|
Paragon8 posted:Did you intentionally not link to the canon thread? Or the Pentax thread?
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2009 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 06:13 |
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:Flag: Shots I like and want to process. Pretty much the same for me. I do one pass through, flagging good/okay shots, then I enable filters so only the flagged shots show up in the library then I go through the flagged photos and unflag the lesser photos of the batch until I've got a balanced selection and reasonable number to work with, then export them and continue post-processing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2009 20:30
|
|
|
The Finn posted:Got my Rebel XSi yesterday and I have a question. I attached the strap but took it right back off, as I found it really hard to grip the camera comfortably with my left hand, the part of the strap that connects with the eyelet constantly got in my way. Does anyone else find this to be the case, am I attaching it wrong and is there a different way to do it? I do want the strap on as it's pretty convenient to let it hang from my shoulder. Why are you gripping the camera with your left hand? You should be supporting the lens with your left hand.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2009 18:47
|
|
|
benisntfunny posted:While it's rather ugly, it really is a great strap. Very very comfortable and distributes the weight in a way that makes everything feel lighter. I've contemplated switching to something more hipster a few times but just can't do it. It looks like a great strap, but I'm not a fan of all the ugly printing on it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2009 20:46
|
|
|
spog posted:(If I could work out a way of getting a secure fastening using a single loop, I would go back to using that method) Put a split ring on the strap mount and then put both ends of the strap on the split ring.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2009 08:52
|
|
|
terriyaki posted:Woops I linked the wrong strap earlier. That one for $18.95 is the one with the POTN logo. You can get the slightly more bland one with the Op/Tech logo for $15.95. Cheap American prices make Canadian baby Jesus cry tears of maple syrup.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2009 18:37
|
|
|
A5H posted:Whenever I'm using my 350D to shoot outdoors, the skies seem to be blown out. Now I've figured that this is because of the metering mode. My question is, what metering mode should I use? Or should I just manually increase the shutter speed from what it recommends? If you want to meter for the skies, move the camera so the center of the viewfinder is on the sky, then press and hold the * button to lock the exposure, then compose your photo, half-press the shutter button to focus and then full press to take the photo. This will give you nicer skies, but it will make the land much darker, so pick your poison.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2009 21:12
|
|
|
The Wensey posted:I feel like popping in a roll of film just for fun, is this a terrible idea? Nope. Use a nice, robust film like Tri-X and you should be good to go.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2009 05:19
|
|
|
The Wensey posted:If I just set the aperture slider to "Sunny" (it's about 100 degrees out right now) and go for it, is it... going to work? No. It will generate a giant vortex that will devour the earth and all humanity, but hey, I've lived a good life.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2009 05:29
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
dunno posted:There are also a lot of handholdable MF cameras with big apertures, i mean you can get a f/1.7 for the mamiya 645 system Really? I thought the widest was the 80mm f/1.9?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2009 01:28
|
|
|
No. 9 posted:Photomatix Pro 3. Be really really light on the HDR if you're gonna do it, though. Yeah. Go until it looks the way it looks to the human eye, but not much farther or it's going to look silly.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2009 03:04
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You can get away with pushing/pulling a RAW shot at base ISO at least a stop without any horrible IQ degradation, but if you could have shot a bunch of jpegs, just shoot a couple of RAWs instead and be on your way. There's no hard and fast rule. A lot depends on the actual scene being photographed. If it's very low contrast, it's going to look like a train wreck if you push it more than a quarter or half stop.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2009 16:12
|
|
|
brad industry posted:And no you are wrong, you can pull a poo poo load of detail out of pure black, like several stops worth. You cannot pull any detail out of blown highlights in digital. You can bring them down from 255 but you're not going to get any information back. I'll concur on this. I run into this almost every time with concert photos.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2009 22:10
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:If I wanted to learn how to take real estate photos of a high quality, where would I start? It seems to be all about balancing the lighting, but I'm hoping there's some sites out there dedicated to this form of photography/lighting..? Take a large format photography course.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2009 15:46
