Starting one because I need to know a solution to this.
Does anyone know of any app that can resize photos on iOS without stripping exif data? (Resize to any measurement, which bars out the mail app)
>>2797986
Use photoshop. Make an action about resizing and use the automate function to resize your images in batch.
>>2797987
>iOS
How do you improve your photography?
Saying "shoot more" doesn't exactly help when you don't understand how to shoot, so how do you learn, more intrinsically, to create better quality photographs?
>>2798209
By slowing down and analyzing your photography. Don't just shoot. Shoot with a goal. What is your goal, and why is that your goal?
Once you've come up with a goal for your photo that you think is good, then start at step one and make each decision about capturing the photo in order to support and achieve that goal. Exposure, aperture, shutter speed, ISO, tripod or no? Composition, framing, camera position, what's in the frame? What's not in the frame? Do the items/clothing/background support your goal or distract from it? What is the lighting? What is the final processing you'll go with and how can you expose the image in a way that helps you achieve that processing? Who is your audience? How do you communicate your goal to your audience with nothing but an image (or series of images) knowing that they weren't there, and don't care about your personal challenges and struggles?
etc.
>>2798209
Shoot more with a purpose.
When you get back, figure out why you achieved or failed to achieve your purpose. Adjust how you do things, and try again.
If you haven't yet, google up "photography 101 assignments" and work through some of those.
This kind of stuff is best for getting mechanics down.
For the creative side, immerse yourself in art. Doesn't really matter what kind, just start looking at it and thinking about it. You'll get some ideas of things you want to try to do. Try them.
Anyone ever suddenly lost photos? I was working at a nightclub and I don't look at my pics that much. Later I wanted to check them out and it says 1/49. I suddenly felt sick to my stomach. I take pics at this venue a lot and it fucking happened at its 2 year anniversary.
I think it was my battery. It died, did not watch how much was left. Could that be the culprit? I tried several recovery programs but to no avail.
Damn.
>>2798209
>how do you learn, more intrinsically, to create better quality photographs?
1) study the work of the greats. no, not the "great" youtubers, not some faggot millennial. study the great photo guys from the XX century, from war photo, to art, to journalistic, to contemporary.
2) get your ass roasted by harsh but constructive critique. sometimes that rare mix can be found here on /p/, and its a bless.
3) lrn to self edit. lrn to separate the good from the bad stuff. lrn to push your own ass, no one is gonna do it for you, everyone wants you to stagnate. no one likes competition, specially on photo.
>>2798100
If you're doing a good job in general they should forgive you for one mess up. Anyway, you think the cam passed out and then it just purged the data from your sd?
That doesn't sound normal.
![_MG_0527[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/iZgLXzl.jpg "_MG_0527[1].jpg")
>>2797986
So I've been having this issue for a few months and it just randomly popped out of the blue. It has never done this before and I've tried everything to fix the issue and no success (Probably because I hardly know how to use a damn DSLR)
The issue that is that my pictures are coming out underexposed when I go to process them on my computer, however when on the LCD preview on my Canon T2i, they are perfectly exposed. At first I thought it was funky light metering, but that doesn't make sense since there hasn't been much interference, and it comes out perfectly fine on the camera.
Attached is one of the many underexposed pictures that appear perfectly exposed on the camera, but refuse to appear exposed at all once I take them over to my computer and import the RAWs.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS REBEL T2i Lens Size 18.00 - 55.00 mm Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.9 Serial Number 1823920915 Lens Name EF-S18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:03:21 09:22:06 White Point Chromaticity 0.3 Exposure Time 1/20 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 5184 Image Height 3456 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Evaluative Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Large Focus Mode AI Focus Drive Mode Single Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal White Balance Auto Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 192 Color Matrix 131
>>2798607
It could be one of two things.
1) You might think it's properly exposed just based on looks when in reality it isn't. Try looking at the histogram.
2) Canon camera's could have something similar to auto DRO (dynamic range optimization) on sony cameras. This often will underexpose shots after you shoot them and has ruined quite a few shots for me after shooting video using it.
>>2798630
The oddest thing is that before I never had issues with overexposure or underexposure. I believe the histogram indicates that this image is underexposed. Yet I can't wrap my mind around the clear differences in detail between the images.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software b2606c3a44 Camera Model SM-G920 Equipment Make SAMSUNG Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.6 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Width 3264 Image Created 2016:03:21 22:36:12 Image Height 2448 Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Date (UTC) 2016:03:22 Time (UTC) 05:36:12 Exposure Time 1/109 sec ISO Speed Rating 800 F-Number f/2.6 Exposure Program Aperture Priority Lens Aperture f/2.6 Brightness 1.6 EV Color Space Information sRGB Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Exposure Bias 0 EV Image Height 2448 Image Width 3264 Focal Length 3.70 mm Light Source Unknown Scene Capture Type Standard Flash No Flash White Balance Auto Exposure Mode Auto
>>2798607
You're probably seeing JPEG previews with lifted shadows. That's my best guess. I dont' know how Canon handles the RAWs in camera.
>>2798639
Check your display brightness.
Outside of that, I don't really know because that histogram is clearly not the image that's on the left.
Firmware update?
>>2798645
>>2798643
Thought it might have something to do with using a bounce flash, but I just did a comparison and the underexposure is still happening regardless.
The LCD brightness is maxed out, and as I lower it, It begins to slightly resemble the underexposed image, but the shadows are still much harsher than what appears on the LCD. I haven't even touched the firmware since I go this thing back in 2012.
>>2798650
>display brightness maxed
That's likely why it looks so bright in the preview, but that histogram is definitely an underexposed image.
Isn't that center weighted metering? It's been a minute since I shot Canon so I don't remember their icons. If it is center weight, swap it to normal metering and try it.
>>2798645
>>2798643
I'm going to take a few test photos for both overexposed and underexposed and see what the histogram gives me with my brightness in the middle and all the way down. If this turns out to be the issue, I'm going to lose my shit. Why even put a brightness feature if it screws over your perception of reality.
>>2798658
That would be evaluative metering.
>>2798658
And I've tried the various meterings before and had no luck. But I think it may have been the LCD brightness throwing off how it actually looked. Though my focus could use some work.
>>2798607
200 iso dude, far too low for it to be exposed right. try 800+ for indoor bedroom stuff
Where is /p/ book 2016? Has it come out yet?
