General Photography Questions Megathread v4 - Don't Listen to Any of These Freaks

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > General Photography Questions Megathread v4 - Don't Listen to Any of These Freaks

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

Does anyone know where I can find the other egg polaroid still lifes Andy Warhol made? The only one I can find on the internet is the one below, but I'm sure I saw others in this book I gave away...

The photos I'm looking for are just some eggs on black, no egg carton. I may be mistaken and they don't exist...

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ Sep 18, 2009 03:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 23:03

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

Flickr automatically adds metadata tags, so if you add them in lightroom they will show up on flickr.

# ¿ Sep 25, 2009 04:10

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

You also get a perspective that you mostly see with large format.

edit: i'm not sure perceptive is the right word but whatev

# ¿ Sep 27, 2009 18:04

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

Neutral Density filters.

# ¿ Oct 4, 2009 17:17

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

caberham posted:

I personally like brighter pictures by over exposing a little bit but then I get weird halos and blown unrecoverable highlights if I try to manipulate it with post:( Brad, can you post a sample photo of a blown picture and not blown out?

What I am experimenting now is to shoot underexposed when shooting people outdoors to get the clouds and then add a fill flash of some sort and fix it with post.

But then this makes the person look kinda dull and I'm terrible at post production, or the problem is just me

Push your photos in post, let your raws be ugly.

Also, this may not help because this is slide film, but I underexposed it by like two stops (I was really nervous about having my ex twice removed around and forgot what film I had in the camera)

I have noticed slide film is very similar to digital, except that digital gives you WAY more flexibility. I am in the "expose for the highlights" came, EXCEPT when the only blown highlight will be the edges of clouds when the subject is in the shade, gently caress that.

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ Oct 10, 2009 09:47

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

I thought the above was a non-exposed slide when on a lightbox!!

# ¿ Oct 10, 2009 13:27

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

caberham posted:

can you please elaborate some more about that picture you posted please? and if you can, educate us digital neanderthals about slide film =D

The technicals of the picture or the subject?

Slide film is awesome. I think wikipedia does a better job at it explaining it than I can. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversal_film

# ¿ Oct 12, 2009 17:49

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

Cyberbob posted:

This guy takes 8fps on a D3, combines them in Photoshop and makes them look pretty drat good.

http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2009/10/chase-jarvis-tech-strobed-photo.html

How possible would it be just to use a long shutter and strobe the flashes yourself, on the off chance that ya can't get hold of a D3.

It does mean less control over the outcome, so it might need a few reshoots.. and can only be done in near darkness.. but it'd work, no?

TsarAleksi posted:

Yeah that would work just fine, but, like you said, you will need to work in near perfect darkness.

has to be perfectly lit or you'll get ghosting, like if any light from the previous flash spills behind the subject's next location.

i experimented with this a while ago when I had nothing better to do

# ¿ Oct 28, 2009 19:22

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

jackpot posted:

I had this once before and I fixed it, but a few days ago I got a new video card (I think that's why it's screwing up) and I'm back to being hosed by Lightroom again.

What Lightroom sees, when I do a black and white conversion:

What Lightroom saves if I export, and also what Photoshop sees if I right-click, edit-in-photoshop:

So basically Lightroom knows what the file is supposed to look like (since it exports it correctly), but it can't display it. There's nowhere in the preferences to change color settings, so what do I do?

Mac or PC? If PC, try screwing with display settings -> advanced -> color management, but that's just a shot in the dark. When my lightroom decided to stop displaying images all together it was some sort of profile problem after I updated my drivers... but it was messing with everything else, also.

# ¿ Nov 20, 2009 05:06

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

UserNotFound posted:

I don't see anything, but I haven't calibrated my monitor in about a month.

I don't see anything either, I calibrated a few days ago?

If your monitor is too bright, you will see too much detail in the shadows (sounds silly, i know)

# ¿ Dec 12, 2009 20:17

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

I think, theoretically, a program like Real Fractals will upscale naturally, the same way a projector would, the image may not be super sharp, but you would eliminate artifacts

# ¿ Dec 29, 2009 04:31

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

There is usually more detail in the shadows in RAW files, so as a general rule, exposing for highlights is better.

But that's a general rule, and general rules are dumb. It really depends on the situation and what the important elements are in your image.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2010 07:00

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

That makes sense, when it comes to money, try to play it safe, always when it's someone elses money.

# ¿ Jan 16, 2010 02:27

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

dress like an accountant

# ¿ Jan 16, 2010 04:48

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

I wouldn't like his portraits if they were painted. It's one of those cases where the process doesn't matter, I just don't like how it looks... His Dove photos look okay, and I also think his still lifes are quite awesome.

# ¿ Feb 10, 2010 09:54

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

Can someone tell me why images in lightroom/photoshop look cooler (bluer) in program than when exported? It seems that when I export an image in any color space, the images are much warmer.

When I export images AdobeRBG and view them with a program that doesn't correct color space (so if i view AdobeRBG color space jpgs in sRBG) the images look exactly likr they do in lightroom... what the hell

Oh, when I reimport the JPGs and view them in lightroom, they look right. I thought lightroom was supposed to handle all this crap

# ¿ Feb 12, 2010 08:22

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

Tziko posted:

I had some similar, really weird problems. I fixed it by re-installing my monitor color profile.

Hmm... I tried this and it didn't really work, but it did do.. something.

It seems if my system default color profile is sRBG everything looks right, but if it's the Huey profile (or anything else) it doesn't.

Maybe it's time for a lightroom reinstall?

# ¿ Feb 12, 2010 18:23

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

I was too lazy to reinstall and just set my computer's default color space to sRBG and let the huey handle the rest...

Everything looks fine in everything now...

# ¿ Feb 13, 2010 09:53

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

Light and DoF are really important. How light interacts with something small is very different when compared to something large.

It's all psychological

# ¿ Mar 4, 2010 08:19

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

TheFuglyStik posted:

They're very common, especially when you've had surgery for a detached retina like I have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floater

I just find it odd to see something like them show up in bokeh.

i have a bunch of floaters i forgot about until now, are they going to kill me?? they have been there for as long as i can remember and they make looking at the sky fun :cool:

# ¿ Mar 12, 2010 07:53

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

spog posted:

That assumption is probably incorrect.

Most (all?) lenses have focus just before the focus ring is all the way round.

I'm not completely sure of the true reason (I've heard a few - allowance for IR, lets lens work in extreme temperatures, etc) but you usually need to back off a little to get the right infintiy focus.

The right way to check is to try it in daylight at a distant location.

Checking the closest lens to me, this seems to be right. The infinity mark is noted, but there is even more infinity it can go to, and when went to, it matches with the IR dot.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2010 03:39

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

Rontalvos posted:

I think I'm going to have to limit myself to a 512mb card when I go out shooting next time. I have this severe problem with overshooting any event I go to, and I end up with 500 pictures of a choir concert which I then have to go through and weed out. The problem is though I get 30 images of the same subject with little discernible differences, and it becomes such a daunting task to even sort through hundreds of images and then by that time post processing is out of the question.

How do I get out of the cycle of overshooting and now that I've got 10's of gigs of worthless images how do I go about sorting them out without getting discouraged?

(Canon 40D, and I've been shooting jpg+raw like an idiot)

Edit: I'm going through a choir concert now and oh god shooting at 3200 was such an awful horrible idea. The noise.

Shoot film, get used to it (and how much it costs), apply what you learned to everything.

Of course, once you merge the worlds, machine gun shutters will only be used as insurance.

see this [this thread for more information.

You can also try to turn off continuous shooting so you have to actually push the button each time. Also try relocating your AF button to the back of the camera. Speedbumps

# ¿ Mar 17, 2010 07:11

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

Someone please tell me how to edit raw files, CR2s from a Canon 5D specifically.

I want to invert an image and save it as a 5D .CR2...

# ¿ May 15, 2010 09:42

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

spog posted:

I don't think you -a RAW is a raw data dump from the sensor, not an editable format.

You can edit the .cr2 and save as a TIF

Unless anyone knows otherwise?

Tziko posted:

You can save Lightroom or ACR RAW adjustments in a sidecar .XMP file.

I need it to be in the raw somehow. I want to be able to create a color profile from a color negative, but I can't because all the drat programs* out there go after the raw data...

If I make a profile from a tiff, lightroom and it seems like everything else won't let it play with a .cr2 raw...

*the are actually a couple that can do what I want but they are way out of my price range. There is also a script that may work once I fix the hosed up greens/blues (both are cyan as of now) in the scans...

# ¿ May 16, 2010 08:36

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

Trying to manually balance color negatives - I have a shot of a color card on a negative, I want to balance the colors, right now cyan, blue and green are too similar, this is just the first step.

I am doing a project and study on the bridging digital and film photography. Right now I use the xrite color checker software to create profiles. Adobe's DNG editor almost works, but doesn't.

If I could apply the camera profile from a tif, then that would be awesome....

# ¿ May 17, 2010 00:14

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

none of those are nearly as cool as what squidflakes was describing

# ¿ Jun 4, 2010 15:45

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 23:03

notlodar: Sep 11, 2001

http://www.photosol.com/eclipseproduct.htm

i use this fluid + their swabs, but I also use a pec-pad to replace the swab heads (which they don't recommend)

# ¿ Jun 9, 2010 02:55

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > General Photography Questions Megathread v4 - Don't Listen to Any of These Freaks