|
Thanks to frunksock for coming back to his thread, now we get to have a new one (after god knows how many pages). I'll update the OP over the next day or two with some more up to date information, below is the OP from the current thread. This is the thread for general questions. About photography. It is less than a billion pages long, unlike the previous questions thread. Ask a question, get some answers, and probably like fifty comedy answers as well.  This is not the gear thread. If your question has to do with what to buy rather than how to use it, you are probably in the wrong thread. Please check out the Gear Thread. Old threads: v3.0 v2.0 v1.0 (Archived). Other Photography Threads: The Centralized Camera Gear Thread: Ask questions and post your thoughts about anything gear-related here, including purchase recommendations (except for your first DSLR purchase, see below). The Photoshop tips and tricks extravaganza: Photoshop for photographers (Archived). (current month) Photo A Day and also Snapshot A Day should both be on the first page, and are great places to get critique. The Lighting Thread: For all your photographic lighting questions fEE: For all things Nikon The Sony Thread: Discuss hotshoe superiority itt. The 4/3 Thread: It's DESIGNED FOR DI... I can't even say it. Go here to discuss Olympus stuff. The Pentax Thread: If I had to guess I'd say this was about Pentax cameras. The Canon Thread: Nikon paid me $500 to wait a day before linking it. My First DSLR: Between good advice and senseless dickwaving, all you could ever need to know about buying your first DSLR. The Film Thread: For those of you who enjoy film. Photography links: I tried to comb through the last thread and pull out some useful links, and well as some sites from my own bookmarks. If you'd like anything added here, just let me know. Photo.net: Check out the tutorials for a pretty good introduction to photography. FredMiranda.com: Lens reviews and forums. Mat-cutting guide Resolution / print-size calculator Photozone.de: Objective and concise lens reviews / tests. photonotes.org: Everything you ever wanted to know ever about the Canon EOS flash system. BobAtkins.com: A lot of Canon-centric gear discussion, but also good technical articles of optics topics such as Digital Depth of Field. The Luminous Landscape: Many tutorials, articles, and reviews, such as this one on creating an HDR image in Photoshop. The Radiant Vista: Video and PDF Photoshop tutorials and photo critiques. How to make a light box. Photo Editing 101: A quick basic tutorial on adjusting black point, white point, rotation, sharpening, and saturation. dg28.com: Various articles on lighting and other techniques from a PJ perspective. Strobist's Lighting 101: Flash Lighting Techniques. Correcting for film reciprocity DSLR sensor cleaning Stock photo price calculator "What to Charge," Releases, Licensing and Other Resources Neutral Density and Graduated ND Filters Guide How to shoot fireworks #creatives wiki - Only click if you can withstand trolling mixed in with your photography information. Don't be afraid to consult Wikipedia for subjects as 'what is aperture or f/stop?', either. I'll be updating the OP over the next couple days, so if there's any awesome links I missed, let me know. EDIT THE FIRST: Some books to read, courtesy of a dude. DJExile posted:A great overall starter is Understanding Exposure, Bryan Peterson knows his poo poo really well, but can come across as a little dickish at times. It's still a very good read. Tom Ang's How to Photograph Absolutely Anything was fantastic for me when I started out as well. Both give a lot of good little rules of thumb to keep in mind (shooting f/8 to f/11 to grab just about anything, when to use fill flash, shooting motion with slow shutter & panning, etc). SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Feb 19, 2010 |
#
¿
Aug 11, 2009 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 02:39 |
|
|
Nikon paid me to not link either of those threads for 24 hours (or I only looked for threads on the first page of CC).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2009 19:04
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Color accuracy SUCKS on pixels that are blinking on the LCD. Yes you can bring back feather details on a white bird, but you absolutely cannot bring back accurate color on a person's face that even close to approaches clipping. Just because there is detail, doesn't mean there is color accuracy. This is so goddamn true. While, like most people, I'm more afraid of blown out highlights than I should be, the only thing you can reliably pull back from highlights is details in whatever color the blown area is. And, like poop said, this isn't a "spergin' about color" thing, if someone's skin is blown out, anything you can haul back from that will usually not resemble the skin color of any race. The same can APPEAR to be true in shadows (I'm talking here about a shadow in a picture where flash was used), like trying to dodge the shadowed side of someone's face a bit gives you blue or yellow or something instead of their actual skin color. Just remember what light source was hitting the area you're screwing with - in the shadow on a flash-lit picture, the light hitting the shadowed side may be a radically different color temperature than the flash-exposed side, especially if you were doing any kind of correction on the flash.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2009 19:02
