|
The Wired Raw File blog presents their photography pet peeves: http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2009/08/black-hole/
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
dunno posted:The Wired Raw File blog presents their photography pet peeves: A-loving-men. Wired is the best magazine in print.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 01:59
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:A-loving-men. Spot on. Frighteningly so
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 03:34
|
|
|
Wired is really well known for loving good photography and really making that a huge part of the magazine, which is a big part of why they are one of the few worth reading. http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2008/06/18/scott-dadich-creative-director-wired-magazine/
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 04:01
|
|
|
caberham posted: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. Speaking of this, what's an easy Windows solution to sync up folders across external HDDs? Is there any way to get Lightroom 2 to do this? I would love to have an automatic redundant copy made every time I make changes to my photo folders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 04:16
|
|
|
FidgetWidget posted:Speaking of this, what's an easy Windows solution to sync up folders across external HDDs? Is there any way to get Lightroom 2 to do this? I would love to have an automatic redundant copy made every time I make changes to my photo folders. I use Syncback. You'll have to run the job rather than have it do it automatically (I actually prefer it to be manual -it feels safer) Does the job very well, I find
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 04:43
|
|
|
Synctoy 2.0 is also pretty handy. http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/details.aspx?familyid=C26EFA36-98E0-4EE9-A7C5-98D0592D8C52&displaylang=en
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 14:21
|
|
|
Unfortunately, lightroom is not so great to handle multiple copies and different catalogs. Importing files from a network only imports the location instead of making a new copy. I'm using an econo Lenovo G430a / win7 so performance is not as ideal. I use the open source FreeFileSync. It's a bit simple to use with a GUI. You first compare 2 directories. Then you choose which action to do, update, mirror, two-way, and customize. Unfortunately, you can only compare 2 places at a time. I wish there was something freeware like conduit for windows. Manual updating is "safe" by being certain, but it can get tedious. Would appreciate if someone has better options, I checked the sh/sc thread and found 1 or 2 pages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 18:50
|
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:A-loving-men. There's some debate to be had about the writing and editorial arc over the past decade, but the photography, layout and type design in that magazine has been really top-notch over the past 3 years or so, especially when you consider that its a mass-market magazine with a target audience that is supposedly arts-averse technophiles. dunno fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Aug 25, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2009 21:54
|
|
|
So I recently came across a hysterically awful camera at a garage sale, the Anny-35 Super De Luxe. With such incredible features as:
Fake selenium cells "Utacar" brand lens A wide range of apertures, from "Sunny" to "Cloudy" Super AND De Luxe!
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2009 05:14
|
|
|
The Wensey posted:I feel like popping in a roll of film just for fun, is this a terrible idea? Nope. Use a nice, robust film like Tri-X and you should be good to go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2009 05:19
|
|
|
I'm just concerned about the lack of control... The only other film camera I've used is a Nikon F60, which had autofocus and an auto mode. If I just set the aperture slider to "Sunny" (it's about 100 degrees out right now) and go for it, is it... going to work? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2009 05:24
|
|
|
The Wensey posted:If I just set the aperture slider to "Sunny" (it's about 100 degrees out right now) and go for it, is it... going to work? No. It will generate a giant vortex that will devour the earth and all humanity, but hey, I've lived a good life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2009 05:29
|
|
|
Just throw some 200 or 400 speed colour film in that and go hog wild. C-41 films are unbelivably forgiving of overexposure at least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2009 07:38
|
|
|
The Wensey posted:So I recently came across a hysterically awful camera at a garage sale, the Anny-35 Super De Luxe. Is this camera like the holga or LOMO?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2009 08:01
|
|
|
caberham posted:Is this camera like the holga In that it's a terrible piece of poo poo, yes. I'd buy one and use it ironically if I saw it for a buck or two at a yard sale/thrift store. Edit: the fake selenium cell really brings the camera together for me. It's so ugly, and so needless. They just wanted it to fit in with all the cool cameras of the day  Edit 2: I had my film camera die on a trip, and still had my one roll of Velvia saved up. I didn't want it to go to "waste" so I picked up some plastic camera with a wide-ish angle lens for $5 at a thrift store, loaded up the Velvia, and cross-processed it when I was done. I got a few (I think) interesting pictures out of it. I don't think all but one or two came out really badly exposed.   (there's another decent one of the Golden Gate Bridge but I don't have it scanned apparently) Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Aug 28, 2009 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2009 14:22