Why photos looks so difirent on my camera screen and on PC in lightroom. I've got T3i and shoot in raw. On camera screen colors looks more vivid than flat colors in Lr
>>2798712
Chock another one up to "we ought to have a sticky about camera profiles".
>>2798700
2016 won't come out until 2017. It's a compilation of shots from the previous year.
2015 is what we're waiting on right now.
>>2798712
>and shoot in raw
The image on the camera screen is processed through the parameters you have selected in the camera (Saturation, contrast, sharpness, etc) so it "processes" the photo for you before showing you. When you load the raw image to Lightroom, that processing isn't there, so you're seeing a standard flat image that you're expected to then edit (which is the only reason to shoot raw in the first place)
>>2798362
My counter only goes up to 9999 shots. Once it crosses 10,000, it creates a new folder internally. The camera won't recognize the previous folder, so the counter starts over at 1/1.
But if you've imported the disk and is not there, then that's different.
>>2798209
It's a combination of "shoot more" with the mentioned idea of "shoot with a goal".
As you get used to using your camera, stop and look at what you're about to take a photo of.
Consider how to present it in a way which will fully capture how interesting it is.
Seriously just spend five minutes looking at something you're going to practice taking photos with and it will become almost like an instinct.
Would Instagram be a place to store a portfolio?
>>2798921
Depends on the genre you're going for, but for most things, no. The small size, strange aspect ratio, comments and likes, etc. It's just not professional at all.
MAYBE for like a nightclub photographer or something similar, where the crowd interaction and community aspect would help bring life to it, since a lot of that stuff is the ability to cultivate energy and community. But for portraits, or events, or something else like that, no. Get a website.
>>2798812
>a standard flat image that you're expected to then edit (which is the only reason to shoot raw in the first place)
The ability to have flatter files is literally the least important reason to shoot RAW.
>>2798935
flat meaning not clipped highlights or blacks. Lots of information without toning or contrast that throws away information.
>>2798937
That's not what flat means.
Don't use terms you don't know what they mean.
>>2798949
I bet your the "stop using the word zoom wrong" retard. Trip so you can be filtered.
>>2798953
Nope, but that guy has a point.
Flat has a specific meaning. Yes, RAWs are generally flatter than resulting JPGs, but that's just a reference to tone and contrast curves. That has nothing to do with the additional information that you can use to recover crushed/blown areas.
You can have a perfectly flat jpg but you won't be able to recover highlights/shadows because you don't have the additional sensor information.
I recently had a Rebel T3 with the 18-55mm kit lens(?) and an EF 50mm f/1.8 STM lens come into my possession through inheritance.I was wondering if someone could explain what the difference between the two lenses are? I kind of understand that the 50mm has a locked f-stop of 1.8 or am I wrong?
Another question is when should I be exchanging lenses? As in, what kind of situations would one lens be better than the other?
>>2798985
One zooms in and out, and one doesn't. The one that doesn't has the ABILITY to open up to f/1.8, but can also stop down a lot.
The 50mm lens will be better for portraits, and in low light. The 18-55 will be better for walking around, and wide angle stuff in bright light.
>>2798679
Believe me when I say I'm learning. I also used a bounce flash for those shots. And I was also compensating for the issue I was having.
>>2798990
Just wondering, what makes the 50mm lens better for low light? Thanks for the reply though
>>2799000
Dem quads.
Because it can open up its aperture to a stop of f/1.8, it allows more light in. That is why its better for lowlight situations.
>>2799006
Damn I'm blind. Trips.
>>2799006
Oh alright, that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for clearing things up for me!
What's this little chart for? How do I read/implement it while shooting?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Right-Hand, Top Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 3264 Image Height 2448
>>2799043
It just tells you what the DIN equivalent of ASA is. ASA is the same as ISO. It's useless when you are shooting. If your camera has a meter just set the iso at the appropriate setting.
>>2798953
>>2798964
Hi.
I'm the "use zoom correctly" guy.
Jargon exists for a reason. It facilitates communication. Zoom, in photography, specifically refers to a lens that can change its focal length. A not-zoom lens is a prime lens. Using it in the more conventional sense of magnification gives people the impression that "zoom" is synonymous with telephoto, so now you're helping further confusion by letting people conflate zoom and telephoto, so you're screwing up people's knowledge of three topics that are pretty important for someone to understand if they are to effectively communicate about photography.
In some cases, it's perfectly fine to simplify jargon, but usually that's because you're dealing with very complex topics (like how mass technically has nothing to do with gravity, but momentum does which is why massless light is affected by gravity) that would require a lot more information to begin to understand. This isn't the case with something like "zoom" or even the concept of flat.
To further damn the practice of willfully misusing a key bit of jargon like zoom, you're making it more difficult for someone to search for further information on what they're trying to learn about. A quick first step for many is a google search. Much of the reason that someone turns to a forum like this to ask a question is that they don't know the right words to use to search out a concept. Using the proper terms gives people the ability to easily search out more information on precisely what they want.
>>2799000
Think of Aperture like a hole that pours water out. The larger the hole, the more water can pour into the cup in the same amount of time.
>>2798498
Well that is exactly what happened though.
Either that or someone took my battery out of the charger, put it in my cam and formatted it. Because I've had my cam with me all the time and left it alone without its battery. But I always keep it at a safe place where only staff can come.
I told them immediately and they said it was okay, I explained what happened, even though I had no idea what happened actually. They are cool guys, they don't expect me to be there every week for example. It's my choice. But damn, this is just fucked up.
wat do?
Can I still trust my camera? Can I just use another card? This can't happen next time. I've been thinking about getting a portable card reader with harddisk and screen to backup.
>>2797986
Does anyone know of a reliable Lightroom crack/way to get it for free for Windows 10?
>>2799131
It's fucking $10 a month. Just pay for it.
>>2799134
Why pay for it when I don't need to?
>>2799131
I just picked the first and most downloaded one on some random torrent site and it's been over a month and nothing has happened yet.
>>2799140
automatic updates, lightroom mobile, no worries about whether your copy has a rootkit in it
Hey /p/, whenever I try taking photos with the 2 sec delayed timer on my camera, I can't take the picture! When I press the shutter button, in the bottom right corner (r16) comes up, what does that mean???
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Bottom, Right-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2592 Image Height 1936
>>2799178
Shit idk why it posted it upside down
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2592 Image Height 1936
>>2797986
How do i grow the stones to take street photography.
