about it. But now I know they know as much as the camera nerds but just don't talk about it. So the next step in my photography education is taking technical aspects more serious and stop assuming it's mostly for camera nerds. It's a real lesson to take in. There's so many voices shouting in the photography world it's hard to know who to listen to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 22:07
|
|
|
Jupiter Jazz posted:The pros I know don't yap about gear and really don't talk about it at all. No-one needs talk about gear. People who know technical processes inside out don't need to talk about them. It's not the interesting part, it's the resource library that allows one to make choices to clearly express ideas and interests. In many cases it will be invisible in the photograph.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 22:21
|
|
|
Ric posted:No-one needs talk about gear. I need to get to that point, where I don't need to talk about it. Because I legitimately dislike doing so. But I'll need to learn it inside and out. This book is great for that. I haven't received the book you suggested yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 22:31
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:I find that explanation to be fairly dreary. John Mayer is a virtuoso by all accounts but his music is also extremely boring. You can't be a good musician if you keep fumbling the fingerings and are unable to keep the beat--at any level. It's not a question of being an expert at 'twiddling camera knobs', it's a question of being able to deliberately produce the results you want, whether it's the equivalent of a 3-chord song or something more complex (which is certainly not necessarily better).
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 22:36
|
|
|
Granted there are a ton of people online who think gear is the most important thing, even when claiming otherwise. "The one you have with you" is a widespread meme I've seen in communities beyond the dorkroom, but those same communities also talk about how you just can't get good dof or dynamic range with a M43 sensor, don't even try. What, 16mpx? That's garbage, anything less than It's easy to get hung up on gear stats and point to them as an excuse for subpar photos. While "better" cameras can of course smooth out some kinks, great photos can be taken with any camera. This isn't really the "technical" aspect in terms of like, how shutter speed and aperture work, etc, but it is a different kind of "technical" that people get hung up on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 22:36
|
|
|
Jupiter Jazz posted:I need to get to that point, where I don't need to talk about it. Because I legitimately dislike doing so. But I'll need to learn it inside and out. This book is great for that. I haven't received the book you suggested yet. I think you're still not making the distinction between technical execution of photography and mere gear specs. Because you definitely need to know the former (relationship between shutter speed, aperture, ISO; compositional techniques; color theory; etc.), but you can safely ignore all the jerking off about the color reproduction of Sony sensors, or the ever-vaunted ~micro-contrast~ of Leica lenses. For practical purposes when it comes to gear, I would say that ergonomics (including being able to navigate the system menus quickly and easily) matters far more than being able to boost to two million ISO or have autofocus that's 10 ms faster than the competition
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 22:52
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Granted there are a ton of people online who think gear is the most important thing, even when claiming otherwise. "The one you have with you" is a widespread meme I've seen in communities beyond the dorkroom, but those same communities also talk about how you just can't get good dof or dynamic range with a M43 sensor, don't even try. What, 16mpx? That's garbage, anything less than Yes. That's why some of the pics I've posted are cell phone pics. Because I took the "the one you have on you" way, way serious. But it turns out there's many contradictions against that common phrasing. Like I said, as a beginner you're given advice from all sorts of people and it's hard to what to listen to. 404notfound posted:I think you're still not making the distinction between technical execution of photography and mere gear specs. Because you definitely need to know the former (relationship between shutter speed, aperture, ISO; compositional techniques; color theory; etc.), but you can safely ignore all the jerking off about the color reproduction of Sony sensors, or the ever-vaunted ~micro-contrast~ of Leica lenses. Oh, I understand the distinction but sometimes they blur. Like people saying you need a lens that goes up to 1.4. My lens stops at f2. So this ties into both gear nerdery and camera fundamentals. Jupiter Jazz fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Dec 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 23:02
|
|
|
To extend the music analogy: Some people will tell you that, as a beginning saxophone student, you need to focus on the fundamentals: sound production, scales and arpeggios, music theory, ear training, etc. These are the equivalent of the people saying to learn as much as you can about exposure, composition, color theory, etc., and are who you should listen to. Some people will tell you that, if you ever want to succeed as a saxophonist, you need to make sure to buy a top-of-the-line Selmer horn with a vintage Link mouthpiece, oh no don’t get a six-digit Mark VI, five-digit horns were the best, oh and make sure to send the thing for cryogenic treatment to align the ions of the brass or whatever. These are the equivalent of the people wanking over camera/lens specs and not only can be safely ignored, but SHOULD be, at least as long as you aren’t trying to play a $200 Amazon horn where the pads are falling out and keys are misaligned but snap when your repair tech tries to bend them back into place. The difference is in nerding out over technique (good) vs. technology (usually a waste of time).