|
|
|
As regards photography books, what's the general concensus on Tom Ang's work?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2009 14:44
|
|
|
dunno posted:Just throw some 200 or 400 speed colour film in that and go hog wild. C-41 films are unbelivably forgiving of overexposure at least. I could only get 100 from my school (haven't payed the lab fee quite yet so it's not my place to argue), and the combination of a very bright, yet partly cloudy day probably led to a complete clusterfuck of exposure. I'll post the results when I get it developed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 02:49
|
|
|
This is a very basic question, but I'm a beginner so have patience please.jhoc posted:Well sunsets will almost always require two exposures, one for the sky and one for the foreground. That photo was 3 shots I believe. One for the sky and a dark and light foreground exposure. Instead of dodging and burning I layered a lighter foreground on the dark one and just masked it in where the photo needed to be brightened up. Aside from that just some sharpening and some cloning and desaturating to get rid of the lens flares. This guy talks about two exposures. I'm not really sure what that means, but I've read about multiple exposures in the guide to HDR photography. From what I've understood, and this is probably wrong, he means taking two separate photos - one with settings to accentuate the sky and another to show the landscape properly. Then you use magic to join the two pics in photoshop, right? How is this done practically? EDIT: The photographing part
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 10:42
|
|
|
8-Bit Dracula posted:How is this done practically? It requires a tripod (unless you're Ken Rockwell), and some ways are better than others. If you can, bracket the exposures. You might not know what bracketing is but I'm fairly certain any dSLR has the option. It will allow you to take a shot at 3 different exposures one after another. So you could do -2, 0, +2 for example. This is nice because you won't have to touch the camera to make adjustments between shots. You should also shoot this with a cable release, IR remote, or if all else fails set the camera timer and take your hand off the camera. In an imperfect world, like it tends to be, bracketing might not work because evenly changing the exposure across the three pictures might not be ideal. Unless your goal is poo poo HDR in which case -2, 0, +2 is perfect! However, you can't bracket be extremely cautious when you touch the camera, even on the tripod, because the slightest movement can be irritating to deal with when it comes to editing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 14:26
|
|
|
benisntfunny posted:It requires a tripod (unless you're Ken Rockwell), and some ways are better than others. Great, great answer. Thank you. This is what I thought but you've covered my every question. In fact I borrowed a tripod from a friend today and read the manual for my camera, figuring out how to bracket. If I have the time I can hopefully try this out tonight. Again, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 16:29
|
|
|
On my xsi, if you set it to 2 second delay while AEB is on, it'll automatically take all 3 back to back to back. If you just have it on continuous shooting, you'll have to click the shutter 3 times manually which of course could cause shaking issues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 17:26
|
|
|
Anyone got tips on photographing fireflies? I went out tonight to try out my newly purchased cable release, wanting to do some long exposure shots. Then I noticed that there were quite a few fireflies around so I tried to photograph them but failed miserably. I had a 400D, Tokina 11-16 f2.8 and a tripod with me. The fireflies where just too small and did not emit enough light. After some quick reading on Google I will bring the 50 f1.8 tomorrow night and try a long exposure wide open.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 17:51
|
|
|
Ringo R posted:Anyone got tips on photographing fireflies? I went out tonight to try out my newly purchased cable release, wanting to do some long exposure shots. Then I noticed that there were quite a few fireflies around so I tried to photograph them but failed miserably. I had a 400D, Tokina 11-16 f2.8 and a tripod with me. The fireflies where just too small and did not emit enough light. After some quick reading on Google I will bring the 50 f1.8 tomorrow night and try a long exposure wide open. You're going about it the wrong way. You want to use long exposure on dim things that emit light constantly. (I.E. Stars). Try exposing at around 1 second or so. Fireflies don't emit light long enough that they would even really be picked up beyond that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 18:20
|
|
|
Toupee posted:You want to use long exposure on dim things that emit light constantly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2009 22:53
|
|
|