>>2798607
Your monitor maybe, not calibrated and crushed blacks.
Happens with "GAYMAN" monitors all the time.
>>2799240
I dont have mine I bought it used and it didnt come with it, could you just give me an answer plz?
>>2799245
They're all available online and it's really something you should read.
Hey guys. I'm wondering what the tangible differences are with medium format vs smaller sensors besides thinner DoF at a given aperture.
>>2799559
Resolution, dynamic range (on digital), color depth (on digital), professional atmosphere.
>>2799565
>dynamic range (on digital), color depth (on digital)
These shouldn't have anything to do with sensor size. Is this something enabled just for the sake of the "pro" market? It seems weird that professional 35mm format cameras wouldn't have the same capabilities there.
>>2799573
Battery life, real estate to work with, much higher cost.
>>2799573
>These shouldn't have anything to do with sensor size. Is this something enabled just for the sake of the "pro" market? It seems weird that professional 35mm format cameras wouldn't have the same capabilities there.
Dynamic range has everything in the world to do with the physical size of the sensor. Why do you think there isn't a sub 1" sensor that works even passably well in low light, but you have stuff like the 645z where you can push exposure over five stops and have no noise introduced?
Bigger sensors mean you can have bigger a smaller pixel density for a given resolution which means more light collection which in turn means less noise.
>>2799622
There are tiny sensors that are excellent in low light. They're just low res.
Does sunlight cause more chromatic abberations? I noticed when I take macros outside, there seems to be more color fringing (the rainbowy red and blue kind) than when I blast my subject inside with a full-power flash, and the brightest glints/areas aren't nearly as bad.
>>2799684
Hard bright highlights expose aberrations. So shiny surfaces, or really hard transitions from super bright to dim. It's not the sun, it's the intensity of the light.
>>2799661
Okay sure, the principles that allow for the improvements CAN be implemented in smaller sensors, but generally, they are not.
Are there really any modern 4mp sensors in phones or point and shoots that have high dynamic range and color depth? I'm not aware of any.
>>2799698
Hmm I see. I meant that the flash was creating shiny hard reflections, but they weren't as badly abberated as sunlight. I thought it had something to do with those window prisms that, in direct sunlight, create rainbows, but the effect is a lot less if you use LEDs or incandescent bulbs. Thanks for the info.
>>2799713
Your flash isn't anywhere in the neighborhood of being as bright as the sun.
I got a bunch of duplicate photos from a hard drive recovery and tried to get rid of it by ignore duplicates with a lightroom import. Currently I still have 2-4 duplicates per image.
How do I get rid of them? I guess there are few pixels different on each.
When is the best time to stamp visible merge all vs merge down?
>>2799749
Stamp visible lets you go back if you need to. Merge down doesn't
>>2799745
There's a program called antitwin but it'll take a while.
>>2799752
Thanks so far, I just started a seek at 95 percent.
>>2797986
Bumping this back up to the top because a lot of people are too dumb to use the catalog/too lazy to look.
Can I street photograph people with 20mm 4/3 panny?
What kind of shots can I get with my f/3.5-16 10-30mm lens?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON 1 J1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 51 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:15 16:52:27 Exposure Time 1/640 sec F-Number f/6.3 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 800 Lens Aperture f/6.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Cloudy Weather Flash No Flash Focal Length 18.90 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 669 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2801724
>Yes
How fucking how, tell me!!!!!
>>2801747
Now that's a stupid question
>>2801750
>_>'
srsly?
>>2801747
By taking photos of people and interesting things on the street... What's the issue?
>>2801752
They just happen to be too SMALL!!
>>2801753
>40mm isn't getting me close enough
stop being a pussy
>>2801755
Fuck off I said 20mm
:^)
>>2801756
On M4/3. Which works out to 40mm
Get closer to your subjects.
>>2801756
yeah on a m4/3 sensor you fucking tool :^)
Is there any explanation why neither the Adobe programs nor ACDSee manage to properly recognize my Tamron objectives but DxO OpticsPro 10 perfectly nails it?
>>2798362
if your sd/micro sd card in 32 GB or over, they're subject to doing that. thats why i only use 16 GB cards, they never lose files like that.
>>2801793
I've only used 64GB cards for the past few years and never encountered this problem. Sounds like bullshit to me
Why most viewfinder are made for the left eye ?
It's kinda problematic when you see better with your right eye tbph
>>2802516
Most viewfinders are absolutely made for the right eye. What are you talking about?
>>2802554
I meant the right eye I have dyslexia sorry.
>>2802566
This is a new approach to trolling...
>>2802571
Fuck you dyslexia is real.
>>2802566
Use the Joe McNally grip.
This is going to sound pretty dumb.
On film SLRs, does changing the ISO number normally on the shutter speed dial, change anything but the meter readings? Was told it did nothing but change the meter readings and also have been told otherwise.
>>2802614
You were told right. The film stays the same.
>>2797986
Another bump because lazy newbs
Why do people prefer rangefinders to SLRs?
>>2802614
It adjusts the meter, and nothing else. When you put a slow speed film in (ISO 25) the film needs a certain amount of light to produce a correctly exposed photo. when you finish that roll, and put a high speed film in (ISO 400), it needs much less light to produce a correctly exposed photo so adjusting your ISO wheel sets the meter appropriately.
>>2803315
The focus mechanism can be very nice to use, the tunnel viewfinder doesn't black out when a photo is taken, generally you get a view through the finder that is a bit wider than the FOV of your lens, which helps you to know where things will and won't be in the frame, or can help you time up a shot better with motion (person crossing into your frame, for instance)
They're generally smaller than SLR designs since they have no prism, they can allow for smaller wide angle lenses since there's no mirror in between the rear element and the film/sensor.
Using a tunnel viewfinder on the left shoulder of the camera can free up more space for your right hand to operate the camera.
They look neat/different than what people are used to.
>>2803315
Form factor for the most part. If Leica made more SLRs and less RFs I bet they wouldn't be as popular either
How do you motivate yourself to take photos? I have plenty of gear and I'm competent enough to make a well-executed photo when I know what I want, but I just can't come up with any ideas anymore for a good series or set of photos to take. Lately I've just been using my cameras only when on vacation because I enjoy travel photography, but when I'm at home I never take any photos and if I just aimlessly go for a walk with my camera I never find anything to take photos of.