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 23:17
|
|
|
Jupiter Jazz posted:Yes. That's why some of the pics I've posted are cell phone pics. Because I took the "the one you have on you" way, way serious. But it turns out there's many contradictions against that common phrasing. You can certainly take great photos with a cell phone camera, but it requires knowing the camera's limitations. Super small sensor means you're getting a huge depth of field, for instance. I think "the one you have with you" is cromulent advice, but it is followed with an unspoken "... As long as you fully understand it"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 23:19
|
|
|
Analogies are like photography, we all keep doing it but know it's only going to end in failure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 23:24
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:those same communities also talk about how you just can't get good dof or dynamic range with a M43 sensor, don't even try. What, 16mpx? That's garbage, anything less than I loved my old d80, pushed it to its limits, it was a fantastic piece of equipment that made some wonderful images and I actually miss it now (side note: they are going for less than $100 these days?!). It's a bit of a shock looking at what some internet people consider to be 'unacceptable' these days in terms of things like noise and image quality considering where things used to be. If I remember correctly, not too long ago an f2 lens was considered extremely fast. Considering what modern sensors are like, I don't think there's ever a 'need' for an f1.4 lens unless you have a really specific use case or you just want it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 23:33
|
|
|
I hear this is the place to talk gear. How are the rest of my gearophiles this evening? I’m looking for a new loupe for enhanced pixel peeping. Suggestions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 23:53
|
|
|
What flashes are best suited for cat fur??
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
Penguissimo posted:To extend the music analogy: Even then, I'd go to shooters for some help on how to progress and I'd often just get,"shoot a lot and review the masters' work." So even those offer technique minded advice often do so in vague ways. Getting into photography has been hellish. It's really hard knowing what to work on next to get better. In fact this is the first photography community to tell straight up to better at the technical aspects before trying to run without being a gear slut about it ("why are shooting with a f2 lens?!"). CodfishCartographer posted:You can certainly take great photos with a cell phone camera, but it requires knowing the camera's limitations. Super small sensor means you're getting a huge depth of field, for instance. I think "the one you have with you" is cromulent advice, but it is followed with an unspoken "... As long as you fully understand it" Gotcha. Jupiter Jazz fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Dec 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2020 23:58
|
|
|
President Beep posted:I hear this is the place to talk gear. How are the rest of my gearophiles this evening? I wonder if Large Format Guy ever tried to count the megapixels on a sheet of 8x10
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
Health Services posted:I loved my old d80, pushed it to its limits, it was a fantastic piece of equipment that made some wonderful images and I actually miss it now (side note: they are going for less than $100 these days?!). It's a bit of a shock looking at what some internet people consider to be 'unacceptable' these days in terms of things like noise and image quality considering where things used to be. Going from a D70 to a Fuji x100s / X-T1 absolutely blew my mind in terms of both high ISO performance and how much dynamic range was captured (e.g. shadows could be brought from almost pitch black to perfectly exposed). On the D70 anything over ISO 800 was a mess of color noise dots, and 800 wasn't even that great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 00:20
|
|
|
President Beep posted:I’m looking for a new loupe for enhanced pixel peeping. Suggestions? Gear obsession is maybe even more tempting with microscopy stuff, since so much of the best stuff for reflected light work is best sourced as industrial surplus. That's a rabbit hole that's hard to escape, so many deals and so many interesting bits and bobs..... Scarodactyl fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Dec 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 00:24
|
|
|
