Here's a thread for people new to photography to ask the most basic questions without fear of judgement. The kind of questions that /p/ seems to put its nose up and refuses to answer in any other thread.
There is no stupid photography related questions here. What exactly is aperture? How does exposure time affect the shot? Any recommendations about gear? What can I do to improve this photo?
Any questions like these are ok, so ask what you would like to know and hopefully there will be some more experienced photographers willing to help out those of us who have only recently taken up the hobby.
If annons post photos, please only constructive criticisms
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Model Nexus 4 Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2015:10:23 18:02:26 Image Width 3264 Image Height 2448 Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Date (UTC) 2015:10:24 Time (UTC) 01:02:16 Color Space Information sRGB F-Number f/2.7 Focal Length 4.60 mm Lens Aperture f/2.5 White Balance Auto Image Width 3264 Image Height 2448 Flash No Flash ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Time 1/680 sec
How do you actually go shooting? Are you planning beforehand what area to go to? Are you doing designated photography tours or do you just carry your camera with you in your day to day life? And are you aligning yourself to lightning conditions like the golden hour?
How do you do it, /pee/? My higher function prevents me from taking it easy.
>>2782553
Depending on what system you have.
I tend to carry my film rangefinder every time I go for a walk, so if there is something interesting I take a shot.
What are some good photo projects on Africa? I want to see nignogs in their natural habitat. I searched for a bit, but didn't really come up with anything.
Or are those only available as photobooks?
>>2782553
You just do :) That's the beauty of it.
I personally shoot with a7r + 35mm so the size and weight is no problem for me to just bring it along if I go out with or without others.
Otherwise you can think that hey your shots will be better at golden hour but I would say that you don't plan it too much.
Just go shoot!
What separates a snapshit from a quality photo?
Can a snapshit be a quality photo?
It's easy to have an image in my head, but not so easy to have my camera match it. How does one bring reality into line with their mental image?
>>2782592
I realise that I basically just asked "How do I get good?"
When is the flash actually used? It seems to me that whenever I use the flash, even in lower light situations, the pictures turn out shit
How do i set my aperture when in manual mode on my d3300? i have 2 dx vr lenses and neither has an aperture ring on itself.
>>2782669
Have you checked the manual? Not trying to be an ass. I got a DSRL (a jump up from taking photos with my phone) a while ago and the manual was basically a religious text for me the first few shoots
>>2782592
What separates them is the amount of effort you put into the photo, and more importantly, that effort's manifestation in the photo.
If you see something neat on the street, and you sort of point your camera sort of at it and snap the photo, and you look at it, and it's got tons of distractions, a strange exposure, no sense of timing, bad light, and everything is all over the frame randomly, but your thought is "Well yeah, all of those other things, but look at that cool thing in there..." That's a snapshot.
If in stead, you see that cool thing, and you walk over to it, and take your time to look around at the environment, and think "How am I going to show this thing, but also make the rest of the photo support the idea?" and you pick a framing and composition that minimizes distracting irrelevant things in the frame, and you pick the right exposure for your planned processing, and do what you can to make the light and colors great, and wait for a meaningful moment (where applicable) then it's not a snapshot.
>How does one bring reality into line with their mental image?
A lot of the time, this just comes down to practice and learning, to pick up as many tools as you can, and to hone your imagination to stay within the bounds of what's actually possible. But generally, moving slowly, and considering what it is in the frame that you actually want to capture and express, and then working to make every decision from start to finish to support that idea. There are tons of settings in your camera, tons of options on where to take a photo from, tons of options about when, etc. People on /p/ will tell you that there is a best ISO, or a best aperture, or a best time of day for all photos, but that's not the case. Every step of the way, from selecting your shooting position to how you hold your camera to hitting export on the file should be decisions made to optimize that individual shot, and that takes time. Rushing through leaves you making mistakes.
>>2782701
Thank you. Posts like these motivate me a lot.
>>2782659
A flash isn't a magic "Make it better" tool. Photography is majorly influenced by light, and there is a lot of bad light out there. To get flash to look right, you have to know how to apply it, and how to blend it with the light that's already in the room.
>When is flash used
Any time that the quality of light in your situation isn't good enough for you, or any time where you simply can't make do with the light that exists where you want to shoot, when you need to shoot there. Also, on-board flash can do an okay job of filling in shadows on harsh contrast scenes, and can look much less bad when you use a gel to match the color of the flash to the color of the ambient light
Your pictures may be turning out shit because of the light falloff, or because your scenes don't lend themselves well to whatever type of flash you're using, it's really hard to say really.
Think of your flash in a dark room the way you'd think of light paint in a too-dim looking painting. Just throwing it on there won't do much good, you have to know where to put it, and how to apply it to brighten the scene. Artificial lighting is the same way.
Light is an art in and of itself, also. You'll find that the photographers that put the best light in their scenes usually come from a lighting background, rather than a photography background, because when you're not working with what's already in front of you, photography really becomes the art of building a scene and taking control of every aspect of it, and then once you've built your little world, then wandering over and taking a quick photo of it.
What does "priorty mode" mean?
If i adjust my aperture to "A" and i am now in "aperture priority mode," what does that actually mean?
Also, what other priority modes are there and what is the outcome of those?
>>2782709
Not a problem at all. Hope it helps you to grow and get better at making the photos you want to make.
>>2782491
Why the hell do exports from Lr look bad/bland/unedited when viewed with the windows photo viewer. When I upload them to flickr/Facebook they seem fine. All of my flickr pictures that I've shared to tumblr look unedited and the colours are off by a lot. I've googled this a lot and not a single solution. :/
>>2782720
Also - any advice about sending photos to friends/clients? I use onedrive - make a folder, upload, make it view-able with a link. I recently started archiving a folder and uploading them somewhere (mega/wetransfer/onerive/google drive)
>>2782716
"Aperture Priority" means that in your shot, you have stated that your aperture (and therefore your Depth of Field) is your "priority" in the shot, and to get the DOF you need, you're willing to sacrifice control over shutter speed and ISO, in order to keep your aperture nailed down where you want it.
There is also Shutter Speed Priority, which is used for moving subjects. You can say "This car is driving by at 80mph, so I NEED my shutter speed to stay above 1/1000 or it'll be blurry, so you put your camera in shutter priority, set it to 1/1000, and then let the camera do what it has to with aperture and ISO to make sure that you get the correct exposure with a shutter speed of 1/1000.
There's also Program mode (P) which is a lot more like auto mode, where the camera will select the right exposure level with a certain aperture and shutter speed, and then you can use your control wheel to adjust the selected aperture and shutter speed, while keeping the exposure level the same.
For instance, if in P mode, the camera says "Your shot will be exposed correctly at ISO 200, f/5.6, and 1/200" and you feel like "Well, f/5.6 isn't enough DOF for this shot, and I can spare a bit of shutter speed.) so you rotate your command dial, and the camera will switch aperture and shutter speed to be f/8 and 1/100. So in P mode, your "priority" is the exposure level.
>>2782720
Most likely that your color space is not consistent across your workflow, and that your images are left in a color space that something like WPV doesn't support. In Photoshop, you can use "export for web" to try to deal with it. I'm not sure how to handle it in Lightroom unfortunately, as I haven't ever had to deal with the problem.
>>2782726
That's what I've been researching but setting it to either (RGB or sRGB) doesn't change anything. It's not a deal breaker - they look fine on social media but it's annoying.
>>2782701
I kind of disagree. Have you seen people like Winograd or Moriyama shoot? They do exactly the things you would label as a "snapshot" (Moriyama more than Winograd but still) and yet they are still widely acclaimed photographers who took amazing pictures
>>2782734
Their photos are very much snapshots though. The difference is that they embrace the fact, and use it to their advantage. You'll also find that even with their fast acting technique, there are usually very minimal distractions in the frame, the subject is strong, obvious, and powerful in the scene, etc.