How do you guys deal with this? I guess I find the place where I live pretty boring, but that's not really a good excuse because I'm sure there are still good photos to take here which I'm just not thinking of.
What is best video editing program for normies. Options for both Mac and Pc please?
>>2797986
What is best video editing software for editing home videos. Cheap solutions for Pc and Mac please?
>>2803356
Start taking pictures. Your photography brain is dormant because it only cares about things that are novel and stimulating. You just need to kick start it by taking pictures even if they are bad. Keep taking pictures and your photography brain will be well lubricated and functioning in no time.
Your camera is not an ornament. Don't take it with you if you don't plan on actively using it. Your camera is a processor. It does not work without input. Give it some input and the gears will start grinding and then you will get the momentum you need to shoot more stuff.
Look into your viewfinder and don't look away until you press the shutter. Once you take that shot take another one, and another. Before you know it this will start a chain reaction that leads to yo taking pictures. They might not be your best but you will feel more satisfied and accomplished.
Don't try to predict what you are going to shoot. Let your camera guide you to places you could never have imagined.
There is no motivation; there is only action.
There is no want; there is only now.
There is no good; there is only the shutter.
What is 1 stop faster than f/1.7? I'm thinking it's probably around f/1.3 but I'm not sure.
>>2804529
A full stop is diving or multiplying the f/ number by a factor of sqrt(2) which is approximately 1.4, so 1 stop faster than f/1.7 is about f/1.2.
>>2804532
I'm a bit of a retard when it comes to math, could you give me a written example? Thank you.
>>2803744
The best? Premiere and after effects.
>>2804529
f/1.2
Easier for me than doing math, I simply remember that it starts with f/1 and f/1.4, and they alternate and double.
f/1 > f/1.4 > f/2 > f/2.8 > f/4 > f/5.6 > f/8
>>2804674
>I simply remember that it starts with f/1 and f/1.4
Same. Except I just remember 0.7
>>2804711
>>I simply remember that it starts with f/1 and f/1.4
>Same. Except I just remember 0.7
Same. Except I just remember 0.35 and 0.5
super stupid question
how do i ad an external flash to my canon 100d. Is there anyway to get an old cheap flash to work?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 100D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 8.0 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:03:26 00:08:01 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Portrait Mode ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2804736
Just get one and put it onto the hotshoe, anon. it'll work just fine but don't expect any miracles as there won't be a TTL- connection etc.
Tl;dr - You'll get a working but 'dumb' flash.
>>2804736
yongnuo 580 (I think that's the right number) ex with the highest roman numeral you can find
I find sometimes it's hard to see focus in my view finder, and I'm not sure if it's because I'm blind or what exactly
I use a Nikon d5300 and a 35mm.
I was looking at these, would this help?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2011:08:02 15:35:15 Color Space Information Unknown Image Width 640 Image Height 316 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2804789
Depends on why you're struggling with it. If it's light coming in around your face and getting into the viewfinder, yes, that will help. If it's because you're at f/1.8 and you find that you're missing focus when doing manual focus, it's the focus screen inside the camera, not the eye-cup.
>>2804792
I feel like it might be the latter of the two you mentioned.
Will having a magnified view finder solve that? A larger view, easier to see finer details?
>>2804800
Nope. It's a "flaw" in the way that the focusing screen is designed. In order to be accurate at wide apertures, it has to be more textured which loses you some of the light that comes through, making your viewfinder dimmer. On already small dim viewfinders like crop sensor entry level cameras, the engineers decided that since you have nice accurate autofocus to rely on, you don't really need it to be that accurate for manual focusing, so in stead, they'll make your shooting experience better by brightening the viewfinder a bit.
How do I send an image from lightroom to photoshop as a layer?
Okay since this is a stupid questions thread,
Where do you guys find work? Like how do you get people to hire you?
I've been little jobs here and there from people I know on Instagram but that's about it.. I want more jobs so I can pay off my equipment!
I have a website, I'm working on redesigning my business card, what else do I do?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS REBEL T2i Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 150 dpi Vertical Resolution 150 dpi Image Created 2015:11:11 17:56:06 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/11.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/11.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1800 Image Height 1200 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2805099
Find a market that is looking for photographic work in your area, and tailor your portfolio to that market. then reach out to those people and tell them about your work.
Remember, people don't want to pay you to take the photos you want to take. They will be willing to pay you to take the photos that they need taken.
I have a Canon 5i with a few lenses. Today, a refurb Canon 70D and a Nikon d720 are on sale for about the same price. I noticed such a difference when I went from a Canon Rebel xs to a 5i I wondered why I didn't do it sooner, even if it would have put me in debt for a bit. Should I buy one, and which one?
Thank you very much, as I've wondered this for quite a while.
Can you tell the difference between film and digital just by looking at the picture ?
>>2805647
It depends.
>>2805636
The 70D will be a nice physical upgrade in your hands, but the image quality will be the same. The D7200 will be an upgrade both physically, and in terms of image quality, but you have to go through a lot of hassle to get there (selling your lenses as well)
Only you can decide.
>>2805660
thank you. I didn't know the Canon's would be about the same.
Yeah, I got caught in that lens trap. If the canon's are about the same, I can hang in there a little longer, but some day I would like a nice Nikon!
>>2803742
Vegas Pro is easy and straightforward.
>>2797986
Gais, I'm having trouble figuring out how to make a space efficient GIF. Here's my dilemma:
I want to make a slideshow with some pictures that I can embed in a forum
>I have 10 Jpegs (1920x1080, each 1.5 MB)
>generate gif at full resolution, 1 second intervals
>16 MB
It's too big so I try again
>compress 10 Jpegs, each 300KB
>generate same gif
>still 16 MB
Now I know I could create a webm which would reduce the size of the slideshow, but I cannot embed them, and they reduce the quality of my original Jpeg files even more.
Is there some miracle image format that I don't know of that is specifically designed for creating image slideshows?
