|
spog posted:However, I think that aesthetically people accept grainy/noisy B&W images better than colour ones. It all has to do with the type of noise. A lot of the time when you see noise in a colour shot it's chroma noise which just makes an image look terribly sloppy most of the time. This tends to be a LOT more evident in underexposed, making them look like they've been hit with a bad case of JPEG artifacting. When you go B&W you remove the colour so all the noise is more or less the same shade which becomes much more acceptable. By no means do all colour grainy photos look terrible. I happen to LOVE grain in photos and prefer them a little grainy over a buttery smooth crisp and sharp image. A little grime adds a lot of character, especially digital photos which tend to fall in the buttery smooth category most of the time.
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2009 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 13:21 |
|
|
Pretty similar here, except I'm strictly hobbyist and don't really worry about selling anything. I go through my images right after import and mark them: 1* = Everything that isn't beyond hope of repair, absolutely OOF, mysteriously exposed +/-8EV  2* = Go through 1* images, find any image which has any glimmer of hope for post, repair, or is straight up a good photo. 3* = My 2* images usually involve a lot of duplicates since I lay on the shutter a little thick. 3* is where I sift through a lot of duplicates to find one or two images in a series that I'd like to work with. 4* = Any image in 3* that I either like as is, have repaired in post, or have altered in some way to make usable enough to throw up on flickr. 5* = Take a look at 4* images and decide what is going to flickr. I usually apply a little sharpening in Photoshop and mark the final product a 5*. For me, 5* = Ready to upload to Flickr.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2009 16:53
|
|
|
After half a year or so, I usually go through my archives and delete all the 1* stuff I'll never touch again. It's a lot easier when I don't have to worry about retaining shots for a client or something.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2009 18:12
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:Storage is so cheap it seems silly to delete stuff that might have some future value. I generally just delete stuff like black frames, wholly missed focus, or stuff that my hip took while carrying the camera. For me it's not so much about storage as it is about organization. There's very little reason for me to keep the other three shots in a 3FPS series if one came out well enough to work with. I'm definitely not saying it's what everyone should do, but of the stuff I delete I'm fairly confident I'll never work with again. Edit: Also the way I worded it made it sound like I delete all my 1* stuff; I meant the stuff I'm confident I'll never work with again 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2009 20:44
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:The R-strap is fantastic, I highly recommend it. Comfortable, out of the way, and keeps the camera out of the way when you want it to be. Easy to remove when you want to as well. It's also incredibly easy to DIY. I'm just looking for a sliding bracket I can use to put my camera on, but otherwise I've come up with a pretty decent approximation that feels incredibly sturdy. Only because I feel that $70 is a little too much for that product here in Canada. I'd buy it if it was half the price.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2009 00:07
|
|
|
The Finn posted:Dumbass question time: When people say "I metered off his face or the wall or whatever" do they mean pointing the camera at something, pressing the shutter halfway down and letting the camera get a reading and set the exposure? Is that how you meter something with your DSLR? If you're not in manual mode, make sure to find the auto-exposure lock button on your body since the camera will just meter again when you recompose and press the shutter halfway again. So assuming that the subject you want to meter off of is in the left 1/3rd of your screen, you're going to move your camera so that their face (or whatever you want to meter off of) is in the middle of the screen, push the shutter half way down so the camera can meter off of their face, you hit the auto-exposure lock button so the camera remembers what it metered, then you recompose and shoot your photo. This is really only true if you have your camera set to spot metering or centre-weighted metering. If your camera is set to multi-zone/matrix/whole-scene metering then it really won't matter.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2009 16:30
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Still, ballpark is good if you can shoot raw and you're in a hurry. With all its' advantages, the declining price of storage both mobile and desktop; unless you're Ken Rockwell or doing some serious high-speed photography, I can't think of a single good reason NOT to shoot RAW 24/7. By which of course I mean serious amateur photographers and up. If I had to explain to my mom, who uses a four year old Fuji P&S and iPhoto, about the ins and outs of RAW I think I might have to hang myself.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2009 09:01
|
|
|
