Ask all stupid questions here.
How do I do this crumpled/faded look in CS5? Pic related.
So I bought a Chaika 2 without a shutter curtain. Guess I can't use it for shooting right? lol
At least it was only 5 bucks and came with a broken Industar 69
>>2844441
>Industar 69
you could probably use that on a MFT camera
>>2844465
oh I've already been using one on my XE-1, but you the aperture cannot really be changed on the one I bought today
>>2844438
Find a texture image online and the put it over top of the image. Compress contrast with curves and levels.
>>2844468
do you get vignetting?
>>2844469
Thanks.
>>2844470
Aps-c is the same size as half frame
Bought canon 700D couple days ago and I'm struggling with focusing. Its my first camera.
How do I control focusing myself instead dumb autofocus?
Also, should I read instructions that came with it?
>>2844436
I don't understand composition and I feel my pictures suffer from it. Any tips on practicing composition?
>>2844599
>How do I control focusing myself instead dumb autofocus?
Learn how to use AF modes, a lot of beginners will use MF and get missed focus and feel some sort of prestige from there shitty OOF pics
>Also, should I read instructions that came with it?
Probably not a bad idea.
how in the hell do you make use of the depth of field preview button.
I am going to disneyland what kind of filter to use on a galaxy note 5?
When is the /p/ 2015 photo album coming out...?
money aside(ill buy the refurb 5d3) what is better all around, especially for portraiture the 5d3 or the 7d2
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS REBEL T5i Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 70 dpi Vertical Resolution 70 dpi Image Created 2016:05:04 20:46:39 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 1600 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias -0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
I need the background from this pic removed, if i use paint for this, there just ends up being a white square in the pic i put it over where the background was
how do i do this?
why do companies like kodak and ilford make film when the market for the product has significantly declined?
I'm looking to buy my first "real" camera. I'd like to get a DSLR that can also shoot decent video. I'm looking at the Nikon D5500 right now, and looks like it shoots 1080 at 60/30/24. Of course I'll need to buy other equipment for video, but should this be enough to do some basic video shooting? Any significant drawbacks to this approach for an amateur?
>>2844756
>What building is that?
carousel mall
>>2844706
you press it
>>2844706
I've never found it that useful on 135, especially with the ability to just chimp on digital. Even with a good FF DSLR the finder just isn't really big enough to be able to see much of a difference, and you can just crank ISO up and use a small aperture to be sure you'll get everything you need in focus.
I use the fuck out of it on my Hasselblad, though, since the finder is big enough to see it clearly, DoF is shallow, and you're often forced to make hard decisions about aperture because of slow film.
>>2844757
I hate to recommend the meme camera to end all meme cameras, but the A6000/6300 is really nice for video, much better than Nikon's crop-sensor DSLRs.
>>2844534
no it isn't
>>2844786
Why don't you just use the hyperfocal scale on your lenses?
>>2844795
Because I'm not that great at judging exact distances between things, and it's easier just to push a little switch and see it through the lens. I'm not exactly shooting street or sports or anything else time-critical with my Hassy, so taking the time to check the DoF preview is no big deal.
>>2844792
It's close enough to not really matter, and 1.5x sensors are generally slightly smaller than true half frame film so the lenses will work fine.
>>2844797
Gotcha. I just quickly focus on the closest thing I want in focus and check the distance the scale gives me. Then do the same for the furthest thing I want in focus (but usually this is infinity so I don't need to check). Then I just adjust the lens based on the scale appropriately. Takes about 10 seconds or less.
On my Bronica the screen gets pretty dark on anything past f8 and if it's not sunny it becomes really hard to judge what's in focus. Also, stopping down renders my split focus thing completely useless...
>>2844801
Ah, that makes sense. I actually have used HF on my Hassy a few times, now that I think of it, but it's usually not a concern for what I'm shooting. I also have a 501C with the Accu Matte screen, which is really bright, so I can go down to f/11 or so in most light and still see clearly, and all the way down to 32 in sunlight. (I actually just checked and I can see well enough to focus at f/16 in my poorly lit room, and enough to check DoF at f/22.)
>>2844436
is there a book that precisely describes exposure value, lumens, ISO speeds, f and t-stops, lens compression etc. in terms of the physical/mathematical model of what is going on?
where can one learn these things without having to go get an optics degree?
also, what does one do to learn about photographic composition?
Going to Africa with family, gonna do a lot of shooting so I want to make sure I'm set for stuff. Lenses and camera is sorted but which o these things would be worth picking up?
>extra battery
>battery grip
>lens hood
>time lapse trigger gizmo
>polarising filter
How do I find models on Tinder?
>>2844940
You use something else.
>>2844470
it's okay at f/8, but pretty bad wide open. But even at f/8, the upper right corner is soft as shit
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-E1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 42 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:09 17:39:54 Exposure Time 1/1600 sec F-Number f/1.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/1.0 Brightness 5.2 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 28.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Soft Subject Distance Range Unknown
How can I achieve this look? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTHnG3aM5SE
No way I'm buying a Leica Monochrom.
>>2844989
>How can I achieve this look?
>no way will I use the same equipment and technique!
>How can I do it tho!?
