|
americanframe.com seems to be a popular choice for all things custom when it comes to framing.
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 11:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 13:02 |
|
|
Recommendations for noise-reduction software for Mac that will let me just dump a batch in and hit go?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 20:14
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Recommendations for noise-reduction software for Mac that will let me just dump a batch in and hit go? Photoshop + Noise Ninja should allow batch, if that's an option for you: http://picturecode.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page#How_do_I_batch_process_in_the_Photoshop_Plug-In.3F I'm actually going more TOWARDS noisy photos, but when I tried the trial version it seemed to work pretty well on my XT's noise, watermarking aside.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 20:25
|
|
|
I think I would buy noiseninja if it didn't force me to create a new TIFF for each image I wanted it to work on. I'd love it if it would, instead, work non-destructively on the photo the same way the native Lightroom adjustments do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 21:11
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Ha, I've finally made it, I have arrived: One of my favorite things to do is to mix in pictures on my point and shoot so I can tell them, "nah it's just a 4 year old 5 megapixel piece of poo poo"
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 22:37
|
|
|
Hi guys. A few days ago, I rented a 70-200 2.8 IS and a 1.4x teleconverter for my Rebel XT to take photos at a Cubs game, the first time I ever rented a lens. I took about 700 photos, and put the best 70 on facebook. Some of them came out really nicely. Today, a friend of a friend got in touch with me, telling me she really liked the photos, and was wondering if I would be willing to photograph a charity 5k this weekend with about 500 runners. I'm happy to do it for a friend and a good cause, so I'm not interested in making any money on it. I'd feel weird anyway, as I've never taken any photos "professionally" (but have been fairly active as a hobbyist, feel as though I have reasonable control over my camera, etc.) However, I've never ever been to a race before, and I really am not sure what lens(es?) would be most appropriate. I'm thinking I'm gonna tell her I'll do it, if she can get the organization to cover a rental fee for whatever lens is most appropriate. Can anyone give me any advice on what I should be looking for? Do I need a lot of reach, or would a wide angle be best? I only own the 18-55 IS kit lens (the decent one that comes with the newer Canons, not the one that originally came with the XT) and the 50 1.8 (plus a 430ex ii flash, which is a recent purchase I'm still figuring out). I don't really want to mess around with primes, and I'd rather keep lens switching to a minimum. This is what would be available for me to rent: EF 16-35mm f2.8L USM II EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM EF 17-40mm f4L USM EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM EF 24-105mm f/4 Race conditions should be early morning and sunny. What would you guys choose? What kinds of shots work best for these kinds of events (keeping in mind that this is more aimed at just generating event photos, not trying to sell photos to the runners or anything). Any other tips?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2009 22:37
|
|
|
VermiciousKnid84 posted:Can anyone give me any advice on what I should be looking for? Do I need a lot of reach, or would a wide angle be best? You'll want a wide angle for the race start, which for a charity 5k is probably going to be pretty drat huge. As for the race itself, I don't know how big of a lens you'd need as you can generally get very close to the runners. The problem is that once the runners pass you, you need to get to the next spot as fast as possible. Scout out the course and learn where they'll be. If it's on a track, or involves laps, you're in luck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 01:25
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Recommendations for noise-reduction software for Mac that will let me just dump a batch in and hit go? I'm a big fan of Nik dfine which I use with Aperture. You can tweak the settings on each photo fairly quickly if you want, or if you prefer, it will do batch editing with a single click. I don't use it anymore, but I assume it's the same for Lightroom. They have a whole suite of plugins, and all of the ones I've used so far are of high quality. The plugins cost $80 and up on their own, however you can get the whole set for $300, which is a steal. The main ones I use are Color Efx, Silver Efx, and Sharpener. Color is a set of stylized filters (mimic film types, soft focus, and other PP techniques). Silver is for black and white conversions. Basically you send a photo to it and scroll through the presets until you get close to the image you want. After that there are TONS of options and sliders that allow you to tweak the image just the way you want. You can also make your own filters if you want to. Now these may sound like they're made for newbies, but I assure you they're not and there are several compelling reasons why a professional should get the pack. First off, these programs allow you to process photos much faster than going into Photoshop. Secondly, even though it's faster, the results you get out are as good as, if not better than what you can do by hand in PS. There is no sacrifice in quality for speed. Finally, even if you are very adept in photoshop, it helps a lot to scroll through the list and see what the filter will do with out having to do any work. I might have an image I want to convert to black and white and I'll have an idea in my head of what I'd want it to look like. If I send it through Silver Efx, I might see a better look for that photo that I wouldn't have thought of in my head. I now do all my black and white in Silver Efx and I often get complements on my conversions. Same with Color Efx; I'm able to see what works and what doesn't very quickly. /fanboy off
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 03:25
|
|
|