Gear related but probably stupid question:
never had a proper camera before but I'm starting to travel now that I'm making decent money, only used a DSLR before but they are a bit big for the amount of travelling I'm going to be doing. I'm looking at the Sony a6000 for £460, would that be a but pricey for a newbie interested in picking up photography? Any better recommendations?
i took this at f4,8 and im wondering is the aperture is the only thing making the tree not completely focused all the way through? shouldnt f4,8 be enough of a dof to have it focused. are there other factors aswell or just simply use a higher aperture?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D60 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 736 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 57 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:04:01 15:33:56 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/4.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/4.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 38.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2805969
The closer your subject is, the thinner the depth of field (area in focus) is. That's why if you take macro pictures, you need to set your aperture to something like f/16 or f/22 for the picture to not look like a blurry mess.
>>2805905
It's a very nice camera, and you'll quickly grow into it. Better to get a "real" camera to start with, rather than paying 200 for a starter camera, and then another 460 later.
>>2805990
oh right, i didnt know that. thanks man
>>2805995
Hey Alma :)
You can use this online tool to give you the DoF in a situation http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
Of course you shouldn't be doing that in the field, but it's worth playing around with to give you a feel for it and make you understand what a lens can and can't do
I've never thought to ask... what happens if you try to take a picture without film in an SLR?
>>2806116
The shutter clicks.
>>2806116
The shutter opens and closes, the mirror flaps up.
>>2806116
you do not take a picture
>>2806150
No truth.
For some rangefinders, you have to cock the shutter before turning the shutter speed dial.
The vast majority are fine.
>>2806150
If this were true I would have broken many cameras
>>2806116
Nothing negative. It's not like a bow where the tension that is supposed to go into the arrow just shatters the bow. It's more like opening and closing the door to your closet without any clothes in it. You're wasting your time, but not hurting anything.
>>2805647
With 95% accuracy for me at least, yes.
>>2805969
Take a step backwards, pal
>>2806150
To some extent, yes. There's a limit to how many pictures a camera can take before the aperture mechanic/planes start to wear out. However I've never heard of an instance in the history of photography that has happened - but in theory, yes.
>>2805647
I can usually. Some digital images can be processed to look uncannily *like* film, but it takes a lot of work to do it without it looking like shit/badly processed film
That said you can do it the other way round, too. Not sure why would, though. If you want a film look, use film m8. It doesn't bite.
![f7sqo9b[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TlBHDez.jpg "f7sqo9b[1].jpg")
how do i into this
Copying from gear thread, because dumb questions
Just bought a Argus C-four today. It was an absolute steal at the antique store in my town, only $10.
I've never used a rangefinder before, and I'm having trouble.
It seems there are two directions you can turn the lens (or wheel), and both will move the two images together. One does it perfectly after some time, and the other sorta clicks and almost gets there but not quite. Is that end the infinity side or..?
I can get it focused, but I have no idea what the readings of the dial at, or how to read them. The wheel just spins and it doesn't have a clear indicator that I can find to denote the actual point it's set to, so I'm not quite sure what I'm looking at, which doesn't help the calibration. Speaking of calibration. How?
Also, how does the shutter and film advance work? Isn't not like my SLRs, it doesn't have a shutter cocking mech, it just has two wheels that you can turn. And the wheel that indicates which shot you are on just spins around as you turn it. It never stops anywhere. You can spin you wheels all you want, it never stops.
Do I have to put film in for the shutter and the wheels to work? I don't want to throw in a roll and waste it, because I don't know the mech well enough.
I looked at the manual, and I didn't quite get what they meant. Maybe I'm just slow or something, but it seems much more complicated than an SLR's loading system, although it is similar. Same with the focus ring, I'm just so unfamiliar with this type of older camera.
Also, how do I clean the viewfinder and the metal of my camera? The viewfinder(s) are dirty and grimy, and the metal on the lens is a little corroded, from human hands, I'm guessing. I'm not sure how to properly get into the glass of the viewfinder, any tips?
Does anyone here have experience with this beauty? Any tips would be much appreciated. I apologize for writing so much, I just can't find a good resource to answer me.
Pic related, it's the actual camera
>>2806312
https://fgts.jp/p/thread/2717546/
I made a picture to explain crop factor. Is there anything I should add/have got wrong myself?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:04:02 11:14:08 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1395 Image Height 1700
Do you crop only after post-processing, or is there an easy way to crop .raw files?
Is there a reason to save RAW files after you've processed them to your liking and created jpegs out of them? I've always saved the RAW file for any photo I thought was worth keeping, but I'm squeezed for disk space right now, and I've never found that I needed to go back for a RAW file. But I'm wondering if deleting them is something that might come back to bite me in the ass in the future when I know more than I do now.
I should probably mention that I am not a pro and only shoot for myself
>>2806643
Just use cloud storage for them if you're poor or have no disc space.
>>2806643
You might want to reprocess later or make some kind of changes that you need that latitude for.
You might want to consider converting to DNG. They save about 20% space over other "raw" formats.
>>2806643
Personally, I just bought a cheap, decently sized hard drive to archive them. Chances are you won't really look at them again after you're done with them (like processing), but I find it helpful in seeing improvements by looking through them once or twice a year.
Kinda like how artists will keep their old drawings around, forget about them for a few years, then find them and shake their head at how bad they used to be.
Of course, there's also the chance that there are a few gems in there that you didn't have "the eye" to see at the time, and you'll be glad you didn't delete everything.
35mm or 50mm, or both?
>>2807062
It's really personal preference. It's truly subjective and depends person to person. Some people like a more isolated subject, more attention drawn to the target, which is in the field of a 50mm, as well as a shallower depth of field
a 35mm captures more of the context of the backgrround around the subject, and gives you an easier time with landscapes, and is pretty good for street photog. But in my opinion, wider lenses usually just means messy backgrounds are messier, and can be cluttery.
On a crop sensor, though, this is all different, because a 35mm is close to a 50mm lens, but a 50mm lens on a crop sensor (around 80mm) is quite telephoto and cramped. That being said, I kept my nifty fifty stuck on my old rebel for a long ass time, and I loved it.
>>2805903
Anyone????
will it fuk my camera up if I leave it on bulb mode for like 5 - 10 minutes? It doesn't overheat/damage anything does it?
>>2807120
Nah. It'll be alright.
>>2805903
You want the impossible. Gif compression isn't the same as jpeg compression. It doesn't matter if you save your images at 0 quality or 100 quality. The biggest constraint on a gif file size is color depth (8-bit, 256 values), resolution and number of frames. You can reduce any of those to reduce file size. It seems like you have your mind made up about the last two, so you can try using fewer colors, though I doubt it'll have much use.