What's the tradeoff (I'm assuming there is one) of using higher ISO values in your pictures? I've been trying to get faster shutter speeds by upping the ISO to compensate for a lack of tripod in certain shots, and I'm wondering if I handicapped my image quality in any way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 05:55
|
|
|
thumbsmcgraw posted:What's the tradeoff (I'm assuming there is one) of using higher ISO values in your pictures? I've been trying to get faster shutter speeds by upping the ISO to compensate for a lack of tripod in certain shots, and I'm wondering if I handicapped my image quality in any way. Higher ISO has more noise/grain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 06:14
|
|
|
thumbsmcgraw posted:What's the tradeoff (I'm assuming there is one) of using higher ISO values in your pictures? I've been trying to get faster shutter speeds by upping the ISO to compensate for a lack of tripod in certain shots, and I'm wondering if I handicapped my image quality in any way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 06:15
|
|
|
thumbsmcgraw posted:What's the tradeoff (I'm assuming there is one) of using higher ISO values in your pictures? I've been trying to get faster shutter speeds by upping the ISO to compensate for a lack of tripod in certain shots, and I'm wondering if I handicapped my image quality in any way. Read this, it's got some good pictures too: http://digital-photography-school.com/photography-1017-iso
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 07:17
|
|
|
thumbsmcgraw posted:What's the tradeoff (I'm assuming there is one) of using higher ISO values in your pictures? I've been trying to get faster shutter speeds by upping the ISO to compensate for a lack of tripod in certain shots, and I'm wondering if I handicapped my image quality in any way. Others have answered already, but this will also depend a bit on what camera you use as well. I love my Olympus E-410 but if there's a complaint to have, it's the high ISO performance. 800 is a pain and 1600 lands in "don't even bother" territory. EDIT: That said, there are areas where people will expect to see noise. Indoor shots, sports under bad lighting (i.e. hockey  ), darker shots... It will annoy you probably as much as it does me, but sharp and noisy is always better than a blur with a lack of noise.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2009 20:18
|
|
|
Thanks guys. I had a feeling that's what was going on. It's good to understand the why.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2009 01:04
|
|
|
Ha, I've finally made it, I have arrived:Some random coworker posted:Wow, your photos are beautiful - you must have a great camera. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2009 23:34
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Ha, I've finally made it, I have arrived: I got that for the first time a month ago. She: "Wow, your camera takes really great pictures!". Me: "thanks".
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 00:44
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Ha, I've finally made it, I have arrived: I got that last week too!  Even though I thought the pics turned out pretty badly and deleted them off flickr. I put nearly everything on flickr, so that's saying something 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 01:59
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Ha, I've finally made it, I have arrived: Jeez, it took that long for your friends to say it? drat, I get it a lot (the parents of other children in my son's daycare, mostly). My favorite was after shooting a reception where my pictures were widely preferred over the professional's wedding shots (two separate events, so we never overlapped), the "compliment" I got most was just that. Fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 02:04
|
|
|
jackpot posted:
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 08:11
|
|
|
If you haven't seen https://www.whattheduck.net its the worlds niche-iest webcomic. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 14:20
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:If you haven't seen https://www.whattheduck.net its the worlds niche-iest webcomic. I am going through the archive, and I love it. Thanks for this, adding it to my daily webcomic folder.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2009 15:15
|
|
|
I have a photo I'd like to get printed that is oddly sized. I'm thinking I may print it at 33 inches wide by 12 inches tall. Printing isn't the issue, but I want to frame it. There are places where I can purchase custom frames, but what about the glass? That seems like it might be more difficult. That and the matte board. Anyone have experience with this process that may know of a good web site to go through?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 22:27 |
|
|
Todd Flanders posted:I have a photo I'd like to get printed that is oddly sized. I'm thinking I may print it at 33 inches wide by 12 inches tall. Printing isn't the issue, but I want to frame it. There are places where I can purchase custom frames, but what about the glass? That seems like it might be more difficult. That and the matte board. Anyone have experience with this process that may know of a good web site to go through? If you have a Hobby Lobby in town, they can cut glass to any dimension you like for under $10.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 02:10
|
|