The Wensey posted:You'll want a wide angle for the race start, which for a charity 5k is probably going to be pretty drat huge. As for the race itself, I don't know how big of a lens you'd need as you can generally get very close to the runners. The problem is that once the runners pass you, you need to get to the next spot as fast as possible. Scout out the course and learn where they'll be. Thanks for the advice. I'm pretty sure it's on a track, so that will be going in my favor. I'm gonna experiment on Saturday morning with using a fill flash, just in case the sun is behind runners at the finish line. The organizer said I'll be able to get really close (basically standing right next to the track), so I'm gonna try to rent the EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM this afternoon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2009 17:28
|
|
|
Here's one that ought to be an easy question: if I open up a raw file in photoshop (i.e. I'm working in lightroom and choose "edit in Photoshop"), how do I save that resulting file as a jpg? If you just hit save it saves it as a tiff, fine. But doing a ctrl+shift+s only gives me the following options. I figured I could save as one of these (psd, png) then go back and open, save as a jpg, but they won't let me, it'll only ever give me these options. I can do a save-for-web, but it takes loving forever, like 30 seconds just to open the dialog.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 06:43
|
|
|
You're in 16-bit mode, convert to 8-bit (Image->Mode) then save it. edit: that's like the #1 "So while you're here, I have this question..." I get asked when I digital tech. Seriously. brad industry fucked around with this message at 06:48 on Sep 15, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 06:46
|
|
|
I always feel like an idiot when I forget to convert to 8 bit before trying to save a jpg. I blame it on Lightroom taking over 90% of my work flow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 11:50
|
|
|
I also really wish there were something on par as far as artifacts go with a qual 10-12 jpeg but 16-bit and commonly supported. I have some really unevenly exposed images that I don't want to be forced to store as loss-lessly compressed TIFFs 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 12:09
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks.8th-samurai posted:I always feel like an idiot when I forget to convert to 8 bit before trying to save a jpg. I blame it on Lightroom taking over 90% of my work flow. Speaking of Lightroom, can anybody recommend any good books on it? I feel like I know how to use about 3% of it, I'd like to really dig into it and start using it like it's meant to be used.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 15:14
|
|
|
Not a book, but I got the Luminous Landscapes videos for LR2 when I first bought it and they're pretty nice. The 2 overly polite old geezers can be annoying sometimes, but they talk sense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 15:25
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Not a book, but I got the Luminous Landscapes videos for LR2 when I first bought it and they're pretty nice. The 2 overly polite old geezers can be annoying sometimes, but they talk sense. By the way, the next time someone asks for magazine recommendations, I'm throwing out Rangefinder. I've only received one issue (I think it was a free subscription) but this is the first photography magazine I've ever read that's actually useful and not just full of glowing equipment reviews (always, coincidentally, in issues where said equipment is advertised heavily). It's not so much a how-to so much as a how-to-do-business, but it's a great read.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2009 17:03
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Ha, I've finally made it, I have arrived: Great cameras take great photos. Just like how guns kill people, and forks make people fat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2009 00:43
|
|
|
Can any of you seasoned veterans give tips on how to develop a "photographer's eye"? I've been shooting for about a month, and I'm continually surprised by how many of my good ideas end up making terrible pictures. I'm attributing alot of it to the difference between what my eye sees and what the camera actually records.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 00:48
|
|
|
thumbsmcgraw posted:Can any of you seasoned veterans give tips on how to develop a "photographer's eye"? I've been shooting for about a month, and I'm continually surprised by how many of my good ideas end up making terrible pictures. I'm attributing alot of it to the difference between what my eye sees and what the camera actually records. Pay attention to the things in the picture *other* than the subject, for one. Not having seen any of your work I can't really say whether this is a problem, but it's something I frequently see plaguing new shooters. They tend to focus too much on the subject they have in mind, and fail to notice unappealing/distracting elements in the image that end up ruining it. E.g. nice shot of a cute girl but oops, there's a big plastic "Waste Pro" garbage bin to the left of and behind her. Also, a lot of people try and fail to convey something they think is grand. For instance, you might be out walking in the woods and get overwhelmed by all the large trees, the feeling of being so small in nature, yada yada... so you take a nice wide angle picture. You end up with a picture of a bunch of tree branches and ground littered with debris. Yay. Take some of your shots and look at them carefully. What were you TRYING to convey in them? How did you fail to? Did the light on a person's face not come out like you thought? Is the person not as "living" in the image as you hoped for? That sort of thing. And post and ask for honest critique, we have threads for that here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 00:58
|
|
|
Forest photos are really tough. I've taken tons of forest photos and rarely been happy with any of them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 01:13
|
|
|
Does anyone know where I can find the other egg polaroid still lifes Andy Warhol made? The only one I can find on the internet is the one below, but I'm sure I saw others in this book I gave away... The photos I'm looking for are just some eggs on black, no egg carton. I may be mistaken and they don't exist...
