|
Happened sometime around this time last year (I think) but who knows when it will happen again.
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2009 20:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
Hop Pocket posted:So I've just ordered quite a few prints at various sizes (8x10, 8x12, 11x14, etc) and I am interested in finding a relatively cheap way of ordering some basic, decent frames that aren't complete poo poo. I don't like to have a lot of decor on my frames. Mostly just a wooden black frame maybe with a neutral mat. Any recommendations on a good place to order these online? Not sure what shipping would be like on frames, you may want to check out any art stores you have locally. I have one that is like an art supply store that has decent basic frames for a reasonable price.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2009 22:02
|
|
|
I head you should just try to expose correctly so you do not have to make any adjustments in post should I stop trying to do this? Edit: more serious if you are really that worried and it is a static or slow moving scene/subject bracket you exposures, the joy of digital is you can take as many photos as you want.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2009 07:20
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:While on this subject. When you guys calibrate, do you leave on the room lights that will normally be on when working? or turn them all off and let it calibrate in a dark room? With my huey pro it has a light sensor that takes room light into consideration, not sure how much it does but I have it to auto adjust all the time and I notice the brightness changes depending on the room light.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2009 21:04
|
|
|
Ric posted:Is it possible to merge Lightroom catalogues? I've processed a few sets recently on a different computer and I'd like to add them with changes to my main catalogue. I think you can import photos from a catalog but not 100% sure.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2009 00:47
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I dunno if you're on a Mac but I use SuperDuper to do this. For PC there is synctoy which I use. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=c26efa36-98e0-4ee9-a7c5-98d0592d8c52&displaylang=en
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2010 07:57
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The new 24mm is a good start (Now a 35mm please), but the new wide zoom being f/4 is just retarded. I first thought that too but it does make sense, you get VR so that helps a bit but often wide angles are used for landscapes where you will be stopping down anyways. This lens will probably be a pretty big hit with people who hike etc. Remember there is always the 14-24 2.8. f4 also lets them keep the cost down.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2010 20:19
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:Playing around with tonemapping on an old throwaway shot of mine. Blend the 2 (or more) exposures yourself, it will look much much better.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2010 04:47
|
|
|
Not sure about lightroom but it is pretty easy to set up an action that would do that in photoshop which you could then run as a batch.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2010 02:37
|
|
|
I may be imagining things but was there not a recall to fix an issue where the mirror could fall out, sounds like this may be the issue or your shutter has failed?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2010 17:10
|
|
|
What body do you use, is it possible you changed it to 14bit RAW?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2010 08:22
|
|
|
Alvination posted:On a certain CF card I have, if I upload a set of pics to Lightroom, the last pic is corrupted somehow. Either it looks like: I had this same issue and it was not the card but something in the transfer was screwing up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2010 06:21
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:I posted this in the post-processing thread, but did not get a response. Let's try it here with some more background info. Here's a screencap of an sRGB JPG exported from Lightroom : Welcome to the world of colour management in windows, I had a real problem with this when I upgraded my monitor earlier in the year. Chrome does not support ICC colour profiles, FF only supports ICC V2, safari supports ICC v2 and ICC v4 Edit: photoshop, LR and windows photo viewer support both ICC v2 and v4. Let me know if this answered your questions I spent a fair bit of time trying to wrap my head around this stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2010 21:30
|
|
|
We have to keep an eye on our enemies... Edit: I like to think that people here realize that Nikon and Canon both make very good gear regardless of what they personally use.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2010 00:36
|
|
|
Look at photos you like and decide why you like them. Once you know why you like them you can work towards making photos that you like.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2010 04:02
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Update: Strange about the tool kit, did they say why?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2010 09:48
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Isn't this just image stabilization but in reverse? It used the gyroscopes to embed camera movement in the exif data. With that data they used software to counter act it which is pretty cool. If i remember they knew the software was not great but if the information was recorded that software down the road could do a much better job.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2010 01:25
|
|
|
BeastOfExmoor posted:I'm trying to put together a photo book for a Christmas present and all the sites I've tried have fixed aspect ratios and just crop of the sides of any photo not in 8x10 ratio. The only fix I can think of is to add black borders to the shots to make them all 8x10 before uploading them, but this is a royal pain when working with 50-60 photos. Is anyone familiar with a way to do this as a batch edit? You could do a batch job in Photoshop. Can you not just lay out the photos with blank space on each page instead of having put artificially putting black borders on them?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2010 17:43
|
|
|
I have a mat cutter and I don't really use it (mostly because it is not big enough) but unless you are going to be doing a lot of matting I am not sure it is worth it (like buying a photo printer). I found a local art supply store that cuts custom mats for like 2 dollars on top of the cost of the mat. For this nominal cost I don't have to worry about screwing up and they probably do a much better job than I would. I also don't have to worry about having an area setup to cut mats etc. Just something to consider.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2010 03:48
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:I'm guessing you bought the whole kit then. The kits limit you on the size you can cut and take up a bunch of room, which is why I suggested just buying just the bevel mat cutter, a straight edge, and just cut on some sacrificial mat board. That way they don't take up any room and you aren't limited on size. I've cut mats up to 36" wide this way. That is actually the exact cutter I have, it came as part of a kit I was given though. I had problems trying to use a larger straight edge and keeping the straight edge in one place. I should probably give it another go but for the time being I dont really have the need.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2010 04:53
|
|
|
Kiri koli posted:I'm in the middle of acquiring a 50mm f1.8 from craigslist and the guy said that he has a UV filter on it. On the advice of everyone here I'll be removing the filter, but since I'll have it anyway, are there any situations were it might come in handy? I'm sure it's cheap as hell. Poor weather/environmental conditions such as a sand storm, heavy dust, maybe snow/rain. There are times they are a good idea but are not needed all the time or everyday use.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2011 00:58
