|
jackpot posted:Oh, and I just noticed: I posted this last night from my home pc, I'm looking at it now on my macbook pro. That guy's shirt was white at home, now it's definitely yellow. What do you guy see? I've got a big problem if there's that big of a discrepancy between my own two computers. Yep, yellow. edit: Whoops, replied to an old copy of the thread, sorry.
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2009 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
No. 9 posted:Ugh, the best thing to do is notice before the person wins the auction. I think you can contact an eBay mod and they will remove that bid. Although I probably wouldn't ship something worth that much to a former Soviet bloc country either, I've actually shipped a lot of stuff abroad without a problem. I'm selling through a massive stockpile of old large format film that has a lot of international interest for some reason, and I've gotten great results shipping to Canada, Russia, Norway, and Poland. I was bracing for the worst but it worked out.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2009 22:01
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
notlodar posted:You also get a perspective that you mostly see with large format. Yeah, I think it's the effect of having very shallow depth of field without flattening the image like a telephoto would. At least, that what it looks like to me. edit: Yeah, notlodar's got it. It looks like a large format photo... although why you wouldn't just use a 4x5" I'm not sure.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2009 18:37
|
|
|
I know this question has probably been done to death, but maybe I can get some education on effective focal length vs. perspective. I've heard that even as effective focal length changes (say, a 24mm lens becoming a 36mm lens on a 1.5x crop body), perspective doesn't change as the only thing that changes perspective is distance to subject - but since that lens offers greater magnification on a crop body, you'd move back to maintain the same framing... doesn't that mean that, effectively, perspective does change with effective focal length? I guess what I'm getting at is... if I want a ~35mm focal length look on a 1.5x crop body, should I get a 24mm lens or a 35mm lens?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:When people say "perspective" they mean DOF and magnification for a given subject distance. You changing the FOV (by stepping back) doesn't change the properties of the lens. So when you say "35mm look" do you mean FOV or apparent DOF and magnification? The short answer is like alkanphel said buy a 24mm. Let's see if I can put this in a coherent way... you know the crazy look that a 10mm ultra-wide gives, exaggerating the distance between points in the scene? If I slapped that lens on a m4/3 camera, making effective focal length ~20mm, will I get the crazy 10mm exaggeration between points in the scene or the less extreme 20mm version? Does my question even make sense? Thanks for taking it slow for me. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2012 07:00
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Crazy exaggerating is due to close focusing on something with a wideangle. YOu could get the same perspective as a 10mm with a 20mm if you took the photo from the exact same spot but the scene would have different things in it due to FOV. Makes sense? All changing the sensor does is crop the image. Ahhh, that makes sense. Thanks a lot, alkanphel and 8th-samurai.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2012 07:08
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:This isn't true. The difference in appearance depending on focal length is called perspective distortion, and it's an artifact of the angles at which light comes through the lens, and thus the distance to the subject. Of course, if you shoot with two lenses at the same distance and then crop the resulting photos to the same field of view, you'll get the same perspective distortion. OK, I think I'm getting it - so it's distance to subject that sets perspective and thus the "look", not focal length, right? And all different focal lengths do is allow you to change that distance to subject?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
One thing I'd recommend to those stressing over aspect ratios of frames is to learn how to cut your own mats. I despise being confined to horrible boxy formats like 8x10, so I just print smaller than that in the shape I want and cut the mat to size! It's pretty easy and cheap, too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
If you had only LR5 and $200 to buy another piece of software to help improve your images, what would it be? DxO? Nik? Old copy of Photoshop?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
I have to admit that I'm a sucker for what I get out of DxO for very little effort. I used my friend's computer with DxO 9 and the smart lighting and lens distortion/softness correction kinda blew me away - but is that only because I'm a rube who doesn't know you can do this stuff other ways?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:What third-world airline are you flying on that doesn't have an individually controllable light for each seat? One where it's considerate not to blind your seatmate that's trying to get some sleep for hours on end?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Yeah I mean you can justify nearly anything by just telling people to stuff earplugs in their ears and cover their eyes with a blindfold, doesn't make it considerate though, hth
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:Look at photo books; reading words on composition just seems dumb to me. hth I couldn't possibly agree less - without words, photos selected as "good" are merely relying on the authority of the author to convey their worth. I want to be convinced that these photos are good because they actually are good. Is there a good book about photographic critical theory someone can recommend? I've checked out a few of the books mentioned on this page but they seem to be lacking in text content.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Yeah, if you're going into it as a newbie you're not really going to understand what makes a good photo good just by looking at it. Once you know the fundamentals and understand what's going on, then you'll get more just by absorbing examples of good photography. Yeah, I still don't agree. I mean I completely understand why folks operate this way, but there's a reason art criticism exists, and just looking at good photographs doesn't get you there. It's sort of like saying you can understand how to make good films just by watching them - maybe if you're a lucky genius. The rest of us need to know *why* something works. Besides, if you can't articulate what makes a photo good, how the gently caress are you supposed to identify good images? Just looking at what you like, unchallenged, leads to cat and flower photos. Thanks for the book recommendations, folks! Radbot fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Jul 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:If what you really enjoy is cat and flower photos, why shouldn't you look at cat and flower photos and analyze, for yourself, what makes cat and flower photos good cat and flower photos? I'd argue that you don't really know what you enjoy until you criticize and analyze why you think you like the things you like. Are you making cat and flower photos because they, to you, encompass the truest form of beauty in the world, and you're creating these photos in a truly unique and special way? Or are you making them because you're lazy and mom likes them? More power to you if it's the first, I think more people fall in the latter camp though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