I think it's entirely dependant on the person. If it came down to shooting in JPG or not taking the shot, that's a no brainer, but storage prices are so reasonable at the moment that there's no reason someone should have to make that decision. My two cards give me a total of approximately 800 shots, and for ~$60CDN I can double that to 1600 shots. I literally think I'd run out of spare batteries before I'd run out of storage.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2009 17:34
|
|
|
Hm. Skimmed that part of the post. That's tough, I'd probably be shooting JPEG too, but more likely I'd just go to the store and pick up another card. That's just me though, and obviously some people won't want to spend the money just for a one time trip.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2009 17:39
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Recommendations for noise-reduction software for Mac that will let me just dump a batch in and hit go? Photoshop + Noise Ninja should allow batch, if that's an option for you: http://picturecode.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page#How_do_I_batch_process_in_the_Photoshop_Plug-In.3F I'm actually going more TOWARDS noisy photos, but when I tried the trial version it seemed to work pretty well on my XT's noise, watermarking aside.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2009 20:25
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:In one of the comments somebody asks about this and he explained they have to hold still for a minute. Even though they move a little bit it's "close enough" for Photoshop to match everything up. Yeah, as long as you shoot the people first they don't need to be rock steady. Personally I'd be more worried about shooting something you have no control over, like something in focus that's swaying in the breeze or whatnot.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2009 21:29
|
|
|
Not sure what ISO you're shooting at, but bring that down too. If you're at 100 already then what notlodar said
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2009 17:38
|
|
|
Yeah, the Rebel XT has 95% viewfinder coverage IIRC. Sounds normal.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2010 04:31
|
|
|
Broken bones don't sell monitors.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2010 19:58
|
|
|
Also depending on how wide your lens is, you'll have to worry about getting your tripod legs in the shot.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2010 17:31
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:What are the differences between Lightroom and the Camera Raw feature in Photoshop? And for anyone who has both, what do you generally use Photoshop for that you can't/don't like to do in Lightroom? I typically don't enter Photoshop until I'm ready to export, and even then only if I need to do a high pass sharpening. Also any time I'm going to be altering something major in the photo, that's Photoshop. If it's just cropping, straightening, tonal adjustments and curves, sensor or film dust removal -- that's all Lightroom. Spot adjustments are amazing in Lightroom as well.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2010 22:59
|
|
|
Maybe you could rent whatever you need? The Canon 10-22 is probably a good fit.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 01:10
|
|
|
How did you get into the business? I'm incredibly interested and it seems like an insanely fun thing to do, just go around taking photos of people's houses. Obviously there's stress, but it seems fun enough to balance out
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 04:01
|
|
|
psylent posted:If you think that's stressful, try shooting a wedding! Number one on my list of favours I will never ever do for someone, no matter how much I like them. "It's going to be a simple ceremony and they can't afford a photographer so they'll be happy with anything" is like ten lies in one sentence.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 06:13
|
|
|
This might sound dumb but what's a BNI group? I'm literally throwing every word I can think of at that acronym and nothing's coming back out 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 08:08
|
|
|
Wooten posted:Thanks for the info! You are the wind beneath my wings 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 17:03
|
|
|
I'll ponder this on my way down to the ATM machine.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2010 17:50
|
|
|
Water and a lens cloth, I would imagine.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2010 20:09
|
|
|
Abnegatus posted:I'm curious about colors. Specifically, monitor colors versus print colors. I know there is a tool that is used to match your lcd screen color to that of print (I forgot the name of the tool though Do you mean monitor calibration? That is most certainly recommended. The type of monitor you have also has something to do with how well it's physically able to reproduce some colours. The two big calibrators are the Pantone Huey and the Spyder, but it's been a while since I checked so there could be more now.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2010 19:04
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:On the topic of monitor calibrators is it worth it for TN screens? I think it'll always be better than nothing. I think both devices will calibrate it looking 90 degrees perpendicular to the screen, so as long as you realize the further you deviate from that angle the more shifting you'll experience.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2010 07:03