|
|
|
Eutheria posted:It's helpful to a degree. But I'm looking for something more specific to camera lenses, rather than just lenses in general. It's pretty god drat complicated, but try to find Nikon's 1001 Nights page for stories told by the actual lens designers. Also, fun fact, focal length is not actually what makes a lens "telephoto", but the presence of a telephoto group in it (regardless of focal length).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2010 13:06
|
|
|
Ziir posted:What's the difference between changing my AE/AF Lock button on my D80 to have it focus when pressed to just switching my camera from AF to manual focus after I set my focus? As was said before, one unnecessary button push, but with a non-AF-S lens, switching to manual focus on the D80 will retract the screw drive, meaning you could theoretically knock the focus ring or something. If it's still on AF, the screw drive will keep it from going anywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2010 19:50
|
|
|
Added DJExile's book recommendations to the OP. Anyone else?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2010 05:34
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:Ignore the megapixel count and go with the 40d. Go past eight MP or so and you're past the point of diminishing returns compared to ISO handling, AF speed, and several other forms of performance. Wait, increased pixel density affecting AF speed? What? As far as I know, the only two things pixel density affects is noise (like you said), and the aperture at which diffraction becomes an issue.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:the new wide zoom being f/4 is just retarded. This is why lens designers drink. "You want a lens that, pointed forwards, can see your feet, and also fast enough to shoot at midnight during a lunar eclipse? And you want it to cost less than your car?"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2010 06:00
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:I want to watch a stream where the tries to answer these questions. You really should have been around for the cooking challenge, he was making food live on ustream while Dorkroom and GWS people lambasted him for his terrible knife skills (and also everything else). I should do another stream actually, that was pretty fun.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
Let's get the chat back to photography in general, if we could. Although if anybody is doing a live stream of anything such as photography or cooking or something else enjoyable to Dorkroom, feel free to make a thread or something.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
Would the two gentlemen shooting pictures of fake guns that shoot little plastic things kindly stop posting, and resume discussion in a separate thread, or the business thread, or better yet, just don't resume discussion. And would everyone trying to argue with these two gentlemen also just sort of pretend they don't exist in a vain effort to get this thread back on at least one rail.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
feralesque posted:By minilab, do you mean those standard film processing places? If so, then yep that's pretty much it. Or even just someone with a decent film scanner, to see if the negs are that bad, or if the lovely scanning is making it worse.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
the posted:Pretty sure I saw one of these sitting in a leather case (with an additional lens in it's own case) on a shelf at the flea market today. I didn't see a price on it. Maybe I should go back tomorrow and see how much he wants for it. But it... I mean, prism hump... the letters X-300 clearly printed on the front... Can I please buy an ounce of whatever you're on?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
I shoot JPEG almost all the time. Seriously, autism aside, it's not like shooting JPEG ruins photographs or something.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:You dump a whole lot of information when encoding to jpeg. I'm shooting theatre on a D200. JPEG has never been a limiting factor. I'm quite okay with dumping all that data, because in almost every case, I don't actually need it. This feels sorta like an MP3/FLAC argument - yes, one is objectively better, but it also almost never matters in day to day life. I dunno, I used to shoot in RAW all the time, but as I got better, I realized that my issues were related to actual photographic skill, and that the ability to haul back detail from horribly blown highlights wasn't worth gigantic file sizes (especially when most of the time I was exporting as JPEG without even adjusting anything). Actually, looking at my camera, it's not even on 'Fine', it's on JPEG-Normal. For paid work. xzzy posted:Without taking a stance on whether jpeg is "okay" or that raw is "superior", I will point out that Lightroom doesn't seem able to do as much of its magic on a jpeg. When you get bored sometime, run a test.. take a photo in raw, then import it into Lightroom. Export it as a jpeg then reimport that jpeg, so you have two copies of the same image in different file formats. Then play around with the sliders. Some of them will act differently on the raw version of the file than the jpeg version. This is of course entirely true and the difference is dramatic. I always just took the attitude that if I had to do adjustments beyond what Lightroom could do with a JPEG, I had bigger issues than what format I'm shooting in. Edge cases aside, of course, if I know DR is going to be an issue or I know for a fact I'm going to get blown highlights, yeah, I'll switch it up to RAW for that day. SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Jan 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Bigger is better biotches It's really not cool to post pictures of my garage, dude.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