>>2805647
Yes you can. If you mean a digital file that has been processed to look like film then it can be harder but there are a few giveaways that can help spot a fake.
Is this lighting set any good? I want to start a youtube channel where i sit and talk about stuff. http://www.amazon.com/StudioPRO-Photography-Continuous-Softbox-Lighting/dp/B00KRN0SEI/ref=sr_1_2?s=photo&srs=5539930011&ie=UTF8&qid=1459866031&sr=1-2&refinements=p_72%3A1248879011
>>2808705
Yeah that'll be just fine. Maybe even overkill. You really only need one key light and maybe a reflector for simple talking head stuff.
I really want to get more in the head shot photography, would 85mm be enough or should I get 105mm or 135mm?
>>2808723
What camera are you using. If it's a crop camera, 85mm will be fine. If not, you'll get distortion, as the standard for headshots is more or less the framing you get with a 135mm equivalent from about 12 feet away-ish.
>>2808724
D700, so full frame.
>>2808726
Then you'll have distortion. May not bother you much personally, some people don't mind it. But if you're going for the standard, you'll want a lens that gets you around 135mm. For headshots, you generally want a deep depth of field,so don't worry about getting something fast. 70-200 f/4 would do you nicely (not sure about the Nikon offerings, I only know Canon's stable)
>>2808726
Just so you know, the 85mm f/1.8D has a very long minimum focus length and I think the G model is about the same in that regard too. With the D lens if I'm trying to do a very tight headshot then I'll be bumping up against the minimum focus length a lot and it can be frustrating, it'll probably limit you to more of a head and shoulders shot than a tight headshot.
And like the other anon said, 85 is probably more for half length or full body portraits, for just a headshot you would probably want something longer. The 105mm and 135mm DC lenses are incredible and criminally underrated and are perfectly suited to portraits, but they're big and expensive and really only suited to a very specific type of usage. If you're serious about getting the very best lens for this purpose then nothing beats the DC lenses, but you would probably be more than happy with just a tele zoom like a 70-200 or something instead and it would be way more flexible. There's a reason that long telephoto primes fell out of favor once zooms became popular, they're pretty limited in their usefulness.
I know fuck all about photos I am just looking to take the best holiday snaps i can... bearing that in mind
just bought a cheap 1080p action cam. for photos it gives me the option of 3 5 8 12 megapixel shots ?
what setting should i have my camera set to. is everything above 3 just going to blow the image up artificially have make it look like crap ?
Will i get the best results from 3mp ?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software www.meitu.com Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:11:29 09:34:11 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1200 Image Height 1200
>>2808841
I was thinking something like this, but just decided to call it a headshot, I quess I was a bit misleading?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand
>>2808848
You could probably get away with it and do ok, but really I think 85 is more suited to stuff like >>2808432 and some of the other sample photos posted in that thread. Most of them are a lot further away than the headshot you posted which was probably taken with a longer lens.
>>2808844
If it's truly a cheap cam, it's not going to give you good photos no matter what setting you go with, but you should do some testing between say, 8mp, and 12mp, resizing the 12mp version to smaller, to see if it improves the detail at all.
>>2808848
That's certainly a headshot. The extra few inches don't buy you much.
If you don't want distortion, you need to be 12 to 15 feet from your subject. No if ands or buts. From that distance, 85mm is more or less top of the head to bottom of the feet. If you want headshots without distortion, you need to be around 135mm.
You CAN absolutely get closer. But you'll have some distortion. Only you can say whether it's too much for you.
>>2808861
Sure I get it. Not a bad idea, especially if you know what you're getting into, and set your technique and expectations accordingly.
Someone recommended reading Understanding Exposure so I ordered a copy
Read through the first chapter and it's helping some
I don't think this book is going to go much into techniques, composition, framing and other such creative things
Is there a book or something that can teach me things like that?
I still don't even know what the rule of thirds is
I also plan to take a class over the summer so maybe I should just wait for that
>>2808871
Techniques for things like that aren't so much right and wrong, the way that exposure and focus are. That's what makes you a good artist versus a guy with a camera. But if there were going to be tutorials about them, they'd be in subject-specific books, like "shooting portraits!" or "How to shoot architecture" etc.
Every photo has a different optimum composition and framing, and light. So you can't just learn "always put your subject six inches into the frame on the left" to have it always be right.
Something that helped me was to learn the REASONS behind composition, light, and framing, rather than learning rules to follow. Learning that composition exists to guide your viewer's eye, and to detract from distractions, and that light's job is to reveal form, and emotion, etc. allowed me to start thinking about each image, and put effort in to strengthen each shot I take, more than trying to run down a checklist of acceptable options.
>>2808885
>the REASONS behind composition, light, and framing
I think I meant to phrase it like that. I obviously realize I have to have my own vision what these things but I I'm sure there's terms I need to learn and such
Question :
has anyone tried to connect the fuji x-pro1 or similar to a canon selphy printer ??
I have a question about this photo right here
https://www.flickr.com/photos/albertdros/26207441546/
looking at the exif data, it makes no sense to me that the sky and water are so smooth, which usually means long exposure, and there's a dude at the left clearly shot.
To me it's a composite, what's your opinion?
>>2810782
It's a composite. One shot for the ground (and guy) at the stated EXIF, and a separate shot for the water and sky.
How hard is it actually to go after a decent career in photography/video? Any general guides/pointers to get me started?
Photo noob here. Is it possible to do an "inverted bokeh" ?
Like in pic related which is from a movie.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Picasa Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1593 Image Height 800
>>2811789
I'm not sure what you mean by "inverted bokeh". do you mean that the element in the foreground is blurred?
>>2799055
#REKT
>>2811789
sup bruh
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 6D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:04:08 22:05:55 Exposure Time 1/90 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Spot Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2811789
Yes, all you do is focus behind the foreground. In a "bokeh" shot you are talking about, you focus on the thing in front, and everything else is out of focus (including the space in front of the object, you just don't notice, because there is usually nothing there to look at)
For this, you merely don't focus on the thing in the foreground, you focus behind it.
It actually happens to many people on accident, when they miss focus on their subject they intend, and the camera finds the background by accident.
>>2799055
Yes, and when you use a "zoom lens" to "zoom in" things in the frame look bigger. So the term "zoomed in" means something to people who may not understand the term "long focal length" in the "I'm an absolute beginner in the beginner stupid questions thread"
I'm terrified of touching ISO for fear of having too much noise. But I feel like sometimes its necessary for certain shots. Can I get hard numbers for "max" i should go with iso?