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:Off-camera flash with a curly-cord... Anyone got any beginners tips? I got the cord thrown in as a sweetener with some new kit, so I figure I'll give it a whirl. I can already see that making sure the flash sensor beam is pointing in the right place with one hand while making the shot with the other will be fun Put a diffuser like an Omnibounce or something on it so it won't be so critical where you aim it. Hold the flash as far away from the camera as you can to minimize red eye and make the light less harsh.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2009 23:43
|
|
|
Oh god, the media is so lazy now they're just posting Google Maps Street View photos with their stories: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Body+found+Surrey/2117284/story.html
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2009 20:55
|
|
|
SquallStrife posted:My EOS 500N film body has a regular incandescent light which it uses for AF assist, even that's people-friendlier than the silly flash thing. My EOS A2E has a built-in AF assist that's the same NIR grid type of light that they have in the speedlights.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2009 04:15
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I would do a pre-light the day before, get something set up that's pretty general but will work consistently for a lot of different kind of people (you don't want to have to move lights around for people who wear glasses or you know... Sounds like they're not going to be too demanding for quality. A flash on a hotshoe with a Lightsphere or Omnibounce or whatever bouncing off the ceiling may be enough. I imagine that they're looking for photos of people at their desks or talking to each other, sort of like those generic stock images of "worker" "desk" "casual".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2009 05:18
|
|
).
|
spog posted:Group photo sharing? Facebook is really good for this kind of thing because you can create a private group, allow people to upload photos to the group and people can tag each other in the photos so everyone who was there and is on Facebook will see photos of themselves even if they weren't the ones that took them. Downside is that Facebook compresses and resizes the gently caress out of photos so they look like crap.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2009 17:43
|
|
|
Shoot film. It's the easiest way to get good B&W.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2009 15:55
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:shoot type 55 with a camera made from locally grown timber and glass you ground yourself Who needs glass? All you need is a pinhole.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2009 16:21
|
|
|
scorntic posted:I was wondering what file types you guys use to print out pictures. I have a nikon d80, and I know there are different file types on the actual camera to choose from when you're shooting...and I know you can change them in photoshop aswell. I'm asking cause everytime I have them in jpeg format they never print out decently at a kiosk. And its for every digital camera I've ever owned..so I was wondering if there was a special technique I'm missing or something. I know it sounds really wacky, but I use .PNG files because they're small but lossless. If there were no file size limits, I'd use TIFF. But I don't print very often, so I don't know what the actual best format is.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2009 01:08
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:On digital you just have to be a bit careful about noise in long exposures. Curse you, red pixels!  Also, Reciprocity Failure would be a great name for a technical death metal band.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2009 15:37
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Is there anything out there that anyone knows of that's sort of like an idea list for beginners? I can teach her how to work the camera and I can offer up suggestions for composition, but she's got to be the one that is inspired to point it at something. Any help would be appreciated. Go for a walk in the park. Nature is easy to photograph because it doesn't move. You can focus on individual subjects like flowers or you can do landscapes. There will most likely be widely varying light conditions as well.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2009 18:59
|
|
|
No. 9 posted:Just keep at it, the more you take at it the more good photos you'll get. Yeah, I find that half the battle is figuring out what you want in the end product.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2009 06:01
|
|
|
Marshmallow Mayhem posted:I'm buying an SLR, for $30 to $50 with a nice lens on ebay (a Nikon or a Canon, for what it's worth, because I like/trust them.) What are you shooting with right now? If you're shooting Canon, you can get a Canon EOS film SLR for cheap and it will work with your lenses. Likewise for other brands except maybe Olympus.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2009 23:59
|
|
|