>>2844981
Get the 7D mark II. It's essentially an APS-C 1Dx
>>2844993
I've got no problem with learning the technique. Are you saying this is only possible with 10K$ worth of equipment?
>>2844706
>how in the hell do you make use of the depth of field preview button.
you use it to close the aperture which could be for a few reasons
1. inspect the aperture speed to make sure that it's working fine since you dont have aperture ring on newer lenses
2. make a reverse macro lens with useable dof
etc.
>>2844985
that's pretty bad actually
>low contrast
>distortion
>softness
>>2844756
>Portraiture literally requires nothing other than a nice, fast lens.
portraiture benefits a lot from lighting actually. i would say it's the most important thing with lens coming second and camera coming third.
you only need fast lens for outdoor portrait
>>2845001
yeah that was the wide open example (at f/2.8)
here is a shot at f/8, decent center sharpness but yeah soft in the corners
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-E1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 42 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:09 17:39:10 Exposure Time 1/640 sec F-Number f/1.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/1.0 Brightness 2.9 EV Exposure Bias -1 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 28.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Soft Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2844787
>rolling shutter
>>2844989
>take a photo with any digital camera
>crush the black in photoshop
the end
>>2845003
that's useable if you pretend to be a hipster
>>2845009
if you read the post he got it along with a chaika 2, a tiny film camera
>>2845005
That's an issue to one degree or another with pretty much every consumer-grade interchangeable lens camera, though.
I'm sure people will argue with me about this, but if you're shooting things that move fast enough for rolling shutter, or if you and the camera are moving enough to run into issues with it, you probably shouldn't be using an ILC for video anyway. ILCs are best treated like cine cameras, used from a stationary tripod or slow-moving slider for shooting carefully staged, lit, and directed shots, and with a dedicated sound guy on set. They're incredible at providing 50% of an Arri at 5% of the cost.
If you need to run & gun or capture events that are out of your control, though, a camcorder, something like a Canon XA30, is a much better choice. They have IS and AF that work, excellent lenses with huge zoom ranges, controls and ergonomics meant for video, and the ability to run real microphones directly into the camera and control them without fucking around in menus.
/p/ likes to talk about how certain camera features, like fast lenses and high ISOs, are "marketing memes," but I think ILC video is the daddy of them all. My gut says that the majority of the video work /p/ will do is much closer to reality TV and documentaries than it is to Hollywood cinematography, and if you pay attention to reality TV you'll see that any time a camera is on screen, it's an actual camcorder and not an ILC.
>>2844751
Remove background and then save as a PNG.
Can someone give me quick answer about street photography laws in Finland. Going to be there on streets tomorrow for like half a day. Thanks in advance.
is the camera lens profile correction on photoshop supposed to fix all distortion or just some distortion?
so my question is, can wide angle be completely corrected?
>>2845009
it was like 10$ or something. Also it's cute and tiny and has Soviet letters on it :3
>>2845206
What type of distortion are you talking about?
Lens profiles will fix barrel, pincushion, and sometimes mustache distortion, and it should completely remove it, yes.
When does using full frame lens on crop body harm the picture quality?
I understand the focal distance and aperture change, but I hear that in SOME cases, but not all, the picture quality goes to shit, impossible to get it sharp, etc.
Anyone got explanation?
How do I expose using the histogram? I mostly just shoot P mode or aperture priority because street, and generally just dial the exposure comp back a little when I'm close to blowing hilights, so I haven't really thought about it.
Panasonic DMC-G7 + 14-42mm + 45-150mm for 850€
or
Panasonic DMC-G7 + 14-140 mm for 900€
>>2845250
Expose to the right buddy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposing_to_the_right
WHY DONT WE COLONIZE THE MOON RATHER THEN MARS ?
>>2845262
*than
Because Mars has a better chance of sustaining life. The moon is too simple and far too sterile and dead.
>>2845242
I guess barrel.
When I correct my 10-24 it always still looks distorted.
>>2845276
Post a photo.
How can I do this layering of images type effect in CS5?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Comment Screenshot Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 679 Image Height 444
>>2845296
Paste one image on a layer above the other, and lower the opacity.
>>2845296
here denzel would be the bottom layer and the girl the second.
look at the blending mode of the second layer (lighten / screen / lighter colour would be good for this)
also it's opacity
With regards to just the photo work, not video, how much work goes into a website like Met-Art, Hollyrandall, photodromm, twistys, penthouse
I mean everything, from hiring models to setting up and maintaining the website/servers
>>2845285
Not corrected.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D7200 Camera Software NIKON D7200 Ver.1.00 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 15 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016-05-22T15:26-06:00 Exposure Time 1/320 sec F-Number f/11.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 320 Lens Aperture f/11.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 10.00 mm Image Width 1620 Image Height 1080 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2845285
>>2845311
Corrected.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D7200 Camera Software NIKON D7200 Ver.1.00 Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 15 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016-05-22T15:25:34-06:00 Exposure Time 1/320 sec F-Number f/11.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 320 Lens Aperture f/11.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 10.00 mm Image Width 1620 Image Height 1080 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2844436
How do I edit the guy on the right out of the picture?
