|
The reason that tilt-shift works so well is because people for some reason intrinsically know what shallow DOF macro photography looks like and associate it with tiny things, even though most people dont know what DOF or Macro means. There is no visual effect that we associate with images of huge things, mainly because images of huge things generally approximate our field of view, assuming we're back far enough. I think Dr. Cogwerks is right, its all about perspective. Make it look like the image was shot from a tiny viewers perspective.
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 04:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
Other than the pretty large increase in noise I think it looks good.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2010 04:30
|
|
|
I would guess on the sensor, if it was on the lense, both bokkkkkkehs would show the same dirt specs, no?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2010 15:58
|
|
|
I'm wondering if my new Canon 50mm f/1.8 is miscalibrated at infinity focus. I shot some stars tonight, and they came out blurry. The focus ring was all the way counterclockwise when looking through the viewfinder, which I assume is focused all the way out to infinity. The shots still came out blurry though. I'm pretty sure the tripod didnt move, as all three shots came out just as blurry. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 03:09
|
|
|
So maybe just before the full stop is infinity? I'll give that a shot.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 03:36
|
|
|
Unfortunately the nifty fifty has no focus markings, so I guess I'll just have to eyeball it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 03:49
|
|
|
Ration posted:How do you get passed your biggest hurdles? I've been trying to get into photography for a month or two and it's hard. My source of information has largely been here, POTN and books. I read books about quality composition and I understand the concept. I look at pictures in PAD and SAD and some are appealing, but the vast majority I just don't get. None of it makes sense. In one of the books by Bryan Peterson, there's a picture of a box of tomatoes. Why is a box of tomatoes important enough to justify a place in the book, or a shutter actuation for that matter. On the other hand, in PAD, I have seen images that truly moved me as a viewer but those are far less than the ones that just make me grab my head and wonder. Of course much of it is subjective, there are people who think the Mona Lisa is ugly, after all. Much of it has to do with composition, exposure, lighting, the angles and lines involved, and a myriad of other things that dont immediately jump out and make you say "Wow I want a print of that picture of tomatoes", but are pretty universally agreed upon to be the makings of a good photograph. Perhaps take a look at this: http://www.amazon.com/Photographers-Eye-Composition-Design-Digital/dp/0240809343 It might shed some light on why certain pictures are considered good and aesthetically pleasing. At the end of the day though, a lot of it boils down to personal preference. I personally like the look of heavily processed images and HDR's, many people despise them. It doesnt mean that either of us are right per-se, just that we feel differently. Rontalvos posted:Astrophotography is the only reason I have ever used live view ever, aside from a few macro shots. That 10x digital zoom allows you to easily see whether you're at infinity focus or not. I'll give this a shot next time I do this, I may be able to get it dialed in with the magnified live view. Beve Stuscemi fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Mar 16, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 14:46
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Figure out what you like and photograph it. Photograph it because you like it. gently caress everyone else. Really, unless someones paying you to get a certain shot or look, just shoot what you like, and eventually you'll figure out your style and what looks appealing to you. Photography is like the painting world. Certain paintings can move some people to tears and have no effect on others. Its a very personal thing.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 16:54
|
|
|
The http://www.americansuburbx.com/ link needs a wwww. The non-www. just leads to a squatter page.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:I'm not talking about hoity-toity modern art "you just don't understand" but just being able to know that critiques are not attacks, recognizing a person's artistic intentions and helping them along that path instead of fighting them to adhere to yours, recognizing how to match a person's vision if they are in charge, etc. This sounds more like learning not to be a dick than anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 17:08
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:There are five companies pushing their presumably "unlimited space/bandwidth but not so unlimited CPU power" web services in SA Mart. I'm moving away from smugmug and hosting my own site, just need something basic that will also handle perl. I would skip the ~goon hosting~ I was with one for a while, and it was nothing but problems. I have an unlimited account with Hostgator that I pay like $8/mo for, and I've never had any downtime in the year I've been with them. I do use it too, I run a pretty popular forum with it, and sees a good amount of load.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2010 15:50
|
|
|