Don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but there's a TV show about UrbEx and photography called "PhotoXplorers". You guys might get a kick out of it. http://photoxplorers.com
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2009 19:01
|
|
|
Chim posted:Also, any ideas how to fix the banding post process? What software do you use for noise reduction?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2009 19:11
|
|
|
Try DxO Optics Pro. It has wicked noise reduction and great image processing overall. It doesn't cost much more than Noise Ninja. EDIT: Just checked. It's $30 more than Noise Ninja until the end of the year, but you get a ton more program for the money. HPL fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Dec 19, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2009 10:03
|
|
|
Bob Socko posted:Nah, $130 for me - I use an a850, so I've gotta pick up the Elite version for $200. DXO is pretty nice, I was just seeing if Noise Ninja would give me an "almost as good and a whole lot cheaper" solution. DxO has a free fully-functioning demo. Give it a shot anyway. I found that it cut my post-processing time down because it was so good at automatically figuring out stuff that I previously had to tweak a lot for in other programs.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2009 01:45
|
|
|
Depends on the end use. I shoot raw, but eventually end up converting stuff to either 1024 or 800 on the long side, short side varies by aspect ratio. 1024 is for landscapes and other such stuff and 800 is more for my concert photos because people swipe them more than anything else so I post as small an image as I can get away with while still being viewable. Of course this is for web use. Quality I usually set at "10" because even a super high quality 800x600 JPEG isn't going to be that massive.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2009 22:47
|
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:I pretty much take full size RAWs. I always end up exporting at 1024-long-edge. Flash memory isn't that expensive anyways. You'll never regret taking a picture that's too high-res, but you will probably regret taking a picture that's too low-res one day. Indeed. I usually run with 8GB and 16GB cards as opposed to a bunch of smaller cards because nothing sucks more than getting a chance at a killer shot only to be greeted with "CARD FULL".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2009 23:59
|
|
|
When doing a concert shoot, I load up the files into Lightroom, go to bed, wake up, post-process the photos then have breakfast while the files are finishing up and exporting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2009 04:19
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Do you people wake up at 5am or something? No, usually shooting a show means crawling into bed at around that time. If it's just a few photos, it's not bad, but for an event shoot, you're potentially looking at several hundred shots. I don't exactly have a lightning-fast computer.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2009 15:58
|
|
|
A point and shoot would probably be fine. If it's a sunny day, there will be tons of light so even the crappiest of cameras should be able to get adequate shutter speeds. Another option would be one of those helmet cams so you can take photos of whatever you're looking at while you're actually skiing. EDIT: You'll look like a dork, but I'm sure the photos will be awesome: http://www.goprocamera.com/index.php?area=2&productid=1 HPL fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Jan 6, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2010 18:48
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I'm basically in the same boat as you, and found GIMP really easy to use (and it's free, so hey If you can ever scrape some money together, Photoshop Elements is really good. It's way faster and easier to use than GIMP and it has more features.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2010 16:56
|
|
), since there's a couple quick-n-dirty options like AUTO W/B, Color Balance, Brightness, etc. It can't open RAW files, unfortunately, but that's kind of hard to argue with when it's saved a lot of my hockey photos with piss-yellow tint.
|
DJExile posted:Oh , wow that's cheaper than I thought. I'll have to look into it. Thanks! It's what I use. The downside of Elements is that it can only do some functions in 8-bit mode. Not a huge restriction though. You just do as much work as you can in 16-bit mode before converting to 8-bit and finishing it off. For most basic photo editing functions it'll be more than enough and you'll never look back at GIMP again. Every time I use GIMP nowadays, it's like nails on a chalkboard.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2010 17:22
|
|
|
somnambulist posted:I'm shooting raw, so maybe I'll shoot jpeg for these styles. What you can do is shoot raw+jpeg or just shoot raw and extract the embedded jpeg from the raw file.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2010 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 06:13 |
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:Or get a felt hat with a 'press' card tucked into the brim. That works too. Don't forget to have a stogie hanging out of the side of your mouth.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2010 21:54
|
|