>>2844751
I've tried to make shit like this but it never comes out right. Help?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1024 Image Height 791 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2844919
extra battery X2
Battery Grip
Lens Hood
Cokin style ND/graduated ND filters
Polarizing filters
What other gear are you bringing? Do you have a monopod or tripod? Do you have enough cards? I'd be more worried over things like this then a time lapse gizmo,
>>2845104
>you'll see that any time a camera is on screen,
or maybe the only time a camera is seen on screen it's clearly not a 'set up' shot so you see camcorders?
>>2845249
>When does using full frame lens on crop body harm the picture quality?
it doesn't.
for the same image size, you have to enlarge a crop sensor more. if you enlarge an image it is easier to notice unsharpness.
the image quality is not harmed, it is only exposed to greater scrutiny.
>I understand the focal distance and aperture change
the focal distance i.e. the distance from the lens plane to the focal plane, is not changed.
the aperture i.e. the size of the hole through which light can come in is also not changed.
properties of the sensor like size can not change the properties of the lens, the lens does not know what is behind it.
if anybody told you otherwise ask them to explain themselves
>>2845590
That's basically what I was saying though. Most of those shots are similar to what people usually expect to do when they say "I want a camera for video."
>>2845601
well you can pay $500 for a sweet dslr and get a video camera with aps-c sensor for free.
or you could do the other stuff
what do you think a britney or a jason would do?
>>2844436
Hey guys
I'm doing some event photography shooting bands in a relatively low light venue and I'm completely clueless as to what the best settings/combo to use in terms of getting a good photo without absolutely pushing the iso through the roof. Im using a Canon 5D Mark II, any advice would be most welcome
>>2845603
I guess it's true that in that price range, DSLR/MILC video blows away any camcorder around. My brother got a A6000 with a Rokinon 35 cine for exactly that purpose, and it's very nice for the review and band videos he does.
Once you get into the $1500+ range and if you want a camera just to shoot video with, though, that's when I'd suggest going for a camcorder instead of a still camera with video capabilities.
>>2845613
Forgot to mention I'm using a Canon 28mm 1.8
I have a gopro 4 silver (no hate) that i barely use. Im looking into taking 360 or 180 pictures for VR. But i dont wanna spend on another camera that ill never use. Is there a way to use the gopro's wide lens stuff to do something VR?
>>2845616
The Canon 28 1.8 is a soft piece of crap, at least the one I bought.. how's yours doing wide open and in general?
For shooting concerts, well obviously follow the rules of proper exposure:
Open up your lens as much as you can while keeping in mind lens sharpness (which gets worse generally the more you open it) and depth of field (it's more challenging to focus with a narrow DOF), if those two in check set the iso / shutter speed accordingly. Now this will depend on the band, if it's an unplugged - standing around concert you can even bring along a tripod (I have been doing this a while myself) and sometimes even go down to 1/20th (this is quite an extreme example though) but in general you want to be between 1/60th and 1/100th - just see it for yourself, if it gets soft and blurry you need to raise your shutter speed. If aperture and shutter speed is decided all you have to do is to set the ISO accordingly.
>>2844436
What's Trump's last name?
>>2845613
with that kind of gear I don't imagine you'll have a ton of issue. Personally I would use aperture priority and try to use 2.8 or higher. Then make your ISO as low as possible while still having a shutter speed that can capture moving subjects (1/40 or higher i would say)
>>2845631
All in all i feel like mines pretty good, also thanks for the advice
>>2845636
Thanks for the advice I appreciate it
If I want to bulk roll into used canisters instead of reloadable, do I need a retriever or opener of some sort?
>>2845789
You should be able to pop off the top of the cannisters but you have to buy reusable cannisters for the tops to not bend and buckle after the first few times opening them
I am a photography noob but have just one stupid question. Is editing a photo afterwards in Photoshop, Lightroom etc ethically sound or would I be committing a photography sin? Do real photographers not edit their photos at all, relying instead on the kit entirely to produce nice images?
>>2845842
If you're shooting digital, you need to process your images. If you're shooting documentary or reportage, you're ethically obligated to keep that processing to color temperature, exposure, contrast, etc. If you aren't, then edit to you heart's content. The overall look of the end result is literally all that matters, not how you get there.
You can do basic global processing of saturation, contrast, sharpening, and noise reduction in camera, but for specific things like emphasizing reds and oranges while muting blues and greens, or skin work, or local contrast, you need to be doing it on a computer after the fact.
There are a ton of things you CAN'T get right in camera, and that's fine. The point of the camera is to capture the scene so that you can do the editing you need to do at home to present the photo you want to present.
Saying you don't need to edit is like saying you should get all your food ready to eat from the grocery store, and cooking it at home is cheating.
>>2845314
it's basic photoshop dude, here, I did it for you but you have to figure it out yourself
Would you recommend Nikkor lens clones like the Yongnuo AF-S 50mm f/1.8 ?
poor anon asking
D3300 body
Are there any places like Wal-Mart or Walgreens that will still develop 120 film? I figured I'd ask before I drove 40 fucking miles to the nearest photography lab that actually says they do that sort of thing.
>>2846386
You don't want to tell us even what continent you're on?
>>2846393
North America. Burgerland.
>>2846395
Mail it to Dwayne's.
Can you adjust the settings on compatible speedlights remotely using just the Canon 600EX-RT?