Splinter posted:Going from a D70 to a Fuji x100s / X-T1 absolutely blew my mind in terms of both high ISO performance and how much dynamic range was captured (e.g. shadows could be brought from almost pitch black to perfectly exposed). On the D70 anything over ISO 800 was a mess of color noise dots, and 800 wasn't even that great. I pushed it to 1600 for sports photography and I think it worked, more or less, on its own terms. At least the colour noise is easily removed and the luminance noise can even add to a scene sometimes.  I much prefer that to the awful smearing that smartphone cameras tend to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
That’s a really cool picture.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 01:47
|
|
|
Jupiter Jazz posted:Sure. But gear nerds don't seem to be the best photographers and this factors into why I avoided the technical aspects so long: a dislike for gear nerds. Being enamoured with gear is not the same as being enamoured with the craft. Not understanding core concepts like ISO, Shutter speed and aperture is effectively limiting the vocabulary you use to express your intent. If you don't know how aperture works and how it effects the final image you can't make informed decisions about aperture and instead twiddle and chimp your way to an acceptable photo, not something you can do in the moment. I like Ted Forbes' introduction to photography series, he covers core concepts and settings but also goes into classical composition. Understanding these fundamentals will go a long way to expanding your photographic vocabulary with expressing yourself and discussing why and how a photo you like or dislike works. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGEE7pGLuppT2MB0a7TYgBx_ZHDDHaEr6 e: Apparently I'm a page behind Megabound fucked around with this message at 02:08 on Dec 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 02:06
|
|
|
I think the biggest takeaway I got from reading Understanding Exposure was that the answer to the question "what should my exposure be?" is "your exposure must be correct", and the rest of the book dedicates itself to showing you what "correct" actually means. It's not a gear nerd book and it doesn't condescend or patronize the reader. Here's an actual question, though: Peterson talks about narrow apertures like f/16 onwards and how some photographers don't shoot at them because of so-called lens diffraction, but claims it's not really something to worry about. Is he correct on that? Personally, I've never seen any issues shooting at narrow apertures, so I'm inclined to agree with him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 02:29
|
|
|
the easy way to avoid diffraction is to shoot at the smallest aperture that gives you a satisfactory depth of field
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
Diffraction can really hurt when shooting high magnification macro, but something like a waterfall at f/22 is fine if you don't have a ND at hand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
Schneider Heim posted:I think the biggest takeaway I got from reading Understanding Exposure was that the answer to the question "what should my exposure be?" is "your exposure must be correct", and the rest of the book dedicates itself to showing you what "correct" actually means. I have seen examples where smaller apertures obviously lose out on resolution/detail. But in some situations (when trying to capture motion for example) it doesn't matter (or it's only obvious at the pixel peep level), while in others (macro with a 180+ mm lens) wider apertures produce too narrow of a DOF.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 02:50
|
|
|
Jupiter Jazz posted:I'd often just get,"shoot a lot and review the masters' work." So even those offer technique minded advice often do so in vague ways I totally get why this is frustrating, but it's still good advice. They're telling you to develop taste, basically. I would not limit yourself to photographers, look at all sorts of artists and painters if you can, especially after the world opens up again. Another piece of advice that made a big difference to me back in the day (the original essay's from 2007 but the link seems to be dead) was this essay about deliberate viewing: https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2019/06/how-to-read-a-photographic-book.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 03:04
|
|
|
Health Services posted:I totally get why this is frustrating, but it's still good advice. They're telling you to develop taste, basically. Went to the museum and planning to go to the MET and others museums. I love renaissance art and realism so I'll be studying well. Thanks for the link.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 03:17
|
|
|
Health Services posted:I totally get why this is frustrating, but it's still good advice. They're telling you to develop taste, basically. Since JJ lives in New York, add fashion into the mix.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 04:04