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 03:32
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Pay attention to the things in the picture *other* than the subject, for one. Not having seen any of your work I can't really say whether this is a problem, but it's something I frequently see plaguing new shooters. They tend to focus too much on the subject they have in mind, and fail to notice unappealing/distracting elements in the image that end up ruining it. E.g. nice shot of a cute girl but oops, there's a big plastic "Waste Pro" garbage bin to the left of and behind her. These are all good points, and I'll keep them in the back of my head, but I was referring more to the difference between the way our eyes work as compared to the camera. My biggest failures seem to come in the form of complex scenes that have alot going on in terms of color, texture, and lighting. While it's visually pleasing to my eye, trying to capture it somehow destroys the interesting contrasts and leaves you with a big mess of blah. Your example of the woods is perfect. Maybe this is because your eye can continually move around and adjust focus and light level on the fly, but when you take a picture, you've assumed one setting for the whole scene. Anyways, that's the best explanation I can think of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 04:06
|
|
|
No film or sensor will ever be as sensitive in dynamic range as the human eye. The camera in its simplest form is a dark box with a shutter that goes up when it's told and quantity of light is filtered in through a lens via aperture and the amount of time that shutter is open. Color and texture are easier to get- lighting takes time. Post something so we can see.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 04:20
|
|
|
thumbsmcgraw posted:These are all good points, and I'll keep them in the back of my head, but I was referring more to the difference between the way our eyes work as compared to the camera. The eye, or rather the way the eye communicates with the brain, is very different than the way a camera does it. The human eye can perceive some crazy range of "exposure", like 20 stops or something, all at once; in addition to being able to see at all in very very bright/dark scenes. When I photograph complexly lit scenes like sunsets, I always wish my camera could just see what I could- I can see all the detail in the sky as well as the foreground, but a camera just can't do that sort of thing. It's a limited device, an imperfect tool that works differently than your eyes do. This is one of those things that really can't be taught past a certain extent, you just have to keep shooting to the point where you'll subconsciously know how a picture will turn out before you hit the shutter. e;fb
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 04:24
|
|
|
Therein lies the beauty of photography- sure someone can pick up a camera, point it and hit the shutter button but to get truly magnificent shots you have to know what you're doing (or have a really drat good computer inside that little box, or luck, or both).
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 04:40
|
|
|
I think a point to think about is that while a complex scene may be more pleasing to our eye, finding a way to simplify it is often a good way to make a more appealing photograph.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 16:53
|
|
|
I would consider some of these limitations being listed of cameras as an advantage. The ability to isolate a single view point, limiting the areas of focus to a specific plane, and using crushed shadows or blown highlights to eliminate irrelevant details or lend a sense of mystery and the unknown are all tremendously useful features. I agree that the most common feature that marks photos as amateur is a disregard for what is going on in the background and how it composes with the main subject. It's kind of an issue of really looking at what is in the view finder, not what you understand the scene to be. The disconnect is less between your eye and the camera than the difference between what is seen vs the sense of space and place and emotion that your mind has constructed. That sense of awe you get in the forest can be as tied as much to the smell as what it looks like. And the sound of an old dense forest is an amazing thing. Don't expect an experience from those two senses to be recreated by an image. Ed: I spell gud.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 19:16
|
|
|
There are times when a photograph can evoke some physical responses- vertigo is a common one; sometimes people can hear the environment; smell it; even taste it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 19:48
|
|
|
I think the best way to get better as a photographer is shoot more (obviously) but then post your pics and get critiques. Also looking at a ton of other peoples pictures and thinking about why you like them and reading other peoples' critiques and why they like or dislike those shots really helps me be more creative and get stuff I'm happier with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 20:04
|
|
|