SmirkingJack posted:I assume that any budget hosting is a server in someones basement/dorm room run by a single guy. Now this is fine for my personal blog, I don't care if that goes down for a week because it doesn't have anything important on it and doesn't affect my image. If I were to do something professional then I would get a $20/mo VPS from Slicehost or RootBSD or prgmr, no question. Exactly, if you're hosting lolcats images, then goon hosting is fine. If you have any sort of uptime requirement though, go with a real host. As far as I could tell the goon hosting I was with was run by two people who had a couple servers in a datacenter, and that was it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2010 16:22
|
|
|
While we're talkng LR, is there a way I can split my catalog? Having a ton of RAW files on my laptop is eating up space very quickly. Can I move half the catalog off to a backup disk or something, and keep just the newest half on the laptop?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 16:21
|
|
|
I have my facebook account linked to flickr, so that when I upload things to flicker, it posts a little blurb on facebook. Is there a way to tag pictures so they dont get posted to facebook as well? I dont necessarily want something going out every single time I post a picture on flickr.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2010 21:05
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:WOAH! Where I do get me some of that pro-quality light? Pro-quality light only comes from distant stars and is captured and packaged in speedlights, this guy doesnt know what he's talking about
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2010 16:12
|
|
|
I've discovered that I really like taking lightbox shots, but I'd like to take it to the next level. I have a small PVC lightbox with a posterboard back right now, but I'd like to scale it up and make a larger studio backdrop so I can take seamless shots of larger things like motorcycles and whatnot. I've been inspired by this: http://www.bikeexif.com/suzuki-rk67?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Bikeexif+(Bike+EXIF) You can see in the second shot, based on the reflections in the bikes paint that these were shot outside in some sort of giant lightbox/studio backdrop scenario. How does one go about replicating the setup to do this? I can weld, so fabbing up a frame for this isnt the most horrible thing on earth. What do you use for a backdrop, where do you find something that huge and perfectly white? Any suggestions?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2010 05:19
|
|
|
How can I get lightroom 3 to apply the "Camera Standard" profile to every picture imported? I cant seem to find an easy way to do that, although I'm sure I'm just overlooking it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2010 05:26
|
|
|
Are there any good tutorials on tone and exposure mapping? Everything I google for leads me to HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!! websites that invariably mention photomatix. I'd like to take multiple exposures to bring out colors and up dynamic range, without making glowy melty crayola messes. Think Dread Head style images.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2010 03:49
|
|
|
The above example is really impressive, you cant even read the plate in the original. Some of the examples on the page just make it look like "Topaz unsharp mask" though
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2010 16:30
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:This might help Thanks. I also found this on the same site that seems to focus on making realistic images. http://photoshoptutorials.ws/photoshop-tutorials/photo-retouching/hdr-tone-mapping-with-layers-in-photoshop.html
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
Its like that pedo guy who got busted because he used the whirlpool/twisty function in photoshop to hide his face in pictures, and someone just ran it in reverse to identify him.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2010 22:20
|
|
|
There is literally no way to ask a girl who you are not close friends with if you can photograph her outside of an event where she actually wants to be photographed and not come off as creepy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2010 00:08
|
|
|
I dont know where else to ask this, so I guess I'll put it here. I know we have a DSLR video thread, but is there one for people just shooting video on normal video cameras? I dont shoot DSLR video, but I'm imagining the processes are somewhat different than using other more conventional non-professional video cameras? Any interest in one?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 17:36
|
|
|
spf3million posted:Well there's this: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3144982. Not sure if that's what you were thinking about though. Yeah, thats really on the professional side of things though. Maybe I'll just start a thread, if it flies, great, if it dies, I guess I have my answer on the interest level.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2011 17:47
|
|
|
How are airlines about photography equipment? I'm planning a trip and will be bringing my DSLR, two lenses, strobe, a GoPro HD, and some other stuff. All will be contained within a backpack, and will be carried on. Anyone have problems getting through airport security with any camera equipment?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2011 05:06
|
|
|
