|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Saw this last night: It looks cool, but honestly it seems like an LF camera would deliver pretty similar results and be less time consuming.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2009 01:52
|
|
|
HPL posted:Shoot film. It's the easiest way to get good B&W. Yeah
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2009 16:05
|
|
|
I got a 120 page book from Inkubook that has gotten a lot of positive comments, including the pro I assist for.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2009 04:19
|
|
|
Chim posted:So I've finally run into what seems to be a "banding" problem. I think it happens on every camera at high ISO, especially ones that have been underexposed and then had shadow detail pulled back in post. Converting to B&W helps a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2009 20:13
|
|
|
Tiny Fistpump posted:Yep DSLR, XSi, and just the kit lens. Look for railings and other solid objects you can set or brace the camera on, if you're not bringing a tripod.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2009 22:49
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Does the download count reset at some point? It says it has reached 10 and is not available for download. Didn't realize that about RapidShare... if anyone's got a dedicated hosting solution I'll e-mail the RAR to them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2010 23:39
|
|
|
Whitezombi posted:How big is the file? About 13 megs
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2010 23:55
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:akastevemurray at gmail I'm assuming Whitezombi is going to re-host it for everyone, so I just sent it to him. (PS also post the link in the Dorkroom General Chat thread, that's where I originally got the idea) Maybe try a university library for the other stuff? Mine has all but one of the things not in the .RAR file.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2010 03:33
|
|
|
So, monitor/computer-chat: I'm thinking about treating myself to a new computer later this year. I'm not sure whether it'll be a desktop or a laptop yet, but my budget is probably going to be around $800-1000. I've been getting by with pretty crappy screens up until now: the 12" 1280x800 LCD on my 5 year old Dell laptop, a 10" 1024x600 MSI Wind  , and now a 10", 1366x768 on my HP Mininote 2140. The latter is actually pretty nice compared to what I've been used to, side by side with the old Dell it's a lot brighter, the whites are whiter, etc. I don't do a lot of printing/pro work, although I'd like to move in that direction. Bearing that in mind, I don't need anything crazy like an Eizo, just something that produces acceptable quality at an reasonable price. A Tamron 17-50 of LCD's, if you will.As far as processing power I don't need anything too high-end. One caveat is that I'm still thinking about upgrading to a 5D2, so I'd like it to be able to handle 1080p video. Any editing would be fairly basic stuff for small personal projects, so it doesn't need to be amazingly fast. As you can kind of guess from my choices of computer up until now, I'm used to waiting  Even if I don't get a 5D2 I'd still really like to have the 1080p resolution (or at the very least 720p), as I don't own an HDTV or plan on buying one anytime soon. Plus, I just like having the desktop space to work with.Laptop-wise, I'd be looking for something around 13-15 inches. My frontrunner is the Dell Studio 15, which can be ordered with a 1920x1200 LCD (with Tru-Brite or whatever) as well as optional Blue-Ray slotloading drive. I was really happy with how well my old Inspiron held up over the years and considerable travel I put it through, and the Studio is by all accounts an even bigger step up in quality, not to mention pretty reasonably priced. I've considered Apple, but the lower resolution LCD's aren't as appealing to me, as is the lack of built-in Blu-Ray option for movies. I could always buy an external display and Blu-Ray drive, but it would add to the already higher pricetag. Are there any other brands I could be looking at? I realize a laptop LCD is a compromise for image editing, but I'm willing to make it for the sake of portability (and maybe add an IPS panel later). For desktops, I've heard good things about Apple's LCDs... looking at the costs of them it seems like buying a 24" iMac makes pretty decent sense versus a separate 24" IPS display and computer. I'm not dead set on a Mac: I use OS X at work and like it, but I've got Windows 7 on my HP and it's really not that bad either. Are there certain generations/dates to be aware when looking at the Cinema Displays/iMacs? I'd probably be looking to buy between mid-spring and late summer, if that matters as far as release cycles and that sort of thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2010 05:30
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:What's the resolution on the iMac 24? 1920x1200
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2010 16:41
|
|
|
TsarAlexi posted:My 24in iMac seems to be performing well, but it's not the newest generation-- though it's probably about the last to come off the line (bought it about a two weeks and a day before they announced the new ones...argh) Have you tried checking for the yellowing issue on it? It sounds like the problems cropped up with the latest generation of iMacs. I'd probably be buying an older one anyways. germskr posted:I'm not familiar with iMac but I do know that some of the Apple Cinema displays were having problems with calibration. They might have fixed that since then. Read up on that, jesus what a clusterfuck. Still no resolution as of yesterday, doesn't look like Apple is even acknowledging it as a widespread issue.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2010 18:56
