|
Because I tend to shoot stuff that calls for galleries and generally a larger number of images, I tend not to run stuff through too many layers of editing. I don't use Lightroom but I do something similar to what you all are talking about. I start with the whole lot and tag everything that is decent/good-- generally ok but not great stuff I don't bother with, but that depends on the application. All of that stuff gets toned/processed, then I go through those and essentially just make a case-by-case choice to continue the editing into the 'final' stage (ie local adjustments in photoshop). This stage would also be where I might pick out the best shot from a sequence or something like that. If I am doing something that requires turning in just one or two images, then I will run through and pick out the selects like usual then make a second and third pass to whittle it down.
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2009 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 05:53 |
|
|
Martytoof posted: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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2009 18:14
|
|
|
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? Yep more or less. In some cases it will mean that you use a more narrowly targeted meter like a spot meter to pick your exposure. The other way to to this is just to move closer to whatever you want to meter off of and set your exposure then go back and shoot.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2009 15:41
|
|
|
DanTheFryingPan posted:Wouldn't this be solved by using faster cards? Unless you are using particularly old, slow cards, the write times are going to be entirely controlled by the camera, not the card. Once your card is faster than the camera's write speed, the card speed no longer plays a role.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2009 14:47
|
|
|
Todd Flanders posted:I have a photo I'd like to get printed that is oddly sized. I'm thinking I may print it at 33 inches wide by 12 inches tall. Printing isn't the issue, but I want to frame it. There are places where I can purchase custom frames, but what about the glass? That seems like it might be more difficult. That and the matte board. Anyone have experience with this process that may know of a good web site to go through? If you have a Hobby Lobby in town, they can cut glass to any dimension you like for under $10.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2009 02:10
|
|
|
I think a point to think about is that while a complex scene may be more pleasing to our eye, finding a way to simplify it is often a good way to make a more appealing photograph.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2009 16:53
|
|
|
Interrupting Moss posted:What does anyone think is the best (Windows based) program for tagging massive amounts of flickr images? I have a bunch of images that have little or no tags and I'd like to fix this as easily as possible without having to look at each image and adding many blanket tags and individual tags. You want to tag the images from within flickr, or tag them in software and then upload them to flickr?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2009 01:07
|
|
|
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 get away with pulling and pushing a raw file in post much more aggressively than you can a jpeg, but no, it's not the same thing.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2009 04:33
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:This guy takes 8fps on a D3, combines them in Photoshop and makes them look pretty drat good. Yeah that would work just fine, but, like you said, you will need to work in near perfect darkness.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2009 14:43
|
|
|
For a show like that, I think you should maybe price from $75-$300 or so... though be conscious of your market-- if it's an upscale place maybe aim a little higher. Don't forget that for art photography, you create the value with your pricing.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2009 04:45
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Here is example what of a weather sealed camera can do Just don't forget that they don't warranty against water damage.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2009 01:39
|
|
|
dakana posted:Well, if you're not going to edit the photos, why are you shooting in RAW? The point of RAW is to give more flexibility when you edit. If you just want to see them how they came out of the camera, you should consider shooting JPG. Alternatively, invest in a faster image viewer-- try a trial of Photo Mechanic.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2010 20:27
|
|
|
BobTheCow posted:I'll wear a green visor and go as a blackjack dealer. I'll get access anywhere! Based on what I've seen from watching CSPAN and such, the Washington press corp wear khakis and blue oxford type shirts, no ties. This is roughly the dress code I had to follow for the paper I interned with as well. Are you shooting it for a press organization or for the governor/his campaign or whatever? I'd dress up more if you're working for him, but if you want to fit in with press, business casual is the way to go. Not a bad idea to throw the tie in bag just in case though. Or get a felt hat with a 'press' card tucked into the brim. That works too.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2010 21:25
|
|
|
HPL posted:Don't forget to have a stogie hanging out of the side of your mouth. For a finishing touch you need to be reeking of scotch and fixer.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2010 11:01
|
|
|
My 24in iMac seems to be performing well, but it's not the newest generation-- though it's probably about the last to come off the line (bought it about a two weeks and a day before they announced the new ones...argh)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2010 17:25
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Have you tried checking for the yellowing issue on it? It sounds like the problems cropped up with the latest generation of iMacs. I'd probably be buying an older one anyways. Evidence seems to indicate that it's not a problem on the previous gen ones anyway, but I ran the test and it seems fine. There might be a bit of a tinge in the bottom right corner, less than a half inch worth though so I'm not really concerned.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2010 19:28
|
|
|
I'll pop in to suggest taking a look at Photo Mechanic, which is a file-management and viewing software rather than editing-- it lets you hem down your shoot to just your selections to edit them, much much faster than you can in other programs. The software also handles stuff like captioning and keywording. It's probably more powerful than your average user needs but it's certainly worth checking out.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2010 21:35
|
|
|