xzzy posted:You say that like I've ever produced anything that a critic would waste their time blathering about. Anyone you respect in your field can be a critic. Peer criticism sessions are among the most important experiences I've had as a photographer, and it is loving brutal. I highly recommend it to anyone trying to further their craft - because you'll either learn something, or you'll feel defensive and "gently caress that" and want to shoot to prove them wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Haggins posted:That's a good point. I think if you get critique you should get it from people who better than you or at the very least on your level. This is what's so hard to find, and in my opinion, pretty much the only worthwhile thing about art school. Having people better than you rip you to shreds is insanely valuable.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
I just received my RX100IV from Amazon today, brand new, shipped and sold by Amazon.com. It arrived with this little scuff on the screen - it's the one in line with the self timer button, to the right of the "Y" in Sony: Am I being too persnickety about this? I was going to put a screen protector on right away so it was pretty disheartening to already see a rub/ding in the screen coating. loving Amazon, this isn't the first time they've given me a "new-ish" product at a new price.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
ansel autisms posted:
What are you talking about? Are you familiar with how I use my gear? One of the ways I'm able to afford this stuff is by selling my well taken care of items once I'm done using them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 19:47
|
|
Return it and get a mint one so it won't look bad next to all of the other things displayed on the shelf of poo poo you don't use
|
Yep, they've always been good to me. I just get nervous about hitting that returns limit thing that bans you from Amazon. I rarely return things, less than 1% of my orders from Amazon in total over my life, but I've had to return two things this month and this would be the third. Just contacted them, hopefully they'll cross-ship.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Then why are you asking the internet for advice? If you think the product is defective just return it. I was just trying to get some opinions about whether this is something to even be worried about. What do you think? Amazon won't cross-ship, just confirmed.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Amazon US is normally pretty awesome, one time I bought a "like new" vacuum cleaner from Amazon Warehouse Deals that turned out to be a broken vacuum cleaner smashed up in a box - I was refunded within the hour and they told me throw the item away. Not that I was hoping to keep another free RX100, but a cross-ship would have been nice. Guess B&H it is, they don't gently caress around.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Chillax. Just return it, there's no need to get emotional. I'm feeling pretty chillax brah, thanks for the tip though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:The Sony RX10 was supposedly made because one of the Sony guys was a father and made the RX10 as the perfect vacation+family camera to shoot kids playing from far to close-up with the environment. Otherwise I usually recommend the RX100. The RX10II is a really nice camera, priced to match. It's a shame bridge cameras were garbage for so long, since the FZ1000 and RX10 are legitimately great cameras for amateurs/people that don't want an ILC camera. If you can deal with the lack of zoom, the RX100 is pretty awesome as well. The II is probably the sweetspot in terms of bang for the buck, but know that while the AF is decent, it will not touch PDAF'd DSLR AF.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:If you're paying more than $10 for a 35mm point&shoot you've done something wrong. Here's a Canon Sure Shot for $10 that does everything that other camera does and more. There's plenty of great 35mm P&S that cost more and are worth more than that. Like the Olympus XA series, Canon QL-17s, etc. On another note - what happens if you cancel the card that's paying for your monthly Creative Cloud subscription, considering there's a yearly commitment?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Is there any reason to shoot in Adobe RGB if you're not printing, and is there any reason to shoot in sRGB if you do intent to print?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
It is kinda weird - I understand that color space shouldn't affect RAW files, but identical images definitely look different when shot in the different color spaces, even in RAW. I'm guessing this is because my selected color space is attached as metadata to the file, and then ACR/C1/etc. chooses that one first (but you can change it after the fact)? On another note - how do folks around here calibrate their monitors? Anyone using a fully color managed workflow, or are they more like me and get Costco to print a few versions and I just choose the one I like the most? Radbot fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Aug 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I used ansel autisms' Colormunki Display and print at home using a manufacturer-profiled paper. Wow, X-Rite allows that? How cool. I know there's at least one other display calibration option out there that involves some sort of DRM/physical dongle that precludes sharing. I wonder if anyone's got one they'd let me borrow for a week (I'd donate in return!).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Take multiple shots and use the parallax effect to algorithmically remove the reflection layer. Think it's gotta be a video, right? 4K is gonna be awesome for this.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
How does one overcome the fear of not shooting RAW and being able to "fix" everything in post and embrace the zen of using SOOC JPGs? (As you can tell, I recently acquired a Fuji)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
OK, JPG+RAW it is for now, at least. Good point on adjusting the JPG settings to more closely match what I'd ultimately edit my RAWs to look like. On another note, I'm pretty excited to get my Colormunki Smile + DispcalGUI on. Finally, a color controlled workflow.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:My evereyday Fuji setup is currently RAW+F with the jpg set to a tweaked B&W. I started doing this after switching to CPO, I dug up a classic chrome ICC profile that I apply to the RAWs when I want a color version. Is that profile something you can share?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Huxley posted:That said, there's no reason at all not to swap a bunch of RAW files over in exiftool and experiment for yourself. Wh-wh-wha? I thought I was SOL with my X Pro-1 and CC, but if I just change the model to an XT-1, Silkypix will allow me to apply that profile?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Wh-wh-wha? I thought I was SOL with my X Pro-1 and CC, but if I just change the model to an XT-1, Silkypix will allow me to apply that profile? Nevermind, forgot that DxO hates Fuji.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:B&W-Y with -1 NR, +1 highlight, +1 shadow, +1 sharp. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 10:40 |
|
|
So I went and calibrated my two monitors with dispcalGUI and a Colormunki Smile, however, there's definitely a pretty noticeable whitepoint difference between the two monitors. Besides the slight frustration of not having the monitors match, the more important thing is that I don't know which monitor is truer to where it actually should be. Anyone experienced this before? Edit: to add that my monitors are (nearly) identical - same Dell model number, different revision number. Radbot fucked around with this message at 13:52 on Aug 22, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2015 13:40
|
|