|
Cyberbob posted:Would a fisheye lens make it easier to do the whole "tiny planets" photoshop-a-panorama-into-a-circle thing, or would it skew the perspective too much? It depends. If the fisheye distortion is easily corrected by DxO or Photoshop, it MIGHT make it easier. I guess my question is, if you can use a normal view lens with very little distortion and just stitch together 10-12 photos instead of 5-8, why would you bother with the lens that might distort? Shooting tiny planets is easy by the way. It takes all of about 20 seconds to go fully manual (including manual focus), orient yourself correctly and snap all the shots you need. If you're going to shoot one with a fish, give yourself plenty of overlap so that when you remove the distortion from your images your software has plenty of area to line up.
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2009 13:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 20:58 |
|
|
Sure. If you're doing a landscape: Cloudy days with diffuse light are the best. It could work with strong, even light. Set to full manual and set your depth of field, ISO and shutter speed. If the light is even, it won't matter where you meter your light. Set your camera to get a proper exposure. Set your camera to manual focus and put focus to infinity. A tripod with a panorama mount would be easiest, but you can get away with handholding if you're very, very careful. I handhold my camera and shoot a frame. Rotate 30-45 degrees from your original position and shoot another frame. Your goal is at least 30-40% overlap between each picture. Do this until you come back around. Then use your software of choice to stitch the images into a panorama and bend the image into a little planet.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2009 20:48
|
|
|
1. Don't shoot ISO 1600 and expect ISO 100 levels of smoothness. 2. Don't pixel peep.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2010 20:48
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:The red pixels at two points of the photo are grouped together and numerous enough that they are clearly visible on the uncropped version, even with the most aggressive noise reduction. I just created an 18 megapixel image in Photoshop and pasted your crop into it. First, it seemed like your crop was even more than a 100% crop - I'd not be surprised if it was a 150% or even more. Second, while viewing the image full screen on my roughly 10x6 inch screen, I could not discern a single magenta pixel while viewing the image from about 2 feet away. When I brought the screen within 6 inches of my eyes, I could see a single red dot on the duck's head. I have doubts that even an excellent printer would render the dot visible while viewing the photo at regular viewing distances. People have already told you why your ISO 3200 shots might have come out better - high ISO is much more forgiving in situations where you have plenty of light, and is a torturous bitch in situations where you have very little. In this case, ISO 1600 resulted in too much noise. You have several options: 1. Buy a 400mm 2.8 and pull your ISO back 2. Shoot earlier in the day 3. Buy a 5D II I still believe you're pixel peeping. Viewing an image blown up to full screen on a 24 inch monitor isn't the way you should evaluate images.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2010 04:02
|
|
|
2.8 is really only fast enough for indoor daytime shots. Indoor shots with nighttime lighting will either need a massive ISO bump or a flash.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2010 14:53
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:I have an SB-600 that I plan to use. Still trying to get used to how to use flash so it dosent make their face all white. Bouncing works but sometimes theres nothing to bounce off of. Shoot in manual, meter for the background and then reduce your flash exposure compensation until you get natural looking results.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2010 13:48
|
|
|
It also goes without saying to shoot In full manual with the same settings for each shot, and to lock focus once and then disable autofocus.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2010 02:47
|
|
|
The filters described are indeed not the best filters. However, even expensive filters cause ghosting in some light situations. Save your money next time and go filterless with a hood.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2010 13:04
|
|
|
Will it impact image quality? Probably. Will the stacked ND filters allow you to get a shot that would be impossible otherwise? Definitely.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2010 04:27
|
|
|
Straight out of camera is fine, but if you plan to print, you need post, period. Personally, I find that even when I nail exposure, curves or levels can always be played with to increase contrast and my overall liking of the image. Also, I shoot heavily with a Sigma 30 1.4 which vignettes heavily wide open unless you apply lens corrections. Finally, if you do print, at a minimum you need to match to your printer color profile, adjust curves and levels for the reduced contrast print has, increase saturation if necessary, downsize if necessary and then sharpen sharpen sharpen!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2010 02:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 20:58 |
|
|
Use a tripod with a pano head. Use the most narrow field of view lens you can to get the pano coverage you need, then snap snap snap. After that the are tons of software solutions but Photoshop has a really awesome auto panorama stitching tools, though if you're masochistic you could always stitch them by hand.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2011 12:53
|
|