>>2811850
never go over 100 or else Satan will find your picture and curse it with noise and terrible color rendition that will be unsaveable no matter how much you process.
>>2811850
With film it's completely normal to buy a ISO 400 film or higher if you need faster shutter speed or shoot in darker environment. Digital noise is a little uglier but chill. Also do you even intend to print or share in high resolution?
>>2811850
It depends on your camera, just take a bunch of shots of the same thing at different ISOs and decide what's acceptable to you. A noisy image is always better than nothing.
>>2811850
Shoot whatever ISO you need to shoot in order to get the shot. Always.
>>2811850
A noisy photo is better than a blurry photo and much better than no photo. Don't be a pussy. The maximum ISO you should use is whatever ISO it takes to get the photo.
where can I get I find downloadable albums of famous photographs, preferably in high resolution? I want to create a useful screensaver for my tablet
on most digital cameras (i assume) theres 2 options for max resolution, one has a star next to it. what does that mean exactly? i read the manual and it said that it means there's a lower compression ratio but that doesnt tell me much in practice other than i cant save as many to my SD at once.
I took some photos, and a few of them appeared like this.
Why?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 7D Mark II Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:10 20:10:13 Exposure Time 1/1250 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/7.1 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 55.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2812314
RIP sensor.
>>2812314
another example
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 7D Mark II Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:10 20:09:18 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/4.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/4.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 40.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2812316
Is it the sensor? How can you be sure?
>>2812319
Try another memory card, could be file corruption.
quick question from me, why isnt pentax more popular? from what i hear they can offer alot more than canon and nikon products in some cases and theyre pretty well priced and all their dslrs are weather sealed so why does nobody like them? is it because their cameras look like shit?
40mm f2.8 or 50mm f1.8 for a crop censor?
>>2813619
Since at least the 70s Nikon was always the most dominant manufacturer for professional cameras and the other brands including Canon and Pentax mostly made cheaper more amateur-oriented cameras. When autofocus became popular in the late 80s Canon made the transition to autofocus much better than Nikon did and became a serious competitor and in a few years even overtook Nikon as the market leader. When DSLRs appeared, Nikon got a head start over Canon but the two have been trading blows ever since and mostly staying neck-and-neck but with Canon always slightly ahead in market share.
So basically Canikon have a huge lead and a pretty strong duopoly over every other manufacturer and it's very hard to overcome that lead so Pentax has always been stuck in third place for DSLRs despite a lot of determination and lots of perfectly good cameras and lenses. With mirrorless the market has gotten shaken up a lot and Sony has made huge gains to become the new third place company but lots of other companies have also made gains.
So basically it's just economics rather than anything being wrong with Pentax cameras themselves, it's hard to become popular unless your product is really vastly superior to the established leader. Pentax may arguably offer nicer entry level cameras if that's what your friends think, but they're certainly not so hugely vastly superior that people are dropping their current cameras to go to Pentax.
>>2813622
For what
Why do people cover up the brand names and model numbers of their DSLRs?
>>2814442
It's done in movies to avoid paying camera manufacturers for having their equipment in the movie. It's done on sidelines and places where there are many photographers shooting the same subject for commercial reasons so that when your camera ends up in another guy's shots, he can avoid the same issue.
Street photographers sometimes do it and say it helps them be more stealthy (it doesn't)
Pretty much anyone else does it because they think it looks cool.
What's a good camera for traveling? I'm trying to stay in the range of 300 to 400 euros
>>2814521
"traveling" is not a genre of photography. What will you be shooting while you travel? What focal lengths do you prefer? Will you have access to electricity to charge batteries? Will weight be a factor? How much stuff can you bring with you? Are you traveling specifically for photography, meaning that you'll be able to optimize your shooting by being where you need to be at the best times of day, or do you need a system that will allow you to edit the images fairly heavily to overcome limits in shooting opportunities?
Help us help you, man.
>>2814538
I didn't mean like extreme shit like backpacking and having no facilities, just regular touristy shit, landscapes - nature buildings - people and what not.
I just travel for fun and I'm tired of using a phone camera, I had my schools Canon EOS600D for a month and I liked it a lot but the price range is kinda high
>>2814546
I'd personally grab a Fuji x30, or similar compact.
>>2814555
Size really isn't an issue, that one looks a bit over my budget, I keep running into Nikon 3200 when I google shit idk how that hold up around here
>>2811971
If getting the shot means high ISO then do it. Don't second guess in the moment. If after you've returned home and, upon review of your photos, the outcome is shit, then fine. But always go for the shot.
>>2814556
D3200 will treat you okay. the X30 is a very very nice compact. The D3200 is a bottom of the barrel DSLR, but both will take very nice photos if you learn to use them. If size and bulk aren't a problem, you most likely wont' regret the D3200, especially if you learn to use it and have it set up in a way that it will stay out of your way while you shoot.
>>2814561
Yes I understand that I'll be getting bottom of the barrel products within my budget. I don't know how it will hold up next to my expectations since I loved using the 600D.
What exactly are the differences between a bottom tier one and a mid range one.
Or more specifically the 3200 vs the EOS600D, what exactly makes the 600D price almost double the price?
>>2814564
From bottom tier to mid-range, you mainly gain durability, autofocus performance, ergonomics improvements like a better button layout.
From a T3i (600D) to a D3200 you're basically trading across, getting essentially the same quality in every respect other than editing potential with greater dynamic range in the raw files.
The D3200 will have higher resolution, but that won't matter much.
600D has slightly better video capabilities
The D3200 has a Sony sensor, which means it has more dynamic range, better color depth, and is better in low light than the Canon, but much of that won't actually show up in your results unless you're doing moderate to heavy editing in lightroom or photoshop.
The only real reason the Nikon is priced lower is that when people are buying a cheap first camera, they generally buy with the mindset of "I want a good camera, and all the pros I see on the sidelines use Canon, so I'm going to get a Canon too" so Nikon in the "unaware" market, Nikon is at a pretty dramatic disadvantage.
Minor factor, the 600D will work with all of Canon's EF lenses, whereas the D3200 will only work with Nikon's more modern lenses, and older ones won't have aperture control, metering, or focusing capabilities, depending on just HOW old you go.
how do i get infinite focus when photographing the night sky/northern lights? can i auto focus on the moon then switch to manual so it doesnt change and go from there? i got a nikon d60.