|
|
|
HPL posted:I'm waiting to see how Apple spins it as a feature. Yeah, I almost wrote "which isn't a surprise because they never cop to screwing up" but I didn't want to start a Mac/PC gang war Haggins posted:I wouldn't worry about the issue. Even if you do get a dud you can just take it to the store and swap it out no problem. I was most likely going to buy a used one (locally would be great, although may go with eBay) so I'm assuming I won't have that option. An Apple refurb is a possibility though. From reading up, people have gone back 4 and 5 times to swap their jaundiced iMacs for new ones and each successive one has had the same issue. AIIAZNSK8ER posted:hey peoples looking for schooling. I found this http://photohistory.jeffcurto.com/ its a college class that is also a podcast for freezies. I've listened to the first three clases from Fall 09 to make sure its not terrible. I've been learning alot so far because I have zero knowledge of the history of art or photography. The professor seems to be pretty organized and is an easy listen. It feels very much like a typical survey intro course, so his jokes tend to be pretty cheesy. Thanks! This will keep me busy at work for a long time yet. Don't suppose anyone who's downloaded everything from his archive would care to make a .RAR file?  Also, lol at his feed description (at least through Google Reader) apparently being hijacked: 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2010 01:18
|
|
|
Eutheria posted:The shutter on my camera (Canon Rebel XT) has been acting up lately. Whenever I try to take a picture, it makes kind of a half shutter-click noise, 'Error 99' pops up on the LCD, and the image through the viewfinder gets dim, as if I had pressed the DOF button, and stays that way. If I remove the lens (Tamron 70-300) and put it back on again, I can hear something click back into place and everything is appears to be normal again. If I instead press the DOF button the screen stays dimmed (and gets successively darker each time I press the button) until I do the little lens trick again. Do your other lenses cause the same problem? If not, then yeah it is almost definitely the Tamron. You could also ask someone else to try the lens on their camera and see if it gets the same result.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2010 04:35
|
|
|
Eutheria posted:Yeah, that's something that I've been trying to figure out for the past week. Unfortunately, whenever I sit down and try to isolate what the cause is, the problem has the tendency to disappear; and until I can reliably replicate it, I can't fully determine whether it's actually the lens or something else. Put it on eBay, you'll probably get something for it. Personally, I sometimes trawl "parts/as-is/repair" lenses looking for something I can fix myself, and I've sold a Canon 70-200L f/4 with a cracked front element and busted focus ring for $200. Actually just picked up a Nikon 20mm f/2.8 with a wonky mount and some light coating damage tonight. Hoping to use as a tilt/shift lens and maybe on an adapter with my rangefinder 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2010 07:36
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:I've never used iPhoto, does it do at least basic photo editing - crops, contrast, exposure and so on? If so, the iPad might be perfect for vacations. Fill my card during the day, clean up the photos in the evening, use the hotel's WiFi to upload everything to Flickr overnight. Yeah, I could go for that. My HP Mini 2140 (10" netbook, 1366x768 display) is fine for that, the screen is surprisingly good. It's not a PS powerhouse or anything, but it's fine for my uses. Couple Benjamin's less than an iPad too. Even the 64GB model might get a little tight once you factor in music/movies/apps for week or longer trips.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2010 21:47
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:Sorry if I missed this, but this there a general, dorkroom recommended online/offline place to do large prints? like 11x14 to a few feet. shortrunposters.com does 18x24's for $2 a pop. There's a flat $10 shipping fee on orders, so makes sense to do multiple prints at a time. I recommend the $2 extra for gloss finish, the regular is pretty flat. They also put a logo on the back, which you can opt out of for another $2, but it hardly seems worth the extra hassle. Pleasantly surprised at the quality. edit: here's my order laid out on the floor 
Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Jan 30, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2010 02:04
|
|
|
nonanone posted:I use my left eye in the viewfinder though, despite being right handed. Me too. I just got curious and looked it up: Wikipedia article on ocular dominance.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2010 22:54
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:Ignore the megapixel count and go with the 40d. Go past eight MP or so and you're past the point of diminishing returns compared to ISO handling, AF speed, and several other forms of performance. It may not matter much for a hobbyist, but if you go to sell your photos down the line later, a number of stock agencies won't accept less than 10-12 megapixels. I've never heard anything about 8MP being a magic number either?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2010 18:26