>>2844436
I bought a 128GB MicroSDXC card (pic) that is not compatible with my 700D despite the product specs apparently supporting it.
The camera refuses to boot at all with the card in.
Is there any way I can fix this? Is it the camera or the card?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:03:10 18:00:55 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 800 Image Height 800
>>2844989
crush the blacks, maybe add some grain.
That's pretty much it
>>2846551
also use a flash at the fastest shutter speed you can so that the face is well lit and the background is underexposed.
>>2846546
go back to /csg/
>>2846575
Thanks for the help.
So are polarizer filters actually important for landscape photography or is it just a marketing gimmick?
Do you think VSCO will ever bring out a kodak Eir film preset or is it too hard to recreate.
Why /p/ hates hipsters photography?
I like their photos but I hate them as well.
>>2844940
Model Mayhem? Look for TFP models to save $
what is the best way to calibrate a screen without a spyder
>>2846686
Get a spyder.
Anybody got the picture that compares canon's nomenclature around the world? Like the Kiss there's a kawaii Japanese girl, the rebel there's a redneck and the numbers (i.e. 650D) is some European dude iirc
>>2844436
Is this the best camera at the price point (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-DSCW800-Digital-Compact-Optical/dp/B00IK01PJC/)
>>2846780
Probably. /p/ doesn't have a ton of expertise with cheap compacts.
>>2846780
Honestly there isn't much difference at that price point. That one seems fine though. Overall it will probably beat out a cellphone camera
>>2844599
>dumb autofocus
>How do I control focusing myself
This must be bait.
>>2846686
Shoot black and white
![1464214914754[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/cHiC4te.jpg "1464214914754[1].jpg")
what was done to this photo?
When shooting landscape photography, should I be aiming for a middle of the range aperture or a low f-stop?
>>2848018
high iso
film
i dunno
Hey guys, dumb question but a smartphone's camera is equivalent to what?
Is it like 30mm?
>>2848018
split tone
with a mask
>>2848196
20 something
google it
>>2848019
f/5.6 to f/13. any higher of a umber will cause diffraction. too low a number will have softness and possibly an out of focus foreground.
Learn to shoot hyperfocal as well.
>edit project in premiere CS6
>export EDL, video only
>grade in davinci
>export individual .mov's
>trying to bring back into CS6
so far what I have tried:
>Avid AAF
>>makes a bunch of MXF files, Premiere won't read them, but if I drop the AAF in After Effects it makes a bunch of QuickTime pointers to them, still doesn't help that I can't being the sequence with footage into premiere though
>Final Cut XML (and roundtrip)
>>CS6 doesnt read .fcpxml
using windows, anybody have this issue?
>>2848196
depends on the sensor lens size and therefor cropfactor, but around that yeah
>>2845382
Fucking show us an example of your stuff first. What part is fucking you up? Cutting out blood or basic photoshop skills?
is hdr-ing(?) worth it?
>>2850457
It depends. For what? Why are you doing it?
>>2844751
There you go.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 499 Image Height 499 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 2016:05:28 20:09:16 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 499 Image Height 499
>>2844919
AIDS
>>2845296
with layers in CS5.
what sort of lightroom adjustments are being used here? I like the look the photo has
>>2844696
I'd like to know this as well.
>>2850544
Pull black point so it's not true black. Pull white point so it's not true white. Play with individual R/G/B curve channels to dial in whatever overall tone you want.
>>2844696
>>2850545
Try to replicate photos you like. See a photo who's composition you really enjoy? Try to replicate it as close you can. Then compare your photo to the one you tried to mimic to see where you succeeded and where you failed.
Learning composition isn't something that you can do by reading/studying. You have to go out and try and fail and try and fail and try and succeed. That way you become faster at noticing compositions and therefore faster at composing and capturing moments.
>>2844696
Start off with the basics. Rule of thirds, centered compositions, symmetry, leading lines, etc.
While you're doing that, start to pay attention to WHY you compose. Balance, eye guidance, distraction minimization, exposition. You compose to keep your viewer comfortable (or purposefully uncomfortable) in your scene. You leave breathing room when needed, you put a dark shape in front of a light background to keep it visually distinct and simple to read. You put a tall narrow subject in the center of the frame, top to bottom, to give it the whole world on either side to keep it floating balanced in the middle.
At its most complex, It's like learning a language, it takes time and a lot of thought. What are you trying to say, and how can you say it visually. At its most basic, you just pick from the short list of go-to compositions, and try to pick the one that looks best for the scene you've got.
>>2850546
Thank you!
Is there a way to tell if a Nikkor lens is FX or DX without putting it on a FX body? I bought a 28mm 3.5 AI lens a couple weeks ago and apparently all Nikon glass before 2003 was for 35mm film
How do I convince girls to pose nude for me?
I downloaded and unzipped VSCO from a torrent to a file and these are the folders inside. Does anyone know what to do with these folders?
>>2850628
Using adobe camera raw btw
>>2850606
Google the lens.
And if you dont have an FX camera to put it on why does it matter?
>>2846686
I had a bitch of a time with color until I calibrated my shit. How much time do you have to waste? You can pick up an XRite i1 for $100 used.