>>2815361
Switch to manual focus from the start. Infinity focus will be one end of the focus throw or the other
>>2815365
oh its that simple? i just focused on a mountain on the other side of town and it was like a millimeter from one end of the focus capability so i guess i just put it max that way. okay thanks.
>>2814566
>the 600D will work with all of Canon's EF lenses, whereas the D3200 will only work with Nikon's more modern lenses
Are you retarded? Canon FD lenses cant even be mounted while all nikon can be and only non af-s lenses cant autofocus but will still meter
>>2815373
>Are you retarded? Canon FD lenses
aren't
>Canon's EF lenses
Your Nikon D3200 won't mount their S-mount or LTM or 1 Series or APS or Nikonos lenses either, shit for brains.
I think his point was that EOS cameras have had support for micromotor autofocus, USM autofocus, STM autofocus, electronic aperture, image stabilisation, and even power zoom, since 1986. Every EF lense works perfectly on every EF camera, and vice versa.
>>2815373
>will work with all of Canon's EF lenses
Which bit of that phrase is incorrect enough for you to imply that someone is retarded?
>>2815371
It's not really that simple. On many lenses (especially lower end ones, and ones designed for autofocus) the hard stop at the end of the turn of the focus ring is "beyond" infinity focus.
Good practice is to either find a bright spot to focus on (like the moon, or a light really far away) or to mark infinity on the lens in the daylight with white nail polish or something that glows in the dark.
>>2815396
ah all right thanks. i marked it with a pencil on the lens. itll do for now.
what kind of imaging software would be recommended for someone who has basically no experience in photography?
>>2815672
lightroom+photoshop cc subscription...just $10/month and you'll mainly use lightroom and use it wrong
>>2815675
>use it wrong
thats the plan, thanks m8
>>2815685
That's mainly actually a reference to how you won't take advantage of the cataloging features of the program...not that you'll make horrible edits with it (which you will)
>>2815688
any advice on how to use it properly then?
>>2815690
The biggest thing early on is to actually bother to use keywording. Later on, down the line, you will be so amazingly happy with yourself for putting forth that extra bit of effort.
Aside from that, I'd point you to the billion and one "getting the most out of lightroom" articles.
I want to digitize some A4 size laminated documents.
1. I have a camera and an android tablet.For camera specifications I used letsgodigital.org. What should I use for detailed specs of camera on tablet?
2. A) Samsung Digimax A503 ( Digital camera )
Specs : http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/camera/specification/1170/show.html
B) Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 (Tablet)
Specs :http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=specs&id=5263&view=1&c=samsung_sm-p601_galaxy_note_10.1_2014_3g_16gb
4. The main question. How do I take better photos of documents? Any begginer guides?
Out of A and B,what will be better to take photos of the documents ?
3. I don't know much about image editing and I think I will have to edit the photos too.What should I use ,GIMP or Adobe CS2 (CS2 cause old pc)
>>2816343
Just flatbed scan.
>>2816366
Is it not possible through tablet/camera?
>>2801718
Anything you want
Today I just bought a working Polaroid Macro 5 for cheap. I know my only option is impossible project.
Can this camera take the 600 film or will it only work with the spectra film?
I'm looking to buy a digital point and shoot for trips and what not, most likely going to buy second hand. Where are your preferred second hand markets for stuff like this?
>>2817374
keh, b&h, and adorama
keh has a super anal grading system. All three have excellent customer service.
Aside from that ebay and craigslist with the usual caveats of don't be an idiot.
Okay /p/, I'd appreciate some elucidation once and for all.
Are any of the following real or just buzzwords and imaginary things dreamed up by gearfags trying to justify their purchases?
>3D pop
>Zeiss "look"
Thank you.
>>2817884
>3D pop
meh...it's around 90% bullshit
>[kind of lens] look
This isn't really bullshit, but how much it actually contributes to an image probably isn't worth it to a beginning photographer (as in there are other things that affect the image much more that one should address first).
But yes, the construction, design, and materials used in the lens do affect how it renders colors, how it renders out of focus areas, overall maximum sharpness, etc. all of which combine to give different lenses different looks. Older lenses tend to also have less clinical correctness to them which lends to more obvious differences in looks.
>>2817890
Thanks for the lens thing info.
Presumably however things like color ("oh I love the color of ______ lenses!") can be adjusted in post processing?
If so, what's the fuss?
But concerning 3d pop, what exactly are they going on about? I've seen it mentioned so many times (not here) and I'm still not 100% sure I understand wtf they're referring to exactly.
It's basically out of focus areas vs the infocus part of an image, right? If so, again, what's the damn fuss?
>>2817907
Color can be adjusted in post, but doing it well is really fucking difficult. If you don't believe me, find a raw of a person, throw it in Photoshop/GIMP, use frequency separation (you can find actions and tutorials online) to split out the detail from the color information, then try making natural looking changes. It's kinda like light, it's super difficult (read as basically impossible for anyone but the best of the best) to change in post so it's infinitely easier to just get right in camera.
>3D pop
It's autismal gearfaggotry. The little bit of "truth" that there is to it isn't enough to even warrant considering. Don't waste your time trying to wrap your head around it.
>>2817913
>Color can be adjusted in post, but doing it well is really fucking difficult.
It's literally enabling a single checkbox in Lightroom.
Sure it's difficult to calibrate your lenses and bodies yourself.
And you need special color charts.
But Lightroom has a database of pretty much every lens and body ever made and how to correct for both colors and distortion.
>>2817955
No, not this kind of color editing.
>>2813624
bummer for pentax, they reallly deserve more recognition for their cameras, i honestly think that their sales would be somewhat better if they didnt make the ugliest cameras on the market
>>2818310
ugly? who wouldn't want this beauty?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2048 Image Height 1690 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2014:09:29 11:52:06 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2048 Image Height 1690
>>2818310
Their sales would be better if their parent company gave the slightest shit about selling. Pentax is a tax dodge for Ricoh.
Also, all that crap you read above isn't really why Pentax has shit market share. They have shit marketshare because the name has been passed around like a $3 whore. People historically have avoided them because no one was ever sure if they were about to go under, change everything, or generally somehow not be able to provide support/come out with new lenses in the future.