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:I don't think that's the point. I think we'd all agree the 40D is an upgrade. Unfortunately, in a "General Photography Questions" thread, you made a broad, inaccurate statement instead of a narrowly tailored answer. This is SA, you'll get called on that every time. The 40D is usually around 600ish used, 5D still about a grand or thereabouts.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2010 16:31
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:Anyone do any microstock? worth it? Not really, look in to Getty's Flickr collection.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2010 03:51
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:I find it so hard to shoot stuff for stock, all of my stuff has people in it. You put together up to ten images and submit them, approval process is kinda random in the time it gets. They sent me an invite with 5 of my pictures a couple months after the fact, not all of which were in the ten that I submitted to them  There's some great stuff I'll never be able to sell as stock because of random people in them, but I also have a decent number of shots of friends who'd probably be fine with signing off on a model release. Wouldn't you need a release for microstock as well?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2010 13:25
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Unless you want to teach it's impossible to say either way, depends on your work and where you're at with it. I considered it, but the benefit vs. amount of debt I would have gone into wasn't worth it for what I'm doing. If I had gone in a more fine art/gallery direction rather than commercial I probably would have though. Could you expand on this a bit? I've been thinking some more formal education in photography would benefit me, but I already have two BA's (haven't studied much art outside of the photography-related reading I'm doing now though). I was looking at the BFA (photography) and MFA (visual arts) programs at a university and there were definitely some holes in my knowledge the BFA would be useful in filling, but I don't really feel like a third undergraduate degree is the way to go. OTOH, I'm concerned that my lack of a decent art background/gaps in photo knowledge would put me out of my depth in an MFA, or that I would have missed out on a good deal of practical knowledge from the BFA. I'm not super-interested in teaching (although it does have some appeal to me), I'm looking more to develop my professional skills and vocabulary, and become a more well-rounded photographer overall. These are programs overseas and tuition isn't very high; I'm also approaching the idea as a way of further developing my foreign language skills, which would be a good fallback for other work if photography didn't pan out.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2010 19:12
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:Let me just say, designing even the simplest website with no prior knowledge of html/css/flash or any coding is destroying my brain. That's why a lot of people outsource designing their websites. A bit like hiring a photographer for a job rather than teaching yourself photography What you have so far looks great though, I like it. Coincidentally I spent all afternoon going over some principles of web design type stuff, because I really need to figure out what I want from a website before I decide on whether to DIY it or hire someone to do it for me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2010 21:44
|
|
|
Bahama.Llama posted:I think this has been brought up before, but I apparently suck at searching or search doesn't search this sub-forum. Yeah, I have a Gisteq Photo Trackr. It comes with an annoying piece of software and I had to pay $20 to upgrade to the "Pro" version just so I could get .RAW support. Honestly didn't use it much, but when I did it worked. Handy for writing into the metadata, Flickr will automatically place it on the map.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2010 03:31
|
|
|
spog posted:gently caress no. Yep.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2010 13:43
|
|
|
tuyop posted:I had no idea that I could put the lens cover on with the lens hood, this just totally blew my mind. Yeah but it's kind of a PITA unless you have the nice lens caps with the pinch tabs in the middle rather than on the edge. Canon 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2010 23:17
|
|
|
jonus posted:Small enough that people won't be 'oh look he brought the loving camera again'. The correct response is: "Deal with it baby, I'm making an art  "
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2010 02:57
|
|
|
subx posted:Question about focusing for someone that wears glasses. I only wear mine for distance (near-sighted a bit, find it hard to read signs and such at distance). I can see fine without them, so I'm not wearing them "full-time." I'm in a similar situation, my vision is just barely bad enough to need them to drive, but other than that I can go without them. Without glasses it's not so much focusing incorrectly as it is not having the resolution/fine detail to get it exactly right. I lost/had my glasses stolen and switched to contacts and have had no problems since.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2010 15:58