|
|
|
iDrive I need to clarify. I went from 2TB to 10TB for $30 MORE per year. I paid $100 for a year of 10TB storage. As far as the program... It's OK. I keep it fairly well tied up in the cellar, like I do with nearly all software, and I let it out for a scheduled once a week upload on Thursday nights. I can restore individual files, folders, or the whole thing, the interface is good. No complaints.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 09:39
|
|
|
Health Services posted:You can't be a good musician if you keep fumbling the fingerings and are unable to keep the beat--at any level. It's not a question of being an expert at 'twiddling camera knobs', it's a question of being able to deliberately produce the results you want, whether it's the equivalent of a 3-chord song or something more complex (which is certainly not necessarily better). I essentially agree with you and didn't mean to argue against the point you were making as such. I just meant to add that technique doesn't amount to much without good purpose. For sure being a gear head is a weird style of consumerist mania that is separate from knowing the technical concepts of photography. That said I feel like it's just as easy and nearly as odious to become overly fixated on seeking some false technical idyll. When you are just starting out you have to learn all this stuff and it's good to take it piece by piece. I just notice that often there is a lot of talk about gear/technique but leaving out what photography is really about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 11:03
|
|
|
Back like 10 years ago when I didn't understand exposure this Canon simulator was very eye opening. http://www.canonoutsideofauto.ca/play/ I understood that the f-stop made a scene lighter or darker and that a bigger number ISO made things look grainy but I didn't grasp exactly how you could manipulate them all in unison to control the total exposure of the scene and obtain a blurry background (or not), frozen or blurred motion, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 16:46
|
|
|
xzzy posted:What flashes are best suited for cat fur?? this triggered me
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 19:10
|
|
|
Hello Spaceman posted:this triggered me xzzy must be some kind of wizard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
charliebravo77 posted:xzzy must be some kind of wizard. he overclocked his godox transmitter
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
My neighbor has an old magazine with a b&w photo (not quite full page) of his grandparents and he would like to get it blown up. It's decent quality; not like an old newspaper. I wondered if maybe taking a photo of the magazine and then getting a print of the photo is worthwhile and cost-effective? I have a Fuji X-H1 and a tripod, and if necessary I have lights (I don't think they're necessary). The original picture is square, so at best I can get 4000px by 4000px, so I could get a 20" x 20" print and still be in that 180 pixels per inch range. The print would cost about $30 shipped from Mpix. I'd be doing the work as a favor to him. Does this make sense, or should he go to the local copy/graphic design shop and see what they say?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2020 02:18
|
|
|
Easychair Bootson posted:My neighbor has an old magazine with a b&w photo (not quite full page) of his grandparents and he would like to get it blown up. It's decent quality; not like an old newspaper. I wondered if maybe taking a photo of the magazine and then getting a print of the photo is worthwhile and cost-effective? It's best to use good quality scanner, though obviously your max actual quality will be determined by the quality of the magazine print.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2020 11:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 14:07 |
|
|
There doesn’t seem to be an active post-processing thread anymore and I can’t manage the vocabulary to succinctly put this into a usable google search, so here it goes: You can create Profiles from banks of settings (plus Looks and LUTs) in Adobe Camera Raw. There are a bunch of preset Profiles that come with ACR (with names like ‘Adobe Neutral’ or ‘Artistic 08’) and more that are unlocked when opening raw files for specific cameras (‘Camera Matching’ Profiles). But they’re all black boxes as far as I can tell. Is there any way to see what things are being applied by these built-in Profiles? The .XMPs have <crs:LookTable> and <crs:RGBTable> that are associated with the name of the Profile, but the values are 32-character strings that I have no idea how to interpret.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2020 04:48
|
|