>>2782735
but just because they are snapshots doesn't mean that they aren't quality photos I think.
>You'll also find that even with their fast acting technique, there are usually very minimal distractions in the frame, the subject is strong, obvious, and powerful in the scene, etc.
They also shoot a shit ton and only present their best pictures.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't put more effort into your pictures (99% of /p/, me included should do that), but saying that a picture can only be considered "quality" if you put effort in it is wrong imo
>>2782720
When you export, check "convert to sRGB". It might still look fucked up in Windows Photo Viewer as it might not support sRGB, but damn near any browser will.
>>2782701
Been lurking /p/ for over a month since I am about to buy a camera. This is the most helpful post I've read so far. Thanks Anon.
Now for my noob question.
How do you guys get your software?
Adobe jews appear to have moved over to a monthly payment system like the Avid jews did for Pro Tools.
Should I just try to pirate them? I have a VPN.
>>2782737
You're right in that. If I implied that one was ALWAYS better than the other, I take it back. Snapshot aesthetic can be done successfully, but in many many cases, it isn't. If you're going to try, you really have to think about doing it in the most successful ways possible, and make those techniques instinct. Getting super close to your subject with a wide angle lens to make distracting stuff in the scene look very small, or become covered up by your subject, for instance, etc.
>>2782725
THANK YOU.
I feel like a lot of camera manuals tell you how to get into these modes without explaining what they are.
>>2782744
Up until about a month ago, I was pirating everything. Lightroom, Photoshop (from CS2 all the way up through CC) and plugins for both. I recently signed up for CC and I'm paying $10 a month since I'm now making money with my photography and don't mind that small of an expense every month.
I haven't ever heard of anyone getting bit from pirating adobe stuff, but as cheap as it is these days, it's really hard to not just suggest getting CC.
There are also a lot of free alternatives that you can look into if you don't feel like being a jerk.
>>2782748
Not a problem. It starts to make more sense once you get using it and realize what it's actually doing.
>>2782751
Thanks anon. Also to add to my green questions, does Lightroom come with PS? I plan on doing some photography but alot of video. Could I get buy on the same license that you have? I don't mind paying $10 a month.
>>2782756
With the CC Photography package, $10 per month gets you both Lightroom and Photoshop, yeah. It's a pretty sweet setup. Plus, when there's updates and such, you don't have to wait for someone to pirate it and go get it and re-install again every time, etc.
>>2782758
Awesome, thank you for the info.
>>2782751
>I haven't ever heard of anyone getting bit from pirating adobe stuff
theres an unspoken rule in the art field that it's totally cool as long as you're not making money
Zbrush actually thanked pirates when autodesk bought them out.
They said without the massive surge of piracy no one would have ever found their amazing 3d sculpting application and wouldn't be where they are today.
>>2782756
yes and no
pay $20 a month for photoshop
OR
pay $10 a month for the photography pack that has Photoshop and lightroom
>>2782740
Thanks a lot!
What's the difference between camera types? Not in terms of how they work but as far as quality, ideal use, pros and cons, etc?
>>2783111
Cell phone cameras and compacts are good for 80% of the shots you'll ever take.
ILCs (interchangable lens cameras) of any flavor get you up to around 97% of any shots you'll ever want to take.
Make that a full frame and you cover like 98% of any shot you'll ever want to take.
The bigger the sensor, the better it is in low light. Aside from that, it depends a lot on what you're trying to shoot. ASP-C crops will likely do anything and everything you'll ever want better than you need them to. After that, it's mostly a preference of ergonomics/company fanboyism for most shooters.
>>2783111
This is a ridiculously broad question that's going to be super tedious, boring, obnoxious to answer. Maybe tell us what you want to do with a camera, and we'll be able to help you out without having to basically type the entire internet at you.
Whats the difference between saving the photo as a JPEG and raw?
What kind of lens do I need to take really close up shots. The lens I have doesnt seem to focus up close very well. It's a 30-150 mm lens (I think. It's not with me at the moment). Do I need to change a setting on the camera itself?
So for the past year or and a half or so I've been running around Orange County/LA going to shows and festivals and taking my shitty little cool pix along with me to try to capture these bands.
Most pictures are shit but every once in a blue moon I get a lucky shot.
I've met a lot of other photographers in the scene along with some really cool members of bands but I want to go legit with all this but I'm strapped on cash
Plus I also want to mess with film
Any ideas on something I can get for too much money?
What sort of film would work well in these low light situations too?
Pic is one I shot of FKA Twigs at FYF fest last year. IT's cropped that way because I use IG to share all my shit
What's really the significance of megapickles?
>>2783339
cropping potential
>>2783343
As in more equals better quality cropping?
>>2783345
when you look at the 100% size of a 10MP image and a 24MP image, the 24MP image is effectively a lot bigger, so yes.
Also filesize, but thats resizing photos after they're taken.
>>2783351
Makes sense. Thank you
I've always liked photography but used a bridge camera that did most of the work for me. My friends motivated me enough to get a DSLR and got a basic kit Nikon D3200.
The problem is that I don't really know how to operate it properly and my main focus are nature pictures, birdwatching and macro.
Any advice you could give to this amateur that feels like he wasted 500 bucks on something he wasn't prepared to use? Any advice on which gear could be better for my ideals and hobbies? Thanks in advance.
>pic related, took it on auto mode, couldn't focus well without my glasses and without practice
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3200 Camera Software Ver.1.03 Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 39182 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 42 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:20 15:02:17 White Point Chromaticity 0.3 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 110 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Auto Focal Length 28.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 6016 Image Height 4000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown ISO Speed Used 110 Image Quality FINE White Balance AUTO Focus Mode MANUAL Flash Compensation 0.0 EV ISO Speed Requested 110 Flash Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV AE Bracket Compensation 0.0 EV Lens Type Nikon D Series Lens Range 18.0 - 55.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6 Shooting/Bracketing Mode Single Frame/Off Noise Reduction OFF Camera Actuations 902 Digital Vari-Program SCENE AUTO
>>2782567
Something like this?
http://nagi-yoshida.com/wordpress/portfolio#
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark III Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Photographer nagi yoshida Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 5760 Image Height 3840 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 450 dpi Vertical Resolution 450 dpi Image Created 2015:09:11 14:33:25 Exposure Time 1/40 sec F-Number f/13.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/13.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 40.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1300 Image Height 842 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2783373
Take some classes, read some books/articles, LEARN to use it to its full potential (this threads a good start) or else you did piss away $500. If you truly love photography you'll enjoy the learning curve. If not, accept your loss and go back to taking snapshits from your iPhone.
>>2783373
lynda.com has some great courses
understanding exposure is a great book for learning your camera
coursea has a couple of good courses for photography
check out the tutorials and articles on cambridgeincolour.com
Don't gearfag. You have a great, capable camera for learning on. After you learn more about photography, you'll know what pieces of gear you actually need for the kind of shooting you want to do.
>>2783373
>>2783373
put it in manual and literally never take it off manual, it will help you to understand what your camera is doing, and it will make getting the pictures you want a lot less frustrating after you get past the learning curve.
basically you have control over three main things
>shutter speed
>iso
>aperature
and you have to learn to balance these things to get the picture you want
also, you might want to make use of the autofocus when there is enough light for it like in your picture
>>2783458
Don't do this. This is retarded.
Learn priority modes so you can single out and experiment with one factor of exposure at a time.
Otherwise, all you're doing is learning to make a line line up with an arrow.
Bump because I'll know I'll have questions later
I see the words "Learn composition you shitlord" all the time here. Is there any reading on composition should do to improve myself? Books, manuals?
Does anyone have any lightroom tutorials or post processing tutorials?
I've been using LR for a while but I feel like my inability to post process correctly is holding my photos back a little.