Otherwise, have a lab print a calibration sheet, bring it home, and try your luck at manually adjusting the monitor.
Last choice: compare the same image on multiple devices and try to adjust your monitor based on that.
>>2850634
Noone specifically indicates whether it is FX or DX, beyond saying it will work on a FX body (which all modern DX lenses do). And there were 5 different variations on the lens during the '70s when they were made, and no review page specifies the model.
Whether it is FX or DX is important to me when it comes to upgrading my body in a couple months time between a higher tier DX body (D5500 or D7200) or lower tier FF body (D610).
>>2844599
Is there AF Microadjust under the custom functions? What you really need to do is calibrate the camera body to the lens for proper autofocus.
>>2848018
Hard drugs.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 433 Image Height 667 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 2016:05:29 00:11:15 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 742 Image Height 389
>>2850531
why would you not have installed GIMP? It's free, yo.
>>2850646
all fx lenses work on dx bodies so what's the problem
Let's say I have some full frame lens that has a depth of field capable of covering 1m to 2m at f/16
If I put this same lens on an aps-c sensor camera, it should still have the same depth of field properties, right?
>>2850646
DX is a digital sensor size, it didn't even exist in the film era when that lens was made. Every AI lens was meant for film, so it'll cover FX too.
If the lens says DX on it then it's specifically for DX. If it doesn't specify then it will cover anything.
>>2850862
The depth of field will be the same from the same distance, however, as I'm sure you know, the field of view will be more narrow.
>>2850879
I knew the field of view would be narrower, I was just concerned whether I could still rely on the focus markings or not
thanks
>>2850879
not really.
for the same viewing size you will have to enlarge an aps-c size image more so the dof will be less.
>>2850924
depth of field is a property of image size? i dont understand
>>2850927
an out of focus disk of size of 1mm on a sensor will become 10mm on an image if the viewing size is 10x the sensor size.
for the same viewing size, and image from an aps-c sensor has to be enlarged more.
therefore a 1mm disk on an aps-c sensor will be bigger on the final image than a 1mm disk on a FF sensor.
bigger blur disk in the final image = smaller dof
Why /p/ hate hipsters?
>>2850924
Same viewing size doesn't make sense, since the framing and field of view would be different. But resolution of the sensor will have a tremendous effect on that.
>>2850969
/p/ hates everything that is different from themselves, better, worse, different tastes, different purchasing decisions, it doesn't matter.
But most people hate hipsters, and it's because they're generally uneducated, but still cocky and annoying, while being aggressively tacky and far too happy about it.
>>2850935
Disregard this guy, he doesn't know what he's talking about.
The focus markings will still hold.
Just remember that since the crop factor gives you a narrower FoV, to capture the same image, or to have the same things fill the frame, the distance between subjects and sensor gets further away, the DoF gets bigger than it would on full frame.
I've been doing SS for 2 months and I think there's something wrong with my squats. I keep my chest up, my elbows behind the barbell and a wide stance. I think I got it all right but my lower back is always sore, a sharp pain, specially since I started doing that hip drive thing. Anyone know what's could it be? Maybe I should deload as it feels to heavy?
>>2851112
>Disregard this guy, he doesn't know what he's talking about.
powerful counter argument
>The focus markings will still hold.
lol no. the focus markings have assumptions built into them about final viewing size.
>>2851265
Viewing size doesn't affect focus! What the fuck is this fucking board.
>>2851282
Sure it does. That's why the circle of confusion gets bigger with format size, as you have to enlarge less relative to the negative.
>>2850981
I don't think it is necessarily because they are uneducated but more of the fact that they take bullshit majors in college. Cockiness and all is pretty spot on though. Also you could argue that they drag people who have made technological advances and upgrades down do to their obsession with everything "analog."
>>2850862
the actual, correct answer is: no, depth of field on apsc will be greater than ff at the same f number.
everything else is trolling.
>>2851291
Same lens, same aperture, same position, same focal distance, same depth of field.
>>2851296
>what is circle of confusion
>>2851298
Should be really easy to prove, no?
>>2851304
Yep. It's been proven countless times on the Internet. Circle of confusion is also in the formula for depth of field, homie
>>2851298
You don't know either huh? Yeah, most people don't.
>>2851310
Terrific refutation.
>>2851282
It affects the enlargement of the out of focus area you imbecile.
How do you find the motivation/inspiration for photography?
>>2851319
A lot of weed, mostly.
Hello, absolute newfag here, have been messing around with a shitty DSLR for a bit now. Now attempting to get my head around post processing. Here is my first attempt after downloading lightroom. Which one is less shit, how do I improve and is there anywhere to learn more?
>>2851416
Here's original
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3300 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.7 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 804 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 78 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2016:05:30 20:37:49 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 52.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
Hi /p/, i'm relatively new to photography and I have a question about adapters. I know I'm probably retarded for asking this but f*ck it...
I have an APS-C sensor, so that's already an applied crop factor of around 1.5, correct?
If I were to use an adapter for an older lens, does it get cropped even more since the lens is now further away from the sensor?
I'm guessing that the light exiting the lens is like a cone and not perpendicular to the sensor, is that right?
>>2851450
lol. no.
