My First DSLR - "Is 'Dunning-Kruger Effect' a Photoshop plugin?"

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > My First DSLR - "Is 'Dunning-Kruger Effect' a Photoshop plugin?"

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

hcenvirons posted:

It's weird. It doesn't seem like it's on all of the pictures and I can't quite figure out what it is.

Anyway, here's the same picture for an example. The first is a raw as viewed through lightroom and then exported into a jpeg. Face is covered just because I don't like upping photos of friends to photo sites.

The second is a jpeg straight from canon's import program.

On the other hand though,

is the same for both. I know I used the canon 40mm for the portrait shot and I think I might have used the tammy 17-50 for the latter. However, other photos from the same day with the tammy also have this cropping going on.

You had the 16:9 aspect ratio selected. The aspect ratio you select in the menu applies to JPEGs, not just video. RTFM :science:

# ¿ May 2, 2013 05:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:18

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

hcenvirons posted:

Except I didn't change any settings between those two shots or at all that day? The cropping just happens randomly regardless of which lens was being used as well. I get what you're saying but I'm not following why there are times that there's no cropping in the jpeg vs the raw.

RAWs will never be cropped. Were you changing modes at all, like between green box and PASM? Green box mode has its own set of settings.

# ¿ May 2, 2013 16:45

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

SoundMonkey posted:

Be reeeeeal careful of "Brooklyn" sellers who end up just trying to upsell you on dumb poo poo until you cancel your order. There's quite a few.

Alo with those cards thrown in for free I'd expect them to be counterfeit. Maybe not, but all the "bundle" deals seem vaguely suspect.

The 'accessories' (tripod, etc) will of course all be total bullshit.

Doing that upsell/cancel bait and switch bullshit as an eBay seller will get you powerfucked by eBay. The accessories are agreed to be pretty much complete poo poo, yes.

# ¿ May 22, 2013 04:56

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

StarkingBarfish posted:

I have a question about using histograms, based on some good feedback in the photo a day thread:

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3450024&pagenumber=82#post419719663

I'm a physicist, and when dealing with spectra from a ADC usually you try to 'fill' the histogram range completely- like if you have 4096 channels there's no point in setting your analog amplifier up so that only the first 50 channels will contain your signal- you want to cover the full range because you can always rebin coarser later but can't rebin finer. You also of course don't want over or underflow as then you're losing information.

With a digital camera I imagine the same to be true, right? You want to ensure that your exposure is such that you cover the maximum dynamic range without saturating or dropping off the low end, then offline you can cut/stretch the histogram in post. I ask because looking at this article:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml

The last photo of the tree in snow seems to imply that the author is fine with everything being pushed right up to the high end. I can understand them doing that, but wouldn't it be better to move it up there in post rather than limiting the range you have to play with in the first place?

Thanks to digital quantization, there's way more information in bright areas than in dark areas. That's the idea behind exposing to the right.

Whether you want to do the extra work in post to make the final result look the way you want is up to you.

# ¿ Sep 22, 2013 18:58

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

dukeku posted:

JPEGs are lower quality, always. That's just called "compression".

It's also called "bit depth!"

I've taken perfectly exposed photos where there was nasty posterization in the sky in the JPEG. RAW (or TIFF in the case of film scans) for me, thanks.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2014 03:30

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

junidog posted:

Thanks for replying, but is there a more technical answer? How is the filter changing the lightpath to increase FOV? I've tried googling around, but since they're garbage/newbie bait everything I can find is just people warning others not to buy them.

# ¿ Dec 7, 2014 18:59

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

The lenses for the Nikkormat are pre-AI and won't mount on a D700. None of those lenses are particularly good.

# ¿ Oct 13, 2015 21:17

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

windex posted:

Realistically, though - if this is a hobby she has been into for awhile and has already exceeded phone cameras, the middle ground fixed lens cameras are good moves from that on a budget, but she'll hit the limits of them promptly if I had to guess.

Going with a big interchangable lens camera is an investment but if you do it well and understand the limitations of systems to some degree you will be able to slowly accumulate lenses and replace camera bodies over time without sacrificing too much. If going with a big DSLR, you have NIkon and Canon as serious has-third-party-lens-support makers. The hard part is deciding on APS-C vs full frame sensors, and it depends on what you are shooting. APS-C is the cheaper route, because the lenses require less glass to manufacture. However, you can't use lenses specific to APS-C sensor cameras on full frame sensor bodies. You also have smaller sensor options like Micro Four Thirds (Olympus/Panasonic).

So, really, what you need to know is:

How long will she keep this hobby up, how much do you have to spend to encourage it, and how much do you want to avoid retooling later?