>>2784205
Composition is really important for most photography, but while you should learn about it, you should NOT over think it. Learning the PURPOSE of composition will do you much more good than learning rules and reading hundreds of pages written about it.
http://expertphotography.com/a-beginners-guide-to-composition/
Check this out ^^ and then take time to come to the understanding that the concept of "composition" is like the concept of "science". It's not one thing. It's merely a way of approaching and thinking about something.
When you are thoughtfully composing your photos, you want to consider the balance of the image, and where the contrast is going to draw your viewer's eye. Is the content spread across the frame in the best way to help you achieve your goal? Where do you want your viewer to look, and how do you make them feel comfortable looking there. How do you shift and move to block and crop distractions from the frame that would detract from your theme, idea, or story, etc.
>>2784581
HOW to process can be learned with pretty much any youtube video, or with Lynda.com. That will teach you what the tools do.
Learning WHY to process, or learning which tools to use when, to improve a photo, rather than just hack away at it, isn't really something you learn from a tutorial. You use the tools you understand in order to achieve the vision you have in your head. No tutorial will give you the vision in your head, and every photo is different, so no tutorial can give you the "right" way to process your images based on a formula or recipe.
Streets
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make samsung Camera Model SM-J500FN Camera Software J500FNXXU1AOJ1 Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.9 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4128 Image Height 2322 Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:12:28 17:10:01 Exposure Time 1/17 sec F-Number f/1.9 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 500 Lens Aperture f/1.9 Brightness -0.8 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 3.70 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 4128 Image Height 2322 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID T13QLIF01SA
>>2784595
I was looking for a general post processing guide that once you learn the basics for you can expand into your own style.
But I get you.
>>2784684
>pretty much any youtube video, or with Lynda.com.
>>2784599
For one this pic is really blurry like you weren't in focus on anything
Can I do freelance shooting in a foreign country with a travel visa? It's technically work, but it's also tourism somewhat.
>>2785065
Not legally if your earning money in the foreign country. If your taking photos to sell back home and the money earned is in your home currency, I don't see why not.
>>2785078
What if I sell the pictures in my home country (online), earning my home country's currency, but while still traveling?
For example, say you are taking a month-long vacation and you went online to sell your photos from the first week before you have returned home.
>>2783253
For what situations would you use Raw or JPEG. I understand the meaning but I don't see any difference in the pictures.
>>2785870
If you are editing your photos for exposure, color, etc. you will notice the difference.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-T1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 53 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:13 13:22:14 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 6.3 EV Exposure Bias 3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2000 Image Height 1500 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
Just starting to get into photography. My question is should you digitally sign your pictures if you are posting them online like FB or Photography forums? Not talking about your whole name across the middle but maybe your initials in a corner. Will people think you're an arrogant dbag if you do?
>>2785900
If your a professional you may want to watermark as a form of advertising, to get your name out there and differentiate your photos from other peoples
how does bruce gilden fix the focus to shot so quickly and close?? i am using the manual focus with the wheel on the lenses, but sometimes (when i max the lenses to 55m i think) the pictures are blurred.
>>2785900
No. If you're new, nobody is stealing your photos. If you're not new, people stealing your photos isn't a big deal because they usually aren't monetizing them, and they also can't reproduce them.
If you take photos to sell the individual photos, don't post them on social media.
If you take photos to sell yourself as a photographer, you're not selling the photo, you're selling your ability to produce the photo, so let it go.
If you aren't selling anything at all, then who cares. Watermarks are a distraction, and you're harming your photo (even if only a little bit) for no benefit.
>>2786215
he's using a wide lens, he knows how far away his focus point is on his camera (pre-focus), and then he goes up and puts a subject at that distance. He's also usually stopped down quite a bit which gives him a bit of wriggle room on focus.
>>2786220
Don't listen to this snob. Watermarking is entirely up to the photographer. It isn't just about people stealing your photos. It's about signing what you consider a piece of art and putting your name on something you are proud of. Its also about getting that name out there if you choose to become professional. Yes, some watermarks are distracting but if done right they can add a certain uniqueness and professionalism to your photos.
>>2786215
F/8 or higher, with a flash to freeze action (when he uses one), and predicting when the subject is in the focus zone.
>>2786833
>Yes, some watermarks are distracting but if done right they can add a certain uniqueness and professionalism to your photos.
>>2786833
>Pretending to be a photographer by mimicking every single aspect of "pro" photos he's ever seen other than the content and effort it takes to create them.
I'll bet you've spent more than $3000 on your "beauty in daily life" kit too.
>>2786833
So print it on fine art paper and sign it. That's how art works. No one's looking for art at fucking Facebook.
>>2785900
I don't get why /p hates watermarks so much.. Most of the people here are just scarf wearing hacks with expensive cameras anyway. The fact is alot of professional photographers, as in people that take pictures for a living, will watermark their shots for various reasons. Like anything though it's all personal preference. As someone whose just getting into it, you probably don't really need to.
ndshake1_3219777e.jpg (32 KB, 300x187)
32 KB
licensing Anonymous 03/06/16(Sun)20:17:24 No.2786724â–¶
A band wants to use one of my photos for their album cover. Does anyone have a good licensing agreement template or advice regarding this situation?
>>2785122
It maybe not work, but more like a business trip, but never admit this to any autority, i live in the border with the USA, I think that maybe photos
I take
Here are free, process I do back home is not, may be the answer
can I have some critique on this?
https://youtu.be/zV27ZXF-8SE
>>2787705
>"I didn't see you there" while staring directly into the camera
>That upper lip
>That wind noise
>That long boring pan shot of a drab building in bad light
Had to quit out at 40 seconds. sorry.
Why do lenses for Canikon with image stabilization cost the same as a Pentax or Sony version without stabilization? Why not include it? Or offer it for less without it?
>>2787705
Why not both blacks on both negative terminals? that's how I've always done it. Did it today in fact, without issue...
>>2787719
It's bad for the battery, home slice. Look that shit up in your owner's manual. I guarantee they tell you to ground it.
>>2787713
can't do much about the building or wind, we had to show certain things and shoot stuff on certain days, I'm looking for more criticism on the editing and shots themselves
>>2787734
>will tell you to ground it
Connecting to the negative is grounding it. Going to the frame just takes a longer path through fused connections
>battery
Nope, it's to protect electrical components and is pointless most of the time...emphasis on most of the time
The dumb part of that is doing it while the donor car is turned off. If the donor's battery isn't in good condition, that bit of additional drain can keep the donor from starting.
>>2782491
This is a good idea anon.
The gear/stupid question/RPT threads aren't very user freindly.
I was a noob once.
>>2782553
I'm relatively new, but I just try to go somewhere new with my camera and spend a chunk of time just shooting.
Finding what ends up interesting you and taking different kinds of shots will let you know both what kind of photography you're fit for and what you need to work on.
If you're nervous, start shooting at places where you're comfortable, like a back yard or a park during off hours.
Would you swap a contax t3 for a mamiya rz67 pro?
>>2782734
>>2782701
I would argue that a quality photo is the product of a lot of effort put into the craft of photography, not the image itself.
All of the things you mentioned factor in, but you won't get a good shot if you overthink it. For example a "perfectly" composed image is boring.
I think what makes a great photo is an interesting subject captured by a skilled photographer. Someone who can make all of those decisions you've mentioned in the blink of an eye.
>>2782491
Is there any reason to do White Balance on the camera as opposed to just correcting it in post?
I usually just leave the WB in auto.
Why are some 35 mm lenses so god damn long? For example, look at the Nikkor 35 mm 1.4, or even worse, the Canon 35 mm 1.4, which has the length of a standard 135 mm lens.
>>2787915
Different lens arrangements/formulas.
>>2787915
35mm primes are faster and need to let more light in, so the overall size increases accordingly. Even moreso if designed for full frame rather than a crop sensor camera.