SynVisions posted:As far as I can remember, basically any video I have seen out of a Canon/Nikon DSLR has either been choppy, or has an occasional skip. I've yet to see a continuous video without cuts that doesn't at least skip occasionally. I mean it's not that disruptive in video from high end cameras such as the 5dmk2, but I notice it. Even looking at promo video that Nikon and Canon puts out can have some heavy choppiness to it. This has not been my experience at all, except when viewing HD video on a slow computer.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2010 21:17
|
|
|
Also, while this will depend on the particular thing you are photographing, it doesn't work nearly as smoothly to make small look big when photographing things like model cars or similar, because on a small object the level of detail will be suspect when it's being treated as a large object.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2010 17:29
|
|
|
Figure out what you find important, photograph it. There's not much else you can do.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 09:44
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Yeah, it's always possible someone won't see the satirical nature. It was more for brad than for the newbie, but yes, I was kidding. God, that comment could go straight to FM forums without edit. Clearly you haven't spent enough time on the POTN gear forums.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2010 21:24
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but for the sake of my sanity please check this larger version of the uncropped original and tell me if you can't see what I'm talking about regarding the visible red areas on the bird's head (under the eye) and on the tail. Both areas are big enough in the original that they're not being identified as purely noise by the noise reduction algorithms. What sort of modification has the image you are showing us undergone? Is there any chance that you've opened it up in Adobe Camera Raw with the sliders set to 'auto' ?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2010 15:05
|
|
|
bazaar apparatus posted:Well this guy is selling it for $400, is that even a good deal for what I'm getting? It seemed okay to me since it was originally $1500 back in 2005. And I didn't notice the screen size until now, it is pretty small... It's a plenty capable camera-- the speed in terms of the processor, etc, should be fairly comparable to what you could expect out of a modern camera, so I wouldn't worry about that. The main areas where it falls behind the current offerings are ISO performance (which is still pretty decent on the 20D, just not as nice as newer kit) resolution (although 8.2 is MORE than enough) and the aforementioned screen size. A bigger screen is nice but it should not be a deal breaker.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2010 17:49
|
|
|
jonus posted:I'm surprised there isn't a thread here for compact cameras, perhaps I'm just not seeing it? Unless you want to be 'that guy', sometimes its inappropriate to bring along a huge DSLR. I'm interested in an affordable compact camera that will work both for hiking, and for parties. Any particular recommendations, or things that I should avoid? Figure out how much money you want to spend, then compare that to the list of Canon compacts. Pick what seems appropriate. The SD series tend to be good for tiny cameras-- I have the SD940IS and it has performed admirably.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2010 16:48
|
|
|
I've never been to a workshop (can't afford it) but my read on them has always been that they are fun and you might learn something as a beginner, but it's silly to think you'll come away with really unique shots. More importantly, reading about workshops makes me want to run a workshop. Seems like some of them more fancy ones are a veritable license to print money.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2010 19:09
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Just take the viewfinder off bottom tier DSLRs, they're practically useless anyway. How... do you mean? That makes no sense.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2010 19:57
|
|
|
Zapf Dingbat posted:This is what I wanted to hear. I'm such a cheap bastard. The cheapasses way out is to never stop down past 2.8.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2010 18:38
|
|
|
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? Photoshop lets you do all the sorts of pixel-level editing that is much more difficult to do in Light Room. For example, retouching, spot toning, cloning, dodging/burning, etc, are either possible or much easier in Photo Shop than in Light Room.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2010 00:01
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Yeah, the 6, 70 and sl1 are the only ones that have it mostly fixed - anything older (5d3, 7d, t4i/t5i, 60d) are a big mess in the shadows No, this is nuts. I've shot with digital Canons for 10 years and not once have I chucked out a shot because of shadow banding. This has been gearnerd fantasy since 2004 at least, with people posting underexposed 100% crops from their living room before returning a succession of bodies before finally switching to some other system in impotent rage.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Jimlad posted:
Av in spot meter mode for most stuff, center weighted for sports or other fast moving events with shifting light. Generally if it's a constant light situation, it's easiest just to nail down the exposure and set it to manual. Sunny 16 is a pretty easy quick and dirty approach, too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:here is a start: You did such a nice job isolating the background that they had to do a cut out. Sweet work there! Please try to discuss photography without having to advertise where you were published. Anyone who has opened a newspaper or magazine (or seen your post here) knows that published does not by needs mean good. I did newspaper and magazine work in college, they pick the photos they need or that fit the story, and usually being there is more important than anything else.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
Mightaswell posted:You guys are loving dorks, sports photography is THE use case for shutter priority mode. You don't need an SI photographer to tell you that. Are you being obtuse on purpose? I've never understood the attraction to shutter priority for sports, never felt a need to use it. If I found myself shooting sports in mixed light, it was almost always outside during the day time, which meant that Av stands virtually zero risk of returning a "too slow" shutter speed, and gives better return than the risk of Tv, which is winding up with dark images or poor background seperation. Maybe something magical has happened in the years since I've done sports work, but I only ever used Tv for panning. The point is that it's a matter of preference, no matter if you're a PUBLISHED WIRE PHOTOGRAPHER or just a dad shooting kid's soccer.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2014 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 05:53 |
|
|
I don't wear glasses but isn't that the whole point of diopter adjustment, so that you can match the viewfinder to your eyes and not have to wear your glasses to shoot?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2019 16:11
|
|