|
HPL posted:This will give you nicer skies, but it will make the land much darker, so pick your poison. 'Tis not a hard poison to pick, though. Better dark land than blown out sky for many reasons.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
The talk about camera straps got me thinking, is there a camera strap that can be used as a brace for slower shutter speed shooting, kind of like a sling for a rifle? I accidentally stumbled into a way to use my tripod to stabilize my camera, because I was lazy and didn't want to take the camera off between shots. I was walking around with my tripod and had the camera on the ballhead and the tripod collapsed, with the tripod on my right shoulder extending out behind me, and the camera up to my eye. Having the weight of the tripod counter balancing the camera seemed to steady it enough that I could shoot 1-2 stops slower, but I probably looked like an idiot. For landscape oriented shots I had to switch to live view. I was also able to take somewhat smooth panning video footage this way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2009 23:01
|
|
|
snowman posted:The talk about camera straps got me thinking, is there a camera strap that can be used as a brace for slower shutter speed shooting, kind of like a sling for a rifle? Sounds like you're describing The No-Pod
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2009 02:00
|
|
|
Cheers guys  Also, if I'm shooting cars, should I shoot in jpg to keep the frame rate up nicely? Obviously raw is more processable right?? But will I still be able to adjust the jpgs enough to be good? I've never really paid attention before, but I'm trying to take this a bit more seriously now
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 01:49
|
|
|
A5H posted:Cheers guys Generally, just shoot raw. Unless you need a marginal frame increase (and only then in some cameras), shoot raw. There are some photojournalistic reasons for jpg (Tsaraleksi shoots in jpg sometimes), but really, raw isn't that much slower, and with card sizes where they are, there's not much of a down side.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 01:51
|
|
|
Hmmm, I guess I will just shoot raw then, I'm somewhat worried about only having 6GB of storage for a 5 day trip in raw though. I guess I'll just have to watch my shots more. Thanks man! E: Also I used to be afraid of raw because I didn't have anything to preview well with, but now I have lightroom! So hopefully that will help
Bape Culture fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Aug 23, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 02:01
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Generally, just shoot raw. Unless you need a marginal frame increase (and only then in some cameras), shoot raw. There are some photojournalistic reasons for jpg (Tsaraleksi shoots in jpg sometimes), but really, raw isn't that much slower, and with card sizes where they are, there's not much of a down side. I guess it all depends (tm). I shoot a fair bit of jpeg, the reasons being not having to fuss with raw conversion, and the subject being exposed well enough and not needing the extra flexibility of a raw shot. And buffering when shooting fast can have an impact. My 50D will fill up the buffer with something like 15 raw files while it'll go seemingly endlessly when shooting in jpeg. Probably heresy around here, but my take is to shoot jpeg unless you need raw... then again, I've shot enough to know when the latter is the better.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 02:04
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:I guess it all depends (tm). I shoot a fair bit of jpeg, the reasons being not having to fuss with raw conversion, and the subject being exposed well enough and not needing the extra flexibility of a raw shot. And buffering when shooting fast can have an impact. My 50D will fill up the buffer with something like 15 raw files while it'll go seemingly endlessly when shooting in jpeg. For someone who is very likely to get the exposure and white balance they want on the first shot, I'd still say shoot raw, but there'd be a lot less rationale. Buffer fills up faster, but you don't get more shots per second, just more total shots, right? How do your xD and xxD compare in that regard, by the way?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 02:12
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:For someone who is very likely to get the exposure and white balance they want on the first shot, I'd still say shoot raw, but there'd be a lot less rationale. Buffer fills up faster, but you don't get more shots per second, just more total shots, right? How do your xD and xxD compare in that regard, by the way? Yeah, FPS remains the same until the buffer is full. My 1Ds II buffers a fair bit less than my 50D: 11 raws or 32 jpegs. Never been an issue since I don't use it for fast action stuff, but in this one area you can definitely tell it's getting a little outdated. I'd still take it over just about any DSLR though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 02:25
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:I guess it all depends (tm). I shoot a fair bit of jpeg, the reasons being not having to fuss with raw conversion, and the subject being exposed well enough and not needing the extra flexibility of a raw shot. And buffering when shooting fast can have an impact. My 50D will fill up the buffer with something like 15 raw files while it'll go seemingly endlessly when shooting in jpeg. Wouldn't this be solved by using faster cards?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 14:30
|
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:Wouldn't this be solved by using faster cards? Unless you are using particularly old, slow cards, the write times are going to be entirely controlled by the camera, not the card. Once your card is faster than the camera's write speed, the card speed no longer plays a role.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 14:47
|
|
|
Just tested it in my camera and I can do bursts of 6 anyway, so that's not a problem. I thought I was going to be limited to 1 or 2
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 14:52
|
|
|
Yesterday I went to a prison to visit someone, got there, then was told that I had to wait a half hour before I could get in. So as a photographer in a scary looking place, I did what came natural to kill the time. I took some shots then came back to wait for entry. As I was waiting, the Dept. Of Corrections Officer told me to delete the photos I took. In such a situation I'd normally tell the guy to gently caress off, however, this situation was different and I complied. So my question is, what software can I use to reclaim these photos? I use a mac but I could go into windows if I really have to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 15:31
|
|
|
They should put a "delete"  function in the menu somewhere for just such an occasion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 15:49