(hope this doesn't dupe, internet if fucky)
How do you use a light meter when shooting a sunset/into a sunset? I've got some 120 mm Velvia I plan on taking out when things around here green up and there is a dope ass field I want to get with the sunset in the backdrop. I know I meter like normal if I have an actual subject, but what if I'm just shooting off into the distance? I've got an older minolta light meter if that makes any difference.
Also, what do the colors on films mean? For example I think Portra 400 is a "yellow" film, does that mean it makes yellows pop? A buddy of mine wanted me to take some shots at his wedding and I was wondering if I should find some film that is based in their colors?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model EZ Controller Camera Software EZ Controller 6.20.027 (141211) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2079 Image Height 2048
>>2787953
why are some 35's larger than a 50mm twin?
i swear 35mm f2 is twice as big of a lens as 50mm f2
>>2788114
A wide angle lens has to bend the light a lot more dramatically than a normal lens, which requires more elements to do well. There are also support systems inside, and AF systems, etc.
Look at the Voightlander 35mm f/2.5, or the new Fuji 35mm f/2. Very tiny lenses. (one is manual focus, and the other only covers APS-C though)
Stupid question. If you want the fastest autofocus does it make a difference what direction you start from?
Like focus starting from close or focus starting from infinity?
My gut feeling is not a big difference but if starting from one end is considered best practice I want to learn.
>>2788386
it helps to start closest to the actual range of the subject
>>2788386
Depends on how close your subject is, so no.
That's such a weird thing to worry about anyway.
Should I invest in a light meter?
>>2788456
That depends. For what? Do you have a digital camera with a meter inside already? Do you have a recently released smartphone?
They can be very helpful, especially with older film bodies with basic meters, (or without meters completely) but in the digital age, it doesn't provide much benefit. Unless you're spending about $600, the meter in a DSLR is more useful and advanced, and if you're spending less than that, you can get a light-meter app for your phone that will do a very good job.
>>2788523
Any apps you recommend?
>>2788527
That depends on your phone, but just searching in your app store for "light meter" should do you well.
>>2788528
Alright cool. Thanks
So I was cleaning out the guts of my camera because I thought there was dust on the mirror or prism. Anyway long story short, I took out the focusing screen to get rid of the dust sandwiched there and now there's big pieces of hair/dust. How bad did I fuck up? How do I get the screen as clean as possible?
ALRIGHT I have a question, I just recently got my nikon d5100 and when i put it on manual mode and i put on the delayed 2 second timer for the photo, when i press the shutter button it doesnt take the photo!? when i press it i can see on the screen instead of saying like i can take 2k more pics, itll say something like r9.8
>>2782567
>What are some good photo projects on Africa? I want to see nignogs in their natural habitat.
Travel photogrphy requires more than just the ability to take pictures. You've got to do a lot of research beforehand and know your stuff so you don't make an arsehole of yourself when you are there. You need to know exactly what you want, where and when you need to go, and how you're going to get there.
It's not comfy
>>2787871
> all of those decisions you've mentioned in the blink of an eye.
Instinctively
Whats haloing and how do i fix it?
How do you deal with unsteady hands? I just try and find something to press the camera against.
>>2788701
Haloing is a result of bad processing, where the images is getting added contrast near edges of hard contrast. On one side, you have a light tone, and the other side is a dark tone. The processor is adding lightness to the light side, and darkness to the dark side, to amplify the look of that transition/edge, and so you get a gradient gets lighter and lighter as you approach the edge, giving a "halo" around edges.
Look at the sky around the buildings in Pic Related and you can see it.
It can be avoided through much more careful processing. Don't add large amounts of clarity, don't add large amounts of contrast, don't do tone-mapping, and mask your edits to the places that need them.
>>2788942
Slow down, try to relax your muscles, don't hold the same position for a long time, brace your elbows against your body, brace your camera against your brow-bone with the viewfinder, breathe slowly, and squeeze the trigg- um, shutter button rather than jerking it. Keep the weight of the camera in your left hand palm, and keep your right hand mostly loose on the camera.
What should I keep in mind if I want to take some interesting travel photos, apart from using filters?
For example, what should I do in picture related situation to take a more interesting picture to look at, while capturing the details of the street? I'm sorry if this question comes as vague or stupid, I'm not really an artistic guy
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model GR II Camera Software GR Firmware Ver 01.10 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:11:13 18:24:33 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 1600 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Brightness 0.9 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.30 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 4928 Image Height 3264 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal
>>2788966
I assume by filters, you aren't talking about glass elements you put in the front of your lens to protect or change the characteristics of the scene, and that you do mean "instagram filters" and you should know that most good photos don't contain "filters" they contain processing which is done by hand. Calling a processed photo "filtered" is usually a little insulting to a photographer, even though we know what you mean in most cases. Just a tip.
As to the photo you've posted, you want to simplify your image, and remove the things in the frame that are detracting from the "cool" aspect of what you're trying to shoot. In this instance, the only thing that seems visually interesting in the scene is the bright lighting of the store, contrasted against the night time, but in reality, that's not really enough to carry an image. There's just nothing in your frame here that's interesting to look at. The most important part of creating an interesting photo is finding something interesting to put into it.
The building above the lighted storefront is bland and boring, so it it's detracting from your image. The same goes for the cars, the street, the gas station, and the building along the left side. Zooming in or getting closer would have cropped a lot of this away, and you'd be left with more of just the 'somewhat' visually interesting store in the center.
>>2788968
Thanks anon
>I assume by filters, you aren't talking about glass elements you put in the front of your lens to protect or change the characteristics of the scene, and that you do mean "instagram filters" and you should know that most good photos don't contain "filters" they contain processing which is done by hand. Calling a processed photo "filtered" is usually a little insulting to a photographer, even though we know what you mean in most cases. Just a tip.
Yeah I meant instagram filters, and was not thinking about post processing.
>There's just nothing in your frame here that's interesting to look at. The most important part of creating an interesting photo is finding something interesting to put into it.
What I had in mind was really just to capture the daily life of these people, but then I guess I didn't actually know what I wanted, so photo came out as totally random and boring. I will try to improve on this aspect.
This one has a clear subject, but I was not sure how I should approach it. People were surrounding this guy, I was trying to avoid picking them up in the picture, and this was the only angle I can get but the lighting is obviously off. What would you do in this situation instead?
>>2788975
damn it
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model GR II Camera Software Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:01:14 20:15:28 Exposure Time 1/350 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/5.7 Brightness 8.5 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.30 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3264 Image Height 4928 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal
>>2788979
>moire
>>2788975
For the daily life of the people, you'll want to get people, living their daily lives. Not just anfocused shot of the environment. We want to look at individuals. Focus on one person's daily life for each shot, so that we can see that person, and connect with them, and see that they're driving a car, or eating a food, or working a job, etc. What happens is that you find yourself immersed in this other world, and every surface crackles with this energy to you. It's all strange, and living, and exciting, because you've never been there, or seen those things. Everything you're seeing is new, and unique, and "hey what's down this road?" but you have to distance yourself from that feeling and realize that as your viewers, we don't feel any of that. I'm sitting at my desk. Many others will be on their couch, or on their toilet. We can't feel the crackle. We don't have that "new place" excitement. So if you want something to be expressed to your viewer, it needs to be expressed purely visually. We've all seen buildings before. We've all seen streets, and cars, so if you want to show something unique, you need to find a specific example of it, and put it prominently in your frame, for us to see it and take it in.
>Yeah I meant instagram filters, and was not thinking about post processing.
