|
The Wired Raw File blog presents their photography pet peeves: http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2009/08/black-hole/
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2009 01:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
ConfusedUs posted:A-loving-men. There's some debate to be had about the writing and editorial arc over the past decade, but the photography, layout and type design in that magazine has been really top-notch over the past 3 years or so, especially when you consider that its a mass-market magazine with a target audience that is supposedly arts-averse technophiles. dunno fucked around with this message at 21:56 on Aug 25, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2009 21:54
|
|
|
Just throw some 200 or 400 speed colour film in that and go hog wild. C-41 films are unbelivably forgiving of overexposure at least.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2009 07:38
|
|
|
I also really wish there were something on par as far as artifacts go with a qual 10-12 jpeg but 16-bit and commonly supported. I have some really unevenly exposed images that I don't want to be forced to store as loss-lessly compressed TIFFs 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2009 12:09
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2009 19:58
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Well, using a 4x5 is a pain, and how many 4x5 setups are digital and affordable at the same time? I really don't know to be honest, but at least with digital you can get the results pretty quickly. As far as faking it in Photoshop, I think it's hard to fake shallow depth in Photoshop without a lot of work. Use some fuji instant 4x5 film in some big old hand-carried speed graphic, or better yet, an old polaroid land camera, you have a beautiful colour print in about 45 seconds (that will scan to about 15 MP of resolution on a cheap flatbed, or 28ish for 4x5) at a cost of about a dollar (two dollars for 4x5), then consider the cost of a half hour of your time spent stitching in photoshop.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2009 21:54
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Ah but then you would have to carry a large camera on an engagement shoot. There is a benefit to a simplified kit when you are on the move with a couple. Large camera and tripod and careful set ups tend to bore normal people. A lot of couples get antsy in the time it takes to set up a light stand and flash. 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, and jsut about everybody has an 80mm/2.8, also, an old 4x5 press camera is probably more nimble than you'd imagine... I mean, if this process requires them to stand absolutely still for 30 seconds, there are other options, and they're less expensive than you think...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2009 01:25
|
|
|
HPL posted:Really? I thought the widest was the 80mm f/1.9? You're quite right, I apologize for my error.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2009 01:30
|
|
|
Munkaboo posted:Is there a difference between setting the exposure and taking a jpeg picture and taking a RAW picture and editing the exposure on photoshop? Will a RAW substitute for 3x -2, 0, +2 exposure images? You can easily pull a raw (or a jpeg for that matter) as far as you like assuming there's no clipping, but that's probably a pretty dark image at that point. You can also push them 2 stops pretty easily most of the time, but a +2 exposed JPEG probably has more signal in the shadows that a raw pushed in post would. Also, in general don't frickin' tonemap things, its crass and overdone. You're really better off finding nice light and taking a more "straight" photograph most of the time.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2009 04:46
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:You might wonder why I'd shoot say ISO 640 overexposed a stop instead of a "normal" ISO 320 exposure. While seemingly unintuitive, the overexposed 640 shot pulled back yields less shadow noise than the "normal" 320 one. You do deal with decreased dynamic range when increasing ISO, but as long as your scene will fit within that range you are better off pushing ISO and exposing higher. Really? In my experience (caveat: I am talking about a beaten up old D50 here) I get less shadow noise in a ISO 200 NEF pushed two stops than in an 800 file with the same exposure . They'd both look pretty bad, which is why I don't try to shoot digital in the dark these days, but that's my experience. I'll accept that maybe things are different with current generation sensors, and overexposure/underdevelopment is a great way to go for rich tones with negative films, but this seems counterintuitive to me.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2009 02:55
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Well, after I processed it and had a file that retained all the details I wanted, why bother keeping the RAW? Just because it's a painless default if you've got a lightroom/aperture workflow, and lets you do it all from scratch again in the future should you suddenly have some revelation about the way you do post, but still like the shot. Also, even ZIP/LZW'd 16-bit TIFFs tend to be larger than raws on a lot of cameras (since they implement a lossily compressed rawish thing instead of every last byte of data off the sensor, and the data is usually 12 or 14-bit).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2009 05:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 17:17 |
|
|
MSC posted:Right now, I've narrowed it down to a Panasonic Lumix DSC-ZS1 and a Canon SD780IS. They both are in my price range. I'd like to hear what you have to say about either and which one of those I should buy, or a recommendation for something else if you have one. I bought an SD 780 earlier this year and have been quite happy with it. While its short on manual controls, its got a couple stops of exposure compensation either direction, and will do highlight blinkies, and this is generally enough for me to get what i want (or can, rather) in post. It also has a mostly worthless but sometimes amazing 2 Megapixel ISO 3200 mode which I've managed to use effectively a couple of times. In the end the image quality is decent, especially at low ISOs, it does 720p video and it fits in a shirt pocket, more or less what I was looking for. And of course, it comes in black. Edit: I actually bothered looking up the panasonic after writing this and I have one concern: The range on the zoom on that Panasonic is silly, so I'd be cautious about the lens quality as a result. See if you can give it a try, check out the contrast/flare/etc. I might suggest the DMC-FX48 as an alternative, the zoom is a little less extreme and. But more importantly I would encourage you to not stress too much about your choice and get shooting with whatever you buy sooner rather than later. It's been a real boon to have something I can unobtrusively slide into a pocket and it'll be obsolete within 18 months anyways, so whatever. dunno fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Dec 1, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2009 16:06
|
|