|
E: wrong thread.
theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Apr 21, 2018 |
#
¿
Apr 21, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
Does anybody make optical notch filters (transmit all light except for one color) for photography?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2018 04:07
|
|
|
What is the goon recommended online printing service?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
charliebravo77 posted:I used MPix recently and was very pleased. Now I just need to find 8 people to buy my framed prints. Thanks! Edit: Unrelated technical question. I have two lenses that both have a focal length of 180 mm, one a non-extending macro, the other a regular extending telephoto. The regular telephoto has about 90 degrees of focus throw between 5 m and infinity. But the macro has only ~5 degrees of focus throw between 5 m and infinity, and this makes it a lot hard to nail focus for subjects at long distances. Is this inherent to all macro lenses or is it possible to have a 1:1 non-extending macro lens have fine focusing ability at both short and long distances? theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Nov 26, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:If the camera's m43, you would need to double the 45mm to 90mm equivalent, so you'd want a shutter speed of around 1/125 or faster Not necessarily. The resolution per pixel is the same (only the field of view changes as you change sensor size*), so if the uncropped image is sharp at 100%, then the cropped image (m43) is equally sharp at 100%. *If pixel size remains constant theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 04:24 on Nov 27, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2019 03:51
|
|
|
Fools Infinite posted:If you are keeping physical pixel size constant in the test, than a sharp at 100% image is less sharp on the crop sensor because each pixel is a larger relative part of the image (which is a view of the same thing), so there can be more wiggle before it makes a difference If focal length and pixel size are constant (only the sensor size changes), then each pixel covers the same angular size.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2019 06:51
|
|
|
Hence my initial comment "Not necessarily." If both (cropped and uncropped, same focal length, same pixel size) are enlarged to cover a 30" x 20" print, then the crop will obviously need more magnification, and therefore motion blur will become more obvious. But if the image is being viewed at 100%, the cropping itself will not degrade raw image sharpness. If it did, that would mean that cropping a full frame image will make it more blurry, which clearly does not happen. Edit: If pixel size, focal length, and shutter speed are the same, a truck moving x mph will give you a blur of y pixels, independent of crop factor. Of course a faster shutter will help reduce motion blur, but my initial response of "Not necessarily." was directed at the comment that the rule of thumb is T = 1/(equ. f), while I think that it is T = 1/f (unless we are magnifying the cropped image more than the uncropped iamge). theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Nov 27, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
Fools Infinite posted:If the full image is sharp at 100% the crop is sharp at 100%, but being sharp at 100% is a much stricter condition on a modern digital camera than the kind of results you get with the hand holding is fine at 1/focal length rule. I don't have the pentax q, so I can't comment, but are you sure the difference is caused by the crop factor, not the difference in pixel size? I'm sure there are situations where the Sony A9 would give perfectly sharp images, while the A7R4 would reveal motion blur, not because of a difference in crop factor (they are the same), but because of the higher resolution of the A7R4. CodfishCartographer posted:My dumbass brain just thinks about it in terms of zoom. IF you’re more zoomed in, then slight hand movements move the view more, and thus you need a faster shutter speed to account for that! Crop =/= zoom. If you crop a full frame image by 10x, you are not zoomed in 10x. Crop is more like looking through a straw - you only change the field of view, not the resolution (area covered by pixel).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2019 18:59
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Holy GRAP you guys are gooning it up! It's just a frickin' rule of thumb, not a Law of Physics. I take responsibility for the derail and I am legitimately sorry. theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Nov 29, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2019 00:58
|
|
|
I use Capture One 11, and I usually process my images to jpg. In pictures with very gradual color gradients (think red to blue during a sunrise), jpg images show harsh transitions, so I switched to png. Pngs look great on the web and when I open them with windows photo viewer. However, when I take that same png and set it as a desktop background image (Win7), the color is different from what I see in C1, web, and windows photo viewer. What is happening? jpg (highest quality): great colors in photo viewer, desktop, and web, but compression artifacts png (highest quality): great colors in photo viewer and web, no compression artifacts, bad colors as desktop background Google suggests that desktop background does not care about color profiles, but it still does not explain why the jpg looks correct when the png does not, even though they look identical in photo viewer. Alternatively, is there a way to get rid of harsh color transitions in jpgs? theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Dec 13, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:The harsh colour transitions are because jpegs have a lossy compression, so you're losing some of the interstitial colour information in colour transitions. PNG uses lossless compression (like TIFFs) so you get all of the original image data.  I should have stayed with b/w photography.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2019 06:11
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Export at high quality (90% or higher) and make sure you're saving in sRGB, it'll minimize the problem as much as possible. I've tried them all (png vs. jpg, sRGB vs. AdobeRGB vs. embedded camera profile), and I am not 100% happy with any solution. Edit: I'll just let it go and forget about windows getting the background right. As long as it looks fine on the web and prints well, I am ... ok. theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Dec 14, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2019 01:08
|
|
|