>>2851450
The lens always draws the same-size image circle regardless of what's behind it, and the film/sensor has to be the exact distance away it was designed for, in order for the lens to properly function, so your scenario never comes into play.
Modern cameras typically have a shorter distance between the mount and imaging plane than old cameras used to have, so the thickness of the adapter is actually calculated specifically so that the lens focuses as it would on it's native mount. If the distance wasn't exact, you could potentially lose infinity focus, since the whole focus range would be shifted.
But you are kind of on the right track, extension rings were made to space the lens further from the sensor, and it does technically increase the focal length of the lens by the thickness of the ring (the focal point is now further out), but you can't really see it because you can no longer use the same focus range.
>>2851416
I make portraits, usually with a very strong vision in mind of what I want the end result to look like, its a combination of composition, lighting and PP which are used to achieve the photo. Without pre-visualising and experience its difficult to PP.
You'll improve through practice - I'd recommend a combination of experimentation and refering to online resources (youtube has a bunch of decent lightroom tutorials which cover the majority of techniques one would use).
Clearly the dog means something to you, or to someone, but the emotion/mood/feeling is not conveyed by the composition - its too pedestrian. I feel that I am sitting at someone's house looking at doggo, but thats it. If I were taking a photo of the dog in that situation I would be getting down on the ground so I'm on the same level as dog, shooting from dogs left (brick wall is boring - I don't know what else is in the vicinity but I see some sunlight coming from dogs right, possibly more interesting background), and getting close to fill the frame with dog.
PP would then reflect whatever emotion you want - personally I would try to convey cozy because doggo on his bed
>>2851460
>and it does technically increase the focal length of the lens by the thickness of the ring
this is not true. the focal length of the lens is not changed because of its distance from the camera.
Is there an off-brand equivalent to the Canon WFT-E4 for Canon 5D2 wireless transfer?
>>2844436
brand new to picture taking...what's a good place to learn camera settings optimization & is a photo editing software necessary?
I bought a Nikon D3300 with a 18-55mm lense
>>2851573
>what's a good place to learn camera settings optimization
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/
>is a photo editing software necessary?
very good reasons to, at the very least use a nice Raw converter like Lightroom, Photoshop is only for in-depth image editing.
>>2851582
Thanks! :)
>>2851582
>proprietary lock-in adobe
no thx
How do radio transmitters work for off camera flashes. How do I know my flash has the capability? Do I need a transmitter for my camera and a receiver for every single flash and as long as the transceivers are compatible then I'm good?
[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 Lightroom 6.5.1 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 70 dpi Vertical Resolution 70 dpi Image Created 2016:05:29 18:07:33 Exposure Time 1/800 sec F-Number f/1.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/1.8 Exposure Bias 0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2851602
In most cases, your flash won't do it automatically. You get a transmitter for your hotshoe, and then a receiver that you mount the flash to. The camera triggers the transmitter, the transmitter triggers the receiver, the receiver triggers the flash.
Every modern flash I can think of is compatible with this type of setup.
>>2851602
>missing focus on a 5dmk3
>not feeling the mistake on the LCD screen
>going back home
>uploading the picture on the computer
>says fuck it and use it anyway
>>2851589
>downloads freeshit
>falsely believes that image editing is BS because the software is so shit
>misses out on all the cool stuff they can do
Hey, he can use what he wants, but not before tasting the sweet Adobe nectar so that he knows what he's getting into with literally anything else.
I would sooner recommend Capture One over Lightroom, but it's even more expensive, and way beyond what a beginner needs.
Can you visit my website?
Aidanlphotography.weebly.com
I'm looking at picking up a Nikon 70-300mm ($500) as my first decent lens beyond my kit lens that came with my D3300. I was told by a fellow photographer that I should just save the extra money and get something like a Tamron f/2.8 70-200mm ($1500) instead. I don't believe I'll ever be purchasing a full frame camera as I cannot justify the cost for a simple hobby. So long story short, does that Tamron lens really gain me anything other than a faster aperture and the ability to upgrade to a full frame body down the road, however unlikely that may be? Is the fast aperture really worth a thousand dollars?
>>2851675
>getting pozzed by adobe
enjoy paying $9.99/mo goy fee
>>2851677
teles aren't very useful unless you want it for a specific thing.
so i wont recommend the 70-200 for an amateur
>>2851677
First of all, the Tamron should be $750, not $1500.
Second of all, both lenses can be used on full frame. Crop-only lenses will have a DX designation.
Third, yes, the extra constant aperture is totally worth it. The 70-300 is only f/5.6 at 300mm, which is absurdly slow and means that you'll mostly be stuck using that lens in broad daylight. 2.8 opens up your possibilities quite a bit more.
Fourth, I would consider looking at old Nikon lenses if you don't want to drop a lot of coin. Half the benefit of shooting Nikon is that you get to mount pretty much any lens made for it in the last forty years. There are tons of optically and mechanically excellent old manual focus lenses out there that can be had for extremely cheap.
>>2851676
I can but I don't want to :)
Are photography clubs/societies worth trying? There are a few in my city but I'm not sure if it's worth me going along.