RizieN posted:I flew domestically a few weeks ago and they didn't give a poo poo, I asked if I was going to need to take my camera and lenses out and they said just my laptop. Obviously your mileage may vary based on the employees working, their stress levels, and the specific airport. Hopefully with the recent osama bin laden news it wont be too tough, as I'm sure the airports will be on high alert for a while
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2011 20:51
|
|
|
Are there any good tutorials out there on how to do masking and combining of exposures in Photoshop? For example, I know I could have totally saved the below picture by also grabbing a shot with the city properly exposed behind the bike, and then combining the exposures to make one good one. I understand the concept of masking, but I dont know how to do it effectively. Bear in mind, I am not interested in HDRZ, obviously, just combining exposures. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2011 16:10
|
|
|
Legdiian posted:I thought that's what HDR was? Technically, it is, but I'm interested in making a realistic looking picture out of them, not blowing everything out to 110%, is what I meant It could be more than two exposures as well, but I'll start simple.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2011 16:30
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:I'd like to second this. Get in the habit of it and your photos will look leaps and bounds better than before. Nice lines are loving sexy. I dont understand why they still look weird, I applied the lens correction in lightroom. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2011 17:47
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:It's a distortion problem caused by a wide angle lens that can be fixed in photoshop with the "Lens Correction" filter. Is this different than the one in Lightroom? Its enabled in lightroom, and takes a ton of barrel distortion out of that picture, but as evidenced, its not correct yet.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:what exactly does the 'definition' slider in Aperture do? If its like the clarity slider in Lightroom, it affects contrast (mainly edge contrast and mid-tone contrast?), highlights, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2011 02:50
|
|
|
Ok, I think I'm displaying my fundamental lack of understanding here. I've got two images each on a layer, a mask in between them, and I'm painting away the mask. I'm down to the details. How on earth do I get the mask painted away on all the little fiddly bits like the lamp pole, in between the railings, the places where the cityscape pokes between the parts of the bike, etc? I cant have to trace all that out, theres no way to do that accurately, and the round or square brushes dont line up with angled railings and other things in the picture. I'm guessing I'm missing something fundamental about masks here? Here is where I'm stuck: 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2011 03:40
|
|
|
Ok, thanks to the help of all of you, I've got the magnetic wand masking down, I'm to the point whee I'm dealing with imperfections on the level of a couple of pixels. In the below image, you can tell that the lamp post and the railings are just a bit off, they have some artifacting from the layer underneath. Whats the process for cleaning up the mask when you're dealing with areas maybe only a few pixels wide? 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
Please read my last like 5 posts in this thread, and the replies to them, layering exposures is exactly what I'm doing. The bike picture two posts above is my first-shot outcome at exactly what you're talking about. EDIT: start here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3184774&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=98#post394829059
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2011 14:20
|
|
|
As a Rebel XS owner, I get to mock everyone.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
Whats the best way to shoot a timelapse with changing light conditions (day to night, vice versa)? AV mode? I'm thinking full manual would net you progressively more unfixable images.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure F/4 is F/4 regardless of how many elements it has to go through.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2011 22:55
|
|
|
I currently own just two lenses. The canon nifty fifty, and the kit 18-55 that came with my Rebel XS. I love the 50mm for how sharp it is (and how cheap it was), and I like the 18-55 range, but hate how not-sharp the lens is, as well as the general crappyness of the pictures it takes. Are there any cheaper lenses in the 18-55-ish range that are decently sharp (decently sharper than the kit 18-55)? Doesn't have to be Canon brand.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2011 18:19
|
|
|
There used to be a nice (and I think free) time lapse calculator app on the apple app store. I can't for the life of me find it anymore. Anyone know if it exists and what it's called?
Beve Stuscemi fucked around with this message at 20:37 on Jan 1, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 07:34 |
|
|
I came across an old TLR camera at goodwill today and couldnt pass on it. Apparently its a Sears Tower 120 Flash, which is a rebranded Ising Pucky (http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Pucky) The mechanicals all seem to work, the shutter, zoom, aperture and auto/bulb mode all work fine, but the thing is dirty as hell in the lenses. Its hard to even see out of the viewfinder. Anyone have any advice on cleaning it? It looks like mostly dust, and not mold or something like that. If I cant, its still not a bad shelf ornament for   
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2023 20:29
|
|