|
simosimo posted:I thought as much. I'm only just getting into this stuff myself, but 500px seems pretty neat to me. Not sure how social it is, since most of the comments on pictures just seem to be "cool picture, please check out my stuff," but the flow layout you get every time you first open the site is nice to look at and (at least to me) full of amazing pictures. It's good for getting a sense of what people like, if nothing else.
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
Shellman posted:Understanding Exposure really is a good book for learning what the three variables do, and when you'd want to change them. The book will also tell you what to meter off of to get a proper exposure. Much of the time, you'll want to set exposure from the sky instead of what you're actually photographing. That part isn't a terribly large part of the book, but for pretty much every picture featured, he'll say how he exposed for it, which usually includes how he metered it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
people who hold up their ipads to take pictures of stuff are the worsttt
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2013 08:40
|
|
|
http://peopletakingpictureswithipads.tumblr.com/
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:Understanding exposure sounds like something worth reading for you. In Understanding Exposure, the suggestion when metering off of green is to set your exposure compensation to -2/3 stops.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:In other news, I really like the D7000's custom slots on the mode dial. I don't have to reset everything for football and remember to put it back to normal Saturday morning, just turn the knob to U1 (manual exposure, AF-C, 1/500s, f/2.8, ISO 6400.) Yeah, it's nice. I have U1 set for full auto everything, so if I'm taking a group photo with people and need someone to take a picture for me, I flip it to U1, turn on live view, and show them how to zoom, if applicable. The auto setting on the dial doesn't disable my back button focus, which I don't trust random strangers with, so U1 re-enables half shutter focus. U2 is my "gotta get that shot" setting: shutter priority with auto-ISO, half shutter focus (more convenient than back button focus in a hurry), and AF-C with auto focus point select, so it'll grab a subject and follow it. If I see something happening and don't feel like I can set exposure/focus quickly enough, I snap to U2, point it in the general direction, mash that shutter button, and hope for the best. I suspect it might be good for shooting from the hip for discreet street photography, though I haven't tried that yet. Speaking of which, the focus options for Nikon are pretty drat confusing. Ken Rockwell actually breaks it down pretty well here, but the takeaways are:
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 11:27
|
|
|
A full-frame digital camera is one that has a sensor with the same dimensions as one frame of 35mm film (24mm x 36mm). Less expensive models will have a smaller sensor, or "crop sensor." A larger sensor gives you a couple advantages that roughly translate overall into better image quality. If you're just getting into photography, however, it probably doesn't make much sense to jump right to full-frame, as everything tends to be way more expensive. There's nothing particularly special about being exactly the same size as a 35mm frame, but it's just sort of become the standard, and makes it easy to translate focal lengths from film (more on that below). Full-frame and crop aren't necessarily incompatible. I think Canon's EF-S lenses (their designed-for-crop lineup) won't work on their full-frame cameras, but Nikon's DX lenses (their equivalent term) will still work, albeit with some vignetting since the lenses are designed for a smaller sensor. In fact, Nikon full-frame cameras have a "crop mode" where it'll only use part of the sensor to avoid the vignetting. One thing to note about crop sensors is that there will be a "crop factor," where a particular focal length on crop will give you an equivalent field of view (not equivalent focal length, as you might read in some places) as a longer focal length on FF. This factor is 1.5 for Nikon DSLRs and 1.6 for Canon because they have slightly different crop sensor sizes. For example, if you take a 50mm lens and put it on a Nikon D5200 (with a crop sensor), you will be able to see approximately as much as if you had a 75mm lens on the D600 (a full-frame sensor). The composition won't be identical (50mm is 50mm and 75mm is 75mm regardless of the sensor size; read up on how focal lengths change the look of a picture), but it will give you an idea of what focal length you'd want for achieving a particular look when you're comparing between FF/film and crop.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
I was trying to explain the exposure triangle to a friend, and came up with the following analogy. Is this a dumb analogy or does it make sense? Exposing for a photo is like filling a bucket with water from a hose. When you fill the bucket to the brim, you have a properly exposed photo. The shutter speed is how long you let the hose run, and the aperture is the water pressure/how quickly water flows through the hose. A higher ISO is like using a smaller bucket. If you don't get enough water in the bucket, then your image is too dark, and if the bucket overflows, then it'll be too bright. (And then I tried to explain the effects of changing each, but I think I lost them.)
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
McCoy Pauley posted:I don't understand. If it's the same kind of filter as the 52mm that goes on my kit lens, why wouldn't the effect be the same on the wide angle lens? A polarizer's effect is very dependent on the angle of the light. A wide-angle lens covers a large enough angle of view that the direction of the light can significantly change across the image, and hence give you an inconsistent look across the image. This usually manifests as a weird gradient(s) of light to dark blue in the sky. See this page for a more in-depth explanation and example pictures: http://havecamerawilltravel.com/photographer/polarizing-filter-wideangle-lens
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:I've been very pleased with my Pentax so far, but one thing I've not yet figured out. If I shoot someone against a backdrop of the overcast sky, the subject will be too dark. This is even if I aim directly at the subject when focusing/metering. I'm using auto mode because it's easy. The sky is really bright, and there's a lot of it, so the metering system is compensating for that and making the rest of the scene, i.e., your friend, really dark. You can use the exposure compensation dial to tell the camera, "I know you want this exposure, but I want it to have an extra stop or two anyway," or you can use spot metering to target just your friend and use that to calculate the exposure, ignoring the sky. The camera wants everything to even out to a medium shade. So if you're shooting something that's supposed to be black, the camera might try a longer exposure than is needed, and for something that's supposed to be white, it will underexpose a bit. Your eyes/brain are a lot smarter than the camera in these situations, so you don't actually see anything wrong when you're just looking at it. You just have to learn to recognize these situations where the camera might get tripped up and then compensate accordingly. You can also sidestep these issues entirely by using an external light meter with incident metering (the camera's built-in system is reflective metering), but walking up to your subject, holding up a light meter to take a measurement, and then walking back to where you want to take the picture is not always convenient or feasible.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:This is interesting, I'm still on my old D50 and I have it set up for BBF as I was suggested it for shooting planes overhead and got on with it... but if I put my camera into fully auto (usually when I'm passing it off to someone else to take my photo) I have to fly through the menus to disable it all again. Glad that this isn't an issue with modern cameras, as I think the Auto function truly should be for "The person with the camera in their hands has no knowledge or familiarity with the camera but should still be able to take something that is in focus and exposed to a decent enough degree". Another reason to upgrade from 2005 for me then! The Nikon D7000 has the same problem where putting it on auto doesn't disable back button focus. When I was still trying it out, I actually used one of the two custom settings on the dial for "auto, but with shutter focus" specifically for handing to other people. Of course, I usually forgot to set my 17-50 to a reasonable focal length, so I would get pictures of me surrounded by a bunch of empty space 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Don't get the 1.8D for the D3200. While Nikon's lens mount has remained relatively unchanged for decades, allowing you to use some really old glass, their lower end camera bodies (namely, the D3x00 and D5x000 lines) lack autofocus motors to drive the older autofocus lenses. The 1.8D will mount and work fine with manual focus, but you're going to want the newer 1.8G DX.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Yeah, any DSLR from the past few years should be able to handle up to ISO 800 effortlessly, and even 3200 at least should be acceptable for web use. 80% of the time, I leave my D750 on aperture priority and auto-ISO up to the natural limit of 12800. Another 15% for shutter priority when I'm shooting something speed-sensitive, and full manual for the last 5% when I'm dicking around with flash or something. Don't fall into the trap of thinking all manual all the time somehow makes you more of a pro--if all you're doing is chasing the needle in the viewfinder to maintain a "proper" exposure, then you might as well set your camera for full auto. More important is knowing which elements are relevant to the picture you're trying to take, and letting the sophisticated piece of technology in your hands take care of the rest.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:That's a decent article, but it definitely falls into the "best or nothing" category of gear-buying advice. I doubt I'll ever own a $1000 tripod, it's not like my $300 Manfroto is a ticking time bomb. The hypothetical situations described in that article are all about people for whom spending $1000 on a tripod is a reasonable option, even if they think they can get away with a cheaper one. It's not at all for the person who can afford at most $150 for a place to stick their camera and take pictures of traffic on their street at night. That's why I like The Wirecutter, and their sister site The Sweethome. Their tripod guide covers different price points and use cases, and they back everything up with sources.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:Oh that's awesome, I had no idea what the o with a line through it meant One annoying thing about lenses is that they all have different filter sizes, and two lenses with the same focal length may not take the same filter. To avoid having to buy a million filters in all different sizes, you can get step up and step down rings to adapt a filter to different sizes. Generally it's wiser to get the largest size filter you'll need and then use step up rings, versus a smaller filter with step down rings. Using step down rings is more likely to result in vignetting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2017 22:30
|
|