Instagram filters ARE post processing, done in a quick easy and stupid way. Liken it to going to a great restaurant, where the chef is named on the menu, and in the advertisements, and you order something, and it takes 25 minutes of hard work to make, and it tastes amazing, so you ask the chef to come out so you can thank him, and then you say "Which frozen TV dinner is this? Where can I get it in my freezer section of my grocery store?" it's insulting, because good food doesn't come out of a freezer section. It's the same with post processing. "filters" are what you get out of the freezer, and what actual photographers are doing is processing with talent and skill and artistry, and calling all processing "filters" is like saying that you can't understand the skill and effort that goes into a well edited photo, because you think it's all just clicking one button that "makes it good".
Whether you mean it that way or not, it comes across as dismissive and insulting.
>>2788947
Thanks.
>>2788982
Well damn wasn't aware of that after I resized the photos.
>>2788985
Should have asked for some opinions before I did my trip. Thank you very much.
>>2788986
I wholeheartedly respect the works of photographers and I will try my best to avoid misusing words like those in the future. I am just not a fan of phone app filters and most of the time my friends would just recommend me to try applying those on my photos.
>>2789003
>I wholeheartedly respect the works of photographers and I will try my best to avoid misusing words like those in the future. I am just not a fan of phone app filters and most of the time my friends would just recommend me to try applying those on my photos.
Yeah, that was less "Stop being a fucking ignorant dick" and more "Hey just so you don't accidentally piss someone off in the future, and since this is the 'n00b thread', let me lay a little extra culture specific knowledge on 'ya brother"
>>2788063
Anyone?
Is sunset on a plane best viewed from a west facing window or east facing window?
I know it sets in the west, but sunsets often also light up the clouds facing west.
>>2789335
West will have you looking into the sunset, which can be nice. East will have you looking at the clouds with the sun on them, which can be nice. It just depends.
>>2789063
http://www.sekonic.com/whatisyourspecialty/photographer/articles/exposing-for-sunrises-and-sunsets.aspx
Hey guys, just wondering if there's any benefit to shooting raw?
Like what can you change with raw in post process?
I don't do photography, but I took some pictures, but it was cloudy that day and everything looks kind of grey and gloomy
Would taking the pictures in raw have changed anything?
>>2789358
RAW is buying all the ingredients for a pizza, going home, and making the exact pizza you want.
JPEG is ordering a pizza from Pizza Hut.
>>2782567
Richard mosse
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 603 Image Height 750 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2789359
But I don't know how to make a pizza
>>2789378
Then learn or order from pizza hut.
RAW gives you flat images that you have to process to get to look decent. JPG does all the processing for you at the cost of choice.
The additional reason to use RAW is that you get more information which is important for doing things like recovering highlights/shadows or if you're doing heavy post processing.
This is also a google question. There's a ton of great discussions of the benefits of using each.
>>2789380
>RAW gives you flat images
depends on the profile bruh
>>2789395
...you're an idiot.
>>2789396
Probably not.
>>2789397
No, you definitely are. You're pretending that the profile used is a fixed element of a RAW file which isn't the case. It's like claiming that because you can increase the contrast slider, there's always a lot of contrast in RAW files.
>>2789402
You're pretending that RAW has an inherent "flatness" when it's not even a raster graphics file yo.
I think you need to do some homework.
>>2789404
Actually, they can be thought of as raster files, they're just never used that way...or are you about to somehow attempt to claim that they aren't a matrix representation of an image?
Irrespective, the flatness is still there as an inherent property.
>>2789408
They're a matrix representation of an image in the same capacity that a spreadsheet is. Don't be a weasel.
The flatness is only achieved through a flat profile. It's more accurate to say that malleability is an inherent propery.
>>2789412
>They're a matrix representation of an image in the same capacity that a spreadsheet is. Don't be a weasel.
This isn't true at all. How do you think debayering is achieved? Each individual pixel information is represented in a specific location in the file, just like in a jpg, tiff, or bitmap. Look at how a vector image works versus a raster. I'm honestly not trying to be a dick/know-it-all jackass here. RAWs are raster files, they just aren't ever used as such (mainly because of the proprietary nature of the files).
>The flatness is only achieved through a flat profile. It's more accurate to say that malleability is an inherent propery.
You accuse me of trying to weasel around with terms and then pull this friend?
>>2788603
Don't fuck with your focusing screen. It's a Fresnel lens and very fragile. If you took it out you likely can buy a replacement. I don't understand how you messed up if you didn't damage it. Try to clean it by not touching it by blowing air at it.
>>2789416
There's just more dust and shit that I can see now is all. Using the rocket blower doesn't help.
>>2789416
And I used tweezer and latex gloves so I never touched it. The blower wasn't helping so I used a micro fiber cloth and I think that's were most of the fibers came from. I have some single use lens cleaning wipes, should I use those? Should I jerry rig a clean room to clean the fucker?
Totally new to photography here. Picked one of these up at a flea market about a week ago, got a new battery for it, and picked up some film. My question is: how do I know if the camera is working? Does something happen in the eyepiece? Does it make a distinct sound when I successfully take a picture? I didn't put the film in properly the first time and I'd like to know before trying again.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties:
>>2787915
So many answers and they are all wrong. Wide angle lenses for SLRs require a retrofocus design.
If you put a regular 35mm lens in an SLR it would hit the mirror. A retrofocus design increases the back focus distance so the lens doesn't hit the mirror.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ang%C3%A9nieux_retrofocus
You can look at wide angle lenses for rangefinders (which don't use mirrors) and compare them to SLR lenses. The rangefinder lenses will likely be shorter. The retrofocus lenses are also more likely to be worse off. To improve performance they have to throw even more glass elements into the mix making the lens huge.
There are exceptions. Full frame mirroless cameras can have huge 35mm lenses like the Sony Distagon 35mm F1.4. Distagon is what Zeiss calls their retrofocus lenses. Even though there is no mirror they went with the Distagon design. Probably to get the performance they wanted at F1.4. Compare that to the Sony Sonnar 35mm f2.8. Performs pretty well but it's just f2.8. Digital sensors don't like light hitting them at a steep angle so they probably had to correct for that too.
Another exception are things like the Otus 55mm. It is also a distagon design because to get the performance they wanted it needed so many elements that it would hit the mirror.
Some rangefinder lenses like the Leica 24mm f1.4 and Zeiss 35mm F1.4 are retrofocus designs. As digital sensor performance increases, the performance required of these lenses makes them bigger and you can only make a lens so big before it hits the sensor. To increase the back focus distance these lenses need to retrofocus designs, even when there is no mirror.
>>2789421
You don't need a clean room. In my experience they are just very fragile and I damaged one trying to clean it. If you can't get a replacement or have a pro do it for you then just be careful. You should not clean it unless the dirt gets in the way of you taking pictures. A little dust should not be that bad.
If you have to clean it clean it. Just don't damage the thing or you will wish you had a dusty focusing screen instead of a damaged one.
>>2789425
Practice before putting the film in. When you press the shutter button it should make a sound but in your camera it will likely be very quiet. Look at the front of the lens when you press the shutter. You should see something inside it move. Learn to load the film in properly and set the iso(asa/din) on the camera. After you load the film and learn how to use the camera you will never know for sure until you develop the film and see if the pictures came out well.
This is a dumb question but do I need autofocus?
Can't I set everything to infinity? My phone acts retarded at the most critical moments
>>2789434
You need autofocus if you can't manually focus fast enough to get the shot. Infinity focuses on infinity so if your subject is at or close to infinity it will be in focus.
Remember that the smaller the aperture (f8,f11, f16...) the larger your depth of field and the more things will be in focus. The wider the aperture (f2.8, f2, f1.4...) the smaller your depth of field and fewer things will be in focus.
>>2789440
I'm using my phone though, that's why I'm asking. I think it's forever on f2
Wait so if I was using 1.8 to let in more light nothing would really be in focus? How do I win in low light situations?
>>2789453
What is in focus at f1.8 would be less than a smaller aperture like f8. Phone camera sensors are so small that even at f1.8 things will likely be in focus.