In context of new camera + new lens.. Full frame DSLRs you'd start somewhere around $3,000 for a viable 3-5 year entry point. APS-C is about $2,000. MFT would be about $1,000.

You can spend less but... if she has actually maxed out smartphone photography, welp. There are some middle ground cameras but not that come in much cheaper. The Canon EOS T6s body only is somewhere around $850 which is already out of your budget and is probably the lowest end camera I would recommend someone buying into Canon system to purchase.

I think the best thing to do for a 13 year old who is interested in the hobby is to set a budget and let her make her own decision, and also strongly suggest she contemplate finding a way to earn and save additional money to get something she really wants if nothing fits.

And: I got my niece who is about the same age a point and shoot fixed lens camera and she's already bored to tears with it because, well, it sucks. It is probably getting replaced over her Birthday/Christmas (same time-ish) with a Olympus PEN-F and a manual focus lens so she can spend time learning more of the guts of photography. I expect that to cost ~$2k. But I am also the rich uncle who spoils the poo poo out of his nieces and nephews as divine retribution towards my siblings.

$2000 for an APS-C camera? lol just lol

# ¿ Aug 1, 2016 20:00

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

blowfish posted:

$500 body
$100 nifty fifty
$400 walkabout lens
$500 decent macro
$500 beginners tele

checks out, but missing tripods and flashes and stuff, so $2500 sounds more realistic imo

Yes, a teenager just starting out should definitely spend $2500 on camera equipment.

What are you smoking and will you share it with me?

# ¿ Aug 2, 2016 17:39

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Maybe after they develop the technology to prevent you from taking pictures that aren't level they can use it to prevent windex from posting.

# ¿ Dec 1, 2016 17:26

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Lutha Mahtin posted:

corel still exists??? nah but really, thanks for the actual helpful reply. i might do the trial for lightroom (and for this knockoff) to see if they are in any way comparable

and to the people who just keep dogpiling the suggestions of "pay the $120" and "you don't care anyway, might as well shoot in jpg", this is not helpful advice, so kindly

Are you familiar with the concept of "false economy"?

# ¿ Dec 1, 2016 22:58

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Lutha Mahtin posted:

yeah, well, this means close to nothing to me, because i am not a caveman who thinks organizing computer files is some kind of dark magic. if this is one of the major selling points of lightroom, well, that makes sense in terms of the praise it apparently has earned here, but for those of us who put our cyberpants on by ourselves it is merely a cute affectation that we need not bother ourselves with

Good luck finding the cyberpants you wore 6 years ago on the exact day you took photos of a person who is now dead (killed by your bad posting, perhaps) and you want to find a picture to bring to their memorial service. If anybody here is :spergin:

it's you for claiming you'd never possibly have any use for keywords.

# ¿ Dec 2, 2016 00:27

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Lutha Mahtin posted:

right because the only way to tag a computer file with keywords is through lightroom. it's not like this has been a solved problem for decades, and the solutions in question here are ones which i have profitably used for over half of my conscious life

How many of those other solutions also ingest photos from memory cards, process your photos, and prepare photos for output?

Regardless of your strong feelings about keywords, the less expensive options also just aren't nearly as good at processing photos, which is, you know, the main thing you want to do. You said you're already using RawTherapee, so if that suits you why bother switching at all?

# ¿ Dec 2, 2016 00:35

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Lutha Mahtin posted:

i apologize for bumping this thread for nothing, but this post is too precious not to archive in all its confused stupidity

good post

# ¿ Dec 2, 2016 00:54

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

ExecuDork posted:

LR's catalogue-management system (and associated file tagging and star-rating and pick/reject and batch actions and so on) does look like a pointless redundancy over basic file-management systems built into a computer's operating system. But, because you can build an efficient workflow around how LR works - it makes a difference to me if I have to constantly switch from mouse to keyboard, or be constantly moving the mouse from one small click target to another, over and over again, for example - you can use LR to speed up the collection of tasks involved in doing anything with a group of photos that might number in the hundreds or thousands for a single session of work.

Look, you don't understand. A power user like Lutha Mahtin already doesn't need to use a mouse :smug:

What kind of pleb do you think he is?

# ¿ Dec 2, 2016 17:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:18

MrBlandAverage: Jul 2, 2003; GNNAAAARRRR

Dog Case posted:

Just don't do it if they think that human-touched things are trash for poors

In which case you should break up with them and find someone less entitled.

# ¿ Dec 16, 2016 00:35

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > My First DSLR - "Is 'Dunning-Kruger Effect' a Photoshop plugin?"