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Yesterday I went to a prison to visit someone, got there, then was told that I had to wait a half hour before I could get in. So as a photographer in a scary looking place, I did what came natural to kill the time. I took some shots then came back to wait for entry. As I was waiting, the Dept. Of Corrections Officer told me to delete the photos I took. In such a situation I'd normally tell the guy to gently caress off, however, this situation was different and I complied. The various card manufacturers make recovery software. Just plug in the name of your card and recovery software in google, you should be good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 16:04
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Yesterday I went to a prison to visit someone, got there, then was told that I had to wait a half hour before I could get in. So as a photographer in a scary looking place, I did what came natural to kill the time. I took some shots then came back to wait for entry. As I was waiting, the Dept. Of Corrections Officer told me to delete the photos I took. In such a situation I'd normally tell the guy to gently caress off, however, this situation was different and I complied. Did you take more pictures on that card later on? If you did, chances are you may have overwritten some of them. If not, a recovery program should be able to get them all back for you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 16:22
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:I guess it all depends (tm). I shoot a fair bit of jpeg, the reasons being not having to fuss with raw conversion, and the subject being exposed well enough and not needing the extra flexibility of a raw shot. And buffering when shooting fast can have an impact. My 50D will fill up the buffer with something like 15 raw files while it'll go seemingly endlessly when shooting in jpeg. This is the right answer in my opinion. RAW is not always better, one of those cases is when you could be missing shots when your card fills up due to your format choice. Sometimes it seems like certain people would rather not take the shot than take it in JPG.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 17:24
|
|
|
Radbot posted:This is the right answer in my opinion. RAW is not always better, one of those cases is when you could be missing shots when your card fills up due to your format choice. Sometimes it seems like certain people would rather not take the shot than take it in JPG. Sort of. I use small jpg when shooting hundreds of pictures to make a time lapse. But in that case, no individual shot has to be particularly high quality. I avoid jpg for other shooting because a) I have never, never, in a normal situation run out of space on an 8 gig card, shooting raw, and b) having more control is almost never bad. If it were necessary for me to get through processing hundreds of shots for a professional reason, I'd still rather batch process raw files than depend on jpg in camera work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 17:33
|
|
|
I think it's entirely dependant on the person. If it came down to shooting in JPG or not taking the shot, that's a no brainer, but storage prices are so reasonable at the moment that there's no reason someone should have to make that decision. My two cards give me a total of approximately 800 shots, and for ~$60CDN I can double that to 1600 shots. I literally think I'd run out of spare batteries before I'd run out of storage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 17:34
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Sort of. I use small jpg when shooting hundreds of pictures to make a time lapse. But in that case, no individual shot has to be particularly high quality. I avoid jpg for other shooting because a) I have never, never, in a normal situation run out of space on an 8 gig card, shooting raw, and b) having more control is almost never bad. If it were necessary for me to get through processing hundreds of shots for a professional reason, I'd still rather batch process raw files than depend on jpg in camera work. Did you read my post? RAW may be a good choice, but not if you're going to miss shots because of it. The post I was referencing was about a guy taking a 6GB card for a 5 day trip. I don't know about you but I'd fill that up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 17:36
|
|
|
Hm. Skimmed that part of the post. That's tough, I'd probably be shooting JPEG too, but more likely I'd just go to the store and pick up another card. That's just me though, and obviously some people won't want to spend the money just for a one time trip.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 17:39
|
|
|
If I were going on a trip, I'd feel compelled to shoot in RAW even moreso than usual. Memory cards are pretty cheap -- my vote would be to simply pick up another one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 17:45
|
|
|
Sack it, just picked up another 4GB card. So now I have 10GB total. Should be enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 18:07
|
|
|
A5H posted:Sack it, just picked up another 4GB card. If need be you can always switch to jpeg if you feel your running low on space. Somehow I've ended up with 32gb's worth of SD cards, why in the world I would ever need that much I have no idea, can never be to careful though I suppose.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 18:15
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Did you read my post? RAW may be a good choice, but not if you're going to miss shots because of it. The post I was referencing was about a guy taking a 6GB card for a 5 day trip. I don't know about you but I'd fill that up. Yes, I did. As you said, and as I agreed, IF, and it's a big if, you are going to miss shots, then you should either shoot raw or get more card. I'd go with get more card, though, as did the OP here. Oh, and I routinely take one 8 gig card on 4 day trips without issue. A 6 gig card would give me 328 shots, which is more than 60 per day. I think I'd wait until I was under 100 shots left, then switch to jpg.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 18:30
|
|
|
nowadays for longer trips I just grab my laptop and a 320 gb usb external drive for redundant copies. Storage is getting cheap and I regret buying a sandisk extreme IV when I could have bought a extreme III for double the capacity. But then, if I go to the wilderness for a week, a laptop won't help so much at all. Not like I would go on long camping trips nowadays... Or dare to carry my DSLR. Point and shoot, with spare AA batteries sounds like the better option.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2009 19:50
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:Somehow I've ended up with 32gb's worth of SD cards, why in the world I would ever need that much I have no idea, can never be to careful though I suppose. I have to stop myself from being drawn to the memory card display cabinet when I am out shopping. I have more than enough memory for my uses- even ignoring that I carry a laptop with my on serious trips, but I just cannot resist those shiny little cards. and of course, the prices today are half what they were last year (per Gb) and will half again next year. It's just so tempting!