>>2851690
That Tamron on Amazon right now is $1500. If it was $750 I'd snap it up in a heartbeat. I'm mostly looking to use it outside, and most of what do is outside. Indoor stuff isn't that interesting to me unless it's studio portrait work, and I'd use a prime for that.
>>2851679
Glad to know your photography isn't even worth $10/mo
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 450 Image Height 289 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2851305
>>2851298
>>2851291
Read this on dpreview
> As a thought experiment, what if you take a picture with a full frame camera and then crop that image to APS-C dimensions? If you print both the full frame and the cropped image to the same size, you will be able to see blur more easily in the cropped image because you had to magnify it more. Therefore, the DoF will be less.
So what I take from this is that depth of field is just "acceptable" levels of focus. If you magnify enough you'll see everything is technically out of focus. So if I took a picture out of focus, theoretically, there's a tiny size I could resize the image to that would make it look like it was in focus.
Did I get it right?
>>2851745
Yes, which is why it's hard to really judge images online when they're just 1024 pixels wide, it can easily equalize the difference between a $300 and $8000 camera. Dynamic range is somewhat easier to tell images apart by, even at smaller sizes, but it could just as well be very careful application of HDR.
This is actually often used to an advantage by landscape photographers, who use hyperfocal distance, meaning they calculate the focus point based on how much range they can make appear sharp based on a sharpness criteria, and not what's actually in the shot. If you know how big you want to print an image before even capturing it, you can deduce the leeway you have when choosing how much real detail you can afford to sacrifice vs perceived detail. In some cases it's advantageous to loose sharpness to diffraction than not having enough DoF.
Interestingly, DoF does not behave quite the same way across cameras with different sensor sizes, because to get similar fields of view, the lenses utilize different optical formulas. Having used a large range of cameras, I've noticed that smaller-sensor cameras and the lenses designed for them have a sharper cutoff between what is considered to be in-focus and what isn't, while on larger formats the transition is much more gradual, even if at 100% they seem to similar DoF.
For this reason I always make sure to double-check focus and sharpness when shooting medium format, because the image preview is even more misleading there than it typically is for most cameras.
>>2851495
Nope
>>2851462
Thanks for that, actually appreciate the thought out response. This was one of the more dull photos, was attempting to see if I could make it any better with post processing. So should I focus more on getting the perfect picture straight up?
I have a newbie question.
Here's a crop of a shot at my camera's lowest ISO, it has more than enough exposure (in fact too much) and it's still noisy. Is this... normal? Expected?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon PowerShot G9 X Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.9 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2016:05:30 22:41:12 Exposure Time 1/125 sec F-Number f/4.9 ISO Speed Rating 125 Lens Aperture f/4.9 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 30.60 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 1000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
And what can I use to properly convert my RAW shots with lens distortion correction properly done?
I have a Canon G9 X and Canon's own Digital Photo Professional 4 doesn't seem to know anything about its lens and how to correct it...
>>2851835
The smaller the sensor, the noisier the image will be, even at base ISO. So for a camera with a small sensor like yours, you should expect a small of noise. It never completely goes away, however, so don't think that you can go buy a full frame camera and pump out perfectly clean images.
I would use Lightroom, at the very least, for raw conversion.
>>2851853
Thanks. Does Lightroom do the distortion correction right too?
>>2851867
What? No, that's the way it's always been.
So I am building up a body of work to get into family portraiture. I am getting excellent shots at different types of gatherings, but most are just friends and family.
Therein lies the problem, I use Facebook to get the pictures out there, but there is this "aunt" of a family that yokes my shit and throws disgusting Instagram filters on them and reposts them - and then CREDITS ME FOR TAKING THEM! How to I tactfully ask her to not fuck with my work and then proliferate it?
>>2851976
should mention that she is not my aunt, but the aunt of the kids I was shooting.
>>2851976
>>2851977
Reach out and say "I'm trying to present a consistent body of work that represents the results I'm going to give on a regular basis, and the stuff you're putting up and tagging me in is going to give people a mistaken impression of what my photos look like. If you're going to post them, please don't tag me, or better yet, work with me to get a processing style we're both comfortable with being associated with"
>>2851980
officially the most mature post that has ever graced 4chin
>>2851681
>teles aren't very useful unless you want it for a specific thing.
you wouldn't recommend for an amateur, but isn't it better to learn on the best tool rather than buy a mediocre tool only to realize its limitations later, then purchase the Tamron anyway?
Or is the 70-300mm Nikon not considere a tele?
So a lens angle of view is reduced underwater.. the image is magnified (when using a flat window port).
Does this mean that the lens' image circle is magnified? IE: Does an APS-C lens come closer to covering full frame?
>>2844994
I bought a 7d mark ii the day it came out
as soon as I could afford to I traded it in for a 5d mark iii
i have 0 regrets, you dont need 10 fps to shoot portraits. and the bigger sensor adds some magic...also my 7dmarkii didn't even do that great at focusing. go figure
>>2852129
I went with the 5DIII and that thing is more than I dreamt it would be
>>2851739
>validating the worth of your work by the amount you pay for the tools
pleb tier detected
>>2851982
>but isn't it better to learn on the best tool rather than buy a mediocre tool
this sounds like rationalising gearwhoring
but go ahead, buy whatever you want.