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:The super telephotos don't need a filter. Mine actually has a "filter" built into the front, the manual says it may be removed in certain situations if you notice ghosting. I am guessing it is removable incase it breaks etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2011 21:03
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:That's weird. Would it affect weather sealing? I would guess it would, there is rubber around it. I have never removed or had a need to really. I am pretty sure it is solely there to protect the exotic glass behind it. I think the manual states it is for environmental protection and it is much cheaper to replace than the true front element.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
The longer the focal length the more the image subject is "compressed" I believe. I would imagine after a certain length that his effect would not as noticeable.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2011 22:37
|
|
|
I may be wrong but I think PC sync is safe since no voltage is sent through it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2011 18:05
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:It wouldn't be electrical if there weren't voltage! I know an electrical signal is sent through it but I did not think any large voltages where.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2011 05:38
|
|
|
robertdx posted:Thanks for the suggestions guys. I'm guessing graph paper is going to be the best way to go. I'd prefer to use the originals, and I'd prefer to capture it in a single shot (although it does seem like composting everything together would be easier). Going to go to the office supply store today to look at different colored background or matte paper, but I'd also prefer to keep the main background white to match with other shots in the series. White on white, this is a pain in the rear end but at least I am trying to push myself. If I could get tiny squares of off color paper to put behind each card that might help isolate them from the background, but then I'd worry about individually cutting each to be the same size. My other thought was to place a small coin or something under each card, so that they come up off the background a little bit and cause more of a shadow to drop behind them. I dunno, I'll keep you updated. You should start a project thread, pretty interesting idea and some of the shots look pretty cool.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2011 04:06
|
|
|
Link to the desktop uploader for flickr: http://www.flickr.com/tools/
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
tijag posted:I'm trying to get some images printed, but unfortunately they don't 'fit' on a 5x7 or 8x10 without having to be cropped. Snapfish doesn't allow me to say 'keep the aspect ratio' or something like that so that I get my whole image. How do I get around this. Is there a better printing solution than Snapfish? Most cameras will have a 3:2 ratio, so unless you are printing 4x6, or 8x12 etc you are going to have to crop. If you really want to have the full image on there you could always add some white/black filler on certain edges to make it fit the sizes you want.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
NoneMoreNegative posted:FFS thanks to Adobe for not hosting any installer on their servers apart from the current versions. Bought a digital download of Photoshop CS5 and CS6 has been released? gently caress you if you need to reinstall. That seems beyond stupid. Have you contacted support? I thought they tied stuff to your adobe ID now, have you tried logging into your account? If that all fails I am sure there are "other" places that you can get an installer from.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
lllllllllllllllllll posted:1. How do I get rid of shots like this, where everything close to the sky is overexposed? Probably the best solution to this is take a shot for the foreground/non sky portions of the photos and then one of the sky at the desired exposure and combine them in post. A ND filter will not me a huge help due to the "shape" of the sky. Another possibly less practical solution would be to return when there are different lighting conditions.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2012 08:17
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:So I want to do some more landscape photography. I do have a polarizer for bluer skies and cut down reflections. I've seen some wonderful photos taken with ND and GND filters. When should I use a polarizer and when should I use a ND filter? They can't be used together, especially a GND with polarizer, correct? The only reason for the ND from what I've seen is balanced sky and smooth water/waterfalls. Optionally just get an ND filter. You can then shoot a frame for the sky and one for the foreground and then use a mask in post to duplicate what an ND filter does. This is what I do so I can avoid carrying around a bunch of filters. I Just have a cheapo screw in ND filter and it is not great but it works. If you are just wanting to experiment I would suggest getting something like a 77mm ND8 filter, you can usually find cheap ones. IF you really like use it then you can look into getting a nicer one or some GND filters.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Aside from battery life, do I need to worry about anything if I'm doing super long exposures (~2 hours) in -20 to -40 C temperatures with my 7D? I am not sure your battery will last that long. You may need to watch out for condensation on the lens etc. I don't really have much experience shooting in temperatures that cold. The one time I did I remember my battery life went from days to maybe hours or minutes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
GoldenNugget posted:Thanks guys! So it'd be probably better to stick with a polarizer for most daylight shooting and on special occasions like when I need a larger aperture for bokeh or smooth water I should switch to ND/GND? Define cheap? Have a look in the tripod thread, it has some good info in it: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3390180 Unfortunately tripods are one of those things you get what you pay for. If you are on a budget I would try to find a used one if possible as tripods last for a long time. Your ideas for using ND filters etc would be correct. Basically just use an ND filter if you want a longer exposure or to stop down more.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
Interview with the photographer who shot the "bliss" photo for the XP wallpaper, kind of interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVXY8OEZAEQ
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
I got the Hoya NDx400 9 stop filter and I am pretty happy with it. And like others said you will need to focus/compose before you attach the filter. Vignettes a bit at wider angles but not too badly (16mm on FF). Also used it on @10mm on a crop and was a bit worse but not awful for vignetting.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:So I'm trying to free up space on my computer. I have tons of images saved in RAW format in Lightroom, and I'd like to just convert them all into JPG to save space. I've already retouched the ones I'd want, so I can't imagine being too sad about losing all the outtakes raw files. Storage is stupidly cheap these days, unless the photos are really bad I would probably just get some more storage. If you don't want to do that I guess you could export them from LR and then re-add the photos.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 05:17 |
|
|
If there is no fog/mist when you are there hand out a bunch of juuls to teens and get them to create a big cloud then you should be able to get some cool "god rays".
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2019 02:27
|
|