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 02:50
|
|
|
Just stock up when sandisk's rebates roll around. They always have some ridiculous prices during the rebate periods eg. extreme iii 16gb for 30~ dollar each.
DaNzA fucked around with this message at 10:02 on Aug 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 09:56
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:Just stock up when sandisk's rebates roll around. They always have some ridiculous prices during the rebate periods eg. extreme iii 16gb for 30~ dollar each. When does that happen?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 17:49
|
|
|
drat, I paid £15 for a 4GB and thought that was good!
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 17:51
|
|
|
Happened sometime around this time last year (I think) but who knows when it will happen again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 20:33
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:Just stock up when sandisk's rebates roll around. They always have some ridiculous prices during the rebate periods eg. extreme iii 16gb for 30~ dollar each. you're in luck b/c there's one going on now. I'm picking one up soon. http://www.adorama.com/IDSSD8GE3.html 8GB ExtremeIII for $37.95 w/ free shipping.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 20:41
|
|
|
So I've just ordered quite a few prints at various sizes (8x10, 8x12, 11x14, etc) and I am interested in finding a relatively cheap way of ordering some basic, decent frames that aren't complete poo poo. I don't like to have a lot of decor on my frames. Mostly just a wooden black frame maybe with a neutral mat. Any recommendations on a good place to order these online?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 22:00
|
|
|
Hop Pocket posted:So I've just ordered quite a few prints at various sizes (8x10, 8x12, 11x14, etc) and I am interested in finding a relatively cheap way of ordering some basic, decent frames that aren't complete poo poo. I don't like to have a lot of decor on my frames. Mostly just a wooden black frame maybe with a neutral mat. Any recommendations on a good place to order these online? Not sure what shipping would be like on frames, you may want to check out any art stores you have locally. I have one that is like an art supply store that has decent basic frames for a reasonable price.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 22:02
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:Not sure what shipping would be like on frames, you may want to check out any art stores you have locally. I have one that is like an art supply store that has decent basic frames for a reasonable price. Good point, hadn't thought about shipping. I've bought some frames from stores like Michael's and Sam Flax with some success. Probably will head back out that way when the prints arrive. To be honest, I didn't know that ordering large prints was so expensive until I started doing it. When I bought my camera, I thought, "Man, that's pricey!" When I started buying lenses, I thought, "Ah, the real cost of photography" And now that I"m starting to print things, I'm seeing how expensive this awesome hobby can get
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 22:05
|
|
|
Hop Pocket posted:So I've just ordered quite a few prints at various sizes (8x10, 8x12, 11x14, etc) and I am interested in finding a relatively cheap way of ordering some basic, decent frames that aren't complete poo poo. I don't like to have a lot of decor on my frames. Mostly just a wooden black frame maybe with a neutral mat. Any recommendations on a good place to order these online? Don't just stick a photo in a frame. Get it matted and mounted. You might not know the difference now, but go to a gallery and have a look at correctly presented prints. Well worth it for photos you care about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 22:08
|
|
|
Hop Pocket posted:So I've just ordered quite a few prints at various sizes (8x10, 8x12, 11x14, etc) and I am interested in finding a relatively cheap way of ordering some basic, decent frames that aren't complete poo poo. I don't like to have a lot of decor on my frames. Mostly just a wooden black frame maybe with a neutral mat. Any recommendations on a good place to order these online? americanframe.com
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 22:08
|
|
|
^^^ thanks, too.TokenBrit posted:Don't just stick a photo in a frame. I'm trying to keep costs down, really. I appreciate what you're saying, but the most I've done so far is to buy a pre-cut mat (a double mat if I'm feeling crazy) and put it into a frame myself. I do have a couple, though, that I really really like. Perhaps I"ll go that route for those select few. Thanks. Edit -- American Frame is really nice and seems to have pretty decent prices. I like that you can upload your own images in order to get the right fit of frame, mats, etc. Hop Pocket fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Aug 24, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 22:11
|
|
|
TokenBrit posted:Don't just stick a photo in a frame. What is this process exactly?
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 09:56 |
|
|
Just a heads up... If you haven't used Kodak's Endura Metallic paper yet, you need to try it. I think Adorama, MPix.com, and a few other people regularly print from it. It looks amazing, and although I don't think it would work with certain types of prints, it looks great with dramatic black and white images and contrasty, vivid color ones.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2009 22:24
|
|