Helicity posted:edit: I'm also a little confused. I've got it mounted on my Fuji X-E1 with an adapter, and the aperture doesn't open or close at all when I press the shutter. Is that normal? If it is, it seems like a sticky aperture wouldn't even be a problem. Generally purely mechanical adapters (as in, it lets you mount the lens on your camera) provide absolutely no control over focus or aperture. The camera has no idea the lens is even there, and vice versa, much less able to control it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
Helicity posted:Ah, I guess that makes sense. There's really no downside to a slightly sticky aperture on a lens mounted this way then, is there? Not all, since you'll be opening and closing it by hand with the aperture ring.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2013 02:58
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Hot dang, that fixed it. Should I be importing all my photos as Camera Standard? It was set to Adobe Standard before. Pages and pages of autism will be written about this, but "what you think looks good" is generally a good thing to do.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Also strongly consider not storing your photos on your SD card long-term. There's no specific downside, but if you wipe the card after every import, stuff like this doesn't happen and it makes your life easier in general. Unless you're keeping the photos on the card as a sort of backup, in which case, a better backup method is probably a good idea.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Mest0r posted:Should be able to format the SD card in camera some where in the options, better than deleting the files on the computer as temporary files might be written on the card by the computer and can (although most likely not) affect the performance of the camera; it's an issue for the Fujifilm X100, so could be for other cameras as well. This, but I swear Lightroom has a "delete after import" function - I'm not sure if it's in the preferences or in the import window.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
BANME.sh posted:Delete after import doesn't work for me in Lightroom when I connect the camera with a USB cable. I am assuming it only has read access that way (the 'move' option is also disabled). It's probably meant for when you use a card reader. This could be a matter of the camera presenting itself as PTP rather than as a USB mass storage device (which you should be able to change in menus), I'm assuming PTP doesn't support deletion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Yeah that's the issue. I just 2-button-format my cards when I put them back in the camera. 2-button format is one of the handiest things ever, but I have yet to ever use 2-button reset.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
red19fire posted:K*rock goes into some depth about it. Much like every single other loving thing. I like his "K-Rock Edition Manual" he writes for like very single loving Nikon camera ever. That must take a hell of a lot of time. Unless the middle 2/3 is just lorem ipsum because nobody ever reads them. At least he's stopped reviewing lenses that don't exist. I think.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Honestly AFing on the moon and/or a streetlight a couple blocks away then switching to manual focus is by far the easiest way to do this.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Not all lenses have a hard stop at infinity, and not all lenses have a focus scale on them. Also the hard stop is not necessarily infinity (see earlier post about slightly-past-infinity focusing).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
Gonna need some more pix where we can see the front and side at the same time, the glass near the damage, etc. It could just be a busted filter ring in which case epoxy that poo poo back together and just don't use filters, but it's hard to tell from that pic.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Does it still function entirely correctly on focus and zoom? Because honestly unless you use filters a lot it might not be worth sending in for repair.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2013 04:29
|
|
|
Hixson posted:Everything seems to work fine. I'll give the epoxy a try. I didn't say to just blast it with epoxy, just that it's something to consider if you don't give a poo poo about the resale value and don't want to mount filters or a hood on it. If any of those things aren't the case, take it in to the store and see if they can do a better job.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2013 05:06
|
|
|