|
|
|
subx posted:Also contacts scare me, I hate anything being near my eyes Nobody liked it, but you get used it. I tried them in high school and it was a big PITA putting them in and everything, a few years later found out I had a slight astigmatism and it was much easier (even after literally 6+ years of not using them). I mean, give it a shot; they gave me a free sample pair with my eye exam that I used for
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2010 20:29
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:So cause both of us are into photography I figured a cute/fun date idea would be to go out and do some shooting, so this girl ive just started dating and I are gonna meet up at a cafe and go from there. But so far the only idea I got is do some street photography downtown and walk around, and maybe the park but what other fun ideas could we do? Ya obviously this is less for photography and more an excuse to hang out but it'd still be cool to find somethin fun/new to do with photography. Although it's not necessary, I find a beer or two loosens me up nicely when doing street/candid photography. Edit: or hang out at the cafe and talk about megapixels for a couple hours, chicks dig that. I'm kidding on the last part.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2010 00:00
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:I took this one yesterday and converted it to black and white right away because it looked like way too much work to try and fix it in color; still needs a bit of work yet. I dunno, I'd try hitting it with auto-levels and adding some saturation and maybe a contrast tweak before I called it a day and converted to B&W. I mainly use B&W conversions when I originally shot it intending to to be a B&W composition, or for really high-ISO shots where I don't have a lot of sharpness to spare for aggressive noise reduction. edit: lol seriously I just hit "auto color" in PS and it looks fine. (waffleimages is being lovely right now or I'd post it.) Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 12:22 on May 1, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 1, 2010 12:16
|
|
|
tuyop posted:My parents are guilty white people and they go to Cuba a couple of times a year. This last time they brought a shitload of gifts, like some used laptops from 2001 that they had scrounged, video games, drug samples from a Cuban doctor here, and a bunch of other stuff that's hard to get in Cuba. You could also get a bunch of Arista B&W film in bulk rolls ($20-30 or so depending on type, each 100' gives 18-20 rolls of film), a bulk loader ($15 or so on Craigslist/eBay), and some film cannisters (cheap). If you go the DSLR route make sure to get at least 1-2 extra batteries; the original is probably pretty worn out by now.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2010 03:41
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Yeah, the Rebel XT has 95% viewfinder coverage IIRC. Sounds normal. I had a minor revelation regarding composition when I realized this. Even my 5D is 96%
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2010 04:35
|
|
|
HPL posted:Get a rangefinder. They have like 110% coverage or whatever. P-p-p-parallax 
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2010 15:40
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:What's the price range for digital rangefinders? Compared to a Leica M8 even a D700 looks affordable, let alone the savings from a crop sensor, and a >100% viewfinder would offer a unique function. Get it somewhere around/under $2,000 (halfway between a crop D90 and FF D700) it'll totally sell! You can get a used M8 for a little over $2k, but it's not really worth it IMO. RF shooters know they're a niche, and at this point are mostly hoping for a decent EVIL (electronic viewfinder, interchangeable lens - basically those mirrorless D"SLR"'s that Panasonic, Olympus, and now Sony offer) camera that they can mount their lenses on. Somebody on RFF pointed out that the new Sony E-mount is far enough recessed that you could conceivably add a an M-mount adapter with a rangefinder/cam assembly, although that'd probably be even more niche than a dRF.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 03:35
|
|
|
HPL posted:It's actually kind of mesmerizing when they squash. It's sort of like when you pour pancake batter onto the griddle. Thanks for ruining boobs for me for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2010 03:50
|
|
|
Zapf Dingbat posted:Well, I guess cleaning the sensor myself doesn't sound so bad. What should I use? Giottos Rocket Blower. Most camera stores should carry them. Also handy for de-dusting negatives and film holders, if you shoot film.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2010 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
Munkaboo posted:I know its been mentioned a lot, but I took some pretty good panda pictures in China and I wanted to sell some of them... would microstock sites be the best option? Which one would be the best and should I do RF? "Best microstock" is kind of a booby prize, you might try Getty through Flickr but even that's not a great commission rate. I'd personally rather not sell my images at all than offer them through microstock; it's a poo poo thing to do to the industry and I value my images more than their rates.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2010 02:34
|
|