Schneider Heim posted:So I'm making an art/writing zine with my friend (who is art directing) and she came up with an abstract theme (Clarity). What's your process in making artistic photography? I'm not sure how to start, honestly. Up until now I've taken photos because they look good, but I haven't really shot anything with a theme in mind. I am slow, so perhaps this will not work for you. But whenever I participate in a challenge (which has a theme), I spend at least a week just walking/driving around town, trying to find things that fit the theme. This typically gives me ~5 ideas and I then have another three weeks to try different compositions, lighting, find new things, ... . Abstract themes appear more challenging, but can be much easier because there is a lot of room for interpretation. For example, if the theme is "Diarrhea on a ski slope" and you live in a country with no snow you are screwed. But with a more abstract theme, a quick search in a thesaurus will give you an abundance of ideas. For example, for "clarity" you have: https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/clarity
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2020 03:19
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:This may be a dumb question and not exactly in line with this thread but my current biggest hurdle with taking more pictures is I become incredibly self conscious in public when I pull out my camera. It can be bad enough I’ll decide against pulling it out to not draw attention to myself. Does anyone else deal with this weird feeling and how do you handle or get over it? I used to have this with practically every activity until my 20s. Somehow I grew out of it, and these days I don't really care what strangers think of me. That said, I make an effort to not inconvenience others too much when I am out. Especially so if I'm out with a tripod. Start small. Take pictures of touristy things, so it doesn't feel wierd. Then go a bit farther away. Soon you will have left comfort behind and realized that it did not cause you to die, and perhaps this will be enough for your brain to realize that there is no point in being self conscious. Even if your activity does draw the attention of strangers, why is that a bad thing? Your activity could be the thing that makes the stranger think: "I too should be out with my camera." or "Dr. VooDoo is cute". Maybe your work will inspire others to become dorkroom goons.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2020 03:06
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:This is just a question I've had floating around in my head for a few years - how come macro lenses tend to be pretty cheap compared to normal top-tier lens like a 50mm f/1.2? Short focal length macros are poo poo because they block light by the time you reach the working distance required for 1:1. If you are working with static subjects and flash, then this may not matter. Longer focal length lenses are more competent for macro work IMO and their price (Canon EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro [$1.4k], Nikon AF Micro-NIKKOR 200mm f/4D IF-ED [$1.8k]) is similar to a quality 50 f/1.2. Comedy answer: Low cost macros lenses are cheap because they are a gateway drug.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
Thom12255 posted:So is the Canon EF 100mm one of the poo poo ones? https://www.amazon.com/Canon-100mm-...7HDR8Z18HDVS6HE It depends on the subject. If you are interested in shooting active critters at 1:1, you will have a lower keeper rate at 100 mm because most critters will be long gone before you get close enough to reach 1:1. But if you are doing studio work, the 100 mm L macro will be just fine (as will most macro lenses). Edit: If you are comfortable buying used, the Canon 180 mm macro is rarely more than $700 on the fredmiranda classifieds. theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Feb 4, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 01:53
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:"Lower keep rate at 100mm" is very much still a pretty good keeper rate. Yes, longer working distances, much like longer reach for wildlife super-teles, is generally better. But at 100-ish mm you can get plenty of good shots of bugs-on-flowers where said critter fills the frame and you can bang out a burst before the bug bolts. Yeah, fair. One thing I totally did not mention is the extra weight of the 180 mm macro, and perhaps there is a trade-off between longer reach and weight. And I also remember running around with my 90 mm macro thinking it was the best lens ever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 04:42
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:... They're the guys walking looking at the ground all the time. Sometimes we look at birds too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2020 15:51
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:The silly grin combined with looking at the ground? Definitely a macrophotographer, or a serial killer just finishing his local pets phase. Why not both? ExecuDork posted:... on the ground. For example, dead birds, covered in pretty pretty flies. Once they get to know you, you can get close to live hummingbirds.  But they look very judgemental 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2020 02:28
|
|
|
ijyt posted:Is Affinity Photo generally the best alternative to Lightroom? I played around with it and like it well enough, and I'm tired of Lightroom eating my catalogues every time. Pablo Bluth posted:I'm not sure you'll get people to agree on "the best". RAW processing software is very much personal preference. Capture One is probably the next big player but it's interface is nothing like LR and it's rather expensive. If you have a Fuji/Sony, you can get a discounted (~$130) license for Capture One. Even the regular license is not expensive (assuming you have already spent >$1k on camera gear), but I admit it's not cheap either.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2020 23:23
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Capture One always gets a mention, and I'd like to know what about it is so much better than any of the other not-LightRoom products out there. C 1 is MUCH more expensive than those other options, even with the manufacturer-discount license. I spent an afternoon researching options, tried the free trial of "Capture One 11 for Sony" for a few days, didn't see anything missing, bought it for <$70, and over a year later, I still have not found anything it lacks. The only thing that I find confusing is the catalog function, but I've just decided to not use it, so it's not an issue. I'm sure someone who cares can figure it out. I've never used any other editor, so I can't compare.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2020 06:38
|
|
|
ijyt posted:I've not been out shooting for a while, and I'm heading out of town for the weekend and want to bring my camera, I only want to bring 2 lenses with me, thinking a 50 and either a 24-70 or a 70-300, any thoughts on the two lenses you wouldn't leave home without? Just use an 8 mm fisheye and crop as needed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2020 03:41
|
|
|
President Beep posted:Crop? Crop?! Ugh. Might as well toss the camera all together and just make photoshop renderings. Unless you are shooting on 8"×10", you are already cropping.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2020 05:02
|
|
|
Edit: gently caress it, I'll find out. theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Apr 8, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2020 04:57
|
|
|
e: never mind, posted in more appropriate thread.
theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Apr 21, 2020 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2020 03:52
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Check the batteries, make sure they're holding a charge, take some test photos to see that exposure is on/shutter is correct. Open a lense wide open and take a.picture of a white board to check for excessive dirt on the sensor. I think the lens needs to be stopped down fully if you want to see dust on the sensor.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2020 22:36
|
|
|
"The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos" is a good read for composition, not because you have to follow the rules at all times, but because it's better to know the rules before you decide to break them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2020 23:50
|
|
|
Afaik, it's a function of lens coatings and keeping the sun out of certain position relative to the lens. Also, some primes are more tolerant to the sun than some zooms.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
Is there a certain type of container that people use for photographing liquids in glass? Even my best drinking glass introduces a significant amount of astigmatism.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2020 02:15
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:Or are you talking about distortion on the left and right thirds of the glass? No, those distortions would disappear if a rectangular glass bottle were used (which is what i want to do). I unfortunately don't have a picture of what I am talking about because it was garbage and so I discarded it. But imagine a picture of bubbles in water. Just in front of the focal plane the bokeh balls are elongated along the x direction while behind the focal plane they are elongated in the y direction. I was hoping that I could get a rectangular water container that does not show this behavior.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
Scarodactyl posted:Shooting through a higher RI medium will inherently induce spherical distortions, though to what extent that matters outside the macro/micro realm I am not sure. If I can shoot though an ND filter and not get elongated bokeh balls, I should be able to get a vessel with at least one flat glass surface that is of equally high quality.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2020 04:47
|
|
|
jarlywarly posted:Glass objects are generally shot using diffused rear light in a black room I am happy to see that I arrived at the same conclusion. But if the glass is of a low quality, the real subject (the liquid inside it) looks off.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2020 14:48
|
|
|
I ended up finding an old perfume bottle that seems to fit the bill for now.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2020 01:56
|
|
|
bagmonkey posted:Goons, I have a tough question that I am hoping you can help me with. Back during Christmas 2018, I picked up a Canon 6D Mk II for a pretty dang good price and got a 24-70 f/4L IS USM to go along with it. Also have a Canon 50mm f/1.8 II from my previous camera which seems to still take real nice photos. My approach has been to tell myself to shut the hell up and get off my rear end while having a camera around my neck. Just like with exercise, the first step is often times the hardest.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
That Spooky Witch posted:i'm scared about sharing my photography, but i want anyone out there who would enjoy it to enjoy it, and i'm really intimidated about all the threads here but.... Which direction do you want to develop in? Whose work do you admire? Whose work leaves you indifferent? Since you are self-taught, I will recommend reading at least one book: The Photographer's Eye - by Michael Freeman.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2020 02:31
|
|
|
Yeah, the thing with horizontals and verticals is that the image looks sloppy if they are off even just a little bit (2-10 degrees). If they are off by a lot (30 degrees), the image can perhaps look cool, but you need a good reason for doing so (simply saying that it was intentional is not good enough).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2020 16:12
|
|
|
-"limit travel as much as possible" != don't travel -"essential travel only" = your well-being is essential, so if you must be outside for your well-being, go for it. If you practice social distancing and wear a mask, you are already well ahead of the curve -I use my occasional commute, and Google Street View to do as much scouting as possible to minimize my time on location I stay local - 15 minute drive to a larger town where I walk around with a mask on. I bump into police officers all the time (and my film medium format gear + tripod does not exactly allow me to blend in) and so far nobody has batted an eye.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
Schneider Heim posted:I think the biggest takeaway I got from reading Understanding Exposure was that the answer to the question "what should my exposure be?" is "your exposure must be correct", and the rest of the book dedicates itself to showing you what "correct" actually means. I have seen examples where smaller apertures obviously lose out on resolution/detail. But in some situations (when trying to capture motion for example) it doesn't matter (or it's only obvious at the pixel peep level), while in others (macro with a 180+ mm lens) wider apertures produce too narrow of a DOF.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2020 02:50
|
|
|
Health Services posted:I totally get why this is frustrating, but it's still good advice. They're telling you to develop taste, basically. Since JJ lives in New York, add fashion into the mix.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2020 04:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 15:42 |
|
|
Corla Plankun posted:Is it possible to add a (static) aperture to an existing lens? I bought a cheap 300mm lens online and it is really cool but the manual aperture settings don't seem to do anything (I can't even see an aperture inside so I think maybe it broke and was removed). With a wide-open aperture it feels like the depth-of-field on this thing is about 2cm and I'm focusing manually (and a total amateur) so I'm frequently loving up and taking blurry pics. I have successfully used a step down ring specifically for this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2021 22:17
|
|