>>2852129
If your 7DmkII didn't do that well focusing, you either fucked the focusing modes or had a defective one.
>>2851832
If the photo wasn't great to begin with then PP probably wont make it look any better, just different. Slowing down your shooting process to really analyse what you're doing and why you're doing it does help in getting more keepers, as will having a clear vision in the first place.
Ideally yes - it is very good practice to get everything as close to the way you want it in camera so you don't have to fake it afterwards. You can afford to get the exposure slightly off, or incorrect white balance - but you can't do much to correct for composition shortcomings, short of going back and taking the photo again :)
Is that a meme or will it turn my shitty pictures into art?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 50D Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.6 (Windows) Photographer Aymeric Hays-Narbonne Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2012:03:04 16:01:31 Exposure Time 1/350 sec F-Number f/1.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/1.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 50.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
Stupid question: does softness due to diffraction depend on the lens or the film size?
To give an extreme example, say I mounted a large format lens on a m43 camera and set it to f/22 or higher, would it be terribly soft?
>>2853935
Simplistically, it depends on film size. A smaller sensor will be diffraction limited at a wider aperture than a larger sensor. For instance, on large format, it is not out of the ordinary to shoot at f/64. That's insane for APS-C and would leave you with a trash image.
Tips or tricks for loosening the name ring of a lens?
I've been trying to remove the front ring of an old Voigtlander Ultron 50/2 but it won't budge. I've tried the trick with a rubber glove and a lens cap.
The filter threads seem perfect, so I don't think that's the problem. Unfortunately there are no holes for a spanner wrench. I'd rather not damage the ring since the lens looks completely unused.
>>2853971
Try sticking it in the freezer for a couple of hours.
>>2853917
it's neither
it's a camera
the viewfinder is pleasant to use
I have a telephoto lens and at 18mm I have vignetting in the corners.
If I get a wider lens or a fisheye, will the vignetting be worse, or is it just that particular lens?
>>2854065
>telephoto
>18mm
Are you talking about some superzoom?
>If I get a wider lens or a fisheye, will the vignetting be worse, or is it just that particular lens?
Vignetting depends on the lens, not the camera.
>>2854065
you're either using a shit lens, or using a crop lens on a full frame camera if you are getting vignetting
if you get a lens suited for your camera, that is not shit, you should be able to use all focal lengths without vignetting
>>2854078
Not really true. The large majority of lenses has some degree of vignetting when used wide open.
>>2854080
buy better lenses
>>2854081
Please do show me your collection of completely vignette free lenses, anon.
>>2851806
eye fi?
>>2851981
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Color Space Information sRGB
>>2853972
in the oven.
Accidentally asked in the wrong thread earlier.
Why is the file size so small? The pictures I take with my phone are usually around 5 or 6 MB. Sorry
>>2851676
>Aidanlphotography.weebly.com
>INSPIRTATION
>>2854465
1000px on the long edge, you fascist
I'm entering a photo contest involving historic houses in my city and I need to obviously get the permission of the owner since it's private property.
How do I word "I'd like to enter photos of your house into a contest where I get money and you get your house in a calendar" to where it doesn't sound like I'm taking advantage of them?
I mean the monetary reward is negligible, $100, but people are weird like that.
>>2854575
Because in general, a 1MB file will look just as good as a 5MB file, while taking up 1/5th of the data caps of a lot of /p/ visitors, as well as being a good indication that you know what you're doing, and have processed the file.
During busy times, large file sized load more slowly, because 4chans servers get bogged down, and even on a business line in a large office, a 4MB file can take 15-20 seconds to load, and when the resulting photo is usually or a bush or completely normal bird, it's not worth that.
>>2854575
Mainly because 4chan has a 3mb file limit, and downsizing to 1000p on the longest side helps with that.
Probably some other shit too like so people don't nab your shit (like that would really happen on a Cantonese sock puppet website) and post it on other places.
>>2854575
Because it's in the sticky and people are sheep that follow anything they think has authority.
>>2854914
p sure you don't need permission.
google didn't need your permission to take a photo of your house and they make a fuckton of money off of google street view.
>>2855019
The sort of faggot that blames the cops for when he gets pulled over and given a ticket.
>>2855019
Feel free to post two versions of the same image, both that fit onto a standard 1080p monitor, at 1MB and at 5MB, and show us the difference between the two. That should convert pretty much everyone, when the difference is obvious, right?
>>2855032
It will when it's a 1920x1080 image and not the faggot cuck 1000x667 that everyone pretends to prefer.
>>2855033
Great. So do it. Prove it. Back something up.
>>2855035
nah, i'm at work right now and don't have access to my files.
i'll gladly do it later. i don't know why you think that you can't see obvious compression with 1mb in a 1920x1080 file, though, because you know you will.
>>2855038
It's cool, this thread will be around for weeks. You'll have plenty of time.
>>2855041
Can't wait for you to disappear when I prove you wrong. ;)
>>2855051
Oh no, I'll be here to watch you sperg yourself into insanity when the entirety of /p/ says "I can't tell the difference" and you fly directly into "if you can't see the difference in those photos then you're a fucking idiot and you need to sell your camera" while being totally unwilling to make any specific points or references, or even circle the affected areas to back yourself up.
