I'm relatively new in this entire photography thing, and i really nejoy making timelapses. Until recently i had crappy $80 350d, after connecting it to my raspberry pi (overkill, i know) it was taking some pleasant timelapse frames.
Now i purchased used 50d and used ML menus to take my new timelapse; as you can see on this webm, colours are changing. I'm shooting those photos in raw, camera was set to manual, every setting i can think of was set to not change (white balance, aperture, shutter), i turned off every noise reduction i could find in menus - and yet... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Thinking about getting an a6000 with the cash I get for Christmas because my NX1000 broke. What can you guys tell me about this camera? I'm planning on picking it up with the 16-50mm lens and buying some adapters for some really nice MD and FD lenses I have. Is the 16-50 worth the extra $150 or would I be able to shoot everyday with my manual lenses, I've gotten pretty used to them on my NX1000 without peaking so I think it might not be that bad and I save some cash.
I mostly do now. But don't be too strict on it. Shoot RAW. keep the default as b&w but when you're in Lr, always give colour a go too. Some of my shots are better in colour than b&w and vice versa. You don't have to make the colours pictures your mains but its always nice to keep a colour copy on the side.
Hey /p/, going on a fairly long trip through some rugged terrain and rugged activities (a bit of mountain climbing, etc.) and I'm looking for a camera to take with me. I've come up with a few requirements, and I think I have a camera that fills them, but I'm pretty new into the beyond point-and-shoot/cell phone picture taking and post-editing.
This is what I'm looking at:
-First and foremost, small (looking for pretty much as small as I can get because I need space for many other things and I want to be able to carry it in non-dedicated bags/cases) -Able... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>2722724 Seconded. em5 user here (got it when it came out for like $1,100. ugh)
It's a fantastic camera. It's small, solidly built, takes great pictures, weatherproof (make sure you use weatherproof lenses too), and you can customize it to pretty much any shooting style. Sometimes I use it as a light, quick, automatic beast. Sometimes I flip the screen, add the grip, and go full manual to use it like a slow paced waist level MF camera (I really wish it let you flip the image along the vertical axis like a real... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
just finished watching "The Salt of the Earth". Is there any similar photography documentaries that you would recommend?
I started watching some doc about Bresson but it was really boring and just Artsy Fartsy stuff.
I liked Salgado's because they talk more about his adventures and the stuff that happened around him and not about "how he is so good and perfect, every picture he takes is like music" (paraphrasing the bresson doc btw)
Just watched one on Netflix called Everybody Street that was pretty good. It didn't have the same impact on me as Salt of the Earth but it certainly had some great photography, and some interesting personalities.
do you put yourself under the influence of drugs to make photographs?
some people do. i do it lots of times. weed and alcohol make it more easy for street, gives a more even flow of work, not too much space for analyzing and thinking, but doing. cocaine makes you more bold, but you care lot less.
I smoke weed all the time. I go about my day after smoking weed. Doing the things I would on any day that i hadnt smoked weed. I dint consider it doing drugs and I don't believe it improves my photography. And I'm utter shit if I try and take photos when I'm drunk. Just gtfo kid
I got a Sony a6000 on black friday, i fucking love it, but i'm itching for a low light lens (all mine are f/3.5) - and as much as i'm wanting low light, i'm really not willing to justify $400 for a 1.8 lens this early on in to this hobby...
But i'm seeing These for like fucking cheap, <$40 for f/1.7 35mm and adapter.
They look really good surprisingly given the cost, Any reason i really shouldn't get it? are they actually shit? Seems really too good to be true
Given i've accepted some of the shortcomings like... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>2725496 Nah it's probably shit. You shouldn't really skimp on lenses. Depending on what you're doing, a tripod might be a better solution. I guess that's not that helpful though. You could try old manual-focus film lenses with an adapter perhaps. Can't say I have experience with it myself, but the short flange-to-sensor distance should in theory make mirrorless a good system for adapting lenses cheaply (i.e. without lensed adapters).
>>2725512 >You could try old manual-focus film lenses with an adapter perhaps. Can't say I have experience with it myself, but the short flange-to-sensor distance should in theory make mirrorless a good system for adapting lenses cheaply (i.e. without lensed adapters).
This does work, and works well.. Cheaply for Full manual, electric lens adapters are costlier
>You shouldn't really skimp on lenses. Depending on what you're doing, a tripod might... Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
If you have questions about a new camera, what lenses to buy and anything related to gear or wondering about getting into photography, post it in this thread. Do not attempt to make a new thread for your new Rabal, broken glass and being new. You have been warned! I repeat, ANYTHING GEAR RELATED goes in here!
>>2723440 This, but haven't we all fallen to this trap?
People feel the need to possess new equipment because they're not actually getting anywhere with their current equipment. They presume that upgrading equipment will improve their photography, but as we all know this isn't the case.
>>2717546 He may tone multiple copies of the image then stack them as layers and basically fade and adjust to get the various tones in together. Since it's a lot of cyan and red at play there he could be doing a very red layer, a very blue layer then the standard image on top and just erasing through certain parts of the standard image to bring the colour through.
It's a rough idea but I could imagine it would replicate it to some extent.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.