Prathm posted:What's a good place to get laser-cut pinholes? Preferably cheap. eBay, and 'good' barely even matters, luckily it's really easy to laser-cut a single hole in a piece of metal then bolt it to a body cap. (Or just make one yourself)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
melon cat posted:I have a ton of digital photos on a bunch of DVD-ROMs, but I'm getting sick of the mess. Is there a better way of archiving a bunch of personal photos, these days (ie. high-capacicty thumb drive, SD card, etc.)? I do have dual-layered DVDs, but know that I'll just run into the same issues later. Amazon Glacier. A hundred gigs is costing me slightly over a dollar a month.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2013 18:25
|
|
|
Prathm posted:I have access to 3 pretty large studio-flashes. Could that be enough to get a exposure time of about 5 sec. or less? Assuming the subject is static, you could just fire the flashes over and over until you get as much light as you need. Depending on what studio flashes they are you may be able to get off 3 flashes in 5 seconds.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Said it twenty times before, will say it again. Amazon Glacier. Hundred gigs of my poo poo is backed up for less than a buck a month, and using Arq, syncs automatically. Amazon's worst-case figures are 1 in 10,000 files not being retrievable. (Only downside is that fetch requests take nearly half a day)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
Eegah posted:Under a buck a month? Every time I've priced it it came out a good bit more expensive than Backblaze (what I use now) for ~1TB. For a TB, ten bucks a month. One thing to keep in mind is that it carries a per-request fee as well initially (a very small one), so if you can archive shoots to a zipped folder it'll be that much cheaper. Full disclosure: it cost about five bucks (in requests) to upload my 50,000 files, then under a buck a month to keep them there. It's nice actually, because I never have to worry about that poo poo again and Amazon will Just Make poo poo Work for less than I spend per month on chewing gum.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:Question: Were you using S3 with Arq before you used Glacier? I'm using Arq for S3 now but I'm not sure how exactly the switching to Glacier will work. No, I only bought Arq for Glacier. It seems to have really excellent support for Glacier though, even if the initial upload took four days. I think moving stuff between AWS systems is cheaper than uploading from disk, though. EDIT: It appears to store some metadata in regular S3 though, even when exclusively using Glacier: 
SoundMonkey fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Mar 29, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:None of which helps you if the house burns down. You need something off-site. ...and off-site/cloud is so cheap these days that there's really no reason not to go that way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
Mest0r posted:Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I just downloaded Arq and it looks like everything is actually going through S3 then being transitioned into Glacier storage. You can log into AWS and check S3 and you should be able to see all the encrypted files even though you've selected Glacier as the storage method. I don't believe you can see your files through S3 if they've been sent to Glacier directly. The billing system sorta treats Glacier as a subset of S3, so it does look that way, yeah, even though it isn't. I can confirm that the only real care-worthy cost is the per-request cost for uploading 20,000 items.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2013 09:36
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Good job not answering his question at all! In this case it's pretty good advice. It just seems like using Photoshop on that would be the most tedious thing ever.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I use London Drugs for my printing. Honestly, they're the best I've found. I will caveat by saying the only thing I've ordered from them online is greeting cards (and they were great) and I usually go into the store in person to order prints, but I'm pretty sure the quality would be about the same for both. They're actually really solid, and depending on the location, if you get to know the lab person you can get your poo poo absolutely PERFECT (it helps if they have an unrequited crush on you, but I'm sure it works without that too).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 02:39 |
|
|
Valdara posted:So, I got married last September, but we didn't get to go on a honeymoon because I'm a teacher and things didn't work out for that. We were thinking of going on one this summer. Husband suggested a cruise, but I don't know anything about them. Are there opportunities for taking photos on a cruise? I'm sure there would be at whatever ports they go to, but has anyone had any experience with them? Feel free to PM me on this, I worked on a cruise ship for half a year and I can probably provide some insights both about what cruise to take and where the best photos are. I did Alaska, Hawaii, Panama, East and West Caribbean, so I got you covered for pretty much any cruise route other than east coast USA. EDIT: Or email, soundmonkey@somethingawful.com
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2013 05:18
|
|