In my experience I think distance has the greatest effect on depth of field. Even with a phone camera you can get a shallow depth of field if you focus on something really close. With a full frame camera and a 50mm lens at f4 you can get a lot in focus if you focus far away but can also get shallow depth of field when focusing closely.
You can use a calculator to calculate DOF like:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
>>2789471
Thanks anon, I think I need to go study more because a lot of what you said went over my head
>>2782744
Just pirate. Adobe doesn't give a shit unless you make money from photography(and at that point, a CC subscription would be like pennies to you). In fact Adobe thrives off the fact that hundreds of thousands(millions?) of amateur photogs religiously pirate their shit and get so accustomed to it they'll end up actually paying at a point, whether out of fear or gratitude.
>>2789341
Great, thank you!
>>2789453
Your phone has autofocus.
>>2789704
That's not what I'm asking
I know my phone has autofocus
The problem is autofocus is either too slow or fucks up in someway (focuses on the wrong thing) whenever I want to take a picture
So I was asking if setting the focus to Infinity would fix that
>>2789827
No, you would then be out of focus nearly 100% of the time, unless your subject is always on the horizon.
>>2789830
So what do I do?
>>2789851
Learn to use the focus system on your phone better. Or get a real camera.
>>2789852
But my phone has a real camera
12 megapixels is enough
>>2789414
>You accuse me of trying to weasel around with terms and then pull this friend?
It's far less misleading to say that a RAW file has NO inherent visual property than to say that it's flat.
>>2789434
>My phone acts retarded at the most critical moments
Better focusing is a major reason to use more advanced cameras.
Phones and cheap point and shoots all have very poor autofocus systems, and most don't have manual focus.
A good camera is about a lot more than megapixels.
It's mostly about control.
Control over focus and control over exposure.
>>2789884
Raw has information in very bright highlights and very dim shadows, and to display that information on a low dynamic range screen, the system translates it into a low contrast scene to fit the full range into a single image. It can be manipulated to behave differently, but a raw image with a dramatic profile isn't really a representation of the raw data anymore.
>>2789873
6 megapickles are enough.
>>2789873
top kek m8
Should I bother setting ambience variations while shooting or could I just do that in post?
>>2790427
What are ambience variations?
>>2787705
>>The Music... made my ears bleed. Please remove
>>The bokeh effect coming out of the elevator and walking into focus... annoying.
>>The 3 or 4 or 5 "Oh Hello There's"... annoying. You stated early that you were going to show us AR... but then every scene you act surprised that we are there.
>>Constant looking away from camera
>>The whispering in the library... then you start chewing gum...
>>Lighting during the interview... not that great.
I'd give you a D on this project.
>>2788612
You didn't ask us a question.
>>2790474
>I'll pretend to be stupid, to show everyone how stupid that other guy is. the best way to show that you're smart is to act like you don't understand things.
>>2789827
maybe look for a different camera app? I know for the lumia I had you could find an app that let you control the focus and shutter speed manually. It was still a pain because of the touchscreen, but it let me get some great pictures of flowers and bugs.
>>2788612
is it in live view mode? on my d3300 you have to hold it until it starts the countdown beep in liveview mode. Another thing that can cause that is if the autofocus is having trouble, in which case try switching to manual focus
I went to price out a macro lens today and noticed there were both macro and micro. What's the difference?
Alright, photoshop question here:
There used to be a dialogue box that opened for my photos on PS for quick changes and stuff. It's no longer there. How do I bring it back? Anyone know what I'm talking about?
Is there a certain type of camera (dslr vs mirrorless) that would produce the best portrait pictures? Should I only be concerned with Mp or sensor size? I am already familiar with the benefits of prime lenses and proper lighting, positioning, etc, however I haven't bought anything yet. I have 3 small kids and I absolutely hate how my girlfriend spends well over $400 twice a year at portrait innovations for what I feel I can do myself, so I am starting to look at my options however I have no idea where to start
>>2791573
Uhm.
I'm GUESSING that a crop sensor may be better if only because you can buy shorter lenses (which are generally cheaper).
Since 30mm = 50mm on an ASP-C and all.
Really any camera with a decent portrait lens (should be between 50-100mm, 75-85mm being best) and a bit of know how will do you just fine.
>>2791443
Branding and nothing else.
Not sure if this is appropriate, but here goes:
I'm thinking about printing some of my photos (landscapes) to put up at my apartment. I've looked around and have the impression that mpix is good, but I don't know about what type of print to get (metallic paper? e-paper? ???) or if mpix is even the right choice.
Any guidance? I think NatureBro gave some of his opinions once, "way back when".
Do most of you guys stick with one "discipline" like landscape, action, wildlife, still life, astro, etc. and practice mostly that and buy your gear with that in mind or do you shotgun it and try a little bit of everything?
>>2791648
I tend to stick to landscapes but sometimes when I travel I like to shoot more "street" stuff (although ultimately I still shoot lots of landscape).
I have nothing against other things, but I shot action/sports briefly and it feels too much like "work" to me. Astronomy is fun once in a while, but it's brutally time-consuming and lonely unless you bring a special friend, but I have no game.
I have literally zero knowledge on cameras and lens and shit. I'm looking for a camera that is able to capture really small details from close-up range, since I don't have any place near where I live with pretty landscapes.
I have aproximately 200$ to buy a camera. Is there anything on that price range or should I get some more money?
Would anyone recommend using Xtol developer on Adox CHS 100 II 4x5? I ask this because I'm not great with developing and my local developer only uses this.
>>2791810
Your looking for macro photography.
It can be done cheap, but it's more difficult and frustrating. I'd google "Cheap Macro" or something.
In general the first good macro lenses start about $400 used, you can get an older Rebel or something for the DSLR for about $200.
>>2791639
Are lenses generally universal between brands am I stuck buying Nikkor lenses for my Nikon body?
>>2792029
There are third party lenses out there. Companies like Sigma basically do nothing but make lenses that fit on other cameras (well, Sigma likes to dabble in failed bodies from time to time, but they mainly are a lens company).
Since you're shooting a Nikon, you're looking for F-mount lenses. FG is the newest and will fully work with your body. FD and older might not be able to take advantage of things like autofocus.
Go over to like b&h's website, then look for lenses that fit the f mount to get overwhelmed by choice.
>>2791810
Buy one of those $20 macro lenses for your cell phone camera, then use that. While you're doing that, start saving. You'll want at least twice what you have. I'm about to get called a shill, but pentax is where you'll likely get the most bang for your buck.
Otherwise, keep an eye out on your local craigslist/facebook buy/sell groups/similar and you might find a deal, but it takes patience.
>>2792035
>I'm about to get called a shill
No one will notice this amongst the Sony faggotry. You need to shill harder goyim.
>>2789395
You're a fucking idiot
>>2792104
Nah.
>>2792120
Yeah
>>2792133
No u.
>>2792134
No you
is it normal that after each trip to somewhere where I have my camera, and I don't really mean a trip like a vacation in an exotic place, but just even a walk to take some pictures, I always end up with just maybe one or two more or less ok pictures or pictures I feel could show someone who isn't my friend without embarassment
how to judge the quality of my own pictures? I take so many and hate most of them and I think I do so because they are not the style I want to achieve or they are boring and bland. it happens even if I try, but then when I check them on the computer they're mostly shit
do you take a lot of pictures which are terrible and just are glad a few are fine? or do you think through every shot so there's not much possibility of them being so bad
>>2792143
Nah, you're right on track. Unless you go out with a very, very specific task in mind, your keeper rate is going to be like 1%. If it's higher than that you're being too kind to yourself.
The trick to getting a lot of good photos is to just shoot a fuckton.