germskr posted:There are times when a photograph can evoke some physical responses- vertigo is a common one; sometimes people can hear the environment; smell it; even taste it. I definitely agree that a photograph can trigger a physical response, but from the photographer's perspective, you have to recognize the only tool available to provoke that response is the image. Vertigo is a good example. Many images of the Grand Canyon, while they can achieve awe inspiring or beautiful, don't instill a sense of vertigo. The times I have visited the Grand Canyon, I am extremely aware of hanging on the edge of something quite vast. A slight gust of wind or a small shift in balance can be a very scary experience. To get that effect in a viewer of your photograph, you can't use a gust of wind. Perhaps you need to compose the close Canyon edge in the frame, or use a subject in an unbalanced pose. Maybe recognize some converging lines of strata that conflict with their more level layered surroundings. I'm not saying a photographer can't achieve some feeling or emotion beyond visual. Just when you are in the moment of taking a photo where you are experiencing an emotion, recognize what senses and what mental state are contributing to it. Sometimes you have to reverse engineer things, and compose a photo differently to convey the feeling you are really getting from one of your other senses or simply from your mind's extremely subjective interpretation of the scene.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 21:14
|
|
|
spf3million posted:Also looking at a ton of other peoples pictures and thinking about why you like them and reading other peoples' critiques and why they like or dislike those shots really helps me be more creative and get stuff I'm happier with. This is really important. Once I (and anyone new to photography) has learnt the basics the only logical next step is to shoot more and look at more. Looking at more has helped me immensely, not just in learning what makes a good and interesting photograph but the ideas and thoughts behind it. A big inspiration is James Nachtwey, and although I will never shoot in the places he does or get to photograph the people he does it makes you think alot more about your own goals and what the point of you picking up a camera is, and this really helps in driving creativity, at least for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2009 23:40
|
|
|
The first thing everyone should learn about photography is that the camera sees differently than your eye. Operating a camera is literally the easiest loving thing in the world. The mechanics of photography are not rocket science, I learned to shoot on a AE-1 when I was 5. Once you get past that it's just ideas and execution. I think probably one of the most important things to being a photographer seriously is just constantly exposing yourself to all kinds of images, especially work you don't "get" or work that is challenging. Reading theory and criticism is probably just as important, just so that you can think about images in an intelligent way and articulate your thoughts better which is key to executing your own idea. But yeah, all you need to know about photography: Make images, think about them, look at images, think about them, then go make more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2009 00:54
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:A big inspiration is James Nachtwey, and although I will never shoot in the places he does or get to photograph the people he does it makes you think alot more about your own goals and what the point of you picking up a camera is, and this really helps in driving creativity, at least for me. I highly recommend the documentary, War Photographer. They mount a little super wide angle video camera on Nachtwey's SLR, with his finger on the shutter in the frame. You get an amazing look at him working / framing / and when he fires. There is also a brief bit of him approving prints for an exhibition showing just how demanding he is with his photos all the way through. Ed: But I see you've already posted the youtube link to War Photographer in the documentary/photojournalism thread. Carefree Koala fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Sep 19, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2009 05:11
|
|
|
Over the weekend I went to a night club with some buddies for a bachelor party. I had my SB-600 mounted on the camera and AF assist was on and working great. Then the club really dims the lights and in the darkest corners my AF assist doesn't work anymore. Does anyone know what would cause this? I changed batteries in the flash and it didn't help. I made sure that the AF setting was AF-A on my D90.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2009 17:20
|
|
|
Here's a heads up: the sun sets pretty much due west tonight giving you the opportunity to mimic Manhattanhenge in your nearest metropolitan area (assuming it is built on an N/S grid).
spf3million fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Sep 22, 2009 |
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2009 21:39
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Does anyone know what would cause this? I changed batteries in the flash and it didn't help. I made sure that the AF setting was AF-A on my D90.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 00:02
|
|
|
spf3million posted:Here's a heads up: the sun sets pretty much due west tonight  
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 01:54
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The AF LED always comes on on my 900 when using AF-A or AF-S. Does you still have that problem or was it a one time thing? not sure, haven't tried it again since sat. It was just really odd that it worked just fine, and then stopped working. I'm hoping it was just operator error.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 15:00
|
|
|
ImprovEverywhere did a photography bit that's pretty interesting. http://improveverywhere.com/2009/09/22/subway-yearbook-photos/
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 13:02 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2009 19:58
|
|