|
|
|
For me, it was totally my equipment. I had all manual focus lenses and I was just frustrated when I got home and saw an awesome shot where I completely blew focus. That got me so demotivated and made me want to shoot less, and in turn when I did shoot I was constantly thinking "man I bet this is going to be all hosed up" which pretty much kille whatever motivation I had left. I picked up a 30 1.4 and a Nikon D200 and all of a sudden I love photography again. I don't have any amazing shots yet, but the entire process felt so seamless and I felt like I wasn't fighting my equipment anymore. I don't know how long this phase will last, but I'm going to enjoy it while I can.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2010 20:54
|
|
|
Well, what I'm looking at doing is creating a wordpess blog, but hosting the images on Flickr so I can still manage them in one place. There are any number of ways to display your photos on a wordpress blog, you just have to pick or create the theme you like most.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2010 07:58
|
|
|
How is your dad's eyesight? Not for nothing, but the entry level Canons (and Nikons, I'm not picking on a brand here) have some pretty small and dim viewfinders. That would be my only concern. edit: Though I think the XS offers Live View so that might be OK.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2010 07:37
|
|
|
Much bigger too. I think the only cameras that can really compare to the old film SLRs are the Canon 5d series and maybe the Nikon D3s (but I haven't really looked at a D3 yet so I can't say for sure). Nikon D700 as well, maybe since it's full frame, but all three of these are way over your budget 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2010 17:25
|
|
|
Yeah, don't get me wrong, the XS will take beautiful photos on par with any camera when used correctly. It's not the gear that takes the photo it's the photographer. I'm sure he'll love it not only for the camera itself but that you guys put a lot of thought into it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2010 18:10
|
|
|
I would opt for the D90 over the D5000 just for the sake of having a better body. What's your actual budget? You can also consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, which is a little more expensive than the 50mm 1.4 you're looking at. It all depends on what focal range you're happier with. So I'd say D90 for body, the rest either what you can budget for or save up and purchase each individually as you can afford them.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2010 02:44
|
|
|
DaNzA posted:
Not for nothing, but this is probably the most interesting airplane photo I've ever seen. As someone who's not super into aircraft, seeing the same photo of jets taking off and landing does nothing for me. Dress it up nicely like this, though --- Okay, maybe I've seen more interesting, but this is drat awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2010 20:41
|
|
|
If they have you throw out nail clippers I'm pretty sure it's not a stretch to assume they don't want you bringing wrenches on board.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2010 09:58
|
|
|
Both correct. The switch is only there so you don't decouple aperture control from the body by accidentally moving your aperture ring. Move the ring to f/22, flip the lock and basically forget about it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2010 21:15
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:High ISO only works a drat on a correctly exposed image, so that kinda needs to be done first IMO. But an underexposed photo will result in a much noisier image. If you want to test noise reduction in a worst-case scenario then underexposing your photo is pretty valid. e: Beaten. e2: I don't know, I think it's a pretty decent test.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2010 21:04
|
|
|
What aperture were you shooting at? It's not unheard of that recomposing could cause loss of focus. ed: Also what distance were you shooting your subject at?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2010 19:42
|
|
|
Yeah I was googling for this page: http://visual-vacations.com/Photography/focus-recompose_sucks.htm Which is a lot of  for exactly what Dr. Cogwerks said
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2010 20:05
|
|
|
A cheap UV filter might come in handy if you ever feel that your photos are too sharp or you're tired of getting sufficient light for a proper exposure. e: Or environmental seal for a non-joke answer.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2011 00:59
|
|
|
Formatting is super easy on (sufficiently advanced) Nikons, so I just do that all the time.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 13:21 |
|
|
dissss posted:Re: format/delete I thought we were all using card readers anyway? I just use the Windows move command instead of Copy. But we're encouraging formatting to reset the filesystem, something that moving files won't do. It has nothing to do with whether you're using a card reader or the camera to read the card over USB.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2011 01:50
|
|