>>2791645
help?
so there are two types of polarizers: linear and circular. and there are two types of lenses: with internal focusing and without internal focusing
question1: is there a special term for lenses without internal focusing?
question2:
did I get it right that only circular polarizers are sensible to use with a lens that does not have internal focusing?
question3: is it ok to use a linear polarizer with a lense that has internal focusing or is there something else to be aware of?
>>2792350
I've heard varying things about mpix. I use Adoramapix and they do great work. Metallic prints are kind of cheesy, but they might impress normies when they come over.
I will say that it's kind of lame to hang your own photos in your apartment unless they have a specific sentimental value. Better to trade your good prints with another photographer's.
what would happen if I would put a full frame canon's 28-300 lens on my 650d? I have read that it would change into like 50-450 lens in a way, but are there any major drawbacks for doing so?
can anybody recommend an online photo printing service (for digital pictures) where you can check the color settings of their printers so you can set the color settings of your monitor accordingly for post production?
Recently I've come into a possession of the Pentax super Me and decided to try shooting some film.
However I've run into a strange defect with some of my photos, with what appears to be a light leak. At first I guessed that this was just a light leak in the camera itself, as the shots that contained the "light leaks" were the ones taken during the brightest hours, however later on I also acquired a different lens and noticed that the "light leaks" were gone even from the bright day shots, whilst the "light leaks" persisted on shots taken with the original lens even during the evening hours.
Could it be that the "light leaks" are caused by the lens itself, or the way its connected to the camera?
I'm attaching an example, the "light leak" is at the top and always seems to be the same shape in same same space.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NORITSU KOKI Camera Model QSS-29_31 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1544 Image Height 1024 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:03:14 21:10:57 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 663
>>2792471
You are correct in your understanding. the only drawbacks would be if you want to shoot things at a more wide angle field of view. if the longer reach is what you're after, you'll appreciate it.
Although if the lens isn't very good quality, the amplification will accentuate flaws in the lens, so softness and aberration will seem more pronounced, if they are present.
>>2792705
It could be that the mount on the lens is bent a bit, and so it doesn't mate flush with the camera body. If that's the case, you can get an elastic hair tie or something similar and put it around the lens at the mount, and it will block the light coming in.
>>2792373
god damn, you hit two things perfectly relevant to me
>I use Adoramapix and they do great work
Thanks!
>Metallic prints are kind of cheesy
that's my main criterion; impressing people when they come over would be kind of nice, but I'll be the person that sees it the most, and I don't want my main thought to be "wow that looks cheesy".
>it's kind of lame to hang your own photos
This is the part that's uncannily relevant to me, especially since I didn't bring it up.
I thought the same thing, and I'm still trying to work over that; I was talking to a friend recently, and she *insisted* that she does it and it's not that lame, but I definitely feel like I have to overcome what feels like... I guess narcissism? Self-absorbedness?
It feels a little wrong, for reasons in that general space of issues. But I'm trying to get myself in the mindset of seeing some of these landscapes as more or less generic photos of cities and stuff, and in that context I feel a little less awkward about it.
Hey guys, I have some questions
I took some photos and they came out a little weird.
The day I took them it was cloudy, so everything looked dull. What should I have done?
Also in a situation where a backlight subject can't be avoided should I prefocus on the sun and then move my camera down? Or use exposure compensation to darken things?
>>2793097
Pump contrast, use curves tool to apply an s curve (contrast curve),etc.
Cloudy days are generally less contrasty than sunny days (which actually is a good thing because scenes won't go past your camera's dynamic range as often and gives you more control over how the scene will look in post).
For backlit, what are you going for? Blowing out the sky or crushing the subject?
If you want to keep the sky, you exposure lock on the brighter area (if using not M mode), otherwise, exposure lock on subject. Using center weight or spot meter is best for playing with exposure lock though.
>>2793102
Contrast in-camera or post-process?
Well no in the situation the sun was behind in the sky what I was capturing, so I got flare and like everything got bright in the preview LCD.
Sorry not good at photos, but I'll look into exposure lock and metering.
>>2793106
In post processing. When you're making changes like that you want to do them in a way you can reduce/reverse them if they don't turn out right. Doing it in camera can kill a lot of detail by pushing your whites and blacks past the blown/crushed point.
All you can do about flare is pick a different angle to shoot at/use a hood, but if you're shooting into the sun, you'll likely end up with some flare no matter what.
>Sorry not good at photos, but I'll look into exposure lock and metering.
Don't apologize, we all had to start somewhere and you're doing what you need to to learn. Keep that attitude and you'll go far. Once you think you know everything there is to know about photography is when you start fucking up. Everyone has shit they can learn.
I highly recommend dropping the $20 for Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure. It'll demystify a bunch of stuff and is very well written, that plus your user manual should make a lot more clear metering modes and give you an idea of when you want to use them (I shoot almost exclusively in spot meter and use exposure lock -- others, like those who use back button focusing mightn't like that setup if they don't have reprogrammable buttons).
Also, read through www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials
>>2793111
Thanks for the advice anon, I'll read them over.
I just purchased my first DSLR, tell me if I got cucked for the price. I bought a kit since I figured I would need most of the shit down the line anyway I figured to bite the bullet now
>DSLR NIKON D7000
499.99$
>AFS NIKKOR 50mm f 1.8g
200.00$
>"Freebies"
32gb sd
Dust Blower
vivitar battery (second one, this isnt the one the body came with)
Ruggard Commando Shoulder Bag
Digital Vision UV FILTER HD (Worth like 5$ but for some reason the packaging is labeled 129.00???)
5 PC. Deluxe Cleaning Kit (googled, worth 5$)
Vivitar Spider Tripod (worth 10$)
After tax is was 761$ for all of this. Should I return it all and try to get refunded because I spent too much or was this a fine price for what I got?
Thanks so much.
>>2793152
Most of that "freebie" shit is abject trash.
Be careful about using those tripods, damn careful.
Aside from that, just play with the stuff.
>>2792369
I hope you are not confusing "internal focusing" with "rotating front element". Circular polarizers are fine on lenses unless the front element rotates and you have to readjust the polarizer.
>>2792373
>I will say that it's kind of lame to hang your own photos in your apartment unless they have a specific sentimental value. Better to trade your good prints with another photographer's.
I don't really care for anyone's photos but my own. I enjoy looking at my stuff. Nothing sentimental just like looking at my output.
>>2793159
I guess I did confuse the two then.
So circular polarizers go on lenses without a rotating front element.
And linear polarizers go where?
>>2793155
Thanks dude.
Heard very good things about the old Tokina 70-210 lenses.
I live in Japan and was looking to get one. I found this, but it does not say what mount it uses? Can anyone identify it for me?
It does not say in the online listing.
Pic 1
Pic 2
Listing says Tokina AF 70-210mm f/4-5. However the front of the lens says SD...???
I'm really not sure. The stranger thing is the tamron branding on the side which I'll show you in the 3rd pic.
When do you decide to use black & white ?
Here's a completely unedited shot I took recently. In this picture I have the feeling color creates a lot of distraction from the subject, which would, I think, be a good time to use b/w.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 760D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:03:15 11:43:41 Exposure Time 1/320 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
Maybe I'm a total noob and not looking in the right places but I haven't found any info on this lens.
This is the last pic, sorry I dont have any higher res
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software paint.net 4.0.9 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 95 dpi Vertical Resolution 95 dpi
How do i get good?
>>2793525
Go out and shoot.
>>2793358
Any time that color doesn't specifically add something that directly helps my intent, I convert to B&W.
Any time that the scene is too "busy" looking to look good in B&W, I will leave it color. I find that scenes with lots of sticks and grass and foliage in focus tend to look very busy and unintelligible when converted.
I think that for your posted photo, the first decision should be "is this a success or a failure" and I think that in my library, that should would get an X. The "important" part of the scene is about 3% of the frame, and the rest is all completely uninteresting, and entirely unrelated. There isn't any processing decision you're going to make that will change that.
>>2793525
Believe in yourself. Take chances. Do excercises to foster your creativity. Get up and actually shoot your ideas. Slow down and plan. Put in more effort to clean up your scenes before you press the shutter button. Use your mind to get more aware of the concepts of visual communication.
Help me understand. I have two methods of taking photographs. Most often, I take everyday photos using my smartphone (Xperia M, v2013). Although I have digital SLR Canon PowerShot camera from 2008. The Canon PowerShot takes better photographs of course, but it is too clunky to carry with me wherever I go so I opt for the smartphone. One of the more obvious distinctions in the quality of the pictures between the two is that the smartphone doesn't perform anywhere as well as the SLR does in low-light conditions. But I have a hard time comprehending the technical explanation for why this is. What technical aspect is most responsible for giving the SLR the leg-up to preform better in low-light conditions? Is it any one thing? Can it be identified on a list of camera specifications? Are you able to demystify this question for me?
Attached are example pictures from both cameras and their respective tech specs.
>>2782553
For me, it's as simple as going for a drive. Sometimes I just plan on going to a town 50-100 miles away for something as simple as a cup of coffee, committing myself to doing photography on the way there and on the way back. But I make my destination and "objective" for being there unrelated to photography so I don't stress myself out if I don't take great photos along the way. Sometimes I'm content to just drive and wander around.
I also do long, long road trips over the course of a few days. I did Los Angeles to Santa Fe/Taos in New Mexico over the course of three days, spending the second full day in NM, but looking for photos literally every waking moment. I think the round trip ended up being 1,600 miles, not counting the 400 or so miles I covered in New Mexico.
This shot is from a small town in Arizona near its New Mexico border.
>>2793789
>What technical aspect is most responsible for giving the SLR the leg-up to preform better in low-light conditions?
A larger sensor.
>>2793798
Here's the EXIF info.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 743 Image Height 996
>>2793817
Now look up the sensor sizes in the two...not the pixel size, the physical size.
Also in this case, opics are making a definite difference in overall quality.
>>2793789
There were no 'SLR' PowerShots. You mean a bridge camera.
>>2793820
I don't see the sensor listed. Can you highight it for me?
Oi niggers, my mom started selling some shit and she asked me to take some pictures of the products. It's the first time ever I'm delving into this type of photography, so critique and guidance would be much welcome. Also, any obvious tips to have in mind?
1/2
>>2793921
2/2
I do realize now that they might be kind of noisy; being more akin to wildlife and landscape rather than this type of photography I've become used to higher ISOs to compensate for the shutter speed, and have even developed a liking for some low amounts of noise on my pictures. But what do you say about this case, is it tolerable? For tomorrow's set I'll lower the ISO to 100 or 200 and use a tripod.
>>2793923
Nice plug...
I feel like they are a little underexposed in areas. Better positioned lighting or a well used flash may help. Probably good enough for the average consumer though.
>>2793943
Not a plug, the brand isn't hers, she sells the packaging.
Thanks for the input, will try come up with something to diffuse the light or get a better overall luminescence, the flash might be too aggressive since all I've got is the one built into the camera, but I'll give it a try.
Is it tacky and bad to use a polarizing filter for wide angle lenses? At very wide angles only a portion of the sky will be polarized due to the wide field of view.
How do I get Magic Lantern to show me the focus peaking when reviewing images? It used to, but now it only shows me in Live View.
I took this photo with a Nikon Coolpix L340. It was the cheapest camera I could buy that would enable me to take better photos, instead of my phone. I didn't want to outright buy a $800 camera if I didn't have what it takes or ended up not liking it. So far, I love it. It's probably a shitty camera to you guys, but it helps me get in the mindset of a good photo and given me plenty of reason to take it with me, because I use it nearly every time I go out.
I'll post a few of my pics, please give criticism as I'd like to some direction in moving up. Thanks in advance.
1/6
2/6
3/6
4/6
5/6
I snuck onto this property where there used to be a phosphate mine and found this. It was eerie to be there, I wanted to translate that through the photo.
6/6
I'm think of making a specific social media account for my photos, to see if they're any good.
Right now, your main problem is the lack of focus and poor definition, but going onto the particulars of every picture:
>>2794426
Here the idea isn't bad, but you need to bring the subject more into the foreground while blurring more the background to make it jump. A bigger aperture would be of help here, but I don't know if you have control over that stuff with non-reflex digital cameras.
The point of view could be more interesting though, two quick ideas that might work:
Use a higher angle of picture and try to get more green (if possible, completely) into the background, either single out only one single stall, or bring all of them, including background, to the maximum level of detail possible.
Use a lower angle and try to single a stall against the sky. Right now the horizon is somewhere in the middle which kind of makes it uneventful and boring. As trite as it might sound, the rule of thirds often works, so try to apply it and see if it does the job for what you're trying to portray.
>>2794432
The silhouette is fuzzy and unclear, and still retains some low levels of detail which make it even more confusing. Again, this can be fixed toying with the aperture and exposure times, to make the trees and its lines blacker and more defined against the sky (which by the way, is offering nothing. It'd be more pleasing to the eye if it was at some point of the day where there's some kind of fade on its colours, or completely blue, or the clouds were more shapely, but as it stands right now, it's a bore).
Also, look for interesting shapes that might catch the eye and drive it somewhere. That tree on the right has an S form that properly framed could work very well.
Too many characters, continuing in next post.
>>2794434
A bit lower of an angle or a cut in the top of the picture (take the greenery away) to make the background seem 'infinite' would help a great deal here. The colours look washed out and the light over exposed. The framing and placing of the subject is proper however.
A soft filling flash (or just a coloured light from your phone's screen, work with what you've got) could have worked to bring more detail and texture out of your subject in this case.
Kind of uneventful however, there's nothing more than the pineapple to rest the view upon. If there was some kind of bug climbing it for example, now that'd be something one could dwell on.
>>2794436
A bit of the same criticism than on picture two, only that in this case the sky is working in your favour. Shapes are still somewhat confusing. If there's an angle were the tree won''t get blended with the forest in the background, try to get to it.
>>2794439
Apply the same criticism than on picture one.
The sky is heavily burnt by overexposition. The framing would have probably worked better by actually showing no sky at all, just a take of the sign with the whole waste lying around. Perhaps an angle that made the lines of the sign work as a lead for the eye into the destroyed trees would have made an interesting choice.
>>2794441
Best of the six. You made an interesting contrast by showing the flowers against the dead leaves. As with all the others, proper selection of an angle and playing with the possibilities that the subject offers would make the pictures much better. In this case, an idea that comes to mind that is sort of working in here but not quite, would be framing it in a way that the picture went on a fade from one corner to its opposite where one side would be more cluttered and the other more spaced.
Overall not bad, just keep taking pictures.
>>2794443
Thank you so much, these critiques really boosted my desire to go out and take more photos. If this thread is up in the few hours it'll take me to get home, I'll post some photos I took today.
Where can I get nude/pornographic images developed? Over a summer camping trio with my girlfriend I brought a disposable camera and while most of the photos are of nature and shit some of them are more risqué. I looked online and everyone seems to say that you can't do it at normal stores because they don't develop and print porn, do any photographers in here know where you can get edgy stuff developed?
>>2794586
Dwayne's
>>2790481
And at the same time... you didn't answer the question he didn't ask. Now who looks smart? /p/hag.
Is using basic zone modes always for plebs? Do you use them or set everything manually?
This is a photo by Damien Maloney, it looks like he uses mostly medium format film but I'm wondering how he achieved this effect (I'm assuming it was mostly done in camera).
>>2794751
Shoot slide film, with a softar and a star filter.
And a studio lighting setups, obvs.
>>2794746
zone